Game purpose / balance

I think that I won't be able to convince some of the turtle players about what was meant to be a fast skimirsh miniature game. Nevermind

I think that I won't be able to convince some of the turtle players about what was meant to be a fast skimirsh miniature game. Nevermind

Some factions are ment to attack the others while some are made to play defensive against the first ones.

So if you play wolfens you are the one that attacks... same for Alhemists and Orcs
Mid Nors, Tri Na Boars will be propably the offensive turtle while other will be defensive like RAM and Lion

Wolfen are fast moving glass cannon, they are not meant to attack first, but to counter attack
I agree that each army has it's own playstyle, the main question is does the armies played style correspond to what was planned ?

My hope is that the aim of balance is KOTH scenario with armies based on 1 special or elite (lets say 100 to 150AP), and mixed units including at least one basic warrior and and ranged unit.

Wolfen are fast moving glass cannon, they are not meant to attack first, but to counter attack
I agree that each army has it's own playstyle, the main question is does the armies played style correspond to what was planned ?

My hope is that the aim of balance is KOTH scenario with armies based on 1 special or elite (lets say 100 to 150AP), and mixed units including at least one basic warrior and and ranged unit.

They were glass cannons maybe in C:AotR but not in this game and not in C3-3,5 and no way that they were ever defensive-counterattacking army ;D

I agree with MomOw, it is not in a wolfen player interest to rush in a perfectly lined defense. With luck it could work against Ram, and only if the line is made with skeletons/puppets, other than that it does not work.

They are an elusive counter-attacking army, you use movement to strike where the defense is weak. But with average accuracy you can not assault a good defense line.

I'm not saying that I don't like strategy, but what's the point of camping / retreating during 2 rounds ? Beside getting on the other player nerves so that he makes mistakes ? I feel like it's just loosing time. I'm not talking about moving units to get better covers or grouping melee units close to the upcoming front which is normal play.

Confrontation Miniature game was an appetizer game, even during the tournament you talked about your armies with your opponent or with your friends which played the table next to you. I miss that part of the game, sometimes you can talk with your opponent, but not that much, that make me feel the waiting time xeven more longer and the campers more boring.
I'll try to tease them next time.

But as I said, I'll try KOTH harder

I'm sorry but unfortunately I dont think strategy is the right genre for you. My rationale below:

-saying that a turn-based RTS is too slowpaced is like saying that a racing game is too fastpaced. This isn't a FPS game where you can make "twitch" decisions/actions and expect to yield a net positive result. I think the duration of each turn is fine as is. In fact there are times when I wish I had more time to decide on a move ( for those of you who's ever at the last moment decide to use an order such as offensive-stance for example but fall short of a couple seconds to actually attack. You know what I'm talking about ).

-you get bored of waiting and it seems to reflect your playstyle. you seem to think that your play-style of rushing or quick engagement as the only "gentlemen-like" playstyle. This is not the case at all. Mage-nukers, turtling, zerg, and even golem-users (despite how much I despise them) are all legitimate strategies. To me the fact anyone grief indicates that the strategy does works.

-"but what's the point of camping / retreating during 2 rounds ? Beside getting on the other player nerves so that he makes mistakes". You basically answered your own question. The point is to WIN and if retreating for two rounds gives you a physchological advantage, than I'd say well-done Napoleon. This is PVP where you dominate, conquer, destroy, and even humiliate opponents. I speak for myself when I say I get satisfaction from destroying my opponent. Emotional responses such as frustration is only natural. The question is how do you handle it. Do you sulk your head in defeat? Or does it motivate you to get better and enact revenge the next time you meet the opponent.

I'm sorry but unfortunately I dont think strategy is the right genre for you. My rationale below:

-saying that a turn-based RTS is too slowpaced is like saying that a racing game is too fastpaced. This isn't a FPS game where you can make "twitch" decisions/actions and expect to yield a net positive result. I think the duration of each turn is fine as is. In fact there are times when I wish I had more time to decide on a move ( for those of you who's ever at the last moment decide to use an order such as offensive-stance for example but fall short of a couple seconds to actually attack. You know what I'm talking about ).

-you get bored of waiting and it seems to reflect your playstyle. you seem to think that your play-style of rushing or quick engagement as the only "gentlemen-like" playstyle. This is not the case at all. Mage-nukers, turtling, zerg, and even golem-users (despite how much I despise them) are all legitimate strategies. To me the fact anyone grief indicates that the strategy does works.

-"but what's the point of camping / retreating during 2 rounds ? Beside getting on the other player nerves so that he makes mistakes". You basically answered your own question. The point is to WIN and if retreating for two rounds gives you a physchological advantage, than I'd say well-done Napoleon. This is PVP where you dominate, conquer, destroy, and even humiliate opponents. I speak for myself when I say I get satisfaction from destroying my opponent. Emotional responses such as frustration is only natural. The question is how do you handle it. Do you sulk your head in defeat? Or does it motivate you to get better and enact revenge the next time you meet the opponent.

+1

I'm against masterminds I can't win

I miss some of the features of the miniature game that leaded to think more before playing (that you don't need here)
- miniature activation order defined before the turn begins
- benefits from tactical rolls (meta game linked to activation ordre plus an equivalent of "wait")
- having to guess the ranges

And above all the social stuff which is way different from chat

I'm against masterminds I can't win

I miss some of the features of the miniature game that leaded to think more before playing (that you don't need here)
- miniature activation order defined before the turn begins
- benefits from tactical rolls (meta game linked to activation ordre plus an equivalent of "wait")
- having to guess the ranges

And above all the social stuff which is way different from chat

i wish i could offer a beer to my opponent sometimes but i can't

ok...being serious, i think the game should be fast paced and is ok as it is. Personally i like to find many different opponents than do a 1 hour long game with some random guy. The activation system while simplified i think is ok as you can still do strategical thinking...

so all in all i guess they can't make a game loved by every Confrontation player but so far im satisfied with their result.

so all in all i guess they can't make a game loved by every Confrontation player but so far im satisfied with their result.

this