Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
My main line of reasoning for the balance was to have it rely more heavily on the actual troop stats during different phases rather than the tactics. I haven't had too much time to actually play test the balancing issue due to being in Cali. on a vacation, but please do tell if the difference in unit stats through the phases isn't enough to keep a good feel to it.
Will play merry hell on the Mongols/Altaics(Horse Archers aren't foul in Skirmish, but the power of the Mongols was in 'breaking the rules' by switching phase back to Skirmish from Melee). Their light and heavy cavalry will have to do the job, if any.
Be damm sure to consolidate your troops, or make sure you have enough good commanders to command the flanks.
Seems interesting to mess around with, but I wonder at what it would do to army composition.