I do not agree with this. Riding still has a huge value and there is
nothing wrong with small stacks as it emphasises quality over
quantity.
> If you move with 100 troops on horses to a plain with 1 noble, it takes you
> 14 days ???? Without horses it takes you 17 days, the difference is not big
> enough. It only takes 3 extra days with horses, I can imagine the
> difference to be bigger.
The point is the rules were changed to stop one noble running around
with a huge army. If with the above example you use 2 nobles the
figures are 9 days riding and 12 days. Still only 3 days difference
but it is a 25% increase in speed which is about right I feel.
>
> Anyway, the movement penalty makes war almost impossible. The only way you
> can win something is landing with boats and destroying a coastal castle. But
> try to take over a castle in the middle of a continent?? And you must admit
> the game is about war, I think troops are way too immobile in Olympia. It
> takes 10 turns to reach a remote castle-site or enemy location, in that time
> nobles start making an army that can wipe your expedition out. Now a tactic
> is moving into enemy territory and making an army, and that isn't the way
> wars were fought in the middle-ages is it?
Depends what sort of war you want. Personally I hate the idea of one
huge stack just moving in on the nearest castle. If you are forced to
use smaller stacks to cover the distance in a reasonable time then
you use quality troops. As a wise man once said to me "It doesn't
take a lot of finesse to build a heap of pike and roll them across
the border." Beasts start becoming useful and not just window
dressing. If you were going to put together a raiding force and you
wanted to move fast then suddenly things like Chimera and Giant
Spiders start looking like they are worth the time to breed.
Conversely with people using small forces then patrolling and
defending the borders start becoming essential.
It also means nobles become even more valuable. If you are going to
mount a serious attack you will need a lot of nobles. That means you
either have to use a large slice of your alliance or hire in
mercenaries, etc etc. I am finding that in the current war that I do
not have enough nobles to leave some at the rear building more
weapons, etc.. But I have lots of offers for people to sell me
weapons and other services. And they are charging what can only
be described as a war premium. This can only be good for the game in
the long run.
> The game lacks here IMHO, and that's why there is a detente and not a global
> war. And I think a detente shouldn't happen because of radical movement
> penalties. I really miss a good raiding party destroying my garrisons coming
> to my castle :))
I will oblige as soon as possible :-)
No one really wants global war and it isn't good for the game.
However at the moment no one wants to start a war because they are
worried everyone will jump in. When people realise it is difficult to
jump in unless there is a coast involved (and it isn't defended) then
people will be more willing to start small local wars and raids.
This way if you defend your borders properly then the center of your
realm should be peaceful. It also makes castles more important. If
you have smaller stacks then castles are harder to destroy. This
makes them more valuable to guard borders. A serious attacker
couldn't leave a castle at his rear. A raider however wouldn't care
so you will have to patrol as well.
I have felt with catapults weighing so little and being so effective
that it was too easy to take out a castle. As I have said they act
more like horse drawn artillery than siege engines.
And with raiders all those inns, temples and mines etc should really
be guarded now.
And if you look at medieval history it most certainly was fought by
extremely small groups of men and the elite troops carried the day.
Border raiding between baronies was the order of the day and most
effective control was over a very small area due to the slowness of
movement. And they didn't worry about the countries on the other side
of the continent coming to anyones aid. They new it would take ages
to arrive and the battle would be decided by then.
Anyway look at the Dwarven army in Eastern Harn near the coast. I
think they have about 8 nobles in the one stack. That means a one day
penalty for every 80 troops after the first 80. That is what you need
if you are waging a serious war. That is why I was so outraged at the
movement bug. You could mount that attack with two nobles while your
others were at home in front of the fire.
On a final note I didn't play in G1 so the change in movement rules
doesn't seem like such a big shock to me I guess. I am in TAG and I
am still getting used to the fact it doesn't matter how many men a
stack has. I keep splitting my men up and leaving nobles stacked
together. I think the speed we are moving in TAG is way too fast. So
I think it could also be one of those things where it takes a while
to get used to the whole system. I've noticed most g1 players
run lone nobles where most of us newbies run stacks with at least two
nobles for moving.
Andrew/Jheremai