[Discuss] Battlemaster is a tyranny

[Robert Croson, Jr]

On 18 Oct 2006 at 13:32, Loren Schmidt wrote:

> On 10/18/06, Tom Vogt <tom at lemuria.org> wrote:
>     Excellent points. Maybe I should add a little randomness 
>     to battle
>     settings. A small chance (depending on unit morale and 
>     training) that
>     your men get the settings wrong by +/- one combat line, 
>     or in the wrong
>     formation, all by themselves. 
> 
> Cohesion should likely be involved. If units can't move as one, and don't get into position 
> properly they'd be forced to move backwards, or scramble forwards and face penealties. Just a 
> thought.

The problem with basing things like this off training and cohesion is that a 
realm on the losing end of a battle will suffer the effects much more severely 
than larger realms or realms that are winning battles. This will compound the 
penalties that you *already* have due to low training/cohesion. This looks like 
another type of rule that would penalize smaller realms much more harshly than 
larger realms.

Low training already penalizes you with low CS and ad less effective troops.

Low cohesion already makes your men break and retreat quicker.

Now we have to worry about low training and cohesion making our men line up 
in random positions and radnom formations? Whynot make it that the first side 
to lose a battle loses the war?

We need to have *something* that we can count on, or else why have the 
settings at all? Making them unreliable makes them pointless.




-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss