Army size is currently a factor in the likelyhood of agent success in assassinations.
Off the top of my head I can recall two army disbandments upon the loss of an army commander. Essex's assassination ended English help for the French protestants. The death of the Visigoth King at Chalons resulted in the Roman's Visigoth auxillaries going home. I have not double checked this, but I think the loss of the German unit commander, from a sniper, at Saratoga resulted in the Hessenians suddenly assuming a passive role in the remainder of the battle. Agreed these were not common.
Ed
Yes armies did collapse and disband after their commander was killed.
But not "huge" armies, the other commanders would assume command -
now some of the sub commanders might take their toys (soldiers) and
go home, but an entire "huge" army would not disband. Remember these
armies were the size of travelling cities. With that said, I don't
have a problem with armies going away with the loss of a lone
commander. It could be argued to be realistic and doesn't affect the
overall game that much.
However, agents going into an army a killing the commander and then
getting away scot free doesn't jive with most history/fiction. There
should be some additional risk to assassins - maybe these orders even
if successful should carry a higher risk of death if the victim was
travelling with an army, company or in a friendly pop center. A
player with a 150 agent might think twice about popping that huge
army commander if they knew that there was a good chance that the
army might string them up afterword. Many covert operations have been
considered "suicide" missions, this could be added to the game.
It appears to me that most people agree that the agents are too
important in this game Regardless of game balance, imho, offensive
agents are just too important to the game mechanics. Something should
be done to change - not game balance - emphasis on this one character
class. Also, I don't think the suggestion is to change one of the
existing game modules but to develop a new middle earth game. Don't
let game balance affect our suggestions or replies. I'm making the
assumption that the game will be balanced somehow and that all things
are possible.
Kevin
--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavinwj <gavinwj@c...> wrote:
> Given the medieval/ancients nature of ME combat, this is actually
> reasonable. Armies tended to be held together by force of will and
> dedication to the commander. Once the commander was gone (killed or
fled),
> the army did tend to disband (often at very high speed and
sometimes in
> mid-battle). Being the commander was quite a risky business: you
had to be
> at the front of the line in order for your troops to see you
fighting, but
> that put you right smack in the thick of the action. It's really
only since
> Marlborough's time that commanders have tended to stay away from
the battle
> itself, using subordinates to execute their orders and battle plans
while
> they watched from a nearby hill.
>
> As for assassinating the commander being difficult because he would
be
> well-known to the troops: I'm in two minds on this one. He would be
known
> and recognisable to his close associates, making assassination
difficult,
> but not by most of the troops, making infiltration easy. The run of
the mill
> soldiers would recognise him by his standard or by some other
highly visible
> sign. Get an army camp of five thousand men milling around and one
more
> unknown face isn't going to stand out.
>
> Gavin
>
> Steve Prindeville wrote:
>
> > The other thing I have not liked about army commander
assassinations is the
> > army disbanding. How likely is it that an army would break apart
and go home
> > when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be lower level
> > commanders(non-coms) in the army?
_________________________________________________________________
Check out Election 2004 for up-to-date election news, plus voter tools and more! http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
Army size is currently a factor in the likelyhood of
agent success in
assassinations.
Off the top of my head I can recall two army
disbandments upon the loss of
an army commander. Essex's assassination ended
English help for the French
protestants. The death of the Visigoth King at
Chalons resulted in the
Roman's Visigoth auxillaries going home. I have not
double checked this,
but I think the loss of the German unit commander,
from a sniper, at
Saratoga resulted in the Hessenians suddenly
assuming a passive role in the
remainder of the battle. Agreed these were not
common.
Ed
>From: "Kevin Brown" <mornhm@soltec.net>
>Reply-To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Army disbands
>Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:37:02 -0000
>
>
>My .02.
>
>Yes armies did collapse and disband after their
commander was killed.
>But not "huge" armies, the other commanders would
assume command -
>now some of the sub commanders might take their
toys (soldiers) and
>go home, but an entire "huge" army would not
disband. Remember these
>armies were the size of travelling cities. With
that said, I don't
>have a problem with armies going away with the loss
of a lone
>commander. It could be argued to be realistic and
doesn't affect the
>overall game that much.
>
>However, agents going into an army a killing the
commander and then
>getting away scot free doesn't jive with most
history/fiction. There
>should be some additional risk to assassins - maybe
these orders even
>if successful should carry a higher risk of death
if the victim was
>travelling with an army, company or in a friendly
pop center. A
>player with a 150 agent might think twice about
popping that huge
>army commander if they knew that there was a good
chance that the
>army might string them up afterword. Many covert
operations have been
>considered "suicide" missions, this could be added
to the game.
>
>It appears to me that most people agree that the
agents are too
>important in this game Regardless of game balance,
imho, offensive
>agents are just too important to the game
mechanics. Something should
>be done to change - not game balance - emphasis on
this one character
>class. Also, I don't think the suggestion is to
change one of the
>existing game modules but to develop a new middle
earth game. Don't
>let game balance affect our suggestions or replies.
I'm making the
>assumption that the game will be balanced somehow
and that all things
>are possible.
>
>Kevin
>
>--- In mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com, Gavinwj
<gavinwj@c...> wrote:
> > Given the medieval/ancients nature of ME combat,
this is actually
> > reasonable. Armies tended to be held together by
force of will and
> > dedication to the commander. Once the commander
was gone (killed or
>fled),
> > the army did tend to disband (often at very high
speed and
>sometimes in
> > mid-battle). Being the commander was quite a
risky business: you
>had to be
> > at the front of the line in order for your
troops to see you
>fighting, but
> > that put you right smack in the thick of the
action. It's really
>only since
> > Marlborough's time that commanders have tended
to stay away from
>the battle
> > itself, using subordinates to execute their
orders and battle plans
>while
> > they watched from a nearby hill.
> >
> > As for assassinating the commander being
difficult because he would
>be
> > well-known to the troops: I'm in two minds on
this one. He would be
>known
> > and recognisable to his close associates, making
assassination
>difficult,
> > but not by most of the troops, making
infiltration easy. The run of
>the mill
> > soldiers would recognise him by his standard or
by some other
>highly visible
> > sign. Get an army camp of five thousand men
milling around and one
>more
> > unknown face isn't going to stand out.
> >
> > Gavin
> >
> > Steve Prindeville wrote:
> >
> > > The other thing I have not liked about army
commander
>assassinations is the
> > > army disbanding. How likely is it that an
army would break apart
>and go home
> > > when a commander is killed. Wouldn't their be
lower level
> > > commanders(non-coms) in the army?
>
>
>
At the death of Attila the Hun his armies and
alliances disbanded and ended the threat of the Huns.
JCC
I think this is a bad example. Attila was not in command of an army
at the time of his death. His army had been beaten and retreated. As
I understand it, he was in the process of "enjoying" the domestic
life when he died. His armies and alliances fell apart due to his
successors not his death and it took several years.
