Mounted Units with Leadership

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
Thermite
Posts: 15
Joined: July 24th, 2007, 3:33 pm

Mounted Units with Leadership

Post by Thermite »

AFAIK there are none. Does anyone know why? Was it judged unbalancing? Maybe a Lvl4 beyond Grand Knight that has the same stats to keep it from being too gross, but also Leadership? Maybe a few extra HP?

User avatar
Zhukov
Art Contributor
Posts: 1685
Joined: November 9th, 2005, 5:48 am
Location: Australia

Post by Zhukov »

There may be one or two out there somewhere.

I very much doubt balance is the issue here. Balance is generally only an issue for multiplayer. Leadership units are always level 2+ (as level 1 leadership is nearly useless) so they would not be recruitable in MP. Also, be aware that high-movement units are not allowed to be multiplayer leaders.

As for the level 4 grand knight (GK). Not likely to happen.

PS. Most of these threads of yours would be better off in the "Ideas" forum.

Thermite
Posts: 15
Joined: July 24th, 2007, 3:33 pm

Please move this Thread to Ideas

Post by Thermite »

I posted this in the wrong Forum. My apolgies. Please move it to the "Ideas" Forum.

User avatar
Baufo
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1115
Joined: January 29th, 2006, 4:53 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Post by Baufo »

moved

For high movement units leadership would be considerably stronger than for low movement units since a unit with plenty of moves can lead twice as much units per turn. Just something to keep in mind.
I was working on the proof of one of my poems all the morning, and took out a comma. In the afternoon I put it back again. -- Oscar Wilde

Thermite
Posts: 15
Joined: July 24th, 2007, 3:33 pm

Post by Thermite »

[quote="Baufo"]For high movement units leadership would be considerably stronger than for low movement units since a unit with plenty of moves can lead twice as much units per turn. Just something to keep in mind.[/quote]

An excellent point. Not something I had thought about, but very true.

User avatar
irrevenant
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3692
Joined: August 15th, 2005, 7:57 am
Location: I'm all around you.

Post by irrevenant »

Zhukov wrote:I very much doubt balance is the issue here. Balance is generally only an issue for multiplayer. Leadership units are always level 2+ (as level 1 leadership is nearly useless) so they would not be recruitable in MP.
Technically:
1. If you're playing MP in the "Age of Heroes" era you can recruit L2 units.
2. The Goblin Rouser is an L1 leader unit.

An idle thought: It might be nice to rename "Leadership" to "Motivator" or "Inspirational" or something. As the Rouser demonstrates, it's appropriate for any unit that inspires the troops, not just units one would consider 'leaders'. If my 'Free Goblins' faction ever gets off the ground it will have a Psychologist-type unit with Leadership. :)
Zhukov wrote:Also, be aware that high-movement units are not allowed to be multiplayer leaders.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'd be interested to know the source for this.

billdoor
Posts: 23
Joined: June 22nd, 2007, 9:49 pm
Location: Rheims, France

Post by billdoor »

If you want some mounted leaders, you can play Napoleonoth.

User avatar
Baufo
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1115
Joined: January 29th, 2006, 4:53 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

Post by Baufo »

irrevenant wrote:
Zhukov wrote:Also, be aware that high-movement units are not allowed to be multiplayer leaders.
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I'd be interested to know the source for this.
AFAIK high movement leasers where originally removed because the AI got confused by them.
High movement leaders would also be really overpowered compared to low movement leaders because they can be used in battle far easier.
I was working on the proof of one of my poems all the morning, and took out a comma. In the afternoon I put it back again. -- Oscar Wilde

User avatar
Noyga
Inactive Developer
Posts: 1790
Joined: September 26th, 2005, 5:56 pm
Location: France

Post by Noyga »

Ever played the South Guard ?
"Ooh, man, my mage had a 30% chance to miss, but he still managed to hit! Awesome!" ;) -- xtifr

Shadow
Posts: 1264
Joined: September 9th, 2004, 10:27 am
Location: Following the steps of Goethe
Contact:

Post by Shadow »

Eastern Invasion Owaec?
... all romantics meet the same fate someday
Cynical and drunk and boring someone in some dark cafe ...
All good dreamers pass this way some day
Hidin’ behind bottles in dark cafes

Infinisearch
Posts: 32
Joined: October 6th, 2005, 12:08 am

Post by Infinisearch »

Going from memory since I haven't played any campains for a while, the opportunistic nature of using the horsemen line to kill, lack of ranged weaponry and terrain movement and defense limitations leveling them is usually harder than a great many other units. Giving them leadership makes sense, can't really comment on the balancing implications though.

MDG
Posts: 378
Joined: June 7th, 2007, 11:18 am
Location: UK

Post by MDG »

Infinisearch wrote:Going from memory since I haven't played any campains for a while, the opportunistic nature of using the horsemen line to kill, lack of ranged weaponry and terrain movement and defense limitations leveling them is usually harder than a great many other units. Giving them leadership makes sense, can't really comment on the balancing implications though.
(Emphasis mine) Why? Levelling them is harder because the level ups are already very useful!

In realism terms mounted troops are exactly that... troops, e.g. heavy cavalry, light cavalry, scouts, mounted archers, etc... If you give mounted units leadership then why not give it to all the infantry and pretty much everyone? My point being leaders are specialists with their own hierarchy over and above the rank and file. Wesnoth represents this with leadership unit lines like the sergeant->lieutenant->general->grand marshal, or alternate advancement branches for the Elven Fighter and Drake Burner, etc... It doesn't just tack the ability onto existing troops. Yes, many leaders in history were traditionally mounted for ease of movement, status, (and ability to see more over the field of battle I'd guess) and this exists for some specific leader units in some campaigns as pointed out above.

In game play terms giving leadership to mounted units is potentially very powerful. When I use Elven Fighters those with the quick trait often go down the captain->marshal advancement branch, those without get advanced to the hero->champion branch. The quick captains/marshals can often get that little bit more out of the leadership ability by moving that extra hex along a line, gradually, as combat takes place, passing the leadership bonus on to an additional unit. Mounted movement rates will emphasise this further. Does your suggestion add to game play? Or just power up one unit-line at the expense of balance? (The mounted unit-line would likely need to be nerfed to re-balance it. I appreciate you did say you weren't going to comment on the balance issues. It's already fun as it is, changing this would just make it fun in a different way whilst requiring re-balancing.)

As Baufo said:
For high movement units leadership would be considerably stronger than for low movement units since a unit with plenty of moves can lead twice as much units per turn.

User avatar
irrevenant
Moderator Emeritus
Posts: 3692
Joined: August 15th, 2005, 7:57 am
Location: I'm all around you.

Post by irrevenant »

MDG wrote:In realism terms mounted troops are exactly that... troops, e.g. heavy cavalry, light cavalry, scouts, mounted archers, etc... If you give mounted units leadership then why not give it to all the infantry and pretty much everyone? My point being leaders are specialists with their own hierarchy over and above the rank and file.
I think we're hung up on terminology here. If it helps call them 'mounted units' rather than 'mounted troops'. Statwise Konrad essentially is an infantry unit with leadership. It's only the flavour text and art that makes him otherwise.

P.S. I don't think the original poster was suggesting that we just slap Leadership onto a specific unit (actually, he specifically mentioned an L4 Knight). He was just wondering why there don't seem to be any in mainline.

BTW, I'm not a fan of an L4 Leadership unit. L3s are already plenty powerful, can you imagine them being boosted by Leadership!?

MDG
Posts: 378
Joined: June 7th, 2007, 11:18 am
Location: UK

Post by MDG »

irrevenant wrote: P.S. I don't think the original poster was suggesting that we just slap Leadership onto a specific unit (actually, he specifically mentioned an L4 Knight). He was just wondering why there don't seem to be any in mainline.
It was addressed more towards Infinisearch who posted immediately before me.

Thermite
Posts: 15
Joined: July 24th, 2007, 3:33 pm

Knight Commander?

Post by Thermite »

The point about Leadership being overly potent for high MP units aside... you could have a L3 Knight Commander that was basically a Knight but with Leadership. Anyway... not something that I think would be likely to happen. It was just interesting.

One could also argue that Knights are elite troops that do not need external motivation and thus have no use for Leadership. But what about the lowly horseman? ;)

Post Reply