Making leaders more usable

[lifesayko]

Well right now, Leaders are little used, especially because they tend to be easy to destroy. Imho something should be done to encourage the use of leaders.

First of all, leaders (in general units that you don't recruit but start with in the beginning of the game) don't have any traits. Imho doesn't really make sense that a lvl2 unit you buy is actually stronger than your leader....They should have traits also. If possible, it would be nice to be able to choose your leader's traits (since that charachter is you in essence), or perhaps he gets 3 traits instead of two? nycase, at least the two traits.

Second, which I think matters more, perhaps leaders could start with their exp-bar half full, basically be a lvl2.5 instead of lvl2.0 This doesn't make them stronger per se, but really gives an incentive to try and level them up since they're almost there.

just my 2....thousand yen.

[Tomsik]

I dont think leaders should be stronger, in chess king is nearly weakest.
(Not that wesnoth is like chess! Only this one thing.)

[scott]

Well right now, Leaders are little used, especially because they tend to be easy to destroy.

This statement isn't quite true. If you play some more, you will figure out how to level up your leader and keep him alive. I assume you're talking about campaigns.

[elscouta]

I think he is talking about multiplayer (as he said the leader you have is level 2)

The problem is not that the leader is too weak, it is that sending him on the frontline forbid you from recruiting during (usually) three turns, and this is often fatal in 2gpv settings. If there is a keep near the frontline, using his leader to attack will often turn the battle in your favor (especially leader with leadership and necromancer) while if there is not, even the temporary advantage you get is quickly resorbed by the lack of unit recruitement.

[Dave]

It used to be that leaders in the default multiplayer era were third level, however we thought that it was too easy to use them in combat to influence the game, so we took them down to 2nd level.

Still, third level leaders are interesting, so I think it'd be nice to have an era which is identical to default, except it has 3rd level leaders.

David

[Dragonking]

I've found leader as unit which can turn tide of battle. Having extra level 2 unit from begining is really powerful advantage. Of course only, if you know how keep it alive... also level up leader isn't really so hard, it's rather better to not "waste" this xp for leader, but instead advance few other lvl1 units.

[Eleazar]

....They should have traits also. If possible, it would be nice to be able to choose your leader's traits (since that charachter is you in essence)....

I like this idea as an option for campaigns (and for multi-player?)
Is it be reasonably possible?

[Viliam]

I disagree with leaders having traits.

Traits are used to make units of the same kind (e.g. 5 Elvish Archers) look different from each other. There is only one leader per army, so we cannot make him any more different... maybe only different from the same leader type in another multiplayer game.

And I think that in campaigns, receiving different traits for the leader would make too much difference. Whether e.g. Konrad in HTTT is quick or not, could make big difference in gameplay. It would strongly influence time to get from one castle to another (time without recruiting possibility). Just because dice rolled differently when I started campaign, should I play 20+ scenarios with faster or slower leader?

[turin]

Traits for campaign heroes would be OK, but they should be assigned by the scenario creator, not given randomly. And one should always be "loyal", since all campaign heroes are loyal anyway.

I really don't understand choosing your leader's traits. Do I get to choose whether I am intelligent, strong, quick, or resilient? Not really. I get whatever traits I was born with, basically (this is a gross oversimplification, I know). So if MP game leaders get traits, they should be random...

[Cuyo Quiz]

So two/three traits to at least balance him with your other units, or make him shop up among the army, although leveling up is one way to show up, so maybe two fits better.

Sidetracking, you could give leaders steadfast, that is prone to make them harder to kill.

[lifesayko]

Yeah, actually I meant in multiplayer mode.

even the temporary advantage you get is quickly resorbed by the lack of unit recruitement.

I was thinking of making the leader sufficiently powerful, in a way that, at least one medium maps, having your leader on the frontline or keeping it in the keep is more or less balanced. This would vary gameplay strategy a quite a bit imho, Do I want lots of units, do I want just a few powerful units, do I want to try and rush my opponent, etc. It also makes leader choice more important.

@Turin:I thought maybe choosing traits gets complicated in the code, but I don't think it's unnatural. You're saying it's only nature(genes), but imho it's not. Sure, some people are "born" more intelligent or tougher than others, but imho it mostly depends on the environment and your upbringing: If you work out you' ll become more "resilient" and "strong", if you study more you'll be more "intelligent" etc.

[Dragonking]

So two/three traits to at least balance him with your other units, or make him shop up among the army, although leveling up is one way to show up, so maybe two fits better.

Ok... I agree that makings leader more unique is a good idea...
But then, we can make luck even more important - now you get a lot of units during game, and every recruitment can be considered as rather "lucky" (for example resilient, strong elf fighter) or rather "unlucky" (like strong, dextrous shaman). Usually you have some luck and some unlucky recruitments.
After change, you would get 2 (3) traits for leader completly random - so you can consider yourself as being lucky/unlucky too.
This would have most impact on roumble-type of games (not that it concerns me much...), but on smaller maps, when you use leader, it would be more important (quick leader with leadership, quick silver mage, intelligent lvl2 mage, dextrous marksman etc...).
Also this will affect whole gamelay, since leader is no mere unit, which can die and we will replace him with more or less better unit - he is unit which can affect whole game - from begining to the end.
I like idea of making leader more unique, I just dislike idea if making it in "random" way...
Also I agree with Turin - " I get whatever traits I was born with "
My point is that trait works for normal units, but I don't think it would work so well for leaders.

Sidetracking, you could give leaders steadfast, that is prone to make them harder to kill.

No. If someone goes too far with his leader, he must pay price for a mistake, not be saved by dteadfast.

[Dragonking]

@Turin:I thought maybe choosing traits gets complicated in the code, but I don't think it's unnatural. You're saying it's only nature(genes), but imho it's not. Sure, some people are "born" more intelligent or tougher than others, but imho it mostly depends on the environment and your upbringing: If you work out you' ll become more "resilient" and "strong", if you study more you'll be more "intelligent" etc.

I think if you study, you will be more "wise" not "intelligent"...
Some people just born with "mind" abilites - they are more intelligent, not because they sudy during life, but because they learn faster than others (-20% to xp represents this IMHO).
Anyway, if you will born with poor health, you won't be resilient/strong. If you will born with tendency to be chubby, you won't be as quck as people who born with abilites which helps them to be fast - but you can be strongest and more resilient than them.

[lifesayko]

The acquisition of new information makes you more wise and not more intelligent, yes you're right, but imho the more you study, the more you are "training" this ability, and you probably become more intelligent too.
Same goes for other traits. and yes of course, if someone is born with some sort of handicap, it's hard for him to change, but for the great majority of people, this isn't the case, ergo they have the capability to change themselves.

In any for the game, the computer can't know what sort of traits "you" should have, so you could choose. Besides, it's not that big of a deal if your charachter in the game isn't exactly like you, isn't that the purpose of games, to imagine something that isn't?

I also agree with no steadfast: You shouldn't be able to choose traits that that unit wouldn't be able to recieve otherwise, so only the guardsman line could have steadfast, only elves could have dextrous etc.

[turin]

But the whole point of traits is that they represent how innately smart, strong, quick, or resilient you are. Any training that you do, all other units of the same type will have done. It is true that you can work on making yourself smarter, or stronger, or whatever. But, for people of the same profession that requires the same skill set, you will all have worked on improving those all of those skills as much as you can...

The suggestion that steadfast should be assigned is fundamentally flawed. Steadfast is an ABILITY, not a trait. The two should never be confused.

[digression]
It is true that who you are is not determined completely by your birth, and is somewhat enviromentally based. However, even with that true, your traits will be determined before you are 7 or 8 years old - so, you wouldn't be able to make a conscious decision to have the traits you have. I know that is how it worked for me - I am smart and can move quickly, but am not strong or toughly built; however, I never chose to be those things. It just happened.
[/digression]