>>96350217
yeah I get that it's meant to be more like dark ages with simple warfare, but that's precisely why I'm not sure the mechanics fit for mass battles in that style. The alternating activations to me make it a way more fluid style of warfare with lots of minute manoevring possible across a battle line.

Here is a diagram of the sort of situation I fear would come up constantly in this game if played as two dark age battle lines meeting:
>it's the red side's activation.
>unit B has a commander present, and so activates units A and C alongside him.
>Unit A charges into unit 1, unit B into 2, unit C into 3
>each fight their battles individually, with unit A losing and being pushed back, units B and C winning and pushing back their respective opponents
>it's now the blue side's activation
>unit 4 wheels then charges into the flank on unit C
>unit 4 wins and pushes unit C back, which causes unit B to make way

The example scenario ends with both sides in a rather complex muddle - no doubt unit D is going to flank charge unit 4 in turn and drive it back, but at that point you're left with a situation that is deteriorating into nothing more than individual units scrapping it out. Since units suffer in combat if they have already activated, I don't see why the red side if given the opportunity in the next turn wouldn't just charge wildly at whomever each individual unit can reach, since trying to redress the ranks would provide no benefit at that stage.

Hence, I'm sceptical that Oathmark would be best played in these types of mass battle scenarios. However, I may be missing something.