Specializations

Users who are viewing this thread

Lethandis

Recruit
I thought it'd be interesting to have the "heroes" affect the troops in your army. This would work best if there were a unit system, where a hero could be placed in command of a specific unit, and as some special abilities would only affect his unit. Some ideas I had were:

Cavalry Expert: +5% damage dealt and -10% damage taken by all mounted members of the hero's unit.

Spear Wall: Infantry in the hero's unit deal 10% more damage to cavalry units.

Appealing Personality: The hero's unit recieves a bonus to morale, and suffers 10% less morale loss than normal.

Logistics expert: This hero makes food last longer than normal.

Cook: This hero increases morale boosts from food for the army.

Archery Expert: Archers in this Hero's unit can arc their shots to achieve accuracy at greater range, and can coordinate fire on groups of enemies.


These are just some examples, I'm sure more could be thought up in time. Anyway, the idea is that any given hero, including perhaps the player's character, has one of these attributes, making them more beneficial.
 
Woohoo! I was the first to find this thread. I have to admit I was looking; this is a great idea. I'll post again later with my ideas, but my first suggestion is simply to make the names more colorful. If I still had my old Fallout manual around, I'd throw some at you (don't worry, they aren't too sharp and pointy) so you can get some ideas.

Be back after some food,

=$=
 
Hey, good point, I have fallout I and II installed on my comp now (huge fan of the series, heh heh), I'll look at the perks and see if any leap at me. I just used the names to get the basic concept out there, I'm sure better names could be thought up by a drunk monkey. :wink:
 
Assassin: Attacks from behind do multiplied damage

Berserker: Character's armor choices are restricted, may not equip shields, but begins the game with appropriate bonuses to Athletics and two handed weapons.

Swordsmanship: Parries using swords are automatic, but they are also the only melee weapon you may ever use. [This one might not be doable]

Good Arm: Range with throwing weapons is increased.

Quicker Than The Eye: Your thrown daggers cannot be blocked with shields. [This one might not be doable]

True Leader: Party's morale is less quickly (or less likely to be) affected by negative modifiers.

Counter Measures: Enemies' tactics skill are reduced by one in all your battles. [This one might not have an effect]

Military Career: Wages for service in the military are greatly increased, military quest rewards are somewhat increased and bribe fees for enemy absolution are greatly increased.

Mercenary: Will never be able to join a military side, but will not be attacked by deserters and may even recruit from their ranks at a phenomenally high cost. [Maybe even a level requirement]

That's a few. I suggest that your "logistics" not only entail food, but also slightly reduce the effect of being burdened by cargo.

=$=
 
Good idea.

However, they should not be selectable. Instead, they should result from your actions. For example, if spend most of your fights in a saddle commanding cavalry, you should be a "cavalry expert".

Just like generals getting traits in Rome: Total War.

Also, there can be some negative traits and positive ones should have tradeoffs.
 
Man, I made a big mistake. I misread the thread COMPLETELY. I am not sure if I should erase my whole post or not. I totally missed that these were for the heroes (not the player) and that you meant for these things to apply only to troops.

Crap. I got too excited, I guess.

=$=
 
Yeah, I was wondering, however, some good ideas did come of it. Guess I should clarify how I was thinking Heroes would have/get these. 1) Your player would either pick one at creation, or have a "slot" that got filled by the first one who's requirements you met. 2) Different NPCs you encounter along the way would have one of these abilities. Not all NPCs would have them, but some. This would make selection of your NPCs a much more crucial decision.

G Money: I like the idea of logistics affecting cargo and such, if some of the ideas in other threads get implemented, it would be a significant ability.

Nick: First, credit where credit is due, the second part of 1) above is just another way of saying your idea, which I liked, and was trying to think of a good alternative to picking one, if that didn't appeal to Argaman. Second, I like the idea of some having beneficial effects AND negative effects, while others are just positive, but less beneficial. This might rely on selectable abilities for your character, since I for one HATE getting stuck with negatives, I don't mind so much if I weight the pros and cons and take them myself, but I can't stand getting them forced on me.

I think, for the specialties with negatives, they should be extremes of the originals. For example: The Cavalry Expert ability would give you, say a 5% bonus to damage dealt, and 10% reduction in damage taken while your unit is mounted, while the Cavalier ability would give you 10% and 20% bonuses, respectively, but also 5% and 10% penalties on the ground. Looking at these numbers, they'd need some work befoer implementation of course, but they work for illustration's sake.
 
It's like HoMM III-IV rather than Fallout, still is a good idea nonetheless.
May give a reason to develop this somewhat useless Tactics skill.

Ah, and by the way, this is a chinese penis <==B and this is an european one 8=====D
 
Daimyo said:
Ah, and by the way, this is a chinese penis <==B and this is an european one 8=====D

What.....The.....HELL?!

What in the &*)#(@!ing world caused you to extend your primitive intelligence with that descriptive comment?
 
Fluffy The Hamster said:
What in the &*)#(@!ing world caused you to extend your primitive intelligence with that descriptive comment?

I don't think the intelligence got extended: it was shrinked... together with his penis :twisted: :lol:.
 
Wow, thank you Daimyo, for ruining the discussion on a feature I was really interested in getting feedback on.
 
Big J Money said:
Assassin: Attacks from behind do multiplied damage

Berserker: Character's armor choices are restricted, may not equip shields, but begins the game with appropriate bonuses to Athletics and two handed weapons.

Swordsmanship: Parries using swords are automatic, but they are also the only melee weapon you may ever use. [This one might not be doable]

Good Arm: Range with throwing weapons is increased.

Quicker Than The Eye: Your thrown daggers cannot be blocked with shields. [This one might not be doable]

True Leader: Party's morale is less quickly (or less likely to be) affected by negative modifiers.

Counter Measures: Enemies' tactics skill are reduced by one in all your battles. [This one might not have an effect]

Military Career: Wages for service in the military are greatly increased, military quest rewards are somewhat increased and bribe fees for enemy absolution are greatly increased.

Mercenary: Will never be able to join a military side, but will not be attacked by deserters and may even recruit from their ranks at a phenomenally high cost. [Maybe even a level requirement]

That's a few. I suggest that your "logistics" not only entail food, but also slightly reduce the effect of being burdened by cargo.

=$=


attacks from behind dont do multiplied damage, the damage done is just the same, the difference is the the enemy might not be able to parry/dodge the attack with parts of his body when hes unaware of the attacker. so i think i agree somehow. but its no trait, everyone would get this bonus, though "assassins" could sneak, but again, everyone could in the noisiness and disarrengement of the battle.

the only suggestion i really like (sorry to tell you the truth) is berserker.
what i dont like in all your suggestions (even berserker) is it doesnt do anything unique.
ok, berserker does, only being able to wear comparably light armor, but just giving some points to athletics isnt fun i guess.

i imagine it like this:

"berserker" (if you call it that): restricted to total armor encumbrance of 10. moves faster than any other unit (with the same athletics skill). attacks faster than any other unit (with the same agility), maybe also doing more damage. lets say, a 20% bonus each.
without any armor (or total armor encumbrance of 2) its not only 20% faster than comparable enemies (without any armor or enc 2) but even 40%. the disatvantage would be the lacking damage resistance of course.

"knight": faster attacks from horseback than anyone else (on horseback), more damage if you like. being able to wear all heavy armor without affecting attack power/speed (really, i think armor should do more negative things apart from just lowering your running speed. try to lift your two handed sword to parry a blow with your arms covered in chain or plate - or both, see my suggestion here: http://forums.taleworlds.com/viewtopic.php?t=170

it is impossible, your arm IS heavier than without armor (its simple physics).
"knight", when off his horse (maybe better call him "lancer" or "horseknight" (im not serious with the names, names should be cool and flashing, mines are not. they just try to resemble the function), is slower in everything (because hes not used to fighting on foot) than:

"footknight" (aka "clutterknight"), who is used to fighting on foot but cant use a lance, when on horseback, but he on the other hand is faster with heavy armor than any other.

then "counterunits":
"anticavalry", use pole-weapons, can pierce with these, can use a "defensive stance" (as suggested in another thread) to stand still, but still do huge damage when a horse rides into the weapon (a bit like couch lance damage works, just the other way round).
"poleinfantry", use pole-weapons against other infantry. can also use these (like spears) to penetrate heavy armor better than anyone else could when using the weapons (piercing weapons DO not always penetrate an enemy`s armor as it is right now in the game, piercing weapons dont get reduced damage when used against armor right now). slashing chain or plate is also useless, so if you want to damage the enemy you have to find weak spots in their armor (try to slash the throat if unprotected, or thrust visor). these specialized units could possibly do that with the weapons theyre specialized in.
also, you could still damage a heavily armored foe with your sword, but you would do blunt damage, which could also hurt alot, if the sword`s weight is considerable (thats why they wore padded cloth under their plate: to absorb the kinetic energy of the blow).

these specializations could also apply to "normal" troops:
so it would be nice to see (like vaegir guards or lancers (mag7)) a certain troop type to have only weapons theyre specialized in (right now, the even have 1h and 2h mixed, also 1h units without a shield, even experienced armies. thats illogical. i dont want to see all wear the same weapon and armor. i love the variety. but at least they should stick to a certain type, like i mentioned above, example: "vaegir anticav", they all carry 2h poles like halberds or so (though that might be more of an "anti-infantry" type. im no historian or medieval expert.
though a certain degree of validness (is there such a word?) is needed to create/keep the needed immersion.
i want to be afraid of those when im a knight charging infantry (even though i know that my lance is the longest weapon, maybe they can still impale my horse; or my 2h sword will cut them into two with a single slash, but i might be impaled first when trying to do so (so above: defensive stance, ouch).
or if im a footman i want to be afraid to stand still, not only because their horses could ride me over (with small damage) and then being exposed for a short time to further attacks (this doesnt seem to apply if you use a shield, you can block after having been knocked down. i dont like this. when youre knocked down. you have a short (or longer! please implement this, when wearing hvy armor, or after a HARD blow) blackout where you dont react to hostile actions (you have to face your shield towards the enemy in order to use it effectively after all!).
....not only afraid because their horses could me over (with small damage) but also because it might occur that someone just impales me when im busy elsewhere (fighting a footman or so). ai should see "weaknesses" and act/react accordingly (example fire crossbow when enemy shield down.
dont fire at the nearest enemy (especially not if that one has a BIG shield or youre an archer), fire at the ones without shield. or if youre an archer (and arrows should be weakened) fire at the ones with armor up to leather. if there are no such enemies fire at that heavy armored knight, just to try to scratch him. or as he closes in, draw that nice poleaxe knowing that this weapons will do more harm (ai has to get more "intelligent", "read" actions and behaviour, and accordingly act after a plan B, C, D. just set priorities. if enemy 1 plate/chain armor, aim at enemy 2, if enemy two plate/chain armor but closer than 10, draw secondary weapon and engage (or retreat to fire from out of the squabble (if archers, which they SHOULD, have none or just a dagger as a secondary weapon (no, a dagger is not so good agains platemail)).
i took 1 semester in programming (dunno how its properly called in english), but these if...if....if...then... (all with binary code 1 / 0)
is one of the first things i heard about. and no, i didnt STUDY programming, i just took the course out of interest, and interesting it was: our professor thought he was santa claus (and that was 3 days before christmas!). he even handed out potato chips to "practice" our programming skills (whew...that sight could surely keep one from taking any more studies in this horrific (erm, i mean scientific) field!)
sorry, i went offtopic, or perhaps not?
so, implement such AI routines. i think its worth the effort and time invested. im not asking for a "perfect" ai. there is no such thing. ai has just to be suitable for its task(s).
like in the automobile industry its apparent for what the robots are used and what functions they have to fulfill. so, the way they have to be programmed is apparent also. i guess thats why, why theres few discontentment with these machines. if their software gets updated. its usually for the better.

but, with games its different:
programmers want to make the game fulfill their function. which is creating leisure, i suppose. but its not always apparent how to achieve that, how to appeal to a lot of people.
what i want to say is, this game is fun because of different things, one of these being the immersion it creates (who wouldnt agree that battle is the best and main feature of the game?).
so in order to create/increase this immersion, graphics are needed and sounds, but also an adequate AI:
bowmen should be weak when someone closes in on them. and if this ONE is the player on a horse, it should be fun to mow that bugger down.
a charging cavalry should be feared when it decides to charge in on your group. and you realize that most members (including you) are only armed with short weapons. no "anticav" stuff on any of you.

i think i explained my point of view thoroughly, so good luck with trying to read ALL of my post :lol:
 
I had faith once, but, the baby chewed the enamel off it.

As for the actual topic under discussion, I don't see any reason why specialization couldn't apply to both your hero and the NPC's you recruit. That way you might take a less beneficial option for yourself, but, without the penalties, however, give something more extreme to your NPCs. That way you could also group your troops under the actual hero that has a specialization in that area. i.e. give your cavalry to your cavalry hero. What about giving say peasants to your different heroes and have them be able to train them up as whatever they are specialists in? i.e. same scenario your cavalry hero trains people to be cavalry. This would also fix a couple of the game balance issues too, if you have the troop level limited to below your hero level. Therefore you can't have knights till your hero that specializes in horse combat is of knight level or better. Opinions?
 
I like that one, Wraith. I think that would make the game really interesting. You'd build a vision for your army, then have to seek out the men to lead it with you!
 
Back
Top Bottom