Level 3 "criminal" units in the official game

[Jew unit]

I voted no.

I think there is a logical reason that outlaws usually don't have 3rd leve. While regular soldiers are trained and well armed while outlaw units use rather primitve weapons and fight how they have learned it in some little skirmishes but not in battles.

I simply dont agree with that last part. The whole reason they could become level three (in my mind) is because they are now fighting in real battles.

[Steelclad Brian]

I think the justification for keeping Outlaws and other units from reaching Level 2 is a poor one. It reminds me of the old D&D rules that prevented non-human races from reaching level 20 - they'd just suddenly stop at some arbitrary point and be unable to level higher and this was theoretically to give humans an advantage, but it was all sort of incoherent and nobody ever followed the rule anyway.

If you want to represent poor training or combat experience for outlaws, then give them poorer stats. Penalizing them by making them unable to reach level 3 just means that for the first two levels (ie. the beginning of the campaign) they're useful, cool units, and then when they suddenly hit a brick wall they become much less desirable units.

It just seems like an incoherent gameplay mechanic to me; it doesn't really do what it's been suggested to me it's supposed to do with representing poor training and the effect it has on gameplay primarily is in preventing outlaws from competing in high level single player scenarios.

How does preventing them from reaching level 3 improve gameplay? Can someone who believes they shouldn't reach level 3 give an example of level-restricted outlaws being a good thing?

[Alks]

How does preventing them from reaching level 3 improve gameplay? Can someone who believes they shouldn't reach level 3 give an example of level-restricted outlaws being a good thing?

Let scott or some dev correct me if any example I give is wrong:

Why outlaws are limited to 2 levels in Knalgan Alliance (I'm not talking about outlaws without dwarves in various campaigns)

* They are meant to be secondary support units
* They are necessary as the back-up for Knalgans, but this 'necessary' doesn't mean fully capable
* They provide one more challenge to play with them
* They are in the way nice add-on rather than independent force
* They ADD VARIETY

[scott]

Background:
here
and here

A L3 outlaw and Outlaw faction discussion

Outlaws were never intended to compete with regular military units

What's the point of giving them a L3 upgrade that's not truly L3 in terms of power? For the graphics?

[turin]

I'd just like to say that what Dave wrote back in June of '04 is brilliant... and I fail to see why his advice was not followed.

As for Dwarves allied with bandits, I just can't see that as a serious faction. A poacher, for instance, is someone who sneaks into the estate of a wealthy land-owner and kills game. A battle between a poacher and a trained Elf Archer would probably go something like this:

The poacher sees the Elf Archer, and draws a shoddy arrow from his quiver, trying desperately to string it to his self-made bow as fast as he can. The Elf deftly pulls out an arrow, and in one motion strings it, pulls back, and fires. The arrow pierces the heart of the poacher, who falls down dead. End of poacher vs elf battle.

Except there is a good chance that the poacher wouldn't even get that far.

Ditto for any of the 'Outlaw' units vs any of the units from any of the other factions (exceptions perhaps to bats and walking corpses).

IIRC, outlaws were originally created because people wanted the feeling that there were some units that were 'neutral' -- not affiliated with any particular side. I don't see why when they are created we try to string them into a side. I like outlaws, as easy to kill, wimpier-than-any-real-faction units for use in various campaigns. I just can't see them as serious fighters though.

[Sapient]

I love that quote!

Really, though, you can't make comparisons between a lowly outlaw NPC and a Fantasy-style faction of outlaws who participate in major wars. Those are two entirely different things, although you may not wish the latter one to exist.

[xtifr]

So I suppose this means that the L4 goblins I've been working on aren't going to go in the game either?

[Flametrooper]

No, but you can put them in a UMF. I think the "free goblins" faction could use some of your ideas.

[xtifr]

Whoops, did I forget to include the <sarcasm> tags in my post? Sorry.

[Sly]

If you want to represent poor training or combat experience for outlaws, then give them poorer stats. Penalizing them by making them unable to reach level 3 just means that for the first two levels (ie. the beginning of the campaign) they're useful, cool units, and then when they suddenly hit a brick wall they become much less desirable units.

How does preventing them from reaching level 3 improve gameplay? Can someone who believes they shouldn't reach level 3 give an example of level-restricted outlaws being a good thing?

We're talking about outlaws in the standard MP games, in campains they often have a lvl3, it doesn't change gameplay as long it's a campain modification

[Baufo]

If you want to represent poor training or combat experience for outlaws, then give them poorer stats. Penalizing them by making them unable to reach level 3 just means that for the first two levels (ie. the beginning of the campaign) they're useful, cool units, and then when they suddenly hit a brick wall they become much less desirable units.

How does preventing them from reaching level 3 improve gameplay? Can someone who believes they shouldn't reach level 3 give an example of level-restricted outlaws being a good thing?

We're talking about outlaws in the standard MP games, in campains they often have a lvl3, it doesn't change gameplay as long it's a campain modification

There are usually rather less level 3 units in MP games...

[Steelclad Brian]

There was an overlong argument here, but it's gone now.

[fmunoz]

Outlaws doesnt have 3rd level because were not designed to have 3rd level. It was a concous choice.
Are the 3rd level really needed? In those campaigns they appear either are given 3rd level or the designers wnat them to be only some kind of support units (I know... I was there when they got them the stats and included them in the isle of Damned)
In normal multiplayer games the 3rd level is almost never seen.

OTOH we can make all units follow the same templates with the same resitances and movement and each faction with the same set of units so we can have a fully balanced just for the sake of be balanced boring game.

[scott]

The campaign L3 outlaws break norms of the game world in order to exist.

You can search for "Jetryl" and "High Fantasy" for some colorful essays on what rightly makes up an internally consistent fantasy game world. Drakes were so contentious because the same argument was applied to them. Whether it's correct or not for Drakes is up to you (and keep it to yourself lest we pick healed-over scabs). It's also the same reason why Turin is so hesitant to grant a piece of woW real estate to every faction under the stars.