A slog instead of flight?

[Diamond Cutter]

I actually like having less PC's and more sightings but have the PC's produce the equivalent of what they did before overall.
Strategically less PC's is favorable to defense minded strategy whereas it's always beneficial to be the 1st strike attacker in the other Alamaze games. My 02c

[Lord Thanatos]

I actually like having less PC's and more sightings but have the PC's produce the equivalent of what they did before overall.
Strategically less PC's is favorable to defense minded strategy whereas it's always beneficial to be the 1st strike attacker in the other Alamaze games. My 02c

The opposite is true...

The fewer PCs you control in a region the easier it is to reduce your percentage of total census so you lose control of the region. What really hurts when you are defending is that each PC you lose is now a greater percentage of your total so is a greater loss to you. Most important is the fact that your income ratio versus your opponent becomes more unbalanced more quickly.  Attacking is much more important now than it was before. The difference is that when attacking there are too few resources to defend your region simultaneously. Thus you aren't simplying dropping your pants you are removing them completely.

[unclemike]

I find dragons can recruit after plundering a PC.  

You bastard!

This tactic will be good for all kingdoms who want to recruit companions while conquering pc's. While playing the Sacred Order in the Duel test game, I was wondering how to split up my group's leaders/troops to start recruiting companions. Totally forgot about pillaging...thanks JF.

[Lord Diamond]

Having served in the military I am glad we had no leaders that feel this way when it comes to what it takes to become a veteran or more experience soldier.

Right!!! I am an experienced veteran myself and I got that way through intense training, not watching my compatriots die. "Your job is not to die for your country, but to make that other poor sonofabitch die for his".

I don't really mind that aspect of Alamaze now that I understand it better. I didn't grasp it before.

[Ry Vor]

There are two requirements for getting promoted.  Bloodied and reaching a certain phase in combat.  It is the phase in combat that is actually the limiting factor and generally is not met unless you loose 15% in battle.   Yes it worked for the Romans and they likely gained experience doing it.  Having served in the military I am glad we had no leaders that feel this way when it comes to what it takes to become a veteran or more experience soldier.

It's just a fact.   I wanted to copy some quotes from the book Eisenhower's Armies, but you can't copy and paste.  "Marshal and Trescott were behind the idea of invading Africa so that the Americans could be blooded and so gain experience before a European invasion."  That's a ways after the Romans, and yes, its about our most famous commanding general buying into that philosophy.

This from a game on Napoleonic warfare:

"Unit experience

Am I missing something? This game is really captivating and the new upgrade looks great, but when will there be a unit experience function? Units that have been blooded in battles should be considerably more effective afterwards. So you send ten units of novices into battle, then combine the survivors, and those new units should be considerably better. The process should repeat with each battle, so that some units in your army gain unit traditions that make them particularly effective. There are numerous examples IRL. This is something I've been waiting for for a long time. Please, please include something like this in the next pack."

And its "blooded", not "bloodied".  Bloodied does sound silly.

And its 5%, not 15%.  OK, I've done enough explanation and justification on this one concept.  Again, I really don't see why its so hard to comprehend.

[Netstrider]

Having served in the military I am glad we had no leaders that feel this way when it comes to what it takes to become a veteran or more experience soldier.

Right!!! I am an experienced veteran myself and I got that way through intense training, not watching my compatriots die. "Your job is not to die for your country, but to make that other poor sonofabitch die for his".

I don't really mind that aspect of Alamaze now that I understand it better. I didn't grasp it before.

I agree with the other veterans completely. Historically, quality was something you built up in peace through hard work and training and then "expended" in warfare. The French army was far better at the beginning of the Napoleonic age than it was at the end. By Ry Vor's logic, the German Army should have been awesome indeed after being well "bloodied" in Russia

As an Army officer myself, I worked hard to train my troops during peace time, knowing that if the shit hit the fan people would die and my unit's capabilities would degrade. It wouldn't get better.

Bloodying usually works best if the green troops experience a battle where they can hear the sights and sounds - but are not in any danger whatsoever of losing. That builds confidence and morale. In the best "bloodying" battle, casualties are low, which reduces the odds your best and bravest don't get turned into red paste.

But as a game I guess it works ok as it is now. But it would also work if you had to invest gold into improving your troops - much the way spending gold improves your wizards.

[Ry Vor]

Having served in the military I am glad we had no leaders that feel this way when it comes to what it takes to become a veteran or more experience soldier.

Right!!! I am an experienced veteran myself and I got that way through intense training, not watching my compatriots die. "Your job is not to die for your country, but to make that other poor sonofabitch die for his".

I don't really mind that aspect of Alamaze now that I understand it better. I didn't grasp it before.

I agree with the other veterans completely. Historically, quality was something you built up in peace through hard work and training and then "expended" in warfare. The French army was far better at the beginning of the Napoleonic age than it was at the end. By Ry Vor's logic, the German Army should have been awesome indeed after being well "bloodied" in Russia

As an Army officer myself, I worked hard to train my troops during peace time, knowing that if the shit hit the fan people would die and my unit's capabilities would degrade. It wouldn't get better.

Bloodying usually works best if the green troops experience a battle where they can hear the sights and sounds - but are not in any danger whatsoever of losing. That builds confidence and morale. In the best "bloodying" battle, casualties are low, which reduces the odds your best and bravest don't get turned into red paste.

But as a game I guess it works ok as it is now. But it would also work if you had to invest gold into improving your troops - much the way spending gold improves your wizards.

Sigh.   It is blooded, not bloodied.  Its 5% losses, not 50%+ as in Napoleon and Germany.  And its for individual units experience, not for an entire theatre.  And its freaking fact.  I think if US veterans are upset, maybe we should change the word from "Veteran", which I think is more impactful, to "Experienced". 

Yes, it is a game.  It's not an indictment of US veterans whose units did not have 5% casualties.  It is IMO the way to introduce experience to units in the game which adds a cool aspect, that as above, players in other very popular computer games would love to have in their games.   The stupid thing in a game would be to have the brigades watch while the wizard vaporized the PC and they all gain experience and everyone is elite in a few turns.  I'm not doing that.

You can train your Green recruits to Regular.  After that you need actual combat, to advance further IN THE GAME, not IRL. 

[Jumpingfist]

I am pretty sure Eisenhower using the word blooded was not in reference to the number of casualties that need to be taken but more so that the troops need live combat experience.

I did not say blooded wasn't 5% just that it has little impact due to the combat phase requirement which without any shield to lower the loss is about 15% to have units promoted.

Still leaves me with the same initial statement. The thing I like least about 3rd cycle is figuring out the correct % to make so my troops have a chance to be promoted.

This last turn I did not even cast spells with two P5s in a group because it would make the ratio to high to be promoted. This is what I mean by silly. I have to hold back with my attack just to fit it into a games algorithm so I have enough units die.

[Ry Vor]

I am pretty sure Eisenhower using the word blooded was not in reference to the number of casualties that need to be taken but more so that the troops need live combat experience.  

I did not say blooded wasn't 5% just that it has little impact due to the combat phase requirement which without any shield to lower the loss is about 15% to have units promoted.  

Still leaves me with the same initial statement. The thing I like least about 3rd cycle is figuring out the correct % to make so my troops have a chance to be promoted.  

This last turn I did not even cast spells with two P5s in a group because it would make the ratio to high to be promoted.  This is what I mean by silly.  I have to hold back with my attack just to fit it into a games algorithm so I have enough units die.

Just go to win the battle then and stop worrying about your brigades gaining experience if you can't stand 5% losses.  Yes, sometimes you will win without 5% losses.  Hurrah!  You won without taking any losses.  Well done.  Don't worry about calculating how many losses you have to take to advance a brigade.  Play the way you want to play.  But brigades are not advancing without risk in battle after they are Regular.

[Lord Diamond]

Ooh, it looks like we found another of Rick's buttons to push! From now on, if he is annoying you just point out that you don't thimk your troops should be all bloodied to get promoted.