Dammit

[Ironhawk]

I agree with cheezeninja. Is the system "realistic"? No. Does it work well? Yes. But why get caught up in realism if this is just a game? A fantasy game at that. Balance is all that really matters in the end and the system, as it stands, has that.

I mean, sure, request or even propose a change to the system. By all means! But IMO, its not a crippling issue that requires immediate dev response. As you gain more experience with the morale system you will be able to see past its quirks and appreciate its value.

[nakomus]

This is wrong wrong wrong. Someone give me a good argument why it can't be changed so that only the commander of the chaff regiment routs with his troops. So commanders without troops will only rout when they themselves are wounded/fatigued.

If commanders without troops don’t rout when the army routs, what happens to support mages and priests? Should they stay on the field and wait for the opposing army to come and mop them up?

If you are using a *real* army, the commander routing is probably what you *want* to happen.

Suppose I have one commander leading 50 heavy infantry, 3-4 mages casting spells and a couple of priests for morale. If the 50 infantry get killed that means I’ve almost certainly lost of the battle. If the mages and priests stick around they will just die, costing me more.

For situations like this, changing the routing system would be very detrimental. Do SCs really need the extra boost at the expense of conventional armies?

[Yvelina]

> and played it through Act 1 Chapter 6 before getting annoyed with it.

Act1 Chapter 6? Funny, this is EXACTLY where my boyfriend ditched that game.

[Sly Frog]

Ironhawk said:
I agree with cheezeninja. Is the system "realistic"? No. Does it work well? Yes. But why get caught up in realism if this is just a game? A fantasy game at that. Balance is all that really matters in the end and the system, as it stands, has that.

I mean, sure, request or even propose a change to the system. By all means! But IMO, its not a crippling issue that requires immediate dev response. As you gain more experience with the morale system you will be able to see past its quirks and appreciate its value.

Because unless you have a good reason for making something the opposite of what is intuitive and normal, you are creating a barrier for entry to new players that doesn't need to be there.

I kept playing the game, but I've got to tell you that I've rolled my eyes on more than a few occasions at having strange things happen in the routing system (oh look, my badass pretender just routed because the lion I brought into battle ran away).

[Arryn]

Sly Frog said:
Because unless you have a good reason for making something the opposite of what is intuitive and normal, you are creating a barrier for entry to new players that doesn't need to be there.

No, you don't have to have a good reason at all for making things awkward. It just happens. Typically because the designers fail to give sufficient consideration to a game's usability. This is often most evident in game UI. How many games have we seen which don't allow for in-mission saves (Giants, Starship Troopers, etc.)? Or hotkeys for common actions (Dom 2 is guilty of this to a degree)? Or a need for an excessive amount of clicking and wading through menus (MOO3)? Or a lack of having all the info you need to (micro)manage your empire readily at hand in easy-to-digest screens (Dom 2 could stand some improvement here as well)? As for keeping such awkwardness? That happens when the perceived (by the devs) cost/benefit ratio of fixing such issues is outweighed by the effort involved or other priorities (or, in the case of some games, devs who are blind to their product's shortcomings, or too stubborn to do anything about it, or who won't fix things unless they get paid for it).