suggestion: NO SHIELDS rule

[~SW~ EaglePrince]

Hi, guys, I am writing here to tell you that I have opened this kind of topic on x2x forum...

click here to see the topic

Please, post your opinion. The best would be there, if possible. Thanks! :)

[MAX POWER]

i once played   3x3 with all  good players  no f fs no shields no towers. so i that game  i , being pretty much thinking person (xD)  made  three spots in my castle  with  wall barracks,  i put like  20 horses in  very little space of wall, possible to put them in one square, so at defending it works a lot, opponent cant reach them. i think   without shields  defending player would have big advantage, so that would need to restrict any playing which includes being higher than opponent .

[~SW~ EaglePrince]

Hm, I wasn't thinking about this kind of restriction: no towers, and high ground... Anyway, when you say, that it is harder to attack, and easier to defend - that is the point! But also what I wrote: mostly, it is no point in playing this kind of game with no catapults: with no catapults, we are hardening the siege. Try this rule: no shields, no fire, or no shields only! That would be more tactics to defend, and more tactics to attack. I am a hurry right now, I want to write something more, but when I some back home. :) Please, if you have some time, read what I wrote on x2x forums. If you have some time of course, I know it is a lot. :D

[~SW~ EaglePrince]

Now I'm back. :)

So the point in this rule would be to force all players, to think a bit more. Now you said: "that would need to restrict any playing which includes being higher than opponent . " I don't agree. If we played with no shields, naturally towers and wall would be substantially again! It is logical that archers on the walls and towers should be better protected than those archers on the ground. So players would be building strongholds, and sieges would be harder and so, in my opinion more interesting.

You said that your horse archery would easily die in front of a "noobish" walls and towers. That would be the point. There is not some simple attacking tactics that would bring down any castle, and that would be something that I hope people would like more.

Above all, this game is called Stronghold Crusader and so many expert players now think that building a stronghold is a waste of stone. That shouldn't be right, but unfortunately that really is the case cause of shields (in SH:C they are overrated - they are just too powerful). But in no shields game, we would bring back the old stile of play, that we used to play while we were enjoying this game the most. Experts shouldn't be "afraid" to play this kind of game: if they are true experts, they should be aware of all aspect of the game, and they should be able to see the weaknesses of any castle, and they should know how to attack it.

Only real barrier in my opinion would be, that expert players don't wont to lose their throne... But as I said, experts are experts. They should understand all aspects of the game no matter what rules are. The only "problem" would have those players who came here, and learned few tricks and now call themselves experts!

[~SW~ EaglePrince]

Now I'm back. :)

So the point in this rule would be to force all players, to think a bit more. Now you said: "that would need to restrict any playing which includes being higher than opponent . " I don't agree. If we played with no shields, naturally towers and wall would be substantially again! It is logical that archers on the walls and towers should be better protected than those archers on the ground. So players would be building strongholds, and sieges would be harder and so, in my opinion more interesting.

You said that your horse archery would easily die in front of a "noobish" walls and towers. That would be the point. There is not some simple attacking tactics that would bring down any castle, and that would be something that I hope people would like more.

Above all, this game is called Stronghold Crusader and so many expert players now think that building a stronghold is a waste of stone. That shouldn't be right, but unfortunately that really is the case cause of shields (in SH:C they are overrated - they are just too powerful). But in no shields game, we would bring back the old stile of play, that we used to play while we were enjoying this game the most. Experts shouldn't be "afraid" to play this kind of game: if they are true experts, they should be aware of all aspect of the game, and they should be able to see the weaknesses of any castle, and they should know how to attack it.

Only real barrier in my opinion would be, that expert players don't wont to lose their throne... But as I said, experts are experts. They should understand all aspects of the game no matter what rules are. The only "problem" would have those players who came here, and learned few tricks and now call themselves experts!

[Fena]

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

[MAX POWER]

it was my good idea and you were afraid to attack :D  surely my team won :D  just  one of your  teammate crashed  but it was  our  game anyway!

[~SW~ EaglePrince]

If catapults were allowed, no such thing would be possible!

For example, I played a "noobish" match 2v2, and my ally crashed. I was left 1v2, but they were way weaker, and I wasn't able to kill their crossbows so easily: they made small wall, and put on them crossbows, while they were guarded by high wall. Really hard to kill them, even with shields, I had to use rams and towers, and I was lucky - they didn't make it to dig the moat. But these "dirty tricks" would not be that effective if people play no catapults.

Anyway, games with no shields can't be played without catapults... In fact, I don't see why people like ti so much to play simplified games with no catapults. It would be way more natural, and tactically more interesting. I could say again: no shields or no shields and no catapults would be the best.

[[>D-F<]~ AQua_Dragon ~]

Ya, it is a very interesting thing, but, the shield is used because ShC multiplayer maps dont have Hills and Reliefs to the troops get advantage like Sh1.

If someone make a Multiplayer map with Hills and Reliefs, it could work.

[~SW~ EaglePrince]

When you think about it, while players use shields so much, all these stuff don't matter... Hills and towers don't matter cause of the shields - they are just too powerful, and they give players much more advantage than hills and even towers! I guess shields are the reason why there are no maps with hills - which is the same reason why players don't build any castles. Also, "expert SH:C players" don't want to spend too much time - they want to kill each other quickly, and not to deal with hills and reliefs... Now fights in no f fs games are very simplified, but in the same time effective cause of the shields. This is why they use shields! If they had no shields, they wouldn't be able to send some horse archery with shields to wipe out a whole castle! They would have to think much more, and sieges would be more complicated, and that would be better in fact! That would be the game we love, don't you think that too!?

[[>D-F<]~ AQua_Dragon ~]

Ya i think it. But the Hills is good, if you know how position your troops and attack in the others flanks, is too much hard to only shields work good.

[~SW~ EaglePrince]

I'm not sure if I understood you right... You want to say that it would be too hard to kill well positioned troops on a hill? If that is so hard, than it's better cause players will fight for those positions... In the other hand, there are more possible options:
1) your enemy and an active player: in one moment, he will climb down to attack using the advantage, just after he killed many of your troops that failed to drive away his troops from the hills, or he doesn't make it to repel your attack at the hill, and you are taking over the hill.
2) your enemy is a passive player and he just sends his army on the hill to guard this position (which is rare in fact, but I am trying to take a look at all possibilities): then you can take a look at his army, and knowing it's weaknesses, you can figure out how to attack the opponent and to drive him away with minimal loses!

Maybe I misunderstood you, but however, there's always a way! For example, crossbows would be good against horse archers, flying stone or flying cows would be good against crossbows, and so on... And it is always much better feeling when you win a game with a little more use of brain!

[[>D-F<]~ AQua_Dragon ~]

Not only on hill, in reliefs too. It makes the player play Smart. When i started to play Sh1, i loss matches, when i had all enemy hills in my hands, but i didnt player smart like my enemy. Normally, when u get enemy hill, u make he pay too much attention and keep the pressure in him.

Close enemy Right, Left and Center Flank is awesome, you have more advantage. Ok, if he use Shield? His shield will cannot defend Arrows from Left, Center, and Right side, it will be devastating.
I think ShC need some Rule Games, like Sh1, it will be more organizated and better.

[~SW~ EaglePrince]

A little more smart playing would be good for change! :D Sadly, lots of players only want to prove their selves here more than to enjoy the game. :(

But I'd say, shields can protect army from all directions, not just from the front side...

[[>D-F<]~ AQua_Dragon ~]

Ya, but he will need 100 shields. If u are with his Hills, his econ will be slow, so no chance to he get more than 50 shields.

[~SW~ EaglePrince]

That makes sense! :)

[[>D-F<]~ AQua_Dragon ~]

Ya, Sh1 experience game is too much good xD