|camelspider||01 Mar 2006 10:30 a.m. PST|
I'm interested in Armati, but my understanding is that the initial deployment plays an all-encompassing role in gameplay — that if, say, you deploy four units on a flank and the opponent deploys five, you have effectively lost the game.
But I've never played, and this is purely hearsay. Thoughts on this from people who play? Thanks.
|RobH||01 Mar 2006 11:00 a.m. PST|
No, it is far more subtle than that.
The initial deployment is important (as in any game), but the crucial factor is how you allocate your units into the set number of light and heavy divisions. That is what will determine how mobile and responsive your army can be.
In your example the 5 units your enemy deploys may be 1 large division where as your 4 are split into 2 divisions. This gives you the advantage of being able to maneuver away from his advance and swing onto his flank with your other division.
|camelspider||01 Mar 2006 11:28 a.m. PST|
Interesting. Let's expand my question based on your responses. Can the deployment of the divisions mean that you basically can't win the game if you do it wrong initially?
That might be what my friend was referring to. I can certainly see taking a big handicap from a bad deployment, but I'm not so sure that I would want to have a deployment automatically decide the outcome. That's the reason I'm asking.
|blueduck||01 Mar 2006 11:46 a.m. PST|
If you set up terribly, and your opponent sets up brilliantly, you will likely lose. But, I played a game of Warhammer Old West last week where the setup ruled the game. But, I will grant your friend that in Armati, setup is more important than in a lot of games.
How you follow-up moves is also very important and a good player will overcome a bad setup over the course of the game. learning the flow of the game and how to exploit an opponents errors comes over time.
I play Armati II a lot. I play with people who play a lot. So, the setups become pretty even (experienced players generally don't get fooled in setup), and it is the ebb anf flow and how you exploit it that determines who wins.
|camelspider||01 Mar 2006 11:47 a.m. PST|
Ok. Maybe I'll give it a try. Thanks.
|lugal hdan||01 Mar 2006 1:01 p.m. PST|
Many real ancients battles were won or lost due to deployment, so having it that way in Armati isn't necessarily a bad thing from a "flavor" perspective.
|camelspider||01 Mar 2006 2:18 p.m. PST|
"Many real ancients battles were won or lost due to deployment,"
Yes, but the point is that ancient battles were not *necessarily* lost due to deployment — many poor deployments caused initial setbacks, but the army then prevailed.
|FriendofJohnHolly||01 Mar 2006 5:41 p.m. PST|
"Yes, but the point is that ancient battles were not *necessarily* lost due to deployment — many poor deployments caused initial setbacks, but the army then prevailed."
In Armati, a poor deployment can be countered with skillful manuever — emergency wheels, about faces, breaking divisions, etc. How do you know the ancient battles you speak of were not won by just such tactics to overcome poor deployments?
A better criticism of Armati would be the 'predictability' of most melees. I like Armati, but no game is perfect.
|Marcus Brutus||01 Mar 2006 8:38 p.m. PST|
I agree that the grind of combat in Armati is its biggest drawback. I also don't find the long lines that often form divisions very realistic. On the other hand, Arty Conliffe has produced a complete set of rules. They are clear and comprehensive with very few points for arguments. And most of the games I've played are fun.
|eaterofdead||01 Mar 2006 8:51 p.m. PST|
There fast u can play 3 in a day. That is in about 6 hours. If u are looking for a (realalistic) set. These rules are for cav freaks, Personal taste, kind of a viking freak.
Not trying to dits, have 4 25mm armys in it.
|FriendofJohnHolly||02 Mar 2006 7:30 p.m. PST|
"On the other hand, Arty Conliffe has produced a complete set of rules. They are clear and comprehensive with very few points for arguments."
They written in English, then? :)