Dammit

[Arryn]

Cainehill gets today's Knight in Shiny Armor award { } for his valiant efforts at rescuing the damsel from the perfidious assaults of the vile Saxon ruffian [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon19.gif[/img].

[The_Tauren13]

Arryn said:
Cainehill gets today's Knight in Shiny Armor award { } for his valiant efforts at rescuing the damsel from the perfidious assaults of the vile Saxon ruffian [img]/threads/images/Graemlins/icon19.gif[/img].

and the flamer of the year award for trying to rekindle another's argument and partake in it himself

Gandalf Parker said:
So what we have is????
commander with troops
should be done when you want the commander to rout after his troops are gone
commander with no troops
the SC you want to fight on until he is the Last guy standing and takes alot of damage

and then isnt there
commander with guards
not so likely to rout when troops die off but will if guards die off

and of course there is always the random variables in the rolls which make it a chance of happening anyway no matter how the battle is going. It all sounds like a pretty good spread. The only thing left open is some cases where you done get to choose which of the Categorys your commander is in. Such as Moloch with his imps (being discussed in another thread)

but what is the problem with panther's suggestion; making it morale based. thus, a commander with 30 morale and hardly any damage/fatigue, probably an SC, will stick around, but a commander with 10 morale and 60 fatigue will run off, probably a mage.

[Boron]

The_Tauren13 said:
[but what is the problem with panther's suggestion; making it morale based. thus, a commander with 30 morale and hardly any damage/fatigue, probably an SC, will stick around, but a commander with 10 morale and 60 fatigue will run off, probably a mage.

the problem is with panthers suggestion mages rout easier .

as it is if you take some strong troops with your mages they almost NEVER rout ( until they fail a morale check in melee ) .

with your suggestion the mages have to do a moralecheck everytime an army routs so much more moralechecks and they will rout more often .


in the current system leaders can rout too if they are severely wounded . so it is already like your suggestion with the only exeption that once there is no army present + 1 leader dies all expect berserk + immortal leaders rout automatically .



the current system is imo really great .
your suggestions would imo be not improvements but worsenings
as it is it is very very balanced .

with your suggestion troops would become totally unimportant and scs would become even stronger .

[Thufir]

Without getting into great detail I just have to say I love Paradox games (but always wait until patch 3+ ). I also love Dom2, but I think Paradox vs. IW is an apples to oranges comparison, and there's no real way to come up with a "winner".

I tend to think of Paradox games (all that I've played anyhow: HOI, Vicky, EU II) almost more as historical simulations, rather than pure games. When you look at their forums and the arguments held there its astounding how passionate (and knowledgeable!) the participants get into the details of historical considerations of proper design/implementation of the game. I think there are flaws in any Paradox game, but I suspect they often arise from designers (and most of their players) tendency that when faced with those inevitable design tradeoffs that must be faced with any game project, they'll often go for a sense of historical accuracy/realism rather than for gameplay or for balance.

By contrast, Dom2 has the pleasant premise that requires absolutely no interest in historical accuracy! Instead, it has at its foundation a profoundly interesting two prongs of development (or better said "orthogonal axes") that constantly force the player to choose between economic/magic development and the spread of their pretender's religious/dominion development. Given how incredibly complex Dom2 is (in terms of number of units, econonomic system, magic and number of spells, choices and configuration of pretenders, etc.), it is astounding how well balanced this game is.

Well, all that said is considerably more detail than I intended, but so it goes

Anyhow, this Last note on balance should serve as a caution to those that would change the routing rules. Personally, I'm sympathetic, but I think there are balance issues here, and that does make this more tricky than it might seem. I've more to say, but I think I'm going to do that on the Poll: morale and routing thread, as that's better suited to specific proposals.

[Gandalf Parker]

Thufir said:
I tend to think of Paradox games (all that I've played anyhow: HOI, Vicky, EU II) almost more as historical simulations, rather than pure games.

That was one of the main things I disliked about EU II. It was too historical. It seemed like you could affect things but only within limits which caused the timeline to progress "normally".

If the pagans cant win then I dont want to play.

[Arryn]

Thufir said:
I tend to think of Paradox games (all that I've played anyhow: HOI, Vicky, EU II) almost more as historical simulations, rather than pure games.

They *are* historical sims, albeit with the ability to create very ahistorical results (including such absurdities as the French conquering the whole world in the 1940s).

[Boron]

Thufir said:
Without getting into great detail I just have to say I love Paradox games (but always wait until patch 3+ ). I also love Dom2, but I think Paradox vs. IW is an apples to oranges comparison, and there's no real way to come up with a "winner".

I tend to think of Paradox games (all that I've played anyhow: HOI, Vicky, EU II) almost more as historical simulations, rather than pure games. When you look at their forums and the arguments held there its astounding how passionate (and knowledgeable!) the participants get into the details of historical considerations of proper design/implementation of the game. I think there are flaws in any Paradox game, but I suspect they often arise from designers (and most of their players) tendency that when faced with those inevitable design tradeoffs that must be faced with any game project, they'll often go for a sense of historical accuracy/realism rather than for gameplay or for balance.

i love the paradox games too and look forward to especially hoi 2 . i own exactly the same like you
i play them occasionally but they are unfortunately too easy / boring when played too long and i think not really adept for mp

Gandalf Parker said:

That was one of the main things I disliked about EU II. It was too historical. It seemed like you could affect things but only within limits which caused the timeline to progress "normally".

If the pagans cant win then I dont want to play.

just look on the AAR board of paradox gandalf
there are reports of ppl who made a wc as maya e.g.


i could do that on my own too probably but not in the timeline only with about 100-200 additional years with no time limit patch .

in hoi / vicky this is much harder
i guess nobody can win as luxemburg in hoi .

[Cainehill]

The_Tauren13 said:
(Cainehill gets) the flamer of the year award for trying to rekindle another's argument and partake in it himself

First, I don't think you understand what a flame is, if you think that was a flame, and most definately if you think that would come close to a "flame/flamer of the year award". Perhaps you haven't been on the internet long....

I gave Magnate information he didn't consider, and if I used the word 'stupid', well - that word had certainly been flying back and forth already. It wasn't a flame - it was an abrasively toned educational post, and there is a big difference between the two.

but what is the problem with panther's suggestion; making it morale based. thus, a commander with 30 morale and hardly any damage/fatigue, probably an SC, will stick around, but a commander with 10 morale and 60 fatigue will run off, probably a mage.

What are the problems with this? For one: all Pretenders and Prophets have a morale of 30. So, let's see - a Crone pretender with her whopping 9 base HPs is going to stick around after her knights and infantry have been slaughtered. Likewise the 10 HP mage pretender will keep on casting spells until surrounded and killed. Say, this is a great idea! After all, the first hit they take, they'll almost certainly finally rout.

Oops. First hit they take, they're probably dead. Oh well - no biggie, people aren't taking light weight human-ish rainbow Pretenders anyways, right?

On the other paw, it lets big honking SCs bring in a bunch of chafe to soak up casualties for them while they're casting their buffs. The chafe finally routs and gets out of the SCs way.

So, it also makes SCs a lot more powerful, as though they really need that.

If a commander brings troops, it presumably has a use for them. If the troops get slaughtered (or run away), that commander presumably doesn't want to stay on the field.

If it _does_ want to stay on the field, it should either not bring the troops, or bring troops that will stay alive long enough for the SC to do its work.

There's a number of ways to manage this; the simplest is to take a crippled foot soldier, stick him in a rear corner with "Hold and Attack" orders.

Yes, some of the things you have to do are counter-intuitive, but this isn't a military simulation / tactical model, and doesn't pretend to be.

The main thing that seems to be broken is that commanders route because wimpy summonses got killed or routed : phantasmal warrior, the Moloch's imps, a skeleton, etc.