[Discuss] Re: Proposed Marshal changes

[Tom Vogt]

Samuel Knowlton schrieb:
> I don't think the Marshal settings are a panacea now.
>
> I think this is fixing a problem that isn't broken, and the end result is 
> that being a General or a Marshal requires even more micromanagement than it 
> did before (pouring over scout reports to see if you have all of one army, 
> or all of one army plus two guys from another army).
>
> The system before was simple and straightforward -- you either used Marshal 
> settings or not. Now it is complex and aggrevating for no perceptible 
> benefit. 
>   

Wrong. The old setting was more aggrevating. Why? Because you could 
never be sure just _who_ would take command and whose settings would be 
used. Now youu can be sure whose settings will affect which nobles. 
That's a _lot_ of gained reliability in planning.


It does mean, however, that armies should start to act like armies. You 
know, moving mostly together and all that. True, you can't plug people 
into random armies, have them roam around at random, and still expect 
them to fight coherently.



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