[Discuss] General+Marshal Changes + Reality Check

[Robert Croson, Jr]

On 8 Mar 2008 at 1:08, Siang Hong wrote:

> Perhaps I was not clear. There is a difference between Wars and Battles.
> 
> Generals concentrate on the War. Marshals concentrate on the Battles.

Sounds good so far.

> All I am saying is, it takes longer to organize and mobilize the
> armies and the way troop payment and equipment damage is calculated
> puts too short a time frames on campaigns to be fun.

But here's where I disagree. If it is taking longer for you, then have your 
general work farther ahead. The general shouldn't be working on *this* turn's 
orders. He shouldn't be working on *next turn's* orders, and probably not even 
*tomorrow's* orders. He should be working on plans for three days from now, 
and next week. Let the marshals handle today.

If you can't handle working out that far, or just don't want to do it, then simply 
appoint your general as a Marshal and cut out that extra step.

> For this system to play to its fullest (FUN) and for the game to
> remain light weight would, lowering/extending unit payment and
> equipment damage would help. Let the generals and marshals have more
> time to play on the field. After all this is battlemaster not
> refitmaster.

The rate of EQ damage is a completely separate issue from the general/marshal 
discussion.

-- 
Rob

Will the information superhighway have any rest stops?




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