MP Honour

[Dwimmerlaik]

What d'you think of this...Instead of MP honour being based on just wins or losses aginst higher or lower honour opponents, base it on an overall kill ratio.

This would mean that even of you have routed your opponent against horrible casualties he gets some honour from the battle rather than nothing. This also rewards victories won by generals who slaughter large numbers of troops for few losses (say 5:1 or something like that). Hopefully, this would reward the quality of online battles rather than the quantity.

If y'all are sick to death of hearing about this topic feel free to ralph...i have a mop and bucket at the ready

------------------
To be happy it is necessary not to be too intelligent
- Flaubert-

[ShadowKill]

ok think of this. i send two groups of cav behind you in the path of your men that flee what is going to happen. hmm they are going to kill just about every man that is running off the field and the results from that would be to drastic. my humble two cents

------------------
Fear not the sword to your front, but the blade at your back.

[Dwimmerlaik]

Hmmm....true, true but does that mean you do not deserve some credit for having the cav units there in the first place? That's an example of superior tactical placement and well worth some credit in my opinion.

------------------
To be happy it is necessary not to be too intelligent
- Flaubert-

[Rob]

As far as I'm concerned, in 1v1 battles, winner takes all is fine by me. Often my greatest victories are those won by a narrow margin. I'll give you an example:

Recently I fought a battle on Totomi, in the summer, 8000 koku. I picked my standard army, 4 h3 Yari Sam, 4 h3 Samurai Archers, 4 h3 Warrior Monks, 2 h3 Naginata, 2 h4 No-Dachi. My enemy had 16 h2 Warrior Monks.

I partially suspected this, since my enemy, who shall remain nameless, has a reputation for being a monk rusher (or just a rusher in general). To cut a long story short, my Taisho was killed and part of my army was routed, but I hung on and managed to rout the enemy and kill the Taisho also. This was a very close victory, but winner takes all. That's how it goes and everyone accepts that IMO.

Rewarding massive victories rewards players for playing mismatched battles. IMO it is a far greater achievement to win narrowly, as I described above, coming back from the brink of defeat to win, than smash your enemy to pieces and pick up loads of kills as his men flee.

Consider also this possibility: I host a game on, say, Suruga. Middle of winter. I have archers and also unlimited ammo and enough cav to chase the enemy down the hill after my monks rout them. I will almost definitely get an outrageous kill ratio, but is this victory more skillful than the previous example? I think not .

[solypsist]

Nope. Often games are won and finished when the enemy routs and there is no hope of recovery. I would be angry if I had routed the entire army but before I could sweep in with my cav to increase kills, the game ended (as it often does) and the opponent won because he had killed a few more than I had the opportunity to.Basically, whoever routs is pretty much done for (if the battle were allowed to continue indefinitely), so regardless of kills the victory system works fine for me.

[Obake]

What I don't understand is why online honor is not handled in the same way it is handled in custom games. When playing the AI, it is quite easy to see that they have incorporated kill/loss ratios with a 500 point bonus for emerging victorious. The way this is set up, even someone who loses the battle can emerge with more honor than the victor because of HOW they fought!

Victories and losses could still be tracked, but online honor would be based on individual performance, not just on whether you won/lost or who you played!



------------------
Obake

We are but shadows of our former selves and the sons and daughters of lions have become sheep. I am the ghost of our past.

[The Black Ship]

I'm a butcher, both on my enemy, and on my own men. Like a Zhukov or Grant all I want is the victory, don't care squat how it occurs. Consequently my kill/loss ratio isn't exemplary.I'll leave it to you Lees and Pattons to make war look pretty. Therefore I must regretfully decline to endorse your proposal

[This message has been edited by The Black Ship (edited 11-15-2000).]

[solypsist]

Blacky,

you were a British officer in the American Revolution in a past life, weren't you?


[This message has been edited by solypsist (edited 11-16-2000).]

[The Black Ship]

Once more into the breach boys!!!

[Heims30]

Seeing as how we're talking about honor here, I think Obake is right - whoever fights better should get the honor, not necessarily who wins. Winner should get some honor for winning, but honorable fighters should recieve recognition as well.

[ShadowKill]

what if you are using only one unit like maybe in low koku games would you then start having games that have 120 unit size? or 4 high honour what ever to stop a player from gaining honour by killing alot of men and while you still get alot of kills. so even thou you might lose you would have one hell of a kill ratio. and then to counter this evryone starts taking alot of arrows and guns. and a couple a uint just to gaurd them.
there are more but that would be to long of a story for a what if ????

------------------
Fear not the sword to your front, but the blade at your back.

[Dwimmerlaik]

Easy there boys, I was just trying to think of a way to reward skill in battle not just based on who routs who at the end...I was thinking of some kind of system like the custom battle honor thingie that awards both players some honor for the battle with the bulk going to the winner of course. Whether that is feasible is another matter, but I can dream can I not?

------------------
To be happy it is necessary not to be too intelligent
- Flaubert-