Delayed Standing Orders

[Penchant]

eh, no. the whole point is that the marshal or council which would include marshal decided on the orders for the following turn. then whoever is on 1st give them out (drawn from a list of possible scenarios)

anyone can issue orders, whether anyone follow them is another matter. if a marshal and his command group decides on the strategy and tactics, and made that known that's how it would work and no one follows it because it ain't the marshal issuing it in person, then clearly they don't really much care about the marshal anyway and the only reason they might follow him is the threat of fines and what not for not following an "official marshal order". in which case, you've lost already.

You just said that if troops will only listen to the marshall then they don't care about the marshall which doesn't make sense.

[Indirik]

First of all, I agree in general with fodder in that this suggestion mostly does not do anything that you can't already do. You can already give advanced orders as far ahead as you want, including conditional orders. You don't need the game to flip the page in the Big Book of Orders to do it for you.

This suggestion will not in any way reduce the need for checking the situation early in the turn, nor remove the advantage that a realm will have from having a "hyperactive" marshal. If you try to do any serious war planning on cruise control like this, you *will* lead your army into disaster. Yes, it might be useful for coordinating a general cross-country move, or the arrival time for a mutlti-turn move. But if you try to manage an attack three or four days ahead of time without constant checking of reports, revision of the schedule, and live confirmation of the orders, then you deserve your inevitable defeat.

But none of those really addresses my main objection to running an army with standing orders. And that's that they don't actually give you a message! I want a message in my inbox that says "attack now!" I want to know that someone laid eyeballs on the reports, assessed the situation, and decided that the situation warranted an attack. I want to be able to look back in my messages and see when an order was given, and see a history of orders. I want to know how old that standing order actually is. I want standing orders to not be 47 lines long, making me scroll through 2 screens of crap to read my messages.

[Penchant]

But if you try to manage an attack three or four days ahead of time without constant checking of reports, revision of the schedule, and live confirmation of the orders, then you deserve your inevitable defeat.

Ahem but that's talking about the activity and pace you play which is an IR and you just said all marshalls must check messages and respond to messages constantly or they deserve to lose so thats saying that the IR violation of people telling the marshalls to be on at the beginning of turns is wrong if you want to win but the IR violation of people telling you have to be on constantly as marshall if you want to win is ok which is why the delayed standing orders are wanted. If all goes as planned you keep the delayed orders as is but if the situation changes you change your plan, and delayed standing orders. I think a request that should go with this is standing orders  be delivered as a message whenever changed and that when they were last updated being added to it too.

[fodder]

You just said that if troops will only listen to the marshall then they don't care about the marshall which doesn't make sense.

it makes sense in that they are not really listening to the marshal. they are listening out for the big stick the judge wields.

ie. going through the motions.

[Penchant]

So because someone listens to those in charge and not just anyone who bosses you around they don't care about authority but worry about punishment from those having authority. Again not making much sense as you generalize everyone in something to broad. If it was decided that someone otherthen the marshall is allowed to issue orders when the marshall can not I see no reason the judge wouldn't fine you for not listening to the other the person that was decided to give orders if the judge is willing to fine you for not listening to the marshall so once more your logic is invalid.

[Tom]

Request rejected, thanks all for the input, the discussion is now venturing off-topic, so I'll close it.