All,
As requested, quoted objections to the merger rule:
HolisticGod (3:30 PM) :
Now, I do it very rarely because the wars I fight tend to be too big for that kind of organization and it's usually unnecessary. But it IS a viable tactic, a well-known tactic, a tactic that, A. can't really be monitored and B. contributes greatly to miniature set piece warfare-dealing with small fronts and equal forces.
HolisticGod (3:35 PM) :
Actually, I will say that there's a difference here.
HolisticGod (3:35 PM) :
If, on the one hand, you split off cavalry to advance an army more quickly than it can otherwise travel, I think that's a little over the top.
HolisticGod (3:36 PM) :
However, if you merge incoming armies with outgoing, or you split an army to trick your opponent into defending a province, or overcommitting to one, that's just tactics.
HolisticGod (3:38 PM) :
It may not be very realistic (though it does smack of Napoleon, who would often force march armies far more quickly than they could normally go straight into battles), but neither is the rest of the game.
HolisticGod (3:38 PM) :
As far as warfare is concerned.
HolisticGod (3:39 PM) :
If you prohibit this, it doesn't change the level of competition-as this can be done by everyone-but it does close off a whole range of tactical and strategic options that are the key to EU's rather limited war of manuever.
HolisticGod (3:42 PM) :
But how will anyone know when it's used?
HolisticGod (3:42 PM) :
The only way to be sure is if a player sees the flag from a marching army merge with a non-marching army, and if there's any lag at all he has no way of knowing whether they were momentarily halted or not. And if any accusations are made, most will deny them.
HolisticGod (3:44 PM) :
I for one won't do it if it's forbidden, but I don't know that everyone can say the same. And even if no one does it, accusations will be made in every single war.
