now in answer to your mailing let me say.
>I have 4 reasons why it shouldn't : and why the bug should be removed
>
>1) As pointed out by others some alliances chose their
>strategy calculating this bug into their plans.
Simple it is not a rule if they choose to make use of somthing that
should not be in the game thats their fault , nothing wrong in using
it but if it is put right like I said before tough.
>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 ?
thats why you need leaders or call them officers for this discussion.
>True, a mass of people wandering the same road bumb into each other
>contstantly.
its not the bumping into each other its those members of your group
who slope of for a crafty fag when there's work to be done, what you
fail to take into consideration is the fact the with any large number
of troops moved there will be a % who are quite happy to move at their
own pace , ask any NCO in the Armed forces how difficult it is to get
a group of men from a to b, then you have supplies, obvisously the
cost of maintenance in gold covers the need to actually forage for
food, but in a large body of men and animals moving you need forage,
and do not say that the horses can eat on the hoof , well if they did
that they would not be moving anywere so to get around this you
implement some sort of reduction in the movement of the force, so
there is more to why you can not move 300 + men just because it is
over a certain number.
Animals however do not. Ever seen a flock of birds ?
Yes but the flock of birds are flying from instict
>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.
Not true
>I find it easely to understand a trained warmount can do the same.
Rubbish , sorry but the examples you give are all animals acting by
instict , a horse trained to carry a mount in combat is taught to
responde to the commands of the rider, its natural instict is over
taken, but having said that there is one occasion when what you say is
true , its called flight when horse and rider panic or just the horse
panics then the natrual instict kicks in normally leading to unseating
of the rider and the horse mindlessly fleeing from the thing that has
upset it, so this I do not think really is any help , unless the rules
allow your army to flee from a - b but when you get to b what good
will they be?
>One of the great advantages of riding horses used in mediaval combat
>was to charge.
Yes very true but it was not over the distance of 20-30 miles was it
if you look at battle fields like Agincourt and Plessy you will notice
that the distance covered was very short and most of it was covered at
walking pace, and by the time they had reached fuul spped gaps would
have appeared as some rode faster than others ground caused the change
in direction being amoung some of the factors that would effect the
charge.
Mounted knights rode into the enemy at full speed, riding
>as close to eachother as posible.
yes you are right they tried to stay knee to knee but they rarly
managed to maintain such a thing.
>3) When 1 trader runs a trade route on horseback. Using 50 horses for
added speed, should he/she be penalized too ?
efectivly yes, but if the horses are tied together then the herd
instict would be stronger and as such it would be easier , but in
reality they would be slowed down but not as much as an army on the
march.
I don't think so. Then
what is the
difference when the horses are loaded with men rather then goods ?
The horses as I said tend to be roped together and lead , rather than
ridden by a human being with all the associated problems that entails
>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.
Of course you would, that is only reasonable.
>Put them behind your 80 defence castle walls and he doesn't stand a
>chance.
Yes right again
Thats why laying siege to a castle in medievel times was a torrid long
drawn out affair unless the attacker could concentrate enough man
power and resources to capture it in assult they draged on for up to a
year.
That is why in campaigns in medievial times the attacker would try and
tie up the enemy in the castle then distroy his infrastucture as the
Black Prince did in southern France during the Hundred years war, it
was only when the English abandouned their aggresive tactics to one of
holdoing castles the French began to make signifact gains.
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.
I'm sorry what do want , you want it put on a plate , bloody hell if
it had been easy then England would not have been bankrupt by Henry V
actions in France, there would not have been a war of the Roses, the
French proberbly not of done so bad at the beginning of the war and
history would be littered with hundreds of examples were people
recuited forces rushed across from one side of France to the other in
a couple of days to fight a battle.
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.
Hence the simple tactic ogf forcing you enemy behind his castle walls
and pillageing his resources he then would not be able to support his
army , they would starve to death and after a few turns you would be
in a posytion to demand his surrender or even be able to storm the
castle.
So it needs a commitment of
>NP. But 28 nobles are hardly ever worth the effort.
>
BUT REALISTIC
>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.
>
NO its somthing that is wrong if put right he does not have to warn
anyone , but it would be nice if he did.
>Maybe Rich can make a public announcement, stating his oppinion ?
>That way we also know if the bug will be fixed eventually.
>
>
> Ruben.
>
>
Sorry to go on , but and I know people are going to say that the game
is a fantasy wargame/roleplaying game but you have to keep one foot in
reality and the system of the larger the army the slower it goes is a
simple way of representing the problems in herrent in such a thing ,
the only way you should be able to move troops quickly is by having
sufficient leaders to do so , in a modern army an infantry section has
up 4 NCO for every 10 men and so on , if you were to force march
people they would be exhausted a would fight at a reduced ability, so
I'm afraid your arugemnts carry little water.
Colin
(Somtimes known as Hugh O'Neil)
P.S.
Every body do not listen to colin his an idiot, keep the bug use more
horses , come and buy my lovely horses, come on I'm cutting me own
Throat here
Hugh O'Neil
(somtimes known as the gibbering idiot Colin)