Slitherine

It would be nice if as per the Double Move option there was an option to have an alternate method of Army Morale Break Point. The points for each unit would be added up and the side that loses 30% of their points loses the battle. A unit that Fragments would cause its side to lose half of the units points. A unit that routs would be worth full points loss.

Not only would this remove the equation of light troops with quality troops but it would be more historical.

The main CON to this I suppose is that folks would do more risky things with their skirmishers ....

Anyway, just a thought. As it would be optional this would show up in the Multiplayer format and folks could just pass on playing those that choose it ....

Old_Warrior wrote:It would be nice if as per the Double Move option there was an option to have an alternate method of Army Morale Break Point. The points for each unit would be added up and the side that loses 30% of their points loses the battle. A unit that Fragments would cause its side to lose half of the units points. A unit that routs would be worth full points loss.

Not only would this remove the equation of light troops with quality troops but it would be more historical.

The main CON to this I suppose is that folks would do more risky things with their skirmishers ....

Anyway, just a thought. As it would be optional this would show up in the Multiplayer format and folks could just pass on playing those that choose it ....

I like this idea although there are some units that are very expensive yet have limited real value that could skew the intent ( elephants, artillery etc)
As for skirmishes, combine such a rule that skirmishes cant "hold" vs heavy troops in open and it will be impossible to use them a historically as cannon fodder.

I fully agree with you on the light troops "hold" order. Frankly all HOLD orders should be AI instead or just dump the entire code. Its like saying that skirmishers in the Napoleonic period would hold up Cuirassiers en route to destroying a hussar regiment. Like the skirmishers could really do THAT historically. Same goes for bowmen trying to stop knights. Even if the "charge" of these periods was a bit different than in Napoleon's time I find it hard to believe that Robin Hood and his Merry Men (on foot) are going to stop Sheriff John and his mounted knights ... In the OPEN that is.

Old_Warrior wrote:I fully agree with you on the light troops "hold" order. Frankly all HOLD orders should be AI instead or just dump the entire code. Its like saying that skirmishers in the Napoleonic period would hold up Cuirassiers en route to destroying a hussar regiment. Like the skirmishers could really do THAT historically. Same goes for bowmen trying to stop knights. Even if the "charge" of these periods was a bit different than in Napoleon's time I find it hard to believe that Robin Hood and his Merry Men (on foot) are going to stop Sheriff John and his mounted knights ... In the OPEN that is.

I agree 100% in terms of historical appeal but: the always evade never evade options were input as a patch to correct an even WORSE situation. Orginally there was no option and it was always "ai evade". This led to a horrible ping pong effect where POOR quality light foot were kings of the (skirmishing)battlefield. Theyd always evade to safety when a better quality/weapons skirmishers shunted em out of the way, but then you could ALWAYS pin a better skirmisher with a weaker one and and then wack it w heavier BG's. The game play was .... not good. I think that larger penalties for CMT check to hold would resolve many of the issues. (or reduce light foot movement to 3 instead of 4 so they cant gallop along with cavalry ha ha.)