Poll: morale and routing

[Morphem]

[i]Boron said:
[if you exchange though some small units with some good units the one with the good units wins .

and a lone sc has no chance against an antisc-sc or against a sc killer brigade .
while the sc with troops has good chances to win against them .
/i]

That has nothing to do with the fact that a grouped SC is handicaped versus a lone similar one.

I even thought it was a bug when i first started playing.

[The Panther]

Boron said:
if you exchange though some small units with some good units the one with the good units wins .

and a lone sc has no chance against an antisc-sc or against a sc killer brigade .
while the sc with troops has good chances to win against them .

Boron, I can't help but feel that you have totally missed the point here. Your explanations clearly say to me that you have figured out how to use this odd inconsistency correctly. I already knew that, of course. Many others have done the same as you and figured out how to exploit this error.

The point is that ANY SC with ANY troop OUGHT to be superior to the identical SC without troops. Period!

But troops actually hurt your chances, not help. It does not matter that you or me or anyone else has figured how to get around this weird thing but using non-routing troops or power summons or whatever, it still stands as a violation of a fundamental axiom of war. Superior forces should win more often than lose, not the converse. This is something they taught me when I was an officer in the United States Navy and certainly rings true.

And MOST ESPECIALLY when the superior force is primarily caused by being home and in the presence of Province Defense.

[Huzurdaddi]

Esben Mose Hansen said:
SC have plenty of advantages already, including low upkeep. No reason to make them even stronger. Now, if we take something and give something else, it's different. Such as greatly increasing the disadvantage of being surrounded. (-1 of each on front, -2 for each on flank, -4 for each on rear.).

Well I have to say that you hit it on the head.

[magnate]

Just one thing is confusing me, which is what Cainehill said about battlefield summons. I thought when phantasmal warriors, or false horrors or whatever - when they got killed, the mage just carried on as if nothing had happened. I didn't think it caused routing like with troops brought in at the start of the battle. Maybe I've not been watching carefully, but I thought I'd seen my mages carry on casting.

CC
P.S. Where did I get three stars from?? I had none yesterday, one this morning and three now. Does having an Online spat with someone half a world away get you stars??

[Arryn]

magnate said:
P.S. Where did I get three stars from?? I had none yesterday, one this morning and three now. Does having an Online spat with someone half a world away get you stars??

Apparently so. In the real world, having a spat risks *seeing* stars.

[Boron]

The Panther said:

Boron, I can't help but feel that you have totally missed the point here. Your explanations clearly say to me that you have figured out how to use this odd inconsistency correctly. I already knew that, of course. Many others have done the same as you and figured out how to exploit this error.

The point is that ANY SC with ANY troop OUGHT to be superior to the identical SC without troops. Period!

But troops actually hurt your chances, not help. It does not matter that you or me or anyone else has figured how to get around this weird thing but using non-routing troops or power summons or whatever, it still stands as a violation of a fundamental axiom of war. Superior forces should win more often than lose, not the converse. This is something they taught me when I was an officer in the United States Navy and certainly rings true.

And MOST ESPECIALLY when the superior force is primarily caused by being home and in the presence of Province Defense.

ok it is perhaps not really realistic .
but it is needed for gamebalance .

just see it this way as somebody wrote already:
an elite lone warrior like "rambo" doesn't withdraw until he is killed or captured .
so the lone sc .

if "rambo" has some friends with him ( the archers lol ) and they are wounded he withdraws to help them .

i have now gotten your point and you are right it isn't logical but it stands at least in the manual .
and i think it is needed for balance too because otherwise i wouldn't use any troops at all expect freespawns anymore probably .
given how useless most national troops + lower summons already are taking away the role of route preventer from them makes them really useless .
i wouldn't even need them for sieging because my antisc-scs would have gate cleavers for that .

[Huzurdaddi]

getting back to Esben Mose Hansen's idea it would be really nice if the numbers were configurable at game launch.

So if we had the following configurable parms:

FrontFighterAdjustment=
FlankFighterAdjustment=
ReadFighterAdjustment=

That would be quite cool. It would allow people to specify ( basically ) if they wanted SC's to be then end goal in their game or not.

[Cheezeninja]

The Panther said:

Boron, I can't help but feel that you have totally missed the point here. Your explanations clearly say to me that you have figured out how to use this odd inconsistency correctly. I already knew that, of course. Many others have done the same as you and figured out how to exploit this error.

The point is that ANY SC with ANY troop OUGHT to be superior to the identical SC without troops. Period!

But troops actually hurt your chances, not help. It does not matter that you or me or anyone else has figured how to get around this weird thing but using non-routing troops or power summons or whatever, it still stands as a violation of a fundamental axiom of war. Superior forces should win more often than lose, not the converse. This is something they taught me when I was an officer in the United States Navy and certainly rings true.

And MOST ESPECIALLY when the superior force is primarily caused by being home and in the presence of Province Defense.

I think the point Boron is trying to make is that the gameplay is balanced, which imo is way more important than any perceived 'realism'. Yes its very quirky that PD can often be a detriment in a high powered SC fight, but this also causes to you to think about your army composition alot more instead of just throwing everything you possibly can at the enemy. You have to consider whether or not your chaff is going to be able to hang with the big boys the duration of the battle and whether or not the big boys should just go in alone. In the end your playing a game whose prime goal is to entertain, not accuratly and scientificaly represent mythical battles.

Bottom line for me, its quirky and i'd like to see it change, but its by no means a priority. I'd much rather see the dev's spend their time adding more content to the game than fixing percieved irrationalities.

[Morphem]

Cheezeninja said:

I think the point Boron is trying to make is that the gameplay is balanced, which imo is way more important than any perceived 'realism'.

Thats the whole point,
gameplay is - unbalanced - because of the current routing system , especially as the AI fails to work around it like players do.

This clearly shows that it's a very basic flaw, and not any perceived irrationality.

[Esben Mose Hansen]

Another, simple idea that would fix this problem: Make armies without troops rout always, without exception. Would make SC use so much more ... interesting. And summoned troops, single point of PD etc. would no longer be a liability, which I agree makes little sense.