Army move block

[Bullock]

Well it seems to be the most common forbidden game trick which can cause some drama in any game.I was wondering why they were no patching about that. But since it s certainly a problem that rise with the game there is prolly a lot of good reasons why they were no modification made about that.

Anyway i ll make a suggestion hoping it could improve this aspect of the game and maybe, in some way, some of the overall strategy too.

Actually if you send a commander, spy ... whatever, on an army who's moving into an hostile prov, you will block it.
Drama may shows up when people instead of sending only a commander will send few troops with him to get around of this rule.

My idea was to change this systematic blocking by taking in consideration the size of both armies:
If the "blocking" army represent, for instance, only the fifth or less of the "blocked" army in a matter of size then the "blocked" army should be able to move after the combat resolution.

Above the fact that this will allow people to probe with a commander, it will also add some more strategy to manage the blocking of an army. (you have to guess the minimum size of your "blocking army", you have to consider if the cost to block the army worst it, and also they will be the aspect of failure with the lost of gold that goes with it.)

[thejeff]

Last time I checked, it wasn't consistent. You might block the army. You might not move yourself. You might switch places.

Some have argued that size matters in figuring out which happens, but I don't think it's been proven.

It's still a good trick, worth doing even if it's fallible.

It's also hard to fix reliably. Remember there are some solo units that can slaughter that army. Should they also have no chance of blocking it?

[Bullock]

Yeah i also think about SC. So indeed they are too small in size to block an army but maybe we could add an other parameters like the casualties made by the "blocking army".

But it s getting maybe too complicate. So let just say SC won't block army.

[JonBrave]

What about 2 SCs, or 3.. ?

[Bullock]

Originally Posted by JonBrave

What about 2 SCs, or 3.. ?

Well you stack the size and see if you reach the minimum requirement to block the army

[Soyweiser]

That makes no sense, then the SC's would be at risk more. The chaff could cause the SC's to flee, if the total hp left drops under 25%.

[Bullock]

Originally Posted by Soyweiser

That makes no sense, then the SC's would be at risk more. The chaff could cause the SC's to flee, if the total hp left drops under 25%.

I really don't get your point Soy.
Why SC would be at risk ? Why chaff would make the SC more likely to flee with my idea ?

The impact on the fight sequence is null.
You just take in consideration the size of both armies before or after the fight and then let the "blocked army" move or not.

[Samhain]

I would think the rule could work well enough if it was based on the number of turns before a route. If the battle lasts X number of turns or more, the block occurs. If it lasts X - 1 or less, the army that was attacked in its starting province still moves.

[Bullock]

Originally Posted by Samhain

I would think the rule could work well enough if it was based on the number of turns before a route. If the battle lasts X number of turns or more, the block occurs. If it lasts X - 1 or less, the army that was attacked in its starting province still moves.

I had also this possibility in mind. But i thought they were prolly too many tricks too lengthen a fight to be a reliable way.

But it can also be an other possibility indeed.

[Deathblob]

What, you run the battle in both provs? Because the time-to-rout depends a lot on whose province it is you're fighting in, because of both PD and morale (dom) effects. You could get entirely different results in the two fights, depending on who doesn't make their save, or who gets hit with a meteor.

You can't do it by total size either, or Pan/Ermor will always get priority over Vanheim/Aby, etc.