Same here.

It is a bit sad that we have to wait so long between the betas. I have a feeling half of what we have lately discussed on these forums aren't relevant to beta 2. Or at least it seems it has gotten some pretty nice changes already.

I do understand that releasing betas more often is just not feasible. From developer standpoint the current schedule must be the sane choice (if not even slower pace of releases). From gamer standpoint we get multiple small "new game released" moments which are kind of nice, so I guess this works pretty well for all parties after all.

To get back to the topic, I wonder if there would be room for whole army affecting terrain elements. Control this hill and your whole army gets +10% defense. That might be nice...

I hope it's real "Terrain" bonuses, and not the already existing "Territory" bonus (that you get when you fight in your Territory).

Actually it does affect kiting, as you can get further away *and* release a shot in the same turn.  More shots for the same number of turns.

I believe it is. Before it was called Territory bonus in .77. This bonus is called Terrain Bonus. If not, this is a cruel joke by Frogboy. 

That is only a cosmetic change. There is no limit on arrows.

I would have to wonder why it was listed in the features section and not in the cosmetic section if that were the case.

Could vary well be that the large near unlimited ammo quivers reduce movement.. and small limited quivers allow kiting.. giving you the choice. This would prevent Built units from kiting indefinately but still allow a well built up hero to do so.

What wrong with limiting Shots depending on the type of quiver?

More shots = more movement penalty

It's like putting paint over a crack in a support column

Champions high initiative growth was the main problem (there are others). It allowed them to kite anything once they reached like lv 10.

Fix the stat mechanics that create the problem not just add an artificial limit

I had to comment because I don't want to see tactical combat ruined by "gamey" mechanisms. The initiative system is already pushing that boundary as it is. Combat should "make sense" and work, not be an arbitrary system of balances which are constantly modified when people complain that a certain unit is overpowered.

I completely and utterly agree with a previous post: the hard counter to kiting is light cavalry. Run those archers down! This is historical and realistic. A slow melee unit's only defense against an archer is heavy armor, or else having faster units in one's army. But let me list all counters I see to kiting archers:

1. Light cavalry - close the gap instantly. The archer's only chance is getting a shot in before the horse reaches him, then he's dead. Horseman vs. archer in melee = no contest.
2. Your own archers, and better. You no longer need to close the gap! Magic also fits in here.
3. Heavy cavalry. Will take longer to arrive than light cavalry, but should have heavy armor, in order to take less damage. Also can carry heavier weapons, which might kill off the archers even faster.
4. Very fast, light infantry. This infantry must be so light that they can run faster than archers, who must both shoot and run, while light infantry only must run. Will take losses, but then wipe out the archers on arriving, due to both better melee weapons and melee training.

Horse archers? They were considered dishonorable in the Middle Ages in Europe, hence their limited use. But the unit was successful when used by the Huns, Mongols, etc. The counters are a bit harder, but still exist.

1. Your own archers! They must be trained to hit faster-moving units, however. But it's harder to shoot a bow accurately while on a horse, versus standing still. A longbow also has more range than a bow used on a horse. Bows on horses are worse than regular bows! Magic also applies here.
2. Better horse archers! Obvious.
3. Light cavalry. These horsemen must dodge the arrows, having the great mobility of a horse to do so. You need to spread your unit of horsemen out, such that they can surround the unit of horse archers, not allowing them to escape. But a good unit of light cavalry, with fast horses, should be able to dodge the arrows of horse archers, and take out the cavalry in melee. A spear would help here, as a sword will make it harder to land a hit on that horse archer.

Make sure all of these types of units actually work  as a counter, and there will be no need to resort to gamey mechanisms. And if your army simply has none of these units, and is up against a group of archers, you should die. You, as a general, failed to adequately defend against an effective counter to your army, and must suffer the consequences. A slow melee unit cannot defeat a mobile archer. This is a fact of life, and a legitimate tactic. Guerrilla warfare IS kiting.

A few concepts listed above that require new game mechanics:

1. Different kinds of horses: speed of the horse, versus strength, power and size.
2. Different types of bows, and limited effectiveness of traditional bows when used on a horse.
3. Armor and weapons carried having a real effect on movement speed. Initiative seems a little contrived, but you could make it work with this system as well.

But what I don't understand about initiative: why do I get a whole turn extra just due to higher initiative? It doesn't make physical sense. I should get more actions than you. I can move faster due to my faster horse. If I'm an archer, I move slower than a fast melee unit, because I have to shoot and run, while he just runs. So why can't you make both shooting and running take up actions, and an archer simply has less time to take a shooting action, if he also wants to run?

Limited arrows? I agree with what was said earlier: it's silly. You can limit my arrows I can shoot to 6 by killing me before I can manage to shoot off the 7th, not by declaring that a quiver can only carry 6 arrows, and than I can only carry one quiver, etc.

That's all for now.

I guess the fear is that you could have 1 (slow) melee unit of 200 defense facing a kiting archer of only 1 attack ... and thus you get a battle that never ends.

(or rather, a battle that takes 50 turns to win, assuming the melee unit has 50 HP ... and assuming attacks cause at least 1 damage if they hit)

Did you just go on about realism and then at the end suggest that archers can carry an unlimited amount of arrows?

Funny how systems are only "gamey" when you don't like them...but infinite arrows seems pretty gamey to me.

No, simply that setting an artificially low limit is unrealistic.

50 arrows to battle is reasonable, is it not? Arrow capacity could be limited by strength and storage requirements, and perhaps be influenced by arrow size and type. But arrow capacity should not be an issue in any normal battle.