No, you couldn't, that's my point.
Say Army A is 10 horsemen, and trying to conquer a city. Army B is 30 Halberdiers, and trying to kill them, because they own the city. There's a road to the city, and Army B is 2 tiles away(aka they can get there in one turn). Army A dispatches a single unit of horsemen to the tile between them to delay them, while Army B sends a 2 Halberdier vanguard towards the city, then the rest, to ensure defeating any basic rearguard action the Horsemen might have. Since Horsemen have a higher move speed, they go first, the rearguard gets into position, the vanguard of Halberdiers arrives, and...then we get to the rules split.
With current rules, the Vanguard hits the horsemen, almost certainly kills them, and then the other 28 get into the city and turn it into a glue factory.
With that suggestion, the Vanguard hits the horsemen, gets stopped, and then the other 28 hit the horsemen, and get stopped. 1 Horseman, 30 stopped Halberdiers, 1 Conquered city.
And that is incorrect, you may not know what's going to happen in terms of the exact way things will come down, but you know what they'll probably do just as easily. It's not based purely on 50/50 chance, either.
Because here's where I think you're not understanding strategy: In real life? Shit happens. Things go wrong, things outside of your control or the enemy's and are just complete fuck-ups. And you have to plan for those. You let yourself get into a position where you would have to live or die by a 50% chance. Because you are describing tactics. Strategy is long-term. Strategy is not one turn; strategy is ten turns. Because you didn't foresee his attack. You were outsmarted; not by much, but by enough that it's a 50/50 chance. Because I can tell you that it is quite possible to plan around the 50/50 chance. That's how I normally play this; I consider what my actions are likely to result in based on either scenario and try to make it so my moves are effective either way.
I disagree with you as to what makes it exciting; winning isn't exciting, for me. Winning means it's done. Might be cathartic, but it's pulling myself back from the brink of defeat, of overcoming both the challenges of other players and the whims of Lady Luck, that I find enjoyable. Of continuing to strive and compete. I actually really dislike games without any luck involved in them, because it means that if I'm even marginally worse, my loss is already certain. Or if I'm better, my victory is. And that's not the point. Random chance serves to add a third party variable that no one can account for and yet everyone must. If there was no random chance, it could very well mean that you would just have a 100% chance of being screwed, instead, which is worse. Or they would, which obviously they wouldn't find much fun either. Nobody likes not even having a chance.
Like I said. Xanatos Gambit. Make it so no matter which way the dice fall, you win. It's certainly possible. Difficult, yes. And in your case, it's too late, but...well, at the moment it seems like you're pushing for a fundamentaly rules change to give you an advantage much, much harder than my suggestion to give the Danes back something they previously had, which you attacked me for. Like, personal attacks, too.
So, in short: I think you're wrong. On the other hand, I would be okay with randomly generated, but pre-informed turns, as well, but the game doesn't actually work like that and making it work like that isn't actually easy.
Author
Topic: The Dark Age - A Vanigo Empire Game - The Dark Age Has Ended (Read 80546 times)