Glamour post 3.08
 

I'll do my bit of community service, and start a new thread, as suggested in that one about Vanheim.

OK, what're your opinions on the new rules? Any complaints still, or is everything 100% perfect now? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

So I'm not just trolling, here's my take - seems to be fitting the bill so far. At least opponents have a few more viable options, especially early game, against it (Glamour that is).

Of course, the counter can still be countered - decoy troops come immediately to mind. And I don't think the changes have impacted the stealth/raiding abilities of glamour troops all that much. So maybe there's still some price/resource tweaking that can be done (like was done with Lanka). Or maybe not. What do you think?

Re: Glamour post 3.08
 

I'm thinking with something of a 'nerf' on the glamboys, that Lanka might be the next nation to rile people up, since it's basically good in every category.

Re: Glamour post 3.08
 

I tried massing archers against a playing using Vans with a strong E9 bless and a weak N4-6 bless. They were completely ineffective at knocking out the glamored images as was promised.

Jazzepi

Re: Glamour post 3.08
 

I don't see glamor as a changeworthy issue; the last change was in fitting with the spirit of the rules and wasn't meant as a pure "nerf" for balancing, though I'm sure the complaints had something to do with it. I don't believe there was a promise to allow everyone to destroy Vans with archers; the higher protection and regen from blesses means you had better have your own troops that can guard your archers while they do their work. I'm guessing that against the F9W9 bless you're going to do a lot better assuming you have some heavy infantry to slow them down.

Re: Glamour post 3.08
 

"I don't believe there was a promise to allow everyone to destroy Vans with archers"

Nobody said anything about destroying Vans. I'm talking about the 150 archers I bought doing absolutely nothing. Actually, what I ended up doing was buying a ton of melee chaff that would soak up the van's high defense, and having argatha mages spamming earth bind to reduce it further.

Neither the archers, nor the spell spammers, not the chaff worked.

Jazzepi

Re: Glamour post 3.08
 

It was archers and magic.
The anti-glamour tactics I have seen include many squads of slingers. Or area affect spells and equipment. The Gall Bladder Stick was mentioned.

There is a poison spell which does the entire battlefield which is seems to be particularly effective.

Re: Glamour post 3.08
 

Ok, so vans require again very specialized tactics (the "very" means the difference between them and the other nations). I think I'll continue to ban them from my games.

Re: Glamour post 3.08
 

as compared to Rlyeh? Ermor? Abysia? Jotunheim? Oceania? TirNaGog? Ulm? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Glamour post 3.08
 

I've managed to avoid them in MP play so far http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...ies/tongue.gif.

Re: Glamour post 3.08
 

The majority of effective strategies require very specialized tactics to deal with - if they were easy to deal with they wouldnt be effective. Your chaff and archers wouldnt have been particularly effective against most good E9N4 sacreds(they have reinvigoration, high protection and regeneration - all things that counter chaff and archers) and would probably have been ineffective against a number of other things. A group of ulmish infantry with flails backed by a couple of elephants/black knights would also probably have broken through a group of chaff and archers, does that mean MA Ulm is overpowered and should be banned?.

You cant honestly expect a group of archers to do alot against high protection, regenerating troops with shields and a horde of chaff was also a mistake as superior mounted troops(with naturally low encumberance) with higher stats, regeneration(to heal and lucky damage you inflict), reinvigoration(you cant just wait for them to get worn out) and higher stats(1v1 they will destroy chaff) can keep fighting almost indefinitely against weak troops.