
Originally Posted by
Foot
... gold chevroned peasants stand as gods on the battlefield. ...
Yes there is a "resolution" problem with the improvement in a unit over 10 levels of experience, especially at the bottom end. A slinger witrh "1" attack, plus 9 for experience winds up being ten times as deadly, whereas a unit with 10 attack merely doubles its deadliness.
The proposed autodisbanding militia feature will go a long way to fixing this I'm sure.
I do like the idea of some experience being available. Military doctrine does recognise the value of veteran troops over greenhorns.
I see this as a factor when translating historically described units into game terms. Alexander's men kicked some, big time. The Romans managed to beat the later Macedonians who used a similar unit set-so do we rate Romans higher than the victors of Gaugemela?
I see part of this equation being Alexander's army included a huge proportion of veterans of Philllips many campaigns, whereas the Diadochi troops the Romans fought were probably less well lead but also less "professional", that is not having been in the field as a cohesive force for sustained periods.
IIRC there's an episode in the Gallic wars where Caesar hires a mercenary German cav unit which procedess to trounce all the Gallic cav it meets. Is this because the German cav is intrinsically better, or was it an experienced unit vs green ones?
I'm confident there will be a sensible position reached in the way the game is presented. Pretty much every decision has been subject to examination.
On the question of Epic-ness (epic-osity? epic-centricity?), I think its there.
I think we're seeing at least the same attention to detail, respect for the sources, and love of the subject than in EB1. Certainly the excellent work already done meets the highest standard we could set. Its a luxury having dedicated people doing such a thorough job for free.
Bookmarks