ETheBoyce wrote:A Foolamancer in charge of scouting is not thematic in any form
Nemo is modeled off the Illuminati. If spy networks do not fit under that theme, I don't know what does.
ETheBoyce wrote:Scouts need to report to one of 2 people the Chief Warlord or the King,
And they will. But they needed worry about the exact disposition and patrol routes our scouts take. And if at any time one of those two wishes to overrule my orders, they have the full authority to do so.
ETheBoyce wrote:There has been no need for any micromanaging of Scouts, nor does there appear any need to be; instead of adding another thing Marbit will have to keep track of we can continue doing what we've been doing.
Marbit said that scouting is going to change now, too. It almost certainly will not be nearly as complicated as my orders are, but Marbit can always ignore as much of my idle rantings as he wishes, only pulling out the orders that will matter for what he actually keeps track of.
ETheBoyce wrote:We don;t need to know how many Squads of Archery or Infantry we have, we just need to know how many Archers/Spearman/Warriors we have, their levels, and whether or not they are Garrison units.
Are there enough units with Leadership to command all our Units? With the current system, you'd have to count the total number of units, divide by eight, account for partial Squads, make sure leaders are the right type (better to have archers with Leadership leading the archer stacks) and then some, all just to answer this simple question. With my system, you'd only need to skim each squad and check that they have a unit with Leadership.
You're right about what we have now being all we need
, but that's no reason why it can't be better
ETheBoyce wrote:For deployment instead of worrying about Squads we either guess what a battle will need and send that, or look at what PCs are going and send the proper NPCs to help them/fill in gaps.
Exactly. My system will enable us to do that without having to worry about whether or not the units we're sending will be effective as a group. We can set up combos like the double-rank spearmen (front ones tank, rear ones dps) without having to check to make sure we're not breaking the combo each time we allocate units. We don't have to worry about having units with nothing to do. (For instance, what would a couple of Heck Pups do in a company made entirely of infantry? They can't make use of their mobility, because enemy archers could pick them off easily on their own. If we put them in a Squad made up entirely of fast units, then they would always be at their full potential.)
Why do you think the real-life military does things this way?
ETheBoyce wrote:While roleplaying with NPCs is certainly something to do it should be stressed that they ARE NOT PCs and they will likely die a painful death and they are not unique and special snowflakes (except for my Badass Cumulonimbus of course :-p)
Why not? I for one like
it when Anyone Can Die
It's not nearly as exciting if they can't. (Of course, you
don't have to become attached to the NPCs if you don't want to.) Anyways, this is off topic; more RP opportunities was just an extra bonus perk I threw in when I thought of it.