Thoughts on hero system for fantasy mods

[Pazyryk]

I posted this on the FFH forum back in April when I first heard about the 1 upt rule for civ5. This is for the Kaels, xienwolfs, Valkrionns, and so on that are reappearing here (and the others that I'm sure are lurking). Just hoping to inspire some ideas or discussion along this lines. I'm working on something like this -- it's been brewing in my head for 5 months now -- but please take anything you like. Reproduced here in its entirety:

My apologies for not posting this in the existing civ5 thread. This is really about heroes and ideas for a new hero system partly inspired by civ5 speculation.

It seems to me that the new civ5 system is going to force units to act more like armies with rules like one-unit-per-tile, resource support, etc. These changes have me thinking about the current FFH hero system, which basically treats single important individuals (heroes, powerful mages, etc.) exactly the same as an “army” unit (e.g., a BIG group of warriors, archers, or whatever). There is a story in the Beltain Cycle about Alaskan and Hemmah teaming up to steal an artifact from Evermore. Unfortunately, the current treatment of hero units (essentially as an “army” unit) doesn’t really lend itself to this kind of thing.

Below I’ve listed features of civ5 “armies” that I’ve read, guessed or just made up, and some contrasting rules for heroes (or adventurers or important single individuals). My thinking is that powerful mages or priests would all fall under “single individual category,” although I could easily imagine some different kinds of arcane or disciple armies.

Armies (BIG groups of warriors, archers, monks, or whatever):

• follow one-unit-per-tile rule (this represents logistic issues such as feeding your army)
• can’t enter cities (?? I think I’ve read this; cities have their own militias)
• additional “logistic” restrictions (can’t go too far into ice or deserts where there is no food for army support)
• follow rules of passage (need some sort of open borders agreement, or declare war)
• resource support (eg, one iron resource supports five swordsman armies; one horse resource supports five horseman armies; etc.)
• gold support (I’m assuming that army support will cost gold)
• can’t explore dungeons, ruins, unique features, etc.
• more tactical “army-like” behavior: It looks to me like civ5 will bring in a whole lot of interesting effects (ranged attacks, suppression, some kind of zone of control, etc.) with successful attacks generally leading to weakening (rather than death) of the enemy armies

Single individuals (heroes, adventurers, or powerful mages or priests):

• no limit per tile
• can enter cities
• no logistic limits: can cross desserts, mountain peaks, etc. (maybe some limits; modified by attributes below)
• do not follow rules of passage (although chance of capture in enemy or “non-friendly” territory)
• generally, no resource or gold support (there may be some exceptions: e.g., reagents for a mage)
• can explore dungeons and other features
• cannot “directly” engage enemy armies (but see below)
• can be “detected." Detected individuals can be dealt with in a variety of ways including an attempt to capture, kill, or put under surveillance.
• can directly engage other heroes (if they are “detected”)
• units have a set of attributes (promotions or whatever mechanism) that affect how they interact with armies, other heroes, city militia, etc.:
  
  [*]specific leadership skills: Different kinds of skills can affect army strength, recovery after battle, logistics (ie, army support costs or range), spy detection, etc. Both the strength of the effect and range (same tile, 1 hex ring, 2 hex rings) can vary.
  [*]personal strength: Overall fighting prowess in one-on-one combat with other single individuals. This attribute may affect survival if an enemy detects and attempts to kill individual. Individuals with exceptional strength (eg, dragons or heroes of legendary strength) can directly engage "army" units.
  [*]evasion: Ability to elude detection by other units, heroes, or city militia. Generally, most individuals should be able to walk freely though neutral (ie, non-hostile but non-friendly) territory and cities, but only a few can walk within an enemy army. This trait also may affect escape after capture.
  [*]woodsman, mountaineer, nomad, etc.: Affect self or accompanying army logistics (ability to travel) through different terrains
  [*]spells and abilities: These can do all sorts of things to armies or other heroes, including direct damage (a mage fireball or an assassin poisoning an army's food), summoning of new armies, buffs of heroes or armies, escape from capture, etc.​

Anyway, just some thoughts for a new hero system. I think the civ5 “restrictions” on units may be a good opportunity to differentiate heroes, mages and other important individuals from the “armies” that are represented by most units.

 

[JDexter]

Good thoughts.

It should be kept in mind that some heroes are "simply" great leaders of an army, so they aren't only an individual, but also his elite bodyguards or something like that. These types should probably treated like an army, so it's hard to differentiate by "hero" and "no hero" alone.

 

[Pazyryk]

, so they aren't only an individual, but also his elite bodyguards or something like that. These types should probably treated like an army, so it's hard to differentiate by "hero" and "no hero" alone.

That's certainly one way to do it. That's more or less the way I thought about heroes in FFH, as the individual plus their elite entourage. However, this limits their function to acting essentially as "military" units all the time. As individual "civilian" units, they could act as great generals (which could be great warriors but also priests or wizards modifying military units in different ways) OR they could go out adventuring, exploring dungeons and causing mischief in foreign lands or cities. The later is something they do in the stories a lot, even in hostile or non-friendly civs where you probably don't have open borders agreement. It is not really sensible for Alazkan to be pulling off a big heist in Evermore if the "Alazkan unit" always has to represent Alazkan plus an army.

 

[Zurai]

I think there's some good potential for both. You can have heroes that are mechanically civilian units (stacking with military units and providing bonuses in various ways depending on the hero), and you can have some heroes that are mechanically military units (like Robin Hood and the Merry Men). Even better, I wouldn't think it'd be hard to give some heroes a special ability that lets them switch back and forth from non-combat to combat unit (possibly just once, to prevent abuse). You could flavor it as raising an army, which they then lead exclusively, ala Band of the Red Hand.

 

[Pazyryk]

Zurai, your comment about switching is intriguing. Instead, I'd have it so the hero can join/separate from an existing "army" unit. I'm not generally a fan of going back to civ4 mechanisms on much of anything, but being able to "attach" a great general to a military unit would remove some of the awkwardness of the current system (general running about on their own) and may even assist the AI (less likely to let a great general get killed in the open). I don't see a problem attaching/detaching as many times as you want -- it would just be a tool for reducing unit micromanagement.

 

[Zurai]

That's certainly an option as well. I don't see why there can't be all of the above. Some heroes might function as only civilian units, with various effects (some similar to improved great generals, some maybe boosting tile yields in a radius, some boosting city effects for the city they're in, etc etc); some might function purely as military units; some might mostly function as civilian units but have the ability to become a military unit if needed, or vice versa; and some might be a civilian unit that can permanently join a unit, giving a special promotion to that unit (and perhaps nearby units as well).

 

[Yakk]

The removal of stack-based movement in Civ5 will be a pain to reintroduce.

Do we have a clue how the file format/unit data has changed -- can we attach arbitrary metadata to a unit now? If so, the "lead army" option becomes very viable.

I also sort of like the idea that your "heros" can flee enemy armies. When attacked, a hero will fight a duel with one of the "men" in the enemy army. If the hero wins soundly, the army stops. If the hero wins marginally, the army advances, and the hero retreats. If the army wins marginally, the hero is forced to go underground (and leaves the control of the player who owns the hero) to survive, returning back to the players control after a number of turns. If the army wins seriously, the hero is captured or killed.

Armies led by heroes get two chances to defeat the hero -- a unit engages (like above), and then the hero of the army engages the enemy hero (if the lone hero won the first fight).

 

[Valkrionn]

I posted this on the FFH forum back in April when I first heard about the 1 upt rule for civ5. This is for the Kaels, xienwolfs, Valkrionns, and so on that are reappearing here (and the others that I'm sure are lurking). Just hoping to inspire some ideas or discussion along this lines. I'm working on something like this -- it's been brewing in my head for 5 months now -- but please take anything you like. Reproduced here in its entirety:

Interesting to see myself mentioned in the plural....

In any case, the RifE team's mod, Eden, will likely feature an extra allowance for priests, at the very least, not sure if heroes as such will exist.

I like the idea, though, so long as it need not be universal. Some should work like regular units, some could behave as buffers, depends on the hero.