Is using ‘Standard’ battle tactics against a superior force always fatal to the commander?
The 3 occaisons that I have seen it have been, but then I may not have noticed the occasions where the commander survived !!
It would logcal in the real world if a commander was to lazy/inept to direct his charges properly, that he would pay the price, but ME does not always follow logic!!
Does an army vs army strength /constitution ratio (similar to 4/5:1 overrun formula) apply to this also ?
I would say ‘no’ to both queries. As an example I had a commander with 600 troops survive using standard tactics against combined enemy forces of + 7,000 troops, with one army of +3,500. I also had commanders using other tactics being killed where there is less than a 2-1 ratio, these are just bad rolls for commanders and often come in multiples.
No. “Standard Tactics” is an option for both attack and defend orders, so the program would have no idea if the commander was lazy/inept or not…
Characters “with” an army take much greater losses in combat than the Commander. Upon conclusion of combat, the losing commander can always be Injured, Killed, or Captured. This is a random roll and is related to the disparities between both forces and command ranks of the respective army leaders. A Veteran losing to a Warlord will be captured more often than a Regent, for example.
I’ve noticed in my personal experience that FA combat seems to be more detrimental to the well being of involved characters than 16/2950. Not sure if anyone else can substantiate that…
I am pretty sure that the tactic itself does not mean damage or death to a character or characters with an army. Instead, I have found it to be a function of two things.
How many rounds does the combat last?
More rounds seems much more deadly.
Did you lose tactics?
Losing tactics seems more deadly, but not as much as rounds.
I am reasonably confident in these items, at minimum, because my friend and I often manipulate armies to make combats last 3 or more rounds in order to hurt the opposing characters. We have even split up cursing and sickness teams to hit multiple targets instead of killing a guaranteed character to great effect with multi-round combats.
Hi Brad how is it going
my point about the standard tactics is that you don’t direct the army at all ie. refuse and move etc,(lazy) or worse choose standard(inept) in the face of a likly threat,
so my question is there a disproportionate penalty for using standard against any of the other battle tactics ,
because it seems that your commanders chances of injury/ death seem to increase disproportionally
In response to Joseph comments:-
2 of the 3 combats were over ‘in less than a few hours’ whatever that means in rounds, the 3rd I could not find
What do you mean by ‘Losing Tactics’ if you are referring to tactics vs tactics then using ‘standard’ puts you at a disadvantage regardless of what tactic is used against it
I am pretty sure Standard are not a disadvantage in all circumstances. I do not have the rules to hand but check out the tactic v tactic tables which I believe indicates Standard formation being advantageous against Flank and a penalty against Charge?
Standard is not a worst tactic on either table: Troop Tactics or Tactic vs Tactic.
If there was a modifier adding to the odds a commander is captured/harmed, I would hazard a guess that it’s the “lazy” commanders whose armies are involved in combat but do not issue combat orders. Standard is simply the default tactic in these circumstances, not the cause itself.
Inept isn’t necessarily an accurate description. Issuing Standard might be a cautious move if facing an enemy one already has experienced various tactics from. Not know what he might try this time, Standard is acceptable and even wise. Facing multiple armies is another situation where Standard might be the best option in order to ensure you don’t lose against this guys cavalry any more than you win against that guys infantry. Starting armies made up of various troop types might also work best with Standard.
