> Here are the shortcomings I see in the current combat system, in order
> of importance as I rate them:
One that you left off, and that I think is most important.
* The current combat system often leaves the winner stronger than when
they started.
Comment: This is a big misfeature. Attacking someone ought to cost you
more troops than you capture. The reward for attacking is loot (gold)
or capturing terrain or whatever.
Proposed solution: Have 1/2 of the captured troops desert. Or, make
desertion inversely porportional to the losses that the attacker suffers.
> * The current system weights numerical superiority too highly.
This is a shortcoming in some situations and not others. I think it's
bad that clever players will take hordes of peasants to kill dragons,
but it's good that player/player combat has some interesting tradeoffs
between many easy-to-raise troops and few hard-to-raise troops. The
first army is generally more expensive for maintenance than the
second, so I think we will see many different styles of army out there
*because* of the numerical superiority "problem". More ways to do it
is a good thing.
So let's fix the first and not "fix" the second, because the second is
a feature.
> * An outmatched force can be killed/captured by using repeated
> attacks, even if it "escapes" the first attack.
This is a problem. I don't like auto-move-away (it was certainly silly
in OlyI, with Carl Edman's army chasing 3 of my guys all over
Chardia). But I think something like the can't-be-attacked-flag would work.
This flag would have to last long enough to allow the defeated force
to move to an adjacent province.
> * The current system does not permit mixed forces under the same
> noble.
As Scott says, this could be a feature or a bug. I think it's a
feature. Noble points are expensive, and I think that a player willing
to risk more noble points ought to have a reward. This is it.
> * The breaking rule for the current system has some non-intuitive
> results.
I don't think this is a problem. But then again, I suggested the
current system.
-- g (who studies general relativistic numerical hydrodynamics, and
thinks any part of quantum other than quantum gravity can be mostly
ignored)