This started in the Elohim/Illian So Crazy it could work thread:
Basically I started talking about how it could be cool to have a game option for Regicide where the king units represented the leaders of the civ. Far from defenseless these units would basically be a second hero for the civ with the caveat that you lose the game if they die.
MC and I discussed balance issues in the old thread and the suitability for this option for all civs (for example he mentioned that Tebryn would just get rezzed and Os-Gabella is unkillable until some rune from a dragon's forehead is erased or some such).
Also an issue is what type of unit these heroes would be. Would there be different categories such as Arcane, melee, archer/recon or cavalry based heroes? Or would the heroes all just be part of the same category?
I gather you wanna have leader heroes. But if there was more...well, plz elaborate. For example, gimme a reason why leader heroes would add to the game. (Beyond the obvious, of course.) In essence, convince me.
I'll tell you what it would add.. another strategy element. I'd prefer however for the death of the regent to cause the civ to loose some, or all of its traits instead of destroy the civ. Isn't that how it did or does work with Hyborem?
Then add the option of recapturing the regent. Also other civs could attempt to capture and free the hostage leader turning his kingdom into a vassal. There was something like this mechanic in SMAC, one of the greatest civ-games of all time and it was loads of fun to free captured rival leaders.
I wouldn't necessarily make the leader very combat effective or give them the Hero promo, would depend on the leader. Maybe would make them immune to Marksman just so it's not easy to capture them.
I gather you wanna have leader heroes. But if there was more...well, plz elaborate. For example, gimme a reason why leader heroes would add to the game. (Beyond the obvious, of course.) In essence, convince me.
Well it's not like civ3 brought much else to the table. Being one of the most popular options from that game is like being the one of the freshest smelling turds from an elephant's ass.
Anyway, in FfH this seems like one of those options that would be guaranteed to anger a lot of people no matter how it's implemented. If you don't make the leader heroes match up to their power in the lore, and instead make them all competent (or uber) anyone who cares at all about the lore matching the mechanics will get mad. If you do make them match up like so, you have issues with civslike the Lanun, Balseraphs, Sheaim, etc. wiping out whole empires early on with just their leaders, while others like the Elohim and Kuriotates and probably the Luchuirp and Svartalfar are essentially stuck with scouts that can't upgrade and can't die or else you lose. It's a balance issue that wouldn't be good for this mod, close as it is to being finished.
No, I definitely think you don't remember correctly. It was a shunned option, that's why it didn't carry over in Civ4. It was popular in and because of the Shogun scenario.
If Regicide was introduced - and personally I think it'd be nice custom option - I think I'd be inclined to err on the side of the units all being the same myself as there are too many variables to consider to get each unit to tally up with the lore and balance them at the same time.
Perhaps the unit could start of as a weaker Warrior, but with the "Leader" promotion. This would pretty much act similarly to the Hero promotion, but perhaps open up other options like being able to buy strength or spend XP to change the unit type (so in time you could possibly turn your leader into an Arcane unit, or perhaps even an Assasin to hunt down other leaders "If you want a job done properly..."). By being seperate from Hero it also makes the unit less prone to the netherblade.
This way the player gets to define what his leader can / can't do.
Alternatively you could perhaps have a pool of unique promotions based on the Leader traits. So for example Aggressive could provide an attack bonus, Defender a defensive bonus, Raider allows ignore borders, Charisma provides a bonus to units in the stack, Financial would reduce maintenance in the city the leader is located in, Barbarian could pay to have Barb units join the cause (and perhaps pay an own unit to go Barbarian?), Adaptive could allow the unit to change its type between melee/scout/horse/arcane once the required tech is reached.
Where a leader has three two would be taken randonly.
Well, FFH practically never does things to be all the same between the civilizations. Kael dislikes using the same stuff for everyone. Seeing how wonderful mod that mind has created, I cannot disagree.
In fact, the fact that some civs already have an active leader (hyborem, basium, auric after ascending) I cannot see Kael liking the idea for all of them to have it.
Well, FFH practically never does things to be all the same between the civilizations. Kael dislikes using the same stuff for everyone. Seeing how wonderful mod that mind has created, I cannot disagree.
In fact, the fact that some civs already have an active leader (hyborem, basium, auric after ascending) I cannot see Kael liking the idea for all of them to have it.
Well, FFH practically never does things to be all the same between the civilizations. Kael dislikes using the same stuff for everyone. Seeing how wonderful mod that mind has created, I cannot disagree.
In fact, the fact that some civs already have an active leader (hyborem, basium, auric after ascending) I cannot see Kael liking the idea for all of them to have it.
Actually for the most part units are the same - Warrior, Scout, Hunter, Axeman/Swordsman, Archer. They may have unique artwork, but the stats are more often as not the same no matter the civ. True, some have some unique abilities, but for the most part units are interchangable between civs. For the most part it is the tech tree route a civ has taken that differentiates it from others.
If you go down the unique road for a starting leader unit in particular your going to end up with some civs with a unit with Channeling 3 (Balseraphs/Svalt/Sheaim...) whilst others have an old man with bad wind (Elohim).
Regarding Basium and Hyborem they are late civs - and again are a Tech tree choice, indeed as is Auric Ascended.
I posted this stuff up in the Challenge mode thread, because I'm completely in favour of leader's being implemented as units in the game (although setting up 1 or 2 game otpions to enable them, e.g. Regicide "if they die you lose" mode and a "Normal" mode where you lose all your traits, ala Hyborem).
Kill the king- Each civ, including the player, has a "King" unit that is immune to marksman. Civ ceases to exist after king dies and all cities and units turn barb.
Usually called Regicide I believe - it was in at least one of the scenarios in a Civ 3 expansion, with the Shogun unit upgradeable at certain techs so you had to choose between risking him in combat (and having a powerful unit) and keeping him safe at home. I guess giving everyone an Adventurer with, say, a Leader or Monarch promo which caused their defeat if the Adventurer died would do a decent job of replicating those conditions.
I would love Imuratep's idea of "Leaders" being the "King" units but expanding on it a bit more along the lines of what BeefontheBone.
I remember that Civ3 scenario Beef mentioned (Japanese Conquest iirc), and it was quite fun. My take on it would be that all "King" units begin as just a basic unit (with appropriate graphics, of course), either at 0 Str with 2 move or with stats comparable to a Scout or Warrior (another possibility would be to jack up their defence but leave them with little offence, meaning that a major Warrior rush wouldn't equal instadeath but at the same time they can't go on a Warrior rush of their own). Either way, some kind of stat set-up where they won't be game-defining in the early game. I'd also say a new promotion needs to be added that makes the King unit NOT defend the stack if it's the strongest unit in the stack. It just seems logical that if the game rests on the King unit surviving, that you should have to kill all of its followers on the same tile before getting to it (possibly making it immune to collateral damage as well or putting a cap on how much it can take so that it doesn't die from Fire Ball spamming).
As BeefontheBone said, in that Civ3 scenario you could upgrade your King unit during tech progression and make him a useful unit as well as the object of the game. I could see that being fitting in FFH (albeit there could be some significant balance issues that need to be thought through thoroughly). Keelyn could become "Keelyn the Conjurer" at KotE, Tasunke could become "Tasunke the Warlord" at Stirrups/Horseback Riding, "Falamar the Charismatic" at Sailing and etc/so forth (I could sit here and make up ones for all of them by that'd be overkill)**. It could go further that they have multiple upgrade stages. With the Tasunke example, getting a new boost with each of the horse techs (so that he can compete with his fellow units in strength - after all he is there leader), Keelyn going up with the magic techs, Falamar with the Sailing techs and so on.
**[I stick all the "____ the ____" names just so it differentiate them from what I assume would be their vanilla names when they're in "basic" form. So it'd go Tasunke, Tasunke the Warlord, etc. That's obviously variable, you could easily change things around like "General Tasunke" or "Captain Falamar" etc, or just leave it at default...I'm just spouting babble now...]
The same "Don't defend the stack unless it's the last unit" rule would still have to apply obviously, but they'd be usable as offensive units and could indeed be great assets to an invasion. The Arcane leaders especially strike me as perfect for having their own unique spells to spice things up (Tebryn for example could bring back Meteors, although looking at Jonas's entry, it seems like he could be more than capable of raining down that kind of fire too).
The reason i didnt say to have a unit of the actual leader for Kill the King is that would be 18 new unit graphics that wouldnt even be used in the game other than this. I think just using a great commander unit would be fine, especially since you wouldnt really be playing him a lot, other than maybe moving him away from armies.
I know it's a bit of an unnecessary strain on the art team, but I'd actually love to see in-game renders of the leaders. You could argue that the graphics would be used only in this scenario, but maybe the game could be altered to accomodate them to be usable within normal games. Maybe have a deal like with Hyborem, where if you lose your leader unit, you lose your traits (maybe with a Ritual added where you can get them back, to stop your civ from being completely crippled for the entire game... although losing your leader certainly should be punished). Once again, the main issue I see with this is balance, and also, can the AI use the units intelligently (i.e. don't send it off on its own or throw it into a 40% odds of winning battle)?
Anyway, the Regicide idea really swings by with me I <3ed that Civ3 scenario and I feel the leaders in this game all have enough flavour to them where they could be added as in game units (most of them have some degree of battle experience, and those that don't could certainly be made to have more "supportive/boosting" roles for their troops).
That summed up:
Each Civ begins with a basic leader unit with apppropriate artwork. The unit would be either 0 Str, equivilent to a Scout or Warrior or have high defence to prevent it being slaughtered by an early Warrior rush (I lean in favour of the Scout/Warrior levels, since Warrior rush is a fair strategy).
At certain techs, like the aforementioned Shogun scenario, they can be upgraded to effective units. e.g. Keelyn becomes a Mage-type unit at KotE, and possibly with further upgrades along the magic line. Tasunke becomes a Horseman-type unit at Horseback Riding, with further upgrades along the Horse line. Etc.
The Arcane leaders open up options for "unique" spells, as opposed to being direct attackers like Tasunke or Amelanchier would be. Some of the more "peaceful" leaders like Ethne could come with spells/abilities that are more there to "enhance" their army.
A new promotion is added to the game (call it Leader or something). The promotion works like a reverse Guardsman, where the leader will NOT defend the stack if it's the strongest unit in the stack, and won't defend until it's the last unit in the stack. With so much resting on the leader unit, you shouldn't have to worry about losing it to a 60/40 battle because s/he defended the stack.
Biggest problems that come with it:
- Balance issues. Some leaders are clearly easier to make "useful" than others.
- Can the AI use the units smartly? (e.g. no suicide runs or leaving the unit alone just because it's its strongest unit)
- Art team needs to make 18+ new unit graphics, the "+" being if the upgrades get new unit art (e.g. Tasunke's basic form is unmounted, then he becomes mounted, etc)
I think the important thing is that it's an "option", not forced. In order to play with the leaders as units, you have to checkbox before the game that they'll be involved, either as Regicide units or with the Hyborem "lose traits" risk. I suppose maybe a 3rd option where they're actually just an additional hero with no punishment for losing them, except maybe some kind of diplomacy penalty (I have a mental image of Ethne being furious with me with a -10 "You killed me" penalty).
I think it would be much more do-able if the leaders all have the same stats. Make them adventurer types if you want a choice in upgrading. This solves the balance issue, and could ease the art burden as well. More options is nice, but sometimes simple is better and more likely to be included in the game.
I think it would be much more do-able if the leaders all have the same stats. Make them adventurer types if you want a choice in upgrading. This solves the balance issue, and could ease the art burden as well. More options is nice, but sometimes simple is better and more likely to be included in the game.
I actually liked playing regicide a lot when I played multiplayer with my friend. One of my most fond memories was of him getting his ass handed to him and watching his king flee his lands (dodging enemy units) to seek shelter in my cities. We recaptured his cities not long afterwards but it was still fun.
The BAD part was that the AI didn't handle this well at all. We stopped playing regicide after discovering we could just blitz the capital and kill the king to destroy an entire civ.
If you go down the unique road for a starting leader unit in particular your going to end up with some civs with a unit with Channeling 3 (Balseraphs/Svalt/Sheaim...) whilst others have an old man with bad wind (Elohim).
Einion Logos has at least some magical skill. He did dispel Sammael's spell.
I'm in favor of upgradeable unique leader units. However, you'd have to make them immune to certain spells and effects. Notably, Domination, Crazed, and Enraged. Also, as mentioned it would be much harder to implement, what with new art, balance issues, etc.
Upgradeable would keep them from being grossly over/underpowered, though for many leaders a passive bonus seems more fitting.
So, here's what I think about the unit types of the various leaders:
Spoiler:
Amelanchier: Archer
Thessa: Arcane
Arendel: Passive boost, like pre-KotE Epona from AoI?
Faeryl: Recon?
Einion: Arcane?
Ethne: Passive
Os-Gabella: Melee? She is trying to end her own existence.
Tebryn: Arcane
Varn: Arcane - Sun-linked?
Flauros: Passive?
Alexis: Melee?
Sabathiel: Passive
Capria: Melee
Tasunke: Melee to Cavalry
Rhoanna: Passive or Cavalry?
Valledia: Arcane/Passive?
Dain: Arcane
Perpentach: Arcane/insane - Random spell sphere switching?
Keelyn: Arcane
Jonas Endain: Melee
Sheelba: Passive
Auric Ulvin: Priest of Winter?
Charadon: Melee
Mahala: Melee or Passive?
Cassiel: Passive
Sandalphon: Passive
Cardith Lorda: Passive
Beeri: Melee
Garrim: Arcane
Arturus: Melee
Kandros: Melee
Basium: Melee
Hyborem: Melee
Falamar: Melee?
Hannah: Passive?
Decius: Melee
I think it would be much more do-able if the leaders all have the same stats. Make them adventurer types if you want a choice in upgrading. This solves the balance issue, and could ease the art burden as well. More options is nice, but sometimes simple is better and more likely to be included in the game.
To be honest, the thing I dislike about having them all being the same is simply "Nothing's changed, except we've added one Adventurer-type unit to the game for each civ (just with different art)". I love the idea of diversity, and with options in place so that if there are balance issues, it doesn't have to be included.
I agree. It's easy enough to get a unit with Guardsman now to protect your king from assassins. And if your king is (Brigit style) immortal, then you don't have to fear a lone lucky attack.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
? And yes by the way someone who can do an artwork for every leader 
I <3ed that Civ3 scenario and I feel the leaders in this game all have enough flavour to them where they could be added as in game units (most of them have some degree of battle experience, and those that don't could certainly be made to have more "supportive/boosting" roles for their troops).
![[to_xp]Gekko](https://civfanatics-data.community.forum/avatars/m/74/74677.jpg?1475248346){kind=avatar}
