Re: OLY: Combat Change Idea

From: morrow@newton.texel.com (John Morrow)

Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 00:00:00 +0000

arendas@telepac.pt (Antonio Joao Rendas) writes:
>EVEN if the percentage system and the hunting days (great idea,the
>army can't spot the lone party instanly,however,they spread out to
>hunt them-perhaps a new "camouflage" skill?) is too complicated to
>implement right now,huge stacks should NOT be allowed to attack lone
>nobles,or small groups of them,since it kills party exploration.

Players who own lands need at least a chance of attacking even a lone
noble.  If they can't, the lone noble becomes the perfect spy which
will be incredibly frustrating for the person being spied on.  Add
in the "sneak into the tower and assassinate" aspect and this becomes
a big problem.  Any system that protects lone nobles or small bands
must allow for landowners having at least a chance of stopping them,
probably via attacking (a "prohibit" system where a landowner could
"prohibit" small factions could be used to "box in" non-combat units).

>Please
>note I say parties of nobles,not a noble and less than 10 units,since
>if you allow that huge armies would be allowed to travel along enemy
>territory easilly if they splitted themselves into small groups and
>then rejoined somewhere (still requires a ton of nobles though) ,don't
>know if you want that to happen.

Well the same split group of nobles could muster a fairly large number
of peasants fairly quickly deep inside enemy territory, especially if
they started at a month boundary..  In addition, the current
Teleportation system makes even a lone noble a potentially deadly
problem (see the castle taken with the dragons teleported in).  Again,
there is no such thing as a harmless unit so any unit should have a
chance of being stopped.  And I think that chance should be higher
when the attacker is on their own turf.

John Morrow