Kael said:
I cant speak for the others but the fact that I dont risk my heroes in battles they are liekly to lose doesnt make their action unheroic. They turnt he tides of wars, Saverous alone saved my empire from collapse in my last game. But he did it without ever fighting a battle he had less than a 95% to win (except for one 60/40 fight against Rosier that he won!).
But its not about the risk in the battle you choose to join. Its about the risk in exposing the hero. Do you move them forward to kill that archer, know that it will be deep in enemy lines and the ai could gang up on it afterwards.
There are actually two problems here, both caused by the unexpendable nature of heroes. First, heroes aren't used that much. I'll expand on this more later. The second is that it's extremely frustrating when you lose your hero to a battle that's overwhelmingly in your favor. It's frustrating whenever this happens, but moreso for units you cannot rebuild.
There should be a way to make sure your hero doesn't die in a battle that has very good odds. Where defeat does not necessarily mean your hero is killed. Ever heard the saying "losing makes you stronger"? That can never happen for heroes right now. The whole concept of tactical retreat within battles doesn't exist.
Personally, I kinda want all units to have a good chance at withdrawing, but I recognize that Civ4 is an empire building game first, and a tactical turn-based wargame second. Prolonged fights between units may detract from the rest of the game, and the massive number of units already simulate withdrawing (killing a unit can be seen as just destroying part of an army, leaving the rest to withdraw the next turn). However, heroes are an exception here. They can't be replaced. They should be important enough to warrant the additional attention and complexity. In fact, RPG elements would be nice for heroes.
As for the first point - that heroes don't fight as much as others - I still think this doesn't feel right. Perhaps they can change the tide of war, but so can any other powerful unit. There should be something distinguishing a hero from simply being a powerful unit. Heroes just don't feel heroic to me. Sometimes I get more attached to a unit that somehow constantly defies odds and wins over and over again - something I would never risk sending the actual "hero" to do. Maybe that is the missing element. Heroes shouldn't become heroes until they prove themselves to be heroes.
Alright, I'll lay out out my suggestions. Not fully thought out, but good enough for now.
1) Some units should morph into heroes once they reach a certain level. For example, let's say an elven archer reaches level 4. Then it becomes Gilden Silveric. Once that happens no other archer can become Gilden Silveric (for obvious reasons) even if the hero dies.
2) It should still be possible to directly train heroes under certain conditions. Heroes like Typhoid Mary, which aren't based off any unit, can always be trained. Heroes like Gilden Silveric can only be trained after a certain amount of archers are produced (or some other constraint, maybe tech?). This ensures that aggressive civs don't have too large an advantage over passive civs, since both types will still have ready access to heroes.
3) It should be possible to upgrade heroes. Going on with the Gilden Silveric example, once you have access to elven longbowmen, you can upgrade Gilden Silveric to a longbowman. This is the RPG-equivalent of changing equipment.
4) When attacking or defending against a stack of units without an "anti-hero unit", the hero should have a 100% chance of withdrawal. "Anti-hero" could be some sort of promotion granted to most heroes and assassins and their ilk. Each level in the anti-hero promotion in the enemy stack would reduce the withdrawal chance by 20%. Or if that's too complicated, just let the anti-hero promotion reduce withdrawal by 50% regardless of level or the number of anti-hero units in the stack. Note: I have no clue if this can be done in Civ4.
5) When you have an anti-hero unit attack a stack of units that also has an anti-hero unit, your anti-hero unit will attack the strongest non-hero anti-hero unit, instead of the strongest unit in the stack. If the only anti-hero unit in the stack is a hero itself, then your anti-hero will attack that hero. So the order of preference goes: non-hero anti-hero unit > anti-hero hero > any other unit. This sounds complex, but it does add an additional layer of tactics. Anti-hero units serve both as hero killers and defenders this way. Note: Again, no clue if this is possible in Civ4.
6) After each battle a hero participates in in the same turn, the hero's chance of withdrawal is reduced. This ensures heroes can't simply survive repeated attacks in the same turn.
7) Heroes with flanking promotions would get > 100% chance of withdrawal so it would take more anti-hero units or more battles in the same turn to corner them.
8) An equipment system and random items spawning around the map would add an RPG feel. Basically something similar to Heroes of Might and Magic.
The goal of the above suggestions are to make heroes a more integral part of the game. They make the player more attached to them, make them a centerpiece in military campaigns, and something the player spends plenty of attention on. At the same time, I'm keeping in mind that the additional complexity needs to be worth the buck, so I wonder if there are simpler ways to acheive the same effect.
He looks like a drunken down and out tramp who had vomit on his clothes.
I'm light years away from beeing just a poor "skinner".
