Quote:
Graeme Dice said:
The chance that all three blood hunters will fail approaches 2%.
|
I'm not saying they all will fail, but even 15% of increased failure compared with zero unrest is not a comfortable setting for me. And if they don't fail then unrest increases even more dropping population and decreasing chances even more.
Quote:
This would be a problem for you with any blood nation thanks to your choice to perform unnecessary tasks.
|
Yes but those blood mages might not need to flee if they were originally setup with blood slaves at the start of a magic casted battle. 36 imps for holding a province is well worth the six blood slaves the mages hold... sorry you don't agree.
Quote:
Your hunters are expendable, your play time isn't.
|
Three blood hunters each with 2 or 3 blood slaves adds good protection for a province... thus winning is worth my playtime.
Quote:
Of course, you could have just had your hunters retreat, then move them back in to retake the province the next turn.
|
You know... keeping that province and killing the attacking force is better in so many ways then your retreat and recapture strategy.
Quote:
Graeme Dice said:
You are complaining that Mictlan can't use castles to protect its blood hunters. That is micromanagement created solely by the house rules you chose, so you certainly can't complain about it.
|
The micromanagement exists with or without the house rules... did you not read the quotes from the other gamers?
Quote:
Graeme Dice said: I have issues with your complaints about micromanagement. Please don't bring up irrelevant appeals to popularity.
|
NO... you've been saying the micromanagement wasn't that bad. These quotes from
many other gamers
CLEARLY indicate the micromanagement is painfully noticed with Mictlan. The only reason I see you not experiencing this is if you've been playing small maps with Mictlan.