Trait Brainstorm: Traitor

[crwedman]

Perhaps a trait like this would be too controversial, and would perhaps frustrate players too much (unless it works to their advantage). Anyway, I've been having an idea for a traitor trait. This could really toss a monkey wrench into some strategies. Imagine, suddenly having to deal with a traitor in your ranks! However, it could lend itself to some other interesting strategies to control a unit that one cannot trust, but has the ability to befriend and betray your enemies as well.

A problem is that it doesn't make sense to have this kind of trait advertised until it is apparent (ie. the traitor attacks a friendly unit). However, knowing this information would allow a player to implement some interesting strategies.

When a traitor is attacked, the unit switches to the attacking side (that is, if it survives the attack). If the unit initiates the attack, it remains on the side it is attacking from. A traitor can fight its way behind enemy lines, and then remain 'safe' there (after being attacked by the enemy) - at least until you send in the rest of your troops, and make the traitor betray your enemy by attacking the traitor with a friendly unit.

I might sound complicated, but really, it's not. I would actually expect that a traitor trait would be trivial to implement: If the unit is defending an attack, and survives, switch to the attacking side.

Well, there's the idea! Have at it!

[JW]

Yeah, the objective of a trait is to be beneficial.....

[turin]

Not a good trait idea at all. But it might be an interesting ability.

(This is not an endorsement of the idea, BTW).

[Dragon Master]

I really don't like it, too situational. It's just not worth the risks...

[crwedman]

Not a good trait idea at all. But it might be an interesting ability.

Perhaps as an attack ability, then, like poison. How about confusion (perhaps discussed before?), where your friendly units attacks other friendlies during the next enemy turn?

I really don't like it, too situational. It's just not worth the risks...

Well, it wouldn't be a trait one would choose, but rather, one you are unfortunately stuck with, but now must deal with. Remeber, your enemies may be faced with the same problem, too.

I still think it is an interesting idea, perhaps malleable enough to become an idea more people like.

[Stilgar]

I think having a unit betray its master is something better left to a scenario event than anywhere else. In that situation it might be interesting, if the scenario is done such that it has a random element so you can't predict the betrayal from having played before.

[Temuchin Khan]

Giving players the ability to bribe enemy units into betraying their masters makes more sense to me than this particular trait idea.

Of course, there were some Civ II games in which I lost more battles than I won, but bribed so many enemy cities and units that I ended up expanding my empire anyway.

[zol]

I can imagine that as an interesting mod of some strategy games.
In Wesnoth, it would probably work best as a specific unit type (with some compensating benefits, of course), and only really in a highly customised "era" or campaign.

In Wesnoth, unlike, say, Chess or even Stratego, plans are not critically dependent on exact placement of few special-purpose units, but tend to be smoothed into cumulative effects, so a lot of cunning uses for such a unit would just dissolve.

Once you get behind the lines to re-convert it for example, you are already behind their lines with some force, and this unit merely adds a bit to your total offensive capability. And the overall power exchange either way might not be much more than the influence of chance in normal combat anyway.

Note that such a unit could be attacked on every player's turn and never be controlled by the current player unless it could be given its moves immediately upon conversion.
The only remaining interest seems likely to involve ZOCs and ability to reach or attack different hexes.

[crwedman]

Meh... so maybe a traitor trait doesn't really add any real playability.

Anyway, how about the "confusion" attack idea, where a "confused" unit attacks his own side? Has anything like that been discussed before?

I don't know why, exactly, but the idea of a player's units attacking its own side gives me some sort of perverted delight.

[zol]

Unless control is given to another player, some other rule would have to decide which unit to attack etc.

There is no concept of 'random target' in the game design.

[Jgrr]

I've been planning to implement something like this for my UMC (Kalevala). My original plan was like:

The enemy is so desperate that they are using their slaves to fight for them. You can force a slave to surrender, if it has no adjacent non-slave units from the same side, and if it has (at least 1-2?) adjacent units from your side. Perhaps this could also be affected by the forcing units' levels, or done after an attack, instead of an attack, or with some random factor. Do you have ideas on this one?

[Sangel]

Hopeless as a trait idea, I'm afraid. But as an ability...

"Mercenary" ability: This unit is cheap to recruit. But when you recruit it, the enemy gains an option to recruit it as well... except they don't recruit a new mercenary, they recruit your mercenary unit!

[FleshPeeler]

The way you described the unit switching sides when attacked sounds more like "cowardly" to me. Interesting idea (as an ability, definitely not a random trait) . . .

Pros: The unit could only be attacked once per turn. Once it changes sides, the new owner cannot attack their own unit.

Cons: If it changes control in the way a plagued WC works, the unit loses its action as soon as it becomes yours. It would become locked in one place if more than one player attacked it (i.e.: Enemy attacks my traitor, it now sits in his control in the place I left it. I attack my traitor to get him back, it now sits in the same place unable to be moved. Repeat until dead). The alternate solution, which would be to allow it to move after changing sides, defeats the purpose if the enemy realizes he can simply take control of the unit and then move it from combat to prevent you from ever taking it back.

A really interesting thing to do with this unit would be to give it x3 upkeep. Now it is a burden to hold within your ranks, and you play hot potato with this expensive unit that isn't helping you much. You hand it over to your opponent so that he/she is stuck with the upkeep cost! This could be a deterrent for your enemy to attack it, in which case it then becomes useful as an attacker on your side.

[Kestenvarn]

"Mercenary" ability: This unit is cheap to recruit. But when you recruit it, the enemy gains an option to recruit it as well... except they don't recruit a new mercenary, they recruit your mercenary unit!

This sounds hilarious.

[Dragon Master]

I would like Sangel's idea if your oppenent chose to recruit your mercenary, you could choose to top his bid, and so on.