Online Multi-player rule for Alexander

[JackDionne]

I am just throwing this out there to see what opinions might be.

How does this sound for a rule when playing the Alexander expansion as Macedon.

The Macedonian player may only purchase one Alexander unit.
Regardless of how many are playing in the multi-player game.

In other words if there is an 8 player game, 4 Macedonians and 4 Persians for example only one of the Macedonians players may purchase the Alexander unit. The onus would be on the Macedonian team to decide if they purchased it and by whom.

Also if, Alexander suffers death during the game the Macedonians lose regardless of the battle’s outcome.

I feel that rules are totally justified because of Alexander’s historical significance.

[Prince_of_Macedon]

Also if, Alexander suffers death during the game the Macedonians lose regardless of the battle’s outcome.

I feel that rules are totally justified because of Alexander’s historical significance.

Well, by that token then, the Persians should also lose if their general falls in battle (or runs away). As Alexander knew, the Persians couldn't fight without their commander.

Frankly speaking, the Macedonians could deal a lot better than the Persians could if their king had fallen. When Alexander's men saw him leap over the walls of the Mallian fortress by himself, there was basically no way he could've survived the onslaught of the defenders. Yet the Macedonians became so emboldened by their leader's kamikaze-like behavior that they turned into superhuman killing machines themselves. Even when after they recovered his near-lifeless body from the fortress, the Macedonians continued to wreak havoc on the Mallians until they had massacred all of the inhabitants.

Basically, the Macedonians wouldn't stop fighting if their King had fallen - they'd fight even harder to punish the enemy.

One more thing: the Alexander Unit (online) doesn't even have Alexander in it. So there's no Alexander to die anyway

[Xavier Dragnesi]

It's called the Alexander unit cos it features his bodyguard cavalry, but when you look closely, he's just the normal classical Greek general for RTW. I could agree with the "only one Alexander" rule, but the rule that if Alexander died, that team/player loses, I don't find acceptable. It's both unhistorical, and also it just makes the job of the opposition easier. They will just aim to kill Alexander, and then the job is done, regardless of the skill of the Macedonian player, and the kills that the opposition has suffered.

[JackDionne]

Reading the description of the unit, why would they call it Alexander’s personnel bodyguard if he wasn’t in it?
Aesthetically Alexander’s true appearance doesn’t appear to be in the unit then why even have the unit exist.
Was Alexander in the habit of loaning his personnel body guard to some other General, I think not.
If a player decides to purchase the “Alexander unit”, I say it is justified to lose the game due to his historical importance.
Player must make the choice when purchasing the Alexander and must realize it’s a double edge sword once bought.

Just my two cents.

[Prince_of_Macedon]

If a player decides to purchase the “Alexander unit”, I say it is justified to lose the game due to his historical importance.

Once again, I have to stress that the Persians should definitely lose if their commanding officer falls because that was always the case whenever Darius ran from battle.

And once again, I have to stress that when the Macedonians thought they had lost Alexander, they fought even more ferociously (quite a contrast to how the Persians reacted).

If you play at low money, you have to realize that every Macedonian unit is significantly more expensive than the units of the other factions. The Macedonians are handicapped enough in the Alexander expansion unless you play at bigger money levels (15k plus).

[JackDionne]

Once again, I have to stress that the Persians should definitely lose if their commanding officer falls because that was always the case whenever Darius ran from battle.

And once again, I have to stress that when the Macedonians thought they had lost Alexander, they fought even more ferociously (quite a contrast to how the Persians reacted).

If you play at low money, you have to realize that every Macedonian unit is significantly more expensive than the units of the other factions. The Macedonians are handicapped enough in the Alexander expansion unless you play at bigger money levels (15k plus).

The Persians don’t have a unit called “Darius’s personnel body guard. Why because only Alexander is the only one that history pays any attention to.

Should the Persians lose if there was a unit called “Darius personnel bodyguard” and the General was killed yes, but no unit exist.

You mentioned how furiously the Macedonians fought once they thought their King was dead and it turned out he wasn’t. The Macedonians not routing when they thought he was dead is not the issue. The issue is if he was dead would he still have been remembered in the same way? Tactically the Macedonians could still win but I am considering the historical significance if such an event did happen.

So my philosophy don’t get Alexander killed when play TW.

It’s just a rule I thought up that makes sense to me. I do appreciate the debate and all your input.

[Prince_of_Macedon]

The Persians don’t have a unit called “Darius’s personnel body guard. Why because only Alexander is the only one that history pays any attention to.

Should the Persians lose if there was a unit called “Darius personnel bodyguard” and the General was killed yes, but no unit exist.

You're misunderstanding the point. Whenever the Persian commanding officer fled, the entire army lost all cohesion. It has nothing to do with there being a "Darius" unit. It had everything to do with the Persian commanding officer leaving the battlefield (and the rest of the Persian army doing the same).

To sum up what I'm saying: the Persians couldn't fight when their commanding officer abandoned them.

The Macedonians not routing when they thought he was dead is not the issue. The issue is if he was dead would he still have been remembered in the same way?

That's actually not the issue though: the issue is whether or not the Macedonians would've lost the battle simply because their King had fallen. Isn't that the point you're trying to make by implying that the Macedonians should lose if their King falls in battle?

Anyway, the point about the Mallian siege battle is that IF Alexander fell in battle, the Macedonians would've simply fought on, and then appointed a new king. Business as usual for the Macedonians.

When King Philip II (another great Macedonian king) was assassinated, the Macedonians didn't just vanish. Not at all. They got a new King (Alexander) on the throne, and it was business again for the Macedonians.

So if "Alexander" fell in the game, then it only means Alexander died. It shouldn't mean the entire Macedonian army dies too. As history proved, the death of Alexander didn't mean the death of the Macedonian army.

[Cluny the Scourge]

Just the plain, simple rules of the game in its natural state are fine. This is a little elaborate. Perhaps if they were specific rules for some kind of tournament, that would another matter.

[JackDionne]

You're misunderstanding the point. Whenever the Persian commanding officer fled, the entire army lost all cohesion. It has nothing to do with there being a "Darius" unit. It had everything to do with the Persian commanding officer leaving the battlefield (and the rest of the Persian army doing the same).

To sum up what I'm saying: the Persians couldn't fight when their commanding officer abandoned them.

That's actually not the issue though: the issue is whether or not the Macedonians would've lost the battle simply because their King had fallen. Isn't that the point you're trying to make by implying that the Macedonians should lose if their King falls in battle?

Anyway, the point about the Mallian siege battle is that IF Alexander fell in battle, the Macedonians would've simply fought on, and then appointed a new king. Business as usual for the Macedonians.

When King Philip II (another great Macedonian king) was assassinated, the Macedonians didn't just vanish. Not at all. They got a new King (Alexander) on the throne, and it was business again for the Macedonians.

So if "Alexander" fell in the game, then it only means Alexander died. It shouldn't mean the entire Macedonian army dies too. As history proved, the death of Alexander didn't mean the death of the Macedonian army.

I don't know how to use the multi quote options other wise I would use it.
In the grand scheme and scope of the average total war battle they would in fact be a skirmish.

Factually with the sizes of the orders of battles that could conceivably be involved, I am not even sure if a General would command such a small battle group but gamers call their unit General because that is what the game calls them.

PoM said:
To sum up what I'm saying: the Persians couldn't fight when their commanding officer abandoned them.
To me that is a game design flaw and nothing to do with a proposed special rule for potential Alexander gamers.

They don’t have to use it if they don’t like it. Just an idea for something different in the Alexander expansion pack.

[Prince_of_Macedon]

In the grand scheme and scope of the average total war battle they would in fact be a skirmish.

There is no way to reproduce the size of the units found in real life battles such as Gaugamela. Therefore, you have to assume that the smaller-sized units represent a bigger formation of troops.

Factually with the sizes of the orders of battles that could conceivably be involved, I am not even sure if a General would command such a small battle group but gamers call their unit General because that is what the game calls them.

When Alexander fought the savage guerrilla war in Bactria, the unit sizes were a lot leaner. But I think that's beside the point. R:TW can't possible recreate the gigantic size of battles found in Alexander's day. Alexander's army would easily exceed 30,000 units. That's why I say that the smaller-sized units of R:TW represent a much bigger number.

To me that is a game design flaw and nothing to do with a proposed special rule for potential Alexander gamers.

A design flaw? In that case, it's also a design flaw not to include Alexander the Great in the Alexander unit. So why should the Macedonians suffer if the general dies (and it's not even Alexander)?

They don’t have to use it if they don’t like it. Just an idea for something different in the Alexander expansion pack.

Your rule would certainly be different, but your argument for the Alexander rule ignores the Persian historical deficiency for fighting without their commanding officer. It seems you're giving Macedon a very severe handicap. As I said, Macedon is already handicapped by the outrageous price of their units. So if you make it a liability to buy an Alexander unit, then players will probably opt not to even use them.

Something else to consider: what if the Macedonian player picks the Alexander unit, but chooses another unit for his general? Is he still handicapped by your rule if the general is in a different unit?

[GeneralChaos]

Wouldn't this rule just dissuade people from playing as Macedon? Or they could play, replace Alexander with a Royal Squad, and lose negligible stats?

I dunno, I think it'd be neat to do a blanket rule where "if your general dies, you lose"... this might encourage aggressively attacking generals (Issus/Gaugamela), at the expense that players are probably making their general the most powerful unit. Sort of an attack/defense tradeoff deal.

Just my .02

[Phalanx300]

I don't really think you should lose if your general dies. Alot of armies in the past have prooven that that isn't the case.

[Doctor]

Those rules sound rather silly, for the lose of a general is was equally devestating to both sides and thus shouldn't hurt on side more than the other.(someone probably already said this.)