by DarkKami
sigmazero13 wrote:
I sincerely hope they DON'T do anything even close to that. Combat as-is can usually be pretty quick; adding this extra layer of decision making will just add more time to the battles (due to more decisions), but I suspect in the end, it would make very little difference.
I'm not sure the scale is very equal, for one thing. Most orb abilities are not worth sacrificing 3 damage over, and routs are only worth 2 damage if you are fighting a group of 2+ HP units; if they even have 1 1HP unit, spending the 2 energy on a rout will be wasting a damage because they would just apply it to the weak unit.
But if it works for your group, go for it.
I'm not sure the scale is very equal, for one thing. Most orb abilities are not worth sacrificing 3 damage over, and routs are only worth 2 damage if you are fighting a group of 2+ HP units; if they even have 1 1HP unit, spending the 2 energy on a rout will be wasting a damage because they would just apply it to the weak unit.
But if it works for your group, go for it.
It works for us. See, my group of players likes combat system that requires skill and not chance. They like to be rewarded for choices and penalized for their mistakes.
You are correct about one thing. The difference it makes is minimal most times, but it creates the illusion of choice, and that is a major thing for them. Removing the illusion for a game that is already set by the number of turns was just plain boring.
As a member of my group said:
"If I want a wargame based on chance, then I'll play RISK."
In the end to each their own. The game's setup is so long that by the time my players sit down to play the actual game they want to feel like they are in for an epic war.