Dammit

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Graeme Dice]

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.

Do you really want all your human mages to stick around on the battlefield when the rest of the army runs away past them?

The best solution would be a switch that could force commanders to only rout if they personally fail a morale check, instead of routing on the army rout conditions. This would have the added benefit of making minicombatants more likely to take down a single supercombatant if one of them dies.

[The_Tauren13]

Arryn said:
Really? Strange, since I do have the game installed on my system

ive noticed that fans of underated strategy games that havent recieved the popularity they deserve, such as dominions II, have a tendency to diss on the popular games, refusing to admit that they, too, are good

dont mind me... just a pet peeve i guess.

[The Panther]

Arryn said:
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.

Sounds to me like you didn't really play Warcraft 3 if you never went to MP. War 3 MP is extremely good, even though SP ain't all that great. Sounds like it was a GOOD ASSumption after all.

As for the basic premise of this post, the routing thing is very counter-intuitive. It is one of the hard lessons to learn when trying to make an SC and moving onto MP from SP. For example, the guy who summons the free imps is a lousy SC because he routes when the imps die.

This clearly is not a good situation. I stand by my earlier comments. The presence of troops OUGHT to decrease the chances of routing, not increase it. Game play balance, role playing, whatever. It is still very counter-intuitive and fundamentally wrong.

This could be fixed with some fairly easy changes:

1. A commander should not automatically rout when all the troops are gone. It should definitely increase the chance of routing, though, in order to protect the vulnerable mages. Maybe a single hit in the presence of fatigue or even just fatigue itself (like maybe 50%) should be enough to cause the rout of a commander without an army. This would help protect the mages in a losing battle.
2. A commander without troops should rout far easier than one who still has troops. The commander without troops should be the exact same chance of routing as in point 1 above. Thus the guy who brings an army with his commander is not punished for doing that, like it is now. He would therefore be more likely to win such a battle against a lone SC, even with mini-SCs like properly outfitted national commanders, as long as he has a support army. THIS would be far more intuitive than the current system.
3. When support troops start dying, the chances of a commander to rout should slowly rise. It ought to be the exact same kind of check that a squad has to determine when to rout. After all, the commander is the leader of the army and should never act independant of his troops. He will also stay on the battlefield much longer simply because he starts with higher morale than most living troops do.


Someone earlier in this thread said that concrete suggestions should be proposed for consideration by the devs instead of whining. Nuf said.