Poll: morale and routing

[Cainehill]

Sheap said:
This seems like it is turning into "I want immortality nerfed because it annoys me." If it were really that strong, everyone would play immortal pretenders, but in reality other than Abysia, Caelum and Ermor, it is rare.

Actually, it's more like, "I want immortality nerfed because I don't like the morale system we have now, and to break the morale system, we have to break immortality, and we have to add a _lot_ more rules and commands, and waa waa waa..."

That said - Jotunheim, Pangaea, the underwater nations can all support immortal pretenders and not infrequently do. Likewise Vanheim, except Vanheim has an uber-pretender that gives another awesome choice. (Actually, so does Pangaea.) I've seen a number of other nations with immortals, even post VQ nerf - Tien Chi VampQ'ueen, and others.

In reality, Esben's proposal doesn't fix anything, it just creates another problem that obscures the current one by forcing it on everyone.

Agreed.

With the GK out of the equation, humans become the only way to gain magical diversity, and become a lot more interesting. Although whether their searching/forging ability makes up for the lack of a good starting (titan/undead) SC, is debatable.

The Nagas are also splendid ways to get versatility, and are also considerably better bang for the buck than humans. Problem is that almost all of the humans have abilities that ... rot. Or no ability at all, such as the Hag. Most of the abilities are ones that _might_ be useful in the early game, but are really a waste of a serious rainbow pretender's time. Turn 40 - my druid pretender will ... summon vine men! Right.

Ulm's Alchemist is one that doesn't totally rot - at least he can alchemize gems for gold without losing a turn. The Sorceress gets a free astral gem, the Frost Father won't get killed by murdering winter or the other cold spells.

The sage bonus is handy early in the game, but gets less and less worthwhile as the game goes on. Like - past turn 5. The Archmage - he _really_ ought to be a more impressive chassis. As is? Likewise the Freaklord, the Hag, etc.

But that's really a different thread.

And I just want to reiterate the insanity of the proposal that commanders rout if they don't have any troops. A grand red dragon, a bane lord, a GoR'ed Tarrasque - any and all of them turning and running, not from a Knight - but from a single stinking point of crappy PD.

What a hoot.

[Boron]

Esben Mose Hansen said:
I briefly considered the immortal problem. But since immortals CAN be fought effectively, since it is limited to positive dominions, I didn't find it too problematic. Also, the immortal looses all those items when they die, which also helps. If it is still a problem, make the immortal gain a few afflictions when they die. Yes, they will heal, but it takes time, and that is enough in my opinion --- If the SC have to sit around and wait for 5 or 10 turns before being usable again, plus having to pay 50+ gems in items, a price has been paid. If we're going to play REALLY tough immortals could use a magic path point or two, but I think this is going over the top. And more work to develop.

To Arryns comment I can only say: My idea is consistent with existing design, it makes sort of sense, and it will weaken those SC pretenders, so that we may actually see human pretenders again. I mean, when did you Last encounter one in MP? I have never seen one --- except in games where human pretenders were forced.

Plus, the idea is simple to implemented, right devs?

mose i like your ideas

with immortals my main problem are not THE scs but VAMPIRES combined with unequipped immortal leaders !


one of my favourite strats is to take vq , bloodhunt , get lots of vampire lords which autosummon vampires .

then i can push dominion via blood sacrifice as abysia / vanheim / mictlan .

then i slowly push my dominion and when i have positive dominion i attack with some vampire lords , my vq + a horde of vampires .

all unequipped .
so when i lose i lose nothing just 1-3 turns to move to the front again .

defeating a vq which buffs , vampire lords which cast spells + a horde of vampires is really tough though when repeated several times .


you may not win with your first attacks but your enemy will always lose parts of his forces .

so in the long run you will probably always win .
on turn 100 of a game you have probably accumulated 50-100 vampire lords at least which means 50-100 vampires / turn for free through summon allies .

so from turn 100 - turn 110 you get about at least 500-1000 extra vampires for FREE .

if you make it to excess as e.g. abysia until turn 50 you have probably already about 300-500 vampires + 20-30 vampire lords .

if you play a wish nation wishing for blood and pushing hordes of vamps is good too .
caelum e.g. can then spread dominion via stealthpreach + use the vampire horde tactic in lategame too very well .




so i think at least the summon allies commando from the vampire lords should be taken away

[PvK]

Seems to me the least popular selection in this poll is the best, unless I'm not considering something.

Panther's suggestion of a morale check is flawed because there are really two different types of commanders for this question - ones which might want to stand alone against an enemy army, and everyone else, who wouldn't, as Arryn pointed out.

Sheap's suggestion would allow players to provide an exception to the general rule, and this would also solve the long-standing issues with super combattants routing when their minor allies rout.

PvK

[Sheap]

Well I can certainly understand the desire to leave the current system alone. But in reality no matter the situation you will have cases where your units either rout too soon or don't rout soon enough.

I really don't think Panther's idea is very good, though. Instead of having all your commanders rout because your troops died, instead half of them would rout, leaving the other half to die. So now instead of routing and losing the battle, you rout, lose the battle, and then a bunch of your mages die as well.

[The_Tauren13]

hmmm... if you lose the battle, dont you think you deserve to lose half your mages?