> Right lets start a fight over the bug, it is a bug and there for not a
> rule it does not appear in the rules and is therefore not a rule
> simple, so if you use it and it gets corrected tough, I use it and if
> it was corrected without warning I would just have to say bugger and
> accept it.
>
true
> 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.
>
are you using your commas in the right places? because I can't seem to make
anything of that sentence... sorry
> >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.
>
so what you're saying is that when there's just the one noble and the one
horse, neither one of them has to eat? It's only when there's at least ten of
each that eating is needed?Because if we follow your line of thought, that's
what we'd have to conclude...
I think there's a logic behind a large group of men travelling on foot getting
a movin-penalty then the same number travelling on horseback. And I also
realize that this might make horses too powerful in the game, so why not try to
find a solution to that problem. Here goes: smaller penalties on foot, fix the
bug of no penalties on horse, but keeping it relative to the penalty on foot
AND increase the mortality rate of horses. It might solve things a little...
> Animals however do not. Ever seen a flock of birds ?
>
> Yes but the flock of birds are flying from instict
PURE instinct? you're underestimating animals here I think. There's not even a
flicker of a thought in a birds brain? Ask my friend Mike, he'll tell you
otherwise. Right Mikey? :)
> >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
Not taking any sides here, but how do you know what he saw?
>
>
> >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?
I don't buy it... sorry, I don't :)
>
>
> >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.
You're right on that point
> 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.
both right, I guess
> >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.
nah, same deal... (you've got a strong feeling about that instinct business,
haven't you?)
> 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
So a bunch of horses, roped together is better? I disagree... actually I think
the leading horses will probably be slowed down by the horses pulling the rope
to its limit... It's like cars in front of a trafic light... The light turns
green and never ever will you see all the cars starting to move at the same
time... (now don't get started that cars don't have instincts, because I know
for a fact mine HAS ... well at least it's got a mind of its own :))
> >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.
He's got a point there... If you recall Hitlers Blitz Krieg through Europe...
well, they don't call it a BLITZ krieg for nothing (blitz=lightning, flash) A
fast surprise attack SHOULD leave an unprepared ennemy stunned... (and I'm
stressing unprepared)
> >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.
Yes, but back then a castle had it's defenses AT ALL TIMES, that's not the case
in Olympia... and I don't think any of the players want to be shacked up in a
castle all the time.
> 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.
No, that's because a battle back then took a long time, in Olympia an attack
command is solved in ONE DAY.
> 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.
Wow, talk about taking the fun out of the game ( I repeat GAME, GAME,
GAME!!!)You honestly want to spend dozens of turns just doing that?
> So it needs a commitment of
> >NP. But 28 nobles are hardly ever worth the effort.
> >
>
> BUT REALISTIC
I do agree that more nobles should be involved, but we have to keep in mind
that not everyone is part of an alliance... If an alliance were to attack a
single faction with 28 nobles, then I fell that that faction should be able to
defend itself with at least a few nobles (supposing an equal amount of fighting
troops) So imposing a too strict moving rule is out of the question.
> >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.
Ok, it's wrong, but changing it without warning? we're not talking about a
little trade bug here, we're talking about troops suddenly feeling an
incredible urge to slander... Going somewhere in twice the time... I think
that's something too important not be warned about...
> >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.
If you want more realism in Olympia, they would probably start using experience
points with skills, a more realistic way to deal with combat (because this one
is NOT realistic at all), a larger set of orders, etc... I personally think the
game would lose it's Olympia-appeal and become just another RPG game or AD&D
look-alike...
> 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
Dibbler?
>
>
> Hugh O'Neil
> (somtimes known as the gibbering idiot Colin)
Disembowel-Myself-Honourably Diblah (Christophe Desmecht)