Heroic Lancer

[Assasin]

I like the lancer just the way it is. Some campaigns you want the better charge attack.

[Sangel]

I like the lancer just the way it is. Some campaigns you want the better charge attack.

This topic is not about modifying the present lancer; it is about a new lancer unit. Please, try to keep posts relevant to the topic at hand.

[Assasin]

Let me rephrase.

The horseman unit line has a division into Knight and Lancer exactly to force the player to make a choice for more power now, or the possiblility to level later. These kinds of upgrade choices, IMO, makes the game much more interesting.

That is, it was a design choice that the Lancer should not be able to level. I think the reasons for this still stands, and would not wish to see a level 3 Lancer. Nor am I fond of the level up to the same level scheme.

So, I like the lancer they way it is. I don't like the idea of another upgrade.

[varradami]

Let me rephrase.

The horseman unit line has a division into Knight and Lancer exactly to force the player to make a choice for more power now, or the possiblility to level later. These kinds of upgrade choices, IMO, makes the game much more interesting.

That is, it was a design choice that the Lancer should not be able to level. I think the reasons for this still stands, and would not wish to see a level 3 Lancer. Nor am I fond of the level up to the same level scheme.

So, I like the lancer they way it is. I don't like the idea of another upgrade.

I'd like it the other way: I want to see an upgrade for the lancer. First, I think that balancing a unit based on its upgrade potential is a bad way to go. It might work OK for campaigns but seems clearly wrong for multiplayer. The converse works for both. I also think that (eventually anyway) every tree should reach level 3 (with exceptions for special units, like monsters). I for one enjoy levelling my units - it's always a good feeling. I am sad when a unit maxes out, but when it maxes at level 3 at least I'm left with one badass unit.

I think that choosing between units of varying abilities is quite interesting itself. Making the choice of "do I take this unit even though I'll be limiting myself" is not as fun IMO.

Of course, some units get to level 4, which seems inconsistant. Personally though, I'd like to see level 4 upgrades for all units. Just require tons of xp. Or implement the idea of gaining a few hp every 100 (or whatever) xp. I'd be satisfied with level 3 though, especially as level 4 would pretty much be unseen in multiplayer.

Disclaimer: I'm a newbie and don't know what I'm talking about. Anything I say which makes sense was probably a typo.

[Disto]

There are plenty of AMLA patches (after max level advancement) which is exactly what you want. They should only go up to lv. 3 and then the people who are the most prestige official, like Great mage/whatever are only entitled it. Lv.4 for a unit is basically a title which makes them better in some way. A Great Mage is theorectically a head of his art. A Grand Marshal theorectically controls the army, the Ancient Lich is the most a normal human can sink into undead. The dragons and Yeti are the most devastating/feared monsters around. And the sylph is the like head priestess. This is why Konrad and (can't remember his name) the hero of TROW should have lv 4s.

[turin]

Well, that point would stand IF the lancer was the only upgrade for the horseman. But its not. So the horseman TREE can still advance to third level; its just that a certain BRANCH, the lancer one, can't reach it.


About 4th level units: you'll notice that physically, they're either monster units (meaning they aren't normal people, and shouldn't be held to the same standards), or they're the intelligent type, not the brute-force type. The great mage, ancient lich, and and grand marshal are not better physically than the 3rd level units; they are just better at doing the stuff that requires thought - leading other units and casting magic spells.
That's the reasoning behind 4th level units, and IMHO it makes sense.

[Neoriceisgood]

Drakes possibly could get physically more powerfull if they had a fourth level; As they're close relatives of the ancient dragons.

I just don't see fourth level orcs, Their special units like trolls perhaps; But orcs themselves are just not intelligent or special enough to ever break the barrier.

[Assasin]

I think that if you give every faction one lvl. 4 unit, it makes them too common. Orcs don't have a lvl. 4 unit because they don't need one. Humans have 2 lvl. 4 units because they are the most intelligent race (going with turnin's philosophy). Personally, I think this isn't right. The Great Mage makes sense, but I think that if there is gonna be any lvl. 4 unit with leadership, it should be a king or queen or something like that.

[Sangel]

Because kings and queens are known to be better military strategists than generals.

[Chris Byler]

Anyway, it doesn't make sense for a unit to become a king by accumulating combat experience. To become a king you have to do something like complete Heir to the Throne

If number of level 4 units is based on the race's intelligence, then normal elves should have at least as many as humans (Elvish Grand Marshal?) and high elves should have more. But I don't think that's really what it's based on - it's just how many cool ideas for level 4 units someone has come up with.

I doubt level 4s have any real impact on MP, even with really low exp settings, so it's only really an issue in campaigns - and if you want to introduce a level 4 for some race in a campaign, go ahead. (If it's on a unit line that can be recruited, expect some players to eventually have several...)

[turin]

Well, its based on both intelligence and how many cool ideas can be thought up. The main point of the intelligence criteria is to say why level 4 really-strong-fighter units are bad.