[Discuss] Military Structure
Talita CS
talitacs at gmail.com
Mon Jan 14 00:02:31 CET 2008
On Jan 13, 2008 7:33 PM, Tom Vogt <tom at lemuria.org> wrote:
>
> Since we already have the armies and they work (code-wise) - how about
> we simply add hierarchy?
>
> Every army can be a part of another army.
>
> Then you can build your hierarchy any way you want.
>
> And all we need is one additional message option "this army and all
> subarmies"
Maybe.
Adding hierarchy to armies would give the Marshal of the largest army
a lot of power...
What I would like to see is the founders having a higher say in their
armies (they can also use the order tag and order their marshal
directly if needed), it would basically help the power struggles and
add a great advantage to sponsoring an army.
If the founder is to have more power, then the founder of the largest
army would be extremely powerful, and the others would have to follow
him. Anyway, I'd rather see subgroups that don't need founding than
actual subarmies.
Give a bit more function to the second in command, because of today he
does basically nothing, except following orders and showing up for
battles. Perhaps he could set the standing orders, very useful in case
the marshal can't show up, and probably would be nice if the general
could message him as well as the marshal, to make sure there is one
more person online to receive certain information and pass to the
army.
Talita
--
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
More information about the Discuss-moderated
mailing list