[Discuss] unit responsibility

[Aaron Bennett]

Tom Struik wrote:
> Too be honest i think the approach is wrong tom.
> I think the marshal settings are a major part that takes away the thrill of
> the game.
> >From commanding view ist always a thrill to see if people have set the
> correct settings.
> Battles in the past without marshalls settings were way more intresting. You
> could easy experiment with line settings.
> Right now the marshal settings are generalizing the line settings and it
> does not matter what line settings are set as long as there is a marshal
> there.
> The single troopleader has nothing to set anymore as it really does not
> matter, THAT is what taking the fun out of it.
>
> In my opinions we should dump the marshal settings and go back again to the
> line based commanding structure.

I agree, 100%.   The Command Staff feature sucks.  It makes all of the 
battles predictable -- as long as neither sides does something stupid 
like choose archer opening with no archers, or 'delay and wound' with a 
large CS advantage, essentially the army with more CS and better 
equipment wins.  From a Generals' "win the battle" perspective, I love 
it -- it definately makes winning battles more manageable.    But it's 
way, way less fun and less interesting for the normal troopleader.




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