This seems like it could use a little tweaking to me. I have a stack of 3 leaders and 4 units with an aggressive posture. The main leader becomes inactive but I am able to take him out of the stack to continue the aggressive posture using his subordinate leaders. Removing leaders from stacks for this purpose does not ring true. Surely if the main leader in a stack becomes inactive all his subordinate leaders should also become inactive for that turn?
If Amherst decides to winter at a fort his subordinates should not be able to ignore this decision and press on with an attack.
Cheers, Chris
As an addition I think units starting a turn in an inactive stack should only be able to transfer to an active leader stack if that leader is of higher rank. Otherwise they should only be able to transfer to leaderless stacks for the next turn. Any leader joining an inactive stack would immediately also become inactive unless of a higher rank.
Any thoughts? Is this not the sort of effect that you wish to be shown by active or inactive status? It would seem that at times the model can have flaws.
Cheers, Chris
Any thoughts? Is this not the sort of effect that you wish to be shown by active or inactive status? It would seem that at times the model can have flaws.
Cheers, Chris
The current system has some unsatisfying things, that we agree, but so far the ideal solution, between historicity & player fun has not been found, and perhaps this is because people see things differently, so you can't please anyone.
We wanted to allow the possibility for a subordinate to be detached with some troops, even if the main leader was inactive.
We have planned to have a new rule so that detaching the highest ranked inactive leader should give a penalty to the player, but we don't want to enforce anything too strict, because:
1- it would screw the AI, who don't like hard rules but prefers incentive.
2- This would frustrate many, except perhaps the hard core historical buffs
We wanted to allow the possibility for a subordinate to be detached with some troops, even if the main leader was inactive.
We have planned to have a new rule so that detaching the highest ranked inactive leader should give a penalty to the player, but we don't want to enforce anything too strict, because:
1- it would screw the AI, who don't like hard rules but prefers incentive.
2- This would frustrate many, except perhaps the hard core historical buffs
Hofstadter's Law: "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's law."
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests