The rules indeed differ from reality. As such the
ommited movement penalty can be qualified as a bug.
However, I wonder if we want this bug to be fixed ?
I have 4 reasons why it shouldn't :
1) As pointed out by others some alliances chose their
strategy calculating this bug into their plans.
2) In reality : Why is the movement penaly imposed ?
I would think if 300 men had only one leader, things would be
totaly chaotic and lots of time would be lost,
hence the extra days, right ?
True, a mass of people wandering the same road bumb into eachother
contstantly. Animals however do not. Ever seen a flock of birds ?
They all follow 1 leader, and almost never collide.
Same for wild horses. They run at 50-60 an hour, yet I never saw one fall,
or be tripped by another.
I find it easely to understand a trained warmount can do the same.
One of the great advantages of riding horses used in mediaval combat
was to charge. Mounted knights rode into the enemy at full speed, riding
as close to eachother as posible.
3) When 1 trader runs a traderoute on horseback. Using 50 horses for added
speed, should he/she be penalized too ? I don't think so. Then what is the
difference when the horses are loaded with men rather then goods ?
4) Last, but not least. Suppose Sir Codric was on foot and walked into
your lands ? As it would take him 10 turns to get to your castle. All you
had to do is use 3 to 4 nobles and start recruiting and training soldiers
and X-bowmen. By the time he would arrive you 'ld have an equal force.
Put them behind your 80 defence castle walls and he doesn't stand a
chance. My point : Movement penalties are hard enough as it is. Land
combat away from port cities is costly ( but as Oleg said nothing a good
management can't handle ) and you must outnumber you foe hugely. Sending
more troops isn't doing any good, they would slow you even more and allow
your ennemy more time to bring up his defence. So it needs a commitment of
NP. But 28 nobles are hardly ever worth the effort.
In conclusion. Ok it is a bug. but it was reported and wasn't fixed.
Maybe Rich doesn't want it to be fixed ? I for one agree ( as do others )
If you would make a post in the next Times issue everybody knows, and
everone can adjust his strategies accordingly.
Maybe Rich can make a public announcement, stating his oppinion ?
That way we also know if the bug will be fixed eventually.
Ruben.