Need some input about legion size

[stmartin]

It is unfortunate you aren't understanding the issue regarding the level/category limitations. Although currently 'well tailored' from your historical point of view, they are a drawback when considered purely from a game point of view. The 'A/B/C/D' structure is completely rigid. Using bonuses/penalties and a dynamic choice of ensuing promotions rather than unchanging templates of levels/categories could accomplish the same thing without locking player in. It would be more flexible and ultimately, a much better game.

I share your concern about the current system not being realistic and is a bit restrictive. If we do as you proposed, it would be a hero can command the same number of units regardless of combat type. Besides it's a real PITA to rewrite the entire rule, AI, and interface of legion system, there will be other consequences. For example, the hero's other 'bonus' promotions will apply to his legion members even if he sucks at the type, such as vigorous promotion will apply to all naval members even if the hero is a northerner.

The idea is good, I believe it could be the right direction, but come on, give me a more compelling and complete design if you want to persuade me to spend yet another 100 hours on legion system to do as you wish.

Yeah, sorry, I realize I didn't explain it very well.

So, currently a hero has to individually promote his proficiency in each of the combat types (melee, mounted, archery, siege, naval), which I call combat type promotions. He starts with a certain value and he can only achieve a certain predetermined maximum.

I propose that you eliminate this. Instead, each hero is assigned a value for each combat type. So, let's say we have a hero right now who starts with no combat type promotions, but can potentially achieve A/D/A/D/D if you fully promote them. In this system, you would eliminate the ability to increase their proficiency in each combat type. In return, the Hero begins with A/D/A/D/D.

Then you add a separate promotion: lets call it Leadership. Leadership can have the same 5 levels (D, C, B, A, S). For each level of this promotion, the Hero gains two advantages: 1. an increase in the number of units they can lead, and 2. increase the bonus for each combat type promotion.

Let's look at this second advantage more closely. Right now every time you increase a combat type promotion (i.e. going from Melee D to Melee C), your legion troops get a larger bonus. What each level of Leadership would do is allow this bonus for every combat type. Thus, Leadership D would grant the D level bonus for melee/mounted/archery/siege/naval. However, this bonus would be limited by the Hero's predetermined proficiency in each combat type as described above. That is to say, the bonus legion members get can never exceed the proficiency level of the Hero for their combat type.

Let's try another example. Let's say we have this hero with the following starting values:

A: Melee
D: Mounted
B: Archery
D: Siege
/: Naval

So, what would happen at each level of Leadership?

Leadership D: It would be like he has Melee D, Mounted D, Archery D, and Siege D in the current system.

Leadership C: It would be like he has Melee C, Mounted D, Archery C, and Siege D in the current system.

Leadership B: It would be like he has Melee B, Mounted D, Archery B, and Siege D in the current system.

Leadership A: It would be like he has Melee A, Mounted D, Archery B, and Siege D in the current system.

Leadership S: It would be like he has Melee A, Mounted D, Archery B, and Siege D in the current system. (but he can command more units!)


Now, I thought this system may be too inflexible. I offered the possibility that you add a promotion that would increase the level of each combat type by 1. Thus, our Hero who started with A/D/A/D/D would instead become S/C/S/C/C. Powerful, yes, but you can limit the number of heroes who can get it, and also allow only one level of it.

If you wanted to allow combined arms, I feel like the current system, specifically the combat type promotion system, would not accommodate it well. It would take many promotions (and thus hero levels) to get proficient in different areas to allow effective combined arms. Right now, getting to Melee A and Mounted A is 6 promotions! This is not even counting the "bonus" hero promotions, which really give the flavor that I love about legions.

Indeed, I would like you to focus on these "bonus" promotions! Implementing my idea means that a hero need only focus on one promotion, Leadership, to increase the proficiency of his legion members. This allows him to focus on the "bonus" promotions that can really let him specialize...

I hope this was clear! If not, I will keep trying!

This time I understand much better, thank. It's good advice.

This will allow heroes to level up more quickly. However, this means ALL heroes will choose to level up leadership first ALL the time. No question about it. Because it's so valuable now.

Another slight concern is, this eliminate some player choice when promoting heroes. Because you can just choose 1 promotion and it let you do whatever you want. This might be actually good since player still have to choose when forming legion.

Another really minor concern would be some weaker heroes will have no promotion to choose from quite soon.

 

[Ambreville]

I share your concern about the current system not being realistic and is a bit restrictive. If we do as you proposed, it would be a hero can command the same number of units regardless of combat type.

I'm not entirely certain why you tried to say here. I'm advocating a system with a maximum cap of 4 units regardless of categories. I'm also advocating a system whereby if you can command one unit, it's one unit of any type. Do you see the latter as a problem?

Besides it's a real PITA to rewrite the entire rule, AI, and interface of legion system, (...)

Of course it's a pain to redesign something as intricate as that. I totally understand it. Didn't I say that in a previous post?

(...)there will be other consequences. For example, the hero's other 'bonus' promotions will apply to his legion members even if he sucks at the type, such as vigorous promotion will apply to all naval members even if the hero is a northerner.

Yes, of course. It's logical. A bad commander does have a brain and can learn unless he's forever mentally impaired. If this were the case, he wouldn't be a commander. That hero starts the game with an innate penalty (or bonus) to reflect "historical" aptitudes in one category. Promotions are earned on top of that. So what? There is no celestial law that says a westerner or northerner (whatever) can't possibly learn naval warfare in the long run. Sheesh, the Mongols tried (and failed as a result of bad weather IIRC), but at least they DID try!

The idea is good, I believe it could be the right direction, but come on, give me a more compelling and complete design if you want to persuade me to spend yet another 100 hours on legion system to do as you wish.

If it goes in the right direction what else would like to see in a design that would compel you to update a system that does indeed fall a bit short? I gave you some good ideas. I think they ought to be discussed further (and others as well) to see how best to get around the present shortcomings. That's all I was trying to do.

 

[Kenjister]

...must you really?
If you can command 4 units of something, you CAN command 4 units of something else, even if you might totally suck at it. Using the excuse this is "historical" doesn't hold water either. You show me a general capable of commanding 1,000 swordsmen but who couldn't an equivalent force of archers or cavalry. Bogus! Historically, warlords commanded very diverse forces and were masters at adapting to the situations they faced. The present system is not historical, it's not realistic, it's not flexible -- a pain the saddle for the gamers is what it is.

I understand your point here, but from a gameplay perspective, it would not make sense to implement penalties for heroes that don't command units well. If there were penalties, then the human would just use the generic units unnatached to the legion. So I'm saying it would be practically impossible to actually make a hero BAD at something and have the player choose to use that. I would think that it would end up in much the same situation as it is here, except that players would end up checking to see if their hero is inept at a certain class instead of seeing a low or / level of aptitude on the hero screen.

 

[Ambreville]

I understand your point here, but from a gameplay perspective, it would not make sense to implement penalties for heroes that don't command units well. If there were penalties, then the human would just use the generic units unnatached to the legion. So I'm saying it would be practically impossible to actually make a hero BAD at something and have the player choose to use that. I would think that it would end up in much the same situation as it is here, except that players would end up checking to see if their hero is inept at a certain class instead of seeing a low or / level of aptitude on the hero screen.

In general I agree with your assessment regarding the use of penalties. It is a weakness of the approach I am advocating -- I understand that and it needs to be examined. However, all things considered, I would much rather have that than a situation where by design I don't even have the option of using commanders do to some things at all, ever, or having this totally artificial system where one can command four of these, but only one of that, or none at all of this other one. It makes no sense at all and remains very cumbersome during play. Sorry -- not trying to be a pain, here. That's just my opinion.

It seems to me you are focusing on just the one aspect of using a penalty and missing the big picture as a result.

My gut feeling on this is that players will keep their best commanders to do what they do best, no matter what. By elimination, those who remain end up being considered for roles for which they aren't well suited. Your basic player will almost always pick the one who is the least damaging. What's wrong with that anyway? That's a good, logical choice, especially if you have lots of heroes available from whom to choose, and who happen to be at the right place at the right time. It might not always be so, especially when you run a game that has fewer heroes, or in a situation where practically all of your heroes tend to have the same sort of penalty because of their regional origins -- you know, mountains guys who practically all end up with a naval penalty, island heroes who all have problems with warfare in the desert or in the hills, or desert guys who are terrible at warfare in forested regions, etc. Sometimes you might not have the choice indeed but to use a hero who has a penalty because of circumstances. Seems natural to me.

You start allowing captured heroes to be executed in exchange for some other benefit, and all of a sudden, you might realize that your choice of heroes is becoming quite limited. By the way, right now (playing a scenario with just a standard size map), I end up with far too many heroes anyway. In the last game, I had 30+ heroes. That's way too many. There were seven or eight of them who were just sitting in a city, not so much because I didn't have the troops to give them, but because I just plain didn't need the extra heroes of questionable loyalty and didn't want to bother anyway moving troops from here and there to match their available categories.

As far as using unattached units, that's not necessarily true either. For example, in a randomly generated game, I had a hero with hide-nationality and sea lord IIRC. Even with some kind of penalty, I would have used him as a naval leader anyway just because of the benefits he passed along to ships under his command. Get him up to a point where he can command 4 ships and up his ships' experience, and eventually that commander will be able to overcome his initial combat penalty. Okay?

 

[AnotherPacifist]

I think heroes should be allowed to die after a while, and much more easily in battles. Since some figures would not have died if they had not been in battle, maybe after a certain age (estimated if there is no accurate birth year) the chances of them dying naturally should be much higher. The average life span in those years was probably anywhere from 40-60 years old (Cao Cao lived to be a ripe old 65, Sun Ce died at a young 25 while Sun Quan was in his late 60's). I would choose 50 years simply because late game usually means 210 AD at the latest.

But what would you do to the figurehead of the Civ if the hero dies? Is there a possibility of switching Sun Ce to Sun Quan, or Cao Cao to Cao Pi?

 

[Kenjister]

There already is a leader death/switch funtion implemented. Sun Ce always passes the rule to Sun Quan and Cao Cao to Cao Pi. Though this should be probably mentioned as a bug, the last time I saw this, the leader name remained the same on the score board.

I think the natural death thing should be implemented, after all it really bugs me to see some guys living an unnaturally long time.

 

[stmartin]

I can add natural death for heroes, but I will not change hero death chance in combat, it will just be the reason for many players to load a save game.

@Ambreville

The problem with your design is, legion get much more powerful, it will break current balance. The reason is all legion members get all member promotion such as vigorous.

However, I do like your idea. So I'll see what I can do about it.

 

[Ambreville]

The problem with your design is, legion get much more powerful, it will break current balance. The reason is all legion members get all member promotion such as vigorous.

Sorry, but I don't understand what you mean.

However, I do like your idea. So I'll see what I can do about it.

Awesome! Good luck then.

By the way, on the issue of "executing" treacherous heroes (in exchange for some game benefit), there could also be an option to return a captured hero to his former clan in exchange for a ransom. Gee you could almost trade heroes like resources!

How about "prisoner exchange" too (trading one prisoner vs another)?

 

[AnotherPacifist]

Prisoner exchange is a great idea. (The AI needs to know how to do it though) Cao Cao might hold on to Guan Yu, maybe even have a built in auto-revert after a while if the "native" civ is still alive (crossing 5 passes and slaying 6 generals to do it).

Speaking of loyalties, maybe it's possible to give a NEGATIVE bonus if you use a general against a civ it's 100% loyal?

 

[Kenjister]

well, technically shouldn't it be impossible to have a general that is 100% loyal to another civ? I don't think any of the heroes that have changing loyalties make it up to 100. I think Zhang Liao's 90 is the highest.

 

[ORION11380]

Guan Yu was 100% loyal to Liu Bei, even when serving under Cao Cao, because Cao Cao spared his life, and he was indebted by his sense of honor to serve his new master until such time that he felt his debt was paid (killing Wen Chow and Yan Liang in personal combat).

That and Cao Cao was holding his family hostage...that could pursuade someone to do things against their will...

 

[Kenjister]

well, I was talking in game terms, but I see your point... perhaps it would be interesting to have dead civs get reborn in a random small city (such as Liu Bei after getting defeated, simulating his resilience) and then the heroes that were previously captured from them would then defect back after a while. Maybe with some cool flavor text too detailing the escape.

 

[Evalis]

With the introduction of random heroes, having enough heroes to support your army isn't a huge concern. Indeed I'm apposed to the idea of enlarging the control by enough so that strategy is lost in their location. Nor do I think the idea of combined arms is particularily sensible (archer commanders aren't up there with cavalry..) That said.. there might be a way to appease both parties.

Allow heroes to acquire the ability to lead other heroes with a "Ranking Officer" trait that is automatically assigned to faction leaders and acquirable by heroes that reach level x (8 maybe?) and have at least 1 commander promotion at Rank A. The hero with this trait is then able to form another group type that uses core units of other heroes, up to a limit of 1 hero per 2 ranks of any type, but loses the ability to command any units of their own. In exchange each hero in the group has their commander promotion rank increased by 2 (up to the limit of the Ranking Officer) as well as the ability to use 9 transformation to select any of the non-core abilities of the Ranking Officer. The command range for heroes in this group is 10 and selected heroes require a unit (and consequently at least rank D) to participate.

To give an example:

Let's say Cao Cao Has Rank S Melee, Rank A Mounted, Rank B Siege
That would let him command 2 Melee, 2 Mounted, and 1 Siege Heroes
He chooses to control Dian Wei (Rank B Melee) and Cao Ren (Rank C Siege)
Dian Wei Improves to Rank S and gains command of 2 more units as a result
Cao Ren Improves to Rank B and gains command of 1 more unit as a result
Cao Cao may still command 1 Melee and 2 Mounted Heroes
Cao Cao would continue to gain xp (reduced) from troops in both legions

Hopefully this should help prevent emerging heroes from not being used due to low xp, and to make selection of additional ranks in other commands a viable option.

 

[Evalis]

On the note of making vigorous core unit only, please keep in mind that +4 strength is not worth 4 promotions if it only affects the core unit, and if you choose to adjust this I highly recommend reducing this to 1 promotion and making it available only for generals that normally have rank II or higher and having it automatically improve at techs "Syphmology" and "Nine Bestowments".

 

[stmartin]

@Evalis

I love your idea very much! This will go into our plan for the next version.