Your leader having a bigger effect on the game.

[Kollle]

As it is, on larger maps, I often feel that my leader doesn't do much, other than sit there and recruit. How about having the leader you use have a greater effect on what units you should recruit? Here's what I came up with (using the loyalist unit tree as an example).

If you take a long bowman, you prefer bows over other forms of weaponry. Bowmen cost one less.

If you have a pikeman/swordsman for your leader, you prefer good solid melee attackers. Spearmen cost one less.

If you want a Javalineer, then he will influence your troops towards the Javalineer line. All spearmen do +2 extra damage on their ranged attack.

If you prefer a mage as your head, then other mages are wiser, meaning they level up quicker.

If you prefer a Lieutenant, then your troops will be more orderly. When you recruit, you can choose one trait that that unit will have for certain (or perhaps just let the program choose what trait is preordained. ie: fighting units always have strong, mages always have intelligent, ect.).

Of course this is just a rough draft of a suggestion. What do you think?

[Duke Guillermo]

That's a good idea. However I think that you could take this idea to an even higher level by adding incentive to leveling up your leader. ie. when you level up your bowman leader, bowman cost [i]even[/i] less. When you level up your mage, mages level up [i]even[/i] faster. That way there is an incentive to attack with your leader and the leaders will really suit each players style.

[Glaucus]

Maybe leaders should have mounts so that they can get to the battle quicker. Maybe they should gain experience based on the exploits of those that they command. Having units which are cheeper or level faster would throw the balance out to a greater degree because it potentially effects a lot of units especially in a campaign.

[toms]

I am not for this in game, but you can put this feature in a self-made campaign.
(here is a wiki manualfor creating them, if you don´t know how to)

And you can use this:

Code: Select all

(you have to put it in you first scenario)
[event]
name=start
 [message]
 speaker=narrator
 message=_"Wich unit do you want to play?"
   [option]
   image="human-longbowman.png"
   message=_"Longbowman"
    [command]
     [disallow_recruit]
     type=Bowman
     [/disallow_recruit]
     [allow_recruit]
     type=Bowman2
     [/allow_recruit]
  [/option]
  [option]
  image="human-swordsman.png"
  message_"Swordsman"
   [command]
     [disallow_recruit]
     type=Spearman
     [/disallow_recruit]
     [allow_recruit]
     type=Spearman2
     [/allow_recruit]
    [/command]
   [/option]
   [option]
   image="human-pikeman.png"
   message_"Pikeman"
   [command]
     [disallow_recruit]
     type=Spearman
     [/disallow_recruit]
     [allow_recruit]
     type=Spearman2
     [/allow_recruit]
    [/command]
   [/option]
  [/option]
 [/message]
[/event]

This is an example for the units Swordsman, Pikeman and Longbowman.
Swordsman and Pikeman make Spearmen cheaper, and Longbowman Bowmen.
A unit with a 2 on the end is a custom unit wich is the same as the normal one, except for its
cost wich is reduced by 1.

This is how I would do your idea in a campaign

[Dark Helmet]

How much effectiveness your leader has depends partly on how you play. Its true they don't do much else than sit there and recruit, if thats all you do with them. You should look at them as an strong, extra unit, though one that you want to keep from being killed. It is an interesting idea, but it doesn't seem to be a very neccasary one.

[Kollle]

Thanks for the replies...however, the whole point of the idea was for larger maps where it is hard to get your leader doing something without not recruiting for 5 turns.

Toms, that's an interesting idea. I'm still learning how to use the scenario editor, but I'll keep that in mind, thanks.

[romnajin]

I think I would really like this...add versatility within a faction. One place I would definetly not go is having negatives applied to units not of the leaders type...that would lead to zerging one unit type.

[Sapient]

The idea makes sense and I like it. I'd like to see it in-game as well (as long as the boosts are kept very small).

[Lord_Aether]

I like this idea a lot. I think that you will have to work on having the bonuses balanced(The ones you have are not, IMO, balanced-having a unit cost 1 less gold is not as good as having attacks get +2 dmg).

Trick is getting it implemented

Also, the incentive to level the leader is good too.

[Vlys]

You are hardly ever going to get to use the bonus, because the other person will already know what you are going to build and counter it.

[Sapient]

Vlys: Anyone who recruits a team of one unit-type deserves to get utterly defeated. That is *not* what this idea is about.

The boost should be small enough that it does not affect your choice of multiple units. It should just be a little something for fun that reflects (in a small way, on a limited number of units) your leader's strengths.

[Lu Mong]

Yeah... I like tis idea too... It encourage the players to do more with their leaders...

[Industriebrot]

Great idea. Simple and fun. Please include it.

[Vlys]

I didn't say that, Sapient.

I don't see the need for this at all. If it doesn't influence your recruiting, though, there is no point to implement this, and if it does, you enemy will make sure that you lose your units that have bonuses and not make units that your bonused units are good against. This will effectively make the units with bonuses LESS useful, as your enemy will expect them.

[Sapient]

your enemy will expect them

Then you can turn their expectations against them. Then when they expect you to do that thing, you do the other thing you initially wanted to do. Then when they expect you to do that, you revert to the other.

How is that a weakness?