How many real battles are truely ballanced? almost always doesn't one side have more firepower, men or what have you?

IS ANYONE WORKING WITH LOPSIDED SIDES?

are all your games 200=200?

please post success of lopsided games and point toss. The frothing one was thinking it could always be played again switching sides to give two scores to make it more even night of playing and the "final" score could be looked at for a final winner.

It would be most interesting, I think you'll see more games of this sort in conquest and scenario based campaigns where certain portions of your army are caught un-aware and you have to make do with what you have.

I often play defend the fort where the defender gets less points than the attacker but gets to set up the terrain to enhance his ability to defend.

Objective: get into base contract with artifact in the fort. It's cool watching the defenders fall back and try to deal with attacks on 2 sides of the fort with limited resources.

Seems to work best in mono faction armies and in 1000+ point conquest setup. Experimented a little - outcome depends on the skill of the players. Against an unskilled player 500 vs 1000 is OK but a decent player makes it a little harder and 700 - 1000 seems more evenly matched.

Actually, I had the exact opposite problem once. I played a KI swarm vs. KI Swarm. Neither of us wanted to make the first move, so we just sat there until eventually we decided it was an exercise in futility and called it a tie. Another time, I was playing 2 vs. 1(300/300 vs. 600) and my partner was a complete idiot. So it was essentially 300 vs. 600. And I actually managed to pull off the win.

:confused: :confused: lopsided let me think oh ya I play a game were i had to have just close hand to hand combat my oppent had all range but in the end i won

I had that too, my opponent had an AG army with stormy, magus, troll gunners, amoteps, ect(600 pt. game) My army was all KI swarm. And a Tormentor. He had his magus hidden away between two pieces of blocking terrain, with a small sliver of ground allowing access. Basically, I moved my KI formations around him, with Solonavi Tormentor taking point. Eventually, he moved his army to face me as I flanked him, putting storm golem in a position where he was unable to fire. Then I made my move. I swarmed him and killed off everything but the magus and his escorts hiding in the "valley". I sent in tormentor first to tie up magus, then marched in single file and annihilated him.

RG's comment really cuts to the point of real combat scenarios.

Except for the Brittish and children, nobody squares off evenly with the enemy and shoots until one side is dead.

Any battle with even sides, by definition, will yield a 50% chance of victory. Most generals don't like those odds, so they try to get an advantage by using strategy and tactics.

So, instead of sending 200 points against the rebels with 200 points, I'm more likely to wait until I have 400 points or use some devious scheme like making use of terrain or flanking them.

You never want to just send your 100 men charging at the other guy's 100 men unless you think you have an advantage.

Usually a commander would prefer to use the right amount of force to get the job done. Not too much, as it could be deployed elsewhere (otherwise leaving you vulnerable). Not too little or you won't be assured success.

In MK, the castles simulate the lopsided aspect by giving the defenders fewer troops but a sturdy base of operations.

Getting full control of the terrain also compensates for man-power. In truth, a smart defender chooses where he defends, thereby determining the layout of the land.

In term of gameplay, not all terrains are equal. Much of it depends on what figures you actually own. The MK tower kicks butt, but it can't shoot a Wraith in Hindering. Tucking a Magus inside a small fort is great, but you need to own one to do it. Thus, having control of the terrain is valuable when you have the figures to use it.

Conversely, there are layouts of castle and terrain that are harder for some players that don't have the figures to combat it. I'm afraid of a wraith in hindering, so I don't want a low wall parked in front of my tower. But if you don't have something like a Wraith, I have less to fear. That's why the castle rules require full agreement from both players to use it.

Janx

Exaclty why WK needs to change the rules. if noone dies, then lowest starting total wins... :)

How would you work a game of lopsided build points?

Concept:
Give +1 action to defender.
Defender gets 2/3 of total build (but actions of build).
Defender gets 1/2 of build difference in vp to start.
Defender sets up all terrain.
VP = units killed plus starting vp only.
No capturing.
Attacker may not take a unit the defender can not take.

Result:
300 pt game
Defender = 4 actions, 200 build pts, 50 vp to start.
Attacker = 3 actions, 300 build pts, 0 vp to start.
Attacker may not use dragons, etc... (starting cost > 200 pts)

I pitted my 300 point army vs a 600 pt army of blade golems, troll artillerists, centaur LTs and a few steam golems, just to see how many points I could take out before dying a miserable death. (which was like 270) But man, blade golems just keep coming.