Feedback / Comments

[Choso]

Something for next version. Something that I will feel be a problem soon.

Two enemy armies using the same path to attack each others location. At that point it becomes a game of chicken. Who retreats who presses the attack?

Both retreat = a whole lotta nothing and both parties have the same predicament next turn.

Both press the attack provided neither one can mount a significant defense. Then both armies are probably disjointed and both will suffer 75 percent supply.

I'd like to see a field battle mechanic winner gets to press the attack on the location.

[GN007SG]

Something for next version. Something that I will feel be a problem soon.

Two enemy armies using the same path to attack each others location. At that point it becomes a game of chicken. Who retreats who presses the attack?

Both retreat = a whole lotta nothing and both parties have the same predicament next turn.

Both press the attack provided neither one can mount a significant defense. Then both armies are probably disjointed and both will suffer 75 percent supply.

I'd like to see a field battle mechanic winner gets to press the attack on the location.

they will meet in the middle of the road and battle it out right there...
this is a logical scenario in rl

[Krimzon]

Something for next version. Something that I will feel be a problem soon.

Two enemy armies using the same path to attack each others location. At that point it becomes a game of chicken. Who retreats who presses the attack?

Both retreat = a whole lotta nothing and both parties have the same predicament next turn.

Both press the attack provided neither one can mount a significant defense. Then both armies are probably disjointed and both will suffer 75 percent supply.

I'd like to see a field battle mechanic winner gets to press the attack on the location.

they will meet in the middle of the road and battle it out right there...
this is a logical scenario in rl

Or, join up and realize there's enough plunder for everyone!

[Titania]

So I was thinking the other day about ways that troop difference could affect the battle. For example, taking something we've seen several times this version where someone is outnumbered significantly and it has no affect, rather, it's more of a downfall to the larger army because of the way the percentages work. I think that on top of having the percentages, we should also have troop differences influence morale, to an extent. The scenario I was kind of leaning toward was any troop difference within 20% has no penalty, but anything beyond the 20% would. So say there's a 25% difference between the troop numbers, the army with the lower number would take a 5% penalty (the 25% difference minus the 20% ignored) to their morale simply because they're outnumbered. Another larger example is if the battle is 2:1 in someone's favor, the penalty to the smaller armies morale would be 30% (it's 50% difference minus the 20% ignored). NB and I ran a few scenarios, and it seems like its not too abyssmal. I'll have some numbers below for examples. Again, it would only affect the morale, which would lower the overall damage without affecting percentiles.

4000 (100) vs 5000 (100) - difference is 20%, no effect. Morale stays the same.
4000 (100) vs 5500 (100) - difference is greater than 20% at 27%, so there would be a 7% drop to morale, making it 4000 (93).
4000 (100) vs 6000 (100) - difference is greater than 20% at 33%, so there would be a 13% drop to morale, making it 4000 (87).
4000 (100) vs 8000 (100) - difference is greater than 20% at 50%, so there would be a 30% drop to morale, making it 4000 (70).

I think this reflects the effect of having a smaller army face a larger army, it's hard to expect morale to be sky high when staring at an invader (or defender, on the flip side) that far outnumbers you. This would be on top of the way things are now, and would only take into account the number of troops in that specific battle, not overall numbers.

[Phailak]

The idea is to romanticize combat a bit where a small group can hold their own against a much larger force. Troop numbers already affect a LOT in battle including the only win condition right now. Maybe if we find a way to bring back morale and supply impacts, this won't be as much of an issue to some.

I mean, I get it, some people didn't like seeing their armies struggling against smaller foes but I don't remember it having a HUGE impact on battle and it's good for bigger armies to actually suffer some losses else they just steam roll once they get big enough, I'd argue for it to go more the other way and stats and tactics have a MUCH bigger impact on casualties so that Lu Bu with 1000 troops can beat Cao Bao with 10 000. We'd have to test

[CapoJoe]

What does COM MIG ING JUD CHA stand for? I can't seem to find them anywhere on the Rules section.
I can safely assume CHA is Charisma, and my guess for Jud and Com is Judgement and Command. MIG and ING I have no idea what those could be.

[Mal Tijie]

Might and Intelligence

[CapoJoe]

Might and Intelligence

Why ING for Intelligence when the most common acronym is INT? We all here have played the RoTK series, or I assume most of us have and are basing this off of, and it uses INT for each game.

Secondly, is there anywhere on the forum where these 5 attributes are used for, by which I mean examples to get a better understanding? I can imagine MIG determines power in duels or battle. What about JUD? What is that used for?

[TheSoupStar]

Might and Intelligence

Why ING for Intelligence when the most common acronym is INT? We all here have played the RoTK series, or I assume most of us have and are basing this off of, and it uses INT for each game.

Secondly, is there anywhere on the forum where these 5 attributes are used for, by which I mean examples to get a better understanding? I can imagine MIG determines power in duels or battle. What about JUD? What is that used for?

As far as I'm aware there's no condensed list, it's just scattered throughout the rules. But all the stats are used for different things (someone please correct me if I'm wrong in any of these or if I forgot something crucial. I think I got the most important part):

COM contributes to your melee layer attack and defense if you're the layer commander. It also adds 10 to the total amount of troops you can field per point of COM. It can also increase your support layer attack if you're the support layer commander.
MIG contributes to your melee layer attack if you're the layer commander, and greatly contributes to your effectiveness in duels, adjusting your damage and directly correlating to your health (10 HP per point of MIG).
ING contributes to your support layer attack and defense if you're support layer commander.
JUD contributes to your melee layer defense if you're layer commander, or your support layer defense if you're support layer commander.
CHA contributes to your effectiveness in duels as well as increasing your ability to draw people into them. Higher CHA also makes it so your officer effectiveness regenerates faster.

Then in the rules category under "Reference tables" you can find a list of all the skills in the game. All of them have three stats listed which contribute to their chance to work (the first listed from left to right contributes most, the second contributes second most). I'm not entirely clear on whether the third is a third contributing stat or if it's the stat that is used to resist.

[GN007SG]

i remembered ING = ingeniuity