Re: Dammit
 

What's "goofy" and "non-intuitive" about it? If you expect the devs to listen to you it might help if you'd explain precisely what it is that you think is amiss in your opinion.

Re: Dammit
 

I don't know where you got this silly notion. A lone commander will rout, unless that commander is an immortal in friendly dominion, or the commander is berserk. What doesn't make sense about it?

Re: Dammit
 

I think you may have missed my point. I probably was not very clear. What I was saying is that a commander with 1 troop routs very easy. A commander with zero troops does not, he has to rout on his own. And it seems to me to be far harder for him to rout when alone than with any army of any size. Maybe this is not true, but it sure seems like it is to me. This is completely backwards. Troops ought to decrease the chance of routing, not increase it.

This is what is not intuitive at all. It is just an unrealistic artifact of the current routing algorithm.

Re: Dammit
 

This would seriously conflict with the current spell casting system.

As for the morale and routing system. While it is not the best, its also not as bad as you are making it out to be. Once you get the knack of it I think it performs rather adequately.

Re: Dammit
 

No, he said fatigued *and* gets hit - most combat spellcasters go to some lengths to avoid being hit, so it would be consistent.

His other point was very good too - a high morale, non-berserk SC should not be any more likely to rout if his/her/its troops do, than if it has no troops.

IMHO this needs patching quite urgently - a shrewd Bane Lord or Ice Devil absolutely depends on taking a load of chaff into combat with him, knowing full well that they will all die. It's an essential part of his victory plan and should be allowed ..... ;-)

CC

Re: Dammit
 

Commanders used on their own are obviously not intended to be used just as support or to get the troops into battle, so they do not behave like commanders with armies does. Since the sort of commanders people use as supercombatants usually have a very high morale they are unlikely to rout on their own, but suffer from army rout as easy as the next commander. Obviously army rout is more prone to happen when the army is smaller, since the army, discounting commanders, is more prone to routing. Exactly what is it that you find unintuitive with this?

I would also like to point out that it appears that you and magnate are arguing from what amounts to opposing positions. Magnate does not want commanders to rout because army rout occurs while you appear to be arguing for morale penalties for single commanders, presumedly not wishing for commandes to stick around when abandoned by their armies.

Re: Dammit
 

SC's can hardly avoid being hit. If this were not true, life draining would not be as paramount as it is now. Good or bad, you are going to have a hard time keeping your SC from getting fatigue and being hit.

On the topic of a lone SC being more brave than an SC who brought along some friends, it also makes *some* sense in that morale would be affected, to some degree, by seeing your fellow commanders fall in battle.

Otoh, I also find it somewhat frustrating that sending in a minor support squad with an SC is often more dangerous than sending him alone. Plus, it makes mage hit squads more tenuous as 30 mages can be routed by one incinerate/arrow/frozen heart/whatever.

Still, I wonder if it was intentional since it would have a good bit of affect on game balance. It would make mage hit squads much more powerful and reliable, thus helping certain nations a good bit (especially caelum but any mages who make use of cloud trap/teleport type spells).

- Kel

Re: Dammit
 

the main point here is that it does not make RP sense for a commander to rout in the second round of battle because the one troop with him died, when, if he had gone in alone, he would still be fighting

Re: Dammit
 

Doh! I can't believe I've been so stupid - there's an easy solution to the chaff problem: take the SCs in *pairs*! Take a 3rd commander with the chaff - all the chaff dies, 3rd commander routs or dies also, and the two SCs continue merrily on until one of them routs.

I think that works, doesn't it? It's not one rout, all rout, it's that the Last commander alone will rout if everyone else has. Must try it .... admittedly using SCs in pairs is a lot less strategically efficient than using them singly, but what the heck ....

Kel - I wasn't talking about melee SCs (who do indeed get hit a lot, you're right), I was talking about the guys who stand at the back and lob spells - not SCs in my book. They're the ones which you try to avoid getting hit - surrounding them with bodyguards etc. Hence them routing when fatigued + hit but not when only fatigued is ok.

CC

Re: Dammit
 

A lone commander MAY route, but that by no means equates to 'will' route. While the system does work and i really dont know if any complaints with it are serious to justify a change, it is kind of silly that a commander is willing to charge the enemy on his own and stay the duration of the battle, but is there iz zero chance of him staying if as few as a single possible unit are lost, even when the units in question are worthless or free. The flag carrying mascot that this is illogical would be the Moloch, for reason i am sure most of us are very aware.

Don't get me wrong, the system works, and it works well. It just sometimes seems counterintuitive when its often better to send someone into a pitched battle alone if you have any doubt that his army could survive the whole battle with him. Name for me a single historical battle where a General said "no, you guys couldnt survive the whole fight, better i go in alone".

I really dont want to seem like i'm jumping on the "Change it!" bandwagon, because its extremely well balanced the way it is, it just sometimes doesnt feel quite right. At a certain point you absolutly have to choose game balance over how realistic it is.

[edit] oh, and for magnate, if the chaff routes or is killed ALL commanders route, not just their commander.