Re: suggestion: NO SHIELDS rule

Posted by ~SW~ EaglePrince on Sep 12, 2011; 9:08am
URL: http://the-best-of-crusader.24.s1.nabble.com/suggestion-NO-SHIELDS-rule-tp6781401p6782700.html

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!