Why Common Sense lacks, well, common sense!

[Wizzington]

Sure, we'll change this as soon as we implement realistic logistics and have half of your 40k doom stack die from dysentery while you are trying to get it into enemy lands.

That, or we'll just keep the current system because realism is not a meaningful argument.

 

[Wizzington]

You guys are pretty open when it comes to your design philosophy so I am not asking for any absolutes, but are you guys at the office at least open to the idea of a logistics/expanded supply system somewhere in the future? Has there been any talk about it at all?

Maybe, it'd have to be something that wouldn't break up the current flow of gameplay, so no overcomplicated logistics officer simulator stuff.

 

[Wizzington]

You should be able to go past a besieged fort but if the siege is lifted you get huge attrition on the now supplyless army. Makes sense to me.

This would make the whole 1.12 fort system pointless. The entire point is to be able to create safe zones for your army even if massively outnumbered, if we did this we might as well roll back to 1.11's fort system (and we're not).

 

[Wizzington]

If you are in a fort that is under siege you CANNOT protect surrounding areas. Why ? Because you're under siege! So I think it makes sense for troops to be able to roam freely throughout the provinces that YOU CANNOT control.

In other news, you cannot psychically give orders to armies that are 200 miles away from your capital and have them immediately follow them.

Realistically, armies do not in fact have the ability to instantly engage all other armies in the same administrative unit of a country the moment they arrive there.

It is also quite impossible to load 1000 men into a single cog.

Typically, it is not feasible to create a brand new unit of 1000 horse-mounted mercenaries in 15 days.

Fortunately, none of these realism breaking mechanics are a problem because realism is not a meaningful argument.

 

[Wizzington]

You couldn't make that ship and troops reach the goal safely and with preserving combat power.

If you think that one cog represents enough ships to ship an army, then why don't you think that ZoC system is abstract model of restriction from fort at real world?

Bingo.

 

[Wizzington]

Speaking as someone who's historically been a Wiz fan, I'm not delighted to see him now spamming the forum with this phrase. It adds nothing to discussion, and I for one don't play EU because I hope to see were-bunny samurai casting ice magic.

To qualify that statement: Realism is not a meaningful argument in itself. What matters is the overall level of immersion, which would clearly be broken if we added bunny samurai casting ice magic. The reason I 'spam' this phrase is because people seem to think that if they just point out how a particular mechanic is not 100% realistic, that is a sufficient argument to change that mechanic, but they only ever do it selectively for mechanics they personally dislike, and because we're talking about a game here you can always find a reason to call something unrealistic.

 

[Wizzington]

'Simple to use, complex to master' is pretty much my definition of an ideal feature.

 

[Wizzington]

Well it's hard to feel safe in "safe zones" when the AI ignores your forts and their ZOC and walks wherever it pleases.

That would be true if they did, but they don't. No difference between player and AI in how forts block them.