New strategic decisions to make

[BigJMoney]

So, I've got my copy and I'm just spending a lot of time taking it all in. There are so many things to love about this release, I can't believe it. Anyway, I'm currently looking at Ulm and noticing how their infantry with and without shields have the same protection value. Then I remember the new shield mechanics. This is so cool. It makes it so much more straight-forward to to make strategic decisions. Ulm is highly armored anyway, so having the shields might not be necessary. However, if I know I'm going to be up against crossbowmen, choosing to recruit shield holding infantry might be worth it. Or, if I'm going up against an enemy that hits hard but has low attack, I might want the shields to for melee survival.

Aaaahh! I love it.

=$= Big J Money =$=

[Nerfix]

EA Atlantis also has a nice choice of non-resistant/OK mr/cheaper units vs Fire/Cold Resistant/low MR/expensive units.

[okiN]

Nerfix said:
EA Atlantis also has a nice choice of non-resistant/OK mr/cheaper units vs Fire/Cold Resistant/low MR/expensive units.



Yeah, I took a look at them yesterday. Reef warriors and war shamblers seemed to make quite a nice army.

[Nerfix]

I'm partial to the Deep Warriors. =) They can also easily assemble a number of troops with magic weapons should the need arise.

[okiN]

Nerfix said:
I'm partial to the Deep Warriors. =) They can also easily assemble a number of troops with magic weapons should the need arise.



I'm just hesitant to use them due to their MR. I shudder at the effect Master Enslave would have on a Deep One army.

[Nerfix]

Indeed, but you're not going to see a Master Enslave in the demo anytime soon. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif