Dammit

Taqwus · #1 August 24th, 2004, 03:00 PM

Make the SC berserk. A hell sword will suffice, and gives lifedraining and some fire resistance as well.

magnate · #2 August 25th, 2004, 02:00 PM

Yeah but they only go berserk if wounded.

I've just discovered that this idiocy applies to PD as well: if the PD rout, the SCs go with them. This is really really really annoying, because it means I can't build any PD in newly-taken provinces, which means no automatic searching for spies/assassins. If I build any PD, the slightest incursion by a crippled harpy causes them to flee (I'm Caelum so they have this stupid habit of flying up and getting themselves slaughtered), which means that my SCs retreat. DAMN that's annoying.

CC

Vynd · #3 August 25th, 2004, 02:27 PM

C'mon man, suck it up. This effects your opponents just as much as it does you.

magnate · #4 August 25th, 2004, 02:31 PM

Yeah but they're using lots of tough troops - I'm the one with wimpy archers and SCs! Maximum suckage!

Sly Frog · #5 August 25th, 2004, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Vynd said:
C'mon man, suck it up. This effects your opponents just as much as it does you.

Yeah, but that's no excuse not to review and potentially change the routing system, which I also believe is very goofy and non-intuitive.

The Panther · #6 August 25th, 2004, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Vynd said:

Yeah, but that's no excuse not to review and potentially change the routing system, which I also believe is very goofy and non-intuitive.

I could not agree more. This whole idea of a lone commander who will not rout just because he has no troops is completely bogus. The absence or presence of troops ought to make no difference. When a commander becomes fatigued and gets hit, he should rout. Period. In fact, it really ought to be HARDER to prevent routing with no troops rather than EASIER. After all, he is all alone and therefore should rout at the slightest provacation.

Arryn · #7 August 25th, 2004, 04:22 PM

Quote:

The Panther said:
This whole idea of a lone commander who will not rout just because he has no troops is completely bogus.

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?

The Panther · #8 August 25th, 2004, 04:47 PM

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.

Cheezeninja · #9 August 25th, 2004, 08:33 PM

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.

Sly Frog · #10 August 26th, 2004, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Arryn said:

Quote:

The Panther said:
This whole idea of a lone commander who will not rout just because he has no troops is completely bogus.

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?

I just assumed it was pretty clear. Here's an example. If I am a badass and all powerful SC alone against a large enemy army, I will often slaughter everything on the field. If I am a badass and all powerful SC who has a small contingent of archers supporting me, we'll all rout off the field in the first turn.

That's goofy, that's non-intuitive. Not explaining it wasn't an attempt to take a shot at the devs by calling it goofy and non-intuitive; I just thought that the problems with the routing system were pretty obvious.

It may work as a *game*, because you can learn the system and start to do non-obvious things (like don't support your badass commanders). That doesn't say that it couldn't be changed so that it made more sense.