Slitherine

azrael86 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

azrael86 wrote:why do drilled and undrilled troops of the same grade display the same characteristics (in effect ferocity)?

Why shouldn't they? Drill means drill, not weapons training or ferocity.


You may disagree, in which case we must agree to disagree.

So you are saying that it is a simple interpretation chosen for ease of play at the expense of variety?

I think avoiding the need for this argument over terminology was why the rules use the term "Drilled/Undrilled" rather than provocative terms such as "Trained/Untrained" or "Civilized/Barbarians."

azrael86 wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:

azrael86 wrote:why do drilled and undrilled troops of the same grade display the same characteristics (in effect ferocity)?

Why shouldn't they? Drill means drill, not weapons training or ferocity.


You may disagree, in which case we must agree to disagree.

So you are saying that it is a simple interpretation chosen for ease of play at the expense of variety?

No. I am saying that the differentiation you wish to make is based on premises with which we do not agree.

define 'ferocity' in terms of game outcome - you reckon they dish out more damage but take more damage also? Surely how much damage they take and give is dependent on the opponent as well . i.e. it is the ability of both sides to take and give damage that gives the end result. Romans had to deal with crazy nutjobs all the time, but in most cases their training and equipment restricted the amount of damage the crazies could dish out, and they gave plenty in return, even though they are themselves not nutjobs.

FoG does model that - the best way: simply - because POA, whtever their source, cancel out to give a NET effect.

crazy nutjobs in, my opinion, is modelled by impact foot, and possibly a superior grading where appropriate. How much damage they dish out and recieve cant be calculated in isolation. Their opponents will either cancel those POAs or they wont.

edit:

game design usually involves drawing a line in the sand with what must be modelled, then abstracting the mechanics as much as possible (for the sake of speed and simplicity) At some point you will have to stop abstracting or loose the factors you want to model.

FoG didnt have to have armor gradings and light spears, and sword/skilled swords. they could have just assigned every troop type an impact effectiveness (0, 1, 2), and a melee effectivesness and left it at that. obviously the designers felt those factors were to important to model. the points you were trying to make - those that havent been washed away by facts so far - wernt on the designers 'must model' list. they were abstracted away.

On the contrary, combats (battles) in Afghanistan are quite short. It's the wars that go on and on...

The obviously undrilled Afghannis are better at not dieing then.

I think they are really good in denying.

dwarriors wrote:I think they are really good in denying.

Did it really take you 22 months to come up with that response?

dave_r wrote:

dwarriors wrote:I think they are really good in denying.

Did it really take you 22 months to come up with that response?

Dave, did you imagine it may be a new person to the board that you could risk being polite too?

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote:

dwarriors wrote:I think they are really good in denying.

Did it really take you 22 months to come up with that response?

Dave, did you imagine it may be a new person to the board that you could risk being polite too?

Quite - it was the guy's first post.

Dave please be polite to new members - you can trade quips when you know each other better.

nikgaukroger wrote:Quite - it was the guy's first post.

Dave please be polite to new members - you can trade quips when you know each other better.

Yeah, you d**k Dave.


Don't worry Mr Warriors, nobody is ever polite to Dave.

nikgaukroger wrote:

hazelbark wrote:

dave_r wrote: Did it really take you 22 months to come up with that response?

Dave, did you imagine it may be a new person to the board that you could risk being polite too?

Quite - it was the guy's first post.

Dave please be polite to new members - you can trade quips when you know each other better.

I does seem a bit strange that someone's first post is a bizarre (intended to be humerous maybe, I don't know) response to a 2 year old thread though !?