Settlement question

[Ennet]

I typically play on the largest maps, so such things are not as effective as one might assume. However, this comes down to personal preference. No strategy will make me like invisible units such as Shadows and that's how it will remain. Like I said before, I assume I'm alone on this and I'm fine with that.

- Niilo

Nah I for one agree with you, but i understand if most people do not. Even if you place your shadows optimally so they can reach at least 3 cities within the turn each, you are still sure to have some offlimit city that you cannot get to in time to counter (and max one or two cities per shadow that you will be able to guard from an initial attack). Comparing it with an invading army a skilled player can place their troops strategically so that they can reach most cities in time to slow down or stop the invasion. Units that can attack your cities without any warning (and maybe not even to be able to counter them on the following turn) doesnt add any strategy to the game, as the best defence against them probably is to stack some cheap units in your border cities as cannon fodder.
(On a sidenote: The above is also why i dislike Orthus new spawn. I have no problem to him being like an avalanche if you havnt prepared yourself enought, but when he can spawn next to any city of yours it also just down to stacking lots of defenders in all cities. I won a multiplayer game this weekend because of it. When my friend sent off a settler and four warriors to found his third city, Orthus spawned next to his capital and he lost his first two cities just because he hadnt stacked up enought defenders in his cities.)
Shadows becomming visible after attacking for a turn or some sort of counter promotion would add some strategic choice and make it more fun in my opinion.
Attacking with shadows are even more unfun as you can put a coupple of them together, take a city and then move in your army, giving no warning at all.

Again just personal opinion, Im fine with just removing shadows myself.

EDIT: And sorry for threadjack.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Hm... do the Malakim get shadows? If I recall correctly, they lack a stealth line of units. Relying on mithril to be able to counter shadows in any way seems a bit harsh...

 

[jafink]

I actually enjoy having Shadows in the game. First of all, they are one of the units that the AI uses best. It helps to even out the playing field. Also, in my opinion Shadows represent the difficulties of ruling a big empire during war. The leader just couldnt always know what was going on everywhere, so things like this would happen.

 

[eerr]

I actually enjoy having Shadows in the game. First of all, they are one of the units that the AI uses best. It helps to even out the playing field. Also, in my opinion Shadows represent the difficulties of ruling a big empire during war. The leader just couldnt always know what was going on everywhere, so things like this would happen.

this is why i like to keep my spell casters out at sea, with a strong navy on the right map they're great for taking cities, and even get the bonus of immunity to shadows while out at sea

 

[jafink]

this is why i like to keep my spell casters out at sea, with a strong navy on the right map they're great for taking cities, and even get the bonus of immunity to shadows while out at sea

Interesting strategy. I'll have to try it sometime. Usually I will just have a worker or warrior with my Mages and Archmages.

 

[vorshlumpf]

Interesting strategy. I'll have to try it sometime. Usually I will just have a worker or warrior with my Mages and Archmages.

You know, if I was new to FfH and heard that there were such strategies, I would think, "That's lame." Wait a minute, I think that anyway . . . Shadows really need the ability to choose their targets.

- Niilo