> It doesn't affect game play that much; you just have to keep your
> garrisons small and your armies in the hands of necromancers. Which
> makes it harder to exploit the "beats in garrisons don't die" bug. And
> that's good.
See, I really disagree with the idea that having to keep your armies in the
hands of necromancers not affecting game play that much.
I think that affects the game drastically.
NPs are the only commodity in the game that matters. Gold, men, tradegoods,
iron, etc can all be gotten quickly and cheaply within the game, but NPs are
extremely limited (and in some cases because of bugs, once lost, never
return).
The fact that the only protection from an aurablast is being a necromancer
means that all armies now cost 2 NP more then they should. And if you want
to utilize a mixture of frontline troops and missle troops, you would
actually need 2 necromancers (4 NP) to guard against aurablasts - one leading
the front troops, and one with the missle troops.
Without the threat of aurablasts, an army stack could be effectively lead
with 2-4 NPs, depending on whether you wanted to oath the nobles. Aurablast
protection effectively doubles the amount of NPs needed to lead the same
stack, and taken to the logical conclusion, means you will have half as many
stacks in your army.
Just my 2 cents, but I've often thought that there should be some sort of
aurablast protection available other than becoming a necromancer. The
ability to create a magic item, or a spell similar to immunity to vision,
both sound like great ideas to me.
Eric the Seehawk