> * The current system weights numerical superiority too highly.
> Although a dragon is 500x as "tough" as a peasant, it takes
> only 30 peasants to split with a dragon. Making the dragon
> 10x as tough only requires 100 peasants.
It would be easy to design a combat system in which a dragon is always
worth exactly 500 peasants. Just add up the total offense and defense
of each side, and then apply some formula based on the totals to
determine who wins. The whole point of having a combat system which is
more substantial than that, is to make some units better in some
circumstances and worse in others.
> * An outmatched force can be killed/captured by using repeated
> attacks, even if it "escapes" the first attack.
I still think having it flee in a random direction, and not execute any
orders for the remainder of the month, would be just fine.
> The current system does not permit mixed forces under the same noble.
> If you have archers and pikeman, they're either all in the front line
> or all on the back line. This can be viewed as a "feature" (you can
> build stronger forces if you commit two nobles) and even rationalized
> (missile troops need their own leader).
You have correctly explained why this is a positive feature, not a
> Alternatively, allow missile troops to use their missile rating even
> on the front line. (But then what distinguishes them from regular
Hmm, maybe you should read the rules before trying to fix them? Troops
in the front line *do* attack with their missile rating.
> The breaking rule for the current system has some non-intuitive results.
I think this is relatively minor, although certainly if you put all of
your peasants behind and your high-value units in front (could this have
happened to anyone we know?) it doesn't help your cause.