Dammit

[Sly Frog]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[johan osterman]

The Panther said:
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.
...

Commanders used on their own are obviously not intended to be used just as support or to get the troops into battle, so they do not behave like commanders with armies does. Since the sort of commanders people use as supercombatants usually have a very high morale they are unlikely to rout on their own, but suffer from army rout as easy as the next commander. Obviously army rout is more prone to happen when the army is smaller, since the army, discounting commanders, is more prone to routing. Exactly what is it that you find unintuitive with this?

I would also like to point out that it appears that you and magnate are arguing from what amounts to opposing positions. Magnate does not want commanders to rout because army rout occurs while you appear to be arguing for morale penalties for single commanders, presumedly not wishing for commandes to stick around when abandoned by their armies.

[Cheezeninja]

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.

[Arryn]

Cheezeninja said:
oh, and for magnate, if the chaff routes or is killed ALL commanders route, not just their commander.

Correction: all non-berserk commanders.

Folks having these problems are failing to make use of the magic items (such as the Berserker Pelt) the devs created to deal with this issue. As is the case for many things in this game, for each "problem" there is almost always one or more solutions. You just have to get a bit more creative with your strategy. This isn't Warcraft, where the solution to problems is either a.) throw more stuff at it, or b.) use a bigger hammer.

[The_Tauren13]

i for one dont think it should be changed, i just think its a bit unrealistic.

and you, arryn, have obviously never played warcraft III

[magnate]

No I'm sorry, you shouldn't have to send your commanders berserk just to avoid them fleeing when the chaff is killed. I'm very upset that even two SCs will flee when a chaff regiment is routed.

Berserk is fine when you are not in any danger of losing, but flying SCs need to be able to flee if they are severely damaged and/or fatigued, which is not possible if they are berserk.

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.

CC

[Arryn]

The_Tauren13 said:
and you, arryn, have obviously never played warcraft III

Really? Strange, since I do have the game installed on my system (well, it actually belongs to a friend of my BF's), and played it through Act 1 Chapter 6 before getting annoyed with it. Obviously, you should be a bit more careful about the ASSumptions you make and whom to.