It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
One of the slightly controversial things in the first game (which I know is different developer, different engine, different era of gaming, all those things) is that if you had too much of your army compromised of one type of force, the enemy would gain bonus gold and XP when buying troops. That was arguably necessary because some types of units were overpowered against almost everything.

It seems to me in FG2 that a combined arms strategy is going to be quite effective, I'm just hoping the players can work this out on their own without any artificial penalties for specialising.
avatar
hugorune2: One of the slightly controversial things in the first game (which I know is different developer, different engine, different era of gaming, all those things) is that if you had too much of your army compromised of one type of force, the enemy would gain bonus gold and XP when buying troops. That was arguably necessary because some types of units were overpowered against almost everything.

It seems to me in FG2 that a combined arms strategy is going to be quite effective, I'm just hoping the players can work this out on their own without any artificial penalties for specialising.
There is no artificial "malus" for an unbalanced army, but the demands on your army change everytime you encounter new regions adn often based on tasks. So your choice of army composition by itself will balance out more. Also, we do not have strict categories, so units while having a "type" do not adhere to a linear "class" that they are put in.