Poll: morale and routing

[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?

[Arryn]

The_Tauren13 said:
hmmm... if you lose the battle, dont you think you deserve to lose half your mages?

No.


Any military commander who's not brain-dead knows when a battle is lost and when to retreat to save his forces for another day. Only a fool or a madman (not that there's a difference) wastes valuable lives.

[Cheezeninja]

Arryn said:

No.


Any military commander who's not brain-dead knows when a battle is lost and when to retreat to save his forces for another day. Only a fool or a madman (not that there's a difference) wastes valuable lives.

Arryn i believe you meant any commander who's not undead

I finally beat everybody to the cheezy Ermor pun, and boy do i feel clever. =)

[The_Tauren13]

Arryn said:

No.


Any military commander who's not brain-dead knows when a battle is lost and when to retreat to save his forces for another day. Only a fool or a madman (not that there's a difference) wastes valuable lives.

ive heard people say many times on this forum that they dont go into battle unless they can win

[Arryn]

The_Tauren13 said:
ive heard people say many times on this forum that they dont go into battle unless they can win

I've said that myself. However, be that as it may, none of us are perfect, and thus we can (and do) make mistakes such as misjudging an enemy's strength. And, if one does get themselves into a situation that is hopeless, the smart thing to do is retreat, as quickly as possible, so as to conserve as much of your force as you can so that you can try again later. Some call it a learning experience, and one needn't suffer a slaughter in order to realize one has made a mistake. As for deserving punishment for mistakes, only masochists enjoy and desire them. Which is why certain games (like Doom 3) exist, to fulfill the needs of such folk.

[Cainehill]

The_Tauren13 said:

ive heard people say many times on this forum that they dont go into battle unless they can win

Most people don't go into a battle planning on losing. But even if they "don't go into battle unless they can win", it doesn't mean they're 100% sure they'll win. Historically, commanders can and do gamble - balancing the loss of 100 men (or 1000) against the benefit gained if they do win.

They also go into battle because, while they're not sure they'll win, they know that the other possible battlefields and situations will be worse.

And they go into battle figuring that while they may lose, they'll inflict greater casualties on the enemy - this is especially true both of military defenses and ambushes.

An example of this in Dom2 is sending 4 or 5 spellcasters with a screening troop of 10 or 20 militia or archers in front of them. Going against, say, knights, they can expect to lose - the knights are going to tear up those screening troops, but are going to sustain heavy casualties from the mages.

This is _planned_ for by the force with the mages and militia.

And you think that they _deserve_ to lose half the mages, who are sitting all the way in the rear of the battlefield???

Nice to know the kind of superior military intellects who are in favor of demolishing, I mean, improving, the current morale system.