Lord PARTIALLY_IMPLEMENTED

[DreJaDe]

Governor? Feudal lord?
Idk how to name

It's basically a leader unit for the common units
It's ability will be based on it being able to upg peasant as normal soldiers lik thee toman soldiers but is given promotion instead of through battle

Maybe it can be locked by 6 turn feudalism tech

I'm not really sure if it's going to be a foot unit or mounted

If foot
Cost: 6
Hp: 26
Atk: 10
Arm: 4
R.arm: 6
Spd: 3

If mounted
Cost: 8
Hp: 40-45
Atk: 12
Arm: 4
R. Arm: 3
Spd: 5


Bonus: norm foot knight bonus
Ability:
High morale

This will be free ability
(The ability is self explanatory. It upg peasants to soldiers. It will have a delay of 2 turns for like lore of training and getting weapons and shit.)

Promote to Swordsman
Promote to archer
Promote to spearman
Promote to gunner (unlocked by gunpowder tech)
CD: 4
Promote to light cav
CD: 5

This will need payment
Promote to knight
Promote to lancer
Promote to foot knight
Promote to horse archer
CD: 3

This is definitely a lot of ability so there's also an idea of it being completely random for cd: 3
Of course, since the peasant themselves have variety, the promotion can also be just based on that with the same cd of 3

[b2198]

I love this idea, would add an entire new path for scaling better into late game apart from mines and crusaders. Maybe could be made into 2 abilities, one with cd 3 for swordsman(27.2%)/spearman(27.2%)/archer(27.2%)/light cav.(18.4%) and another requiring 2 valuables, with cd 4, for foot knight(26.3%)/horse archer(26.3%)/lancer(26.3%)/knight(21.1%). Would it work with their upgrades, though?

[DreJaDe]

I love this idea, would add an entire new path for scaling better into late game apart from mines and crusaders. Maybe could be made into 2 abilities, one with cd 3 for swordsman(27.2%)/spearman(27.2%)/archer(27.2%)/light cav.(18.4%) and another requiring 2 valuables, with cd 4, for foot knight(26.3%)/horse archer(26.3%)/lancer(26.3%)/knight(21.1%). Would it work with their upgrades, though?

That's part of it. It would work with the upgs. Honestly, I don't know if this can be done.

There's also the thing with valuables which I think would be better used on just speeding up a factory in the idea for the cavs.

[b2198]

There's also the thing with valuables which I think would be better used on just speeding up a factory in the idea for the cavs.

Well, a cost of 2 valuables is equivalent to speeding up a single turn with a silver cart, so I think this would be more efficient for training those units, as you'd only require 1 turn for peasant + 1 turn that the valuable would give you to get 4 or 5 turn units. Even if increased to 4 valuables cost it would still be worth doing in the long run.

Also there's salt and mineral carts that don't speed up factory production and could be used here too if not needed anywhere else.

[Endru1241]

I disagree with such ability on flavour level.
Miliitary units are made of more or less trained people, but very often the people had to meet some criteria.
So it could probably be ok to promote peasant archer (it was added to the poll in last update with very small chance) to archer.
Maybe stone thrower too.
But you won't get archers from peasant never having even hunt anything. Training archers from the start took months at the very least (assuming they had sufficient strength to pull the bow, but that shouldn't have been the problem for physically working peasants).
Getting light cav would have been much harder.
Try to organize a unit with ability to scout, raid and masterfully ride horses of people, that never ever have had any experience with horse riding.
Good luck.
Lancer, knight, foot knight and horse archers all need long years of training and often had to be taught from young age to be effective.
So that part would be really weird.

There is also 2nd reason and probably more important.
Plans of balance.
All those units lines:
Swordsmen, spearmen, archers, knights, lancers, foot knights, horse archers.
Plus few more similar, like shield knights, shielders, skirmishers, guerillas, etc.
They all have one thing in common - are rather cheap for their final upgraded stats.
So I don't plan any army production abilities for those.
They are supposed to be the best you can get from factories.
Specific factions can have some army production schemes if their unit aare not that good.

But skipping this ability - yeah, some sort of leader unit will be needed for those factionless units.
Especially if I went with my idea of tactical boosts.
I probably mentioned already an idea for tactics/formation techs, that would give some bonuses for proximity of other units.
E.g. heavy/medium cavalry attack increase for each adjacent heavy/medium cavalry or anti-cav units ability power boost to other adjacent anti-cav units.
Recently I though it could be made as temporary auras casted by leaders.
There could also be some variety increase if different faction leaders would be capable of different set of abilities.

[DreJaDe]

I disagree with such ability on flavour level.
Miliitary units are made of more or less trained people, but very often the people had to meet some criteria.
So it could probably be ok to promote peasant archer (it was added to the poll in last update with very small chance) to archer.
Maybe stone thrower too.
But you won't get archers from peasant never having even hunt anything. Training archers from the start took months at the very least (assuming they had sufficient strength to pull the bow, but that shouldn't have been the problem for physically working peasants).
Getting light cav would have been much harder.
Try to organize a unit with ability to scout, raid and masterfully ride horses of people, that never ever have had any experience with horse riding.
Good luck.
Lancer, knight, foot knight and horse archers all need long years of training and often had to be taught from young age to be effective.
So that part would be really weird.

In my mind. I thought that the turn cost is actually the lore for their training time. So the cd is not just for balance but also for the lore of being trained. It's like the lord spending time to train an army.

Also, in the game. Wouldn't archers became more costly then, but its not due to game considerations. And like in other units. It's not like a castle is just the main building but could be smt more. It's just representation.

When you put that in mind, it could be that those peasants are not simple one. I mean, they are the one summoned by the TC to fight. They might have smt.

Though I kinda more agree with the knights. The only thing I think of is their equipment being more costly so valuables are needed.

[Endru1241]

I disagree with such ability on flavour level.
Miliitary units are made of more or less trained people, but very often the people had to meet some criteria.
So it could probably be ok to promote peasant archer (it was added to the poll in last update with very small chance) to archer.
Maybe stone thrower too.
But you won't get archers from peasant never having even hunt anything. Training archers from the start took months at the very least (assuming they had sufficient strength to pull the bow, but that shouldn't have been the problem for physically working peasants).
Getting light cav would have been much harder.
Try to organize a unit with ability to scout, raid and masterfully ride horses of people, that never ever have had any experience with horse riding.
Good luck.
Lancer, knight, foot knight and horse archers all need long years of training and often had to be taught from young age to be effective.
So that part would be really weird.

In my mind. I thought that the turn cost is actually the lore for their training time. So the cd is not just for balance but also for the lore of being trained. It's like the lord spending time to train an army.

Also, in the game. Wouldn't archers became more costly then, but its not due to game considerations. And like in other units. It's not like a castle is just the main building but could be smt more. It's just representation.

When you put that in mind, it could be that those peasants are not simple one. I mean, they are the one summoned by the TC to fight. They might have smt.

Though I kinda more agree with the knights. The only thing I think of is their equipment being more costly so valuables are needed.

Of course it's all representation.
We have to agree with that.
And probably average peasant unit have much more people in it than average trained soldiers unit, so we would have some margin of selection here.

But I am much more comfortable with getting units "from nothing" only by sacrificing valuables or time - that can be explained by just getting some trained soldiers to come over, than specificity showing one unit being trained to be another.

Among those cheap units most controversial are all kind of ranged and mounted units.
Their turn cost cannot represent only training people.
It's impossible.
This is more like how much resources would need to be spend to keep bring people over or keep population doing what they do (train themselves from a kid).
Let's take longbowmen.
In real historical documents you can read, that training one took around 7 years.
And that is assuming they started at the age of 12 and practised more than customary sunday training.
There were standards of how accurate archer needed to be and how long he needed to be capable of keeping the bowstring pulled.
Especially the strength and endurance needed long development as war longbow needed heavy pull and repetition.
After meeting all standards such person could be required for military campaign and then probably be trained for few weeks for specific military usage of longbow.
Regular archers - required mostly in terrain, where hunting by bow was common and people often had equivalent of few years of training.
They would in most cases (maybe apart of sudden siege ) train for some time.
Light cavalry was mostly required from regions where people where riding horses regularly. Very often from nomadic or semi-nomadic groups.
The only training needed was methods of military scouting, communication and order.

For all those three cases the time of training spend by factory would be in some part resources either for equipment given or to keep customs and in some this final training.

[b2198]

There is also 2nd reason and probably more important.
Plans of balance.
All those units lines:
Swordsmen, spearmen, archers, knights, lancers, foot knights, horse archers.
Plus few more similar, like shield knights, shielders, skirmishers, guerillas, etc.
They all have one thing in common - are rather cheap for their final upgraded stats.
So I don't plan any army production abilities for those.
They are supposed to be the best you can get from factories.
Specific factions can have some army production schemes if their unit aare not that good.

Hm, fair point. I was just thinking to add another use for salt carts other than crusaders and mercs (and blocking paths).

But skipping this ability - yeah, some sort of leader unit will be needed for those factionless units.
Especially if I went with my idea of tactical boosts.
I probably mentioned already an idea for tactics/formation techs, that would give some bonuses for proximity of other units.
E.g. heavy/medium cavalry attack increase for each adjacent heavy/medium cavalry or anti-cav units ability power boost to other adjacent anti-cav units.
Recently I though it could be made as temporary auras casted by leaders.
There could also be some variety increase if different faction leaders would be capable of different set of abilities.

Tactical boosts is another idea I'd love to see implemented at some point, it was with that in mind that I suggested those changes to buffers, specially the bard ones, to make them more focused on making choices on which buff to apply and slightly buffing an army, instead of heavily buffing a unit (which, I know, is not a single soldier in flavor, but since it can't "split" itself to attack different targets, it basically functions like that).

Yeah, leaders having some sort of "formation abilities" to units in form of giving them companions-like auras would make a lot of sese... though i feel that those on top of all the buff stacking that's already in the game wouldn't be the best idea right now, but maybe after those are changed it could be a great addition to the game.

[b2198]

Reviving this one with a changed idea.

Maybe instead of simply a leader it could be a leader and at the same time a costly buffer for the [X = Insert Accepted "Common Faction" Name Here] faction. Haven't really thought about the stats yet, but the idea is something like a foot-knight-like unit with cost 8 or 9 (maybe even unique per player?) that has morale aura and the skills:

• Promote Loyalty
• Dismiss Propaganda
• Inspire (or something like that): buffs units categorized as [X] in a 2 range area (up to 13 units at once, but likely way less per cast), increasing their attack by 1 and armor by +2/+1 for 4 turns, with cast range of 3
• Accept as Royal Guard (or something like that): transforms an adjacent [Knight] unit (which could be made as a category for Foot Knights and Knights (and their upgrade lines)) into a Royal Guard, a unit that has 2 forms, mounted and unmounted, with the mounted one being slightly stronger than a cavalier, and the unmounted one slightly stronger than an elite foot knight. Cooldown: 8 turns.

This would push the [X] faction to being more attack + armor focused (though not as much as celts), and having strength in numbers (though not as much as romans), while having good overall hp (though not as much as slavs) and without fancy tricks like attacking twice, poisons, conversion/demoralization, etc. Making them a faction that is decent in a lot of things, but excel at none (or so I think, I might have made it waaay too strong or too weak, these numbers are just placeholders for the idea).

[Endru1241]

Inspire (or something like that): buffs units categorized as [X] in a 2 range area (up to 13 units at once, but likely way less per cast), increasing their attack by 1 and armor by +2/+1 for 4 turns, with cast range of 3

I'm not sure if I have mentioned anything about this, but range buffs are extremely costly in regards to work required for implementation.
Main effect json - which defines range and weakening of effect with distance from center.
Filter type unit effect json (otherwise it can target any unit)
True effect json - which defines actual effect casted on units in range.
Parameters type unit effect json - with exact details of what should affect unit.
Projectile image (can work as a button too).
Explosion animation - that is what requires most work, as it's multiple images, that should be made to fit the area of effect (at least more or less). And they are in many cases too big to put in forum.
Indicator icon for effect.

Accept as Royal Guard (or something like that): transforms an adjacent [Knight] unit (which could be made as a category for Foot Knights and Knights (and their upgrade lines)) into a Royal Guard, a unit that has 2 forms, mounted and unmounted, with the mounted one being slightly stronger than a cavalier, and the unmounted one slightly stronger than an elite foot knight. Cooldown: 8 turns.

Too complicated and what is much more important - would either require 3 separate units (with two forms each) + 3 effects or would just invalidate Knight upgrades (and Foot Knight too).
So while adding "Knight" category is not especially hard - the idea would need to be changed to simple buff

So I'd prefer something simpler like single-target effect.
Eventually a little more complicated one, like weapon effect or aura.

[b2198]

Inspire (or something like that): buffs units categorized as [X] in a 2 range area (up to 13 units at once, but likely way less per cast), increasing their attack by 1 and armor by +2/+1 for 4 turns, with cast range of 3

I'm not sure if I have mentioned anything about this, but range buffs are extremely costly in regards to work required for implementation.
Main effect json - which defines range and weakening of effect with distance from center.
Filter type unit effect json (otherwise it can target any unit)
True effect json - which defines actual effect casted on units in range.
Parameters type unit effect json - with exact details of what should affect unit.
Projectile image (can work as a button too).
Explosion animation - that is what requires most work, as it's multiple images, that should be made to fit the area of effect (at least more or less). And they are in many cases too big to put in forum.
Indicator icon for effect.

o.O
That does seem like a lot to do indeed. Probably not worth the effort just for doing that.

Accept as Royal Guard (or something like that): transforms an adjacent [Knight] unit (which could be made as a category for Foot Knights and Knights (and their upgrade lines)) into a Royal Guard, a unit that has 2 forms, mounted and unmounted, with the mounted one being slightly stronger than a cavalier, and the unmounted one slightly stronger than an elite foot knight. Cooldown: 8 turns.

Too complicated and what is much more important - would either require 3 separate units (with two forms each) + 3 effects or would just invalidate Knight upgrades (and Foot Knight too).
So while adding "Knight" category is not especially hard - the idea would need to be changed to simple buff

So I'd prefer something simpler like single-target effect.
Eventually a little more complicated one, like weapon effect or aura.

Hm, fair points, maybe just an aura for [Knight]s would be better then?

And maybe something related to tactics and formations, like you were suggesting before?

[godOfKings]

Wait if i can make late game royal guard without upgrade tech then i wouldnt need to upgrade the unit...

[Endru1241]

Wait if i can make late game royal guard without upgrade tech then i wouldnt need to upgrade the unit...

 or would just invalidate Knight upgrades (and Foot Knight too).

Upgrades would be meaningless if you can always use them to get better unit and it doesn't matter if they are upgraded or not.

Hm, fair points, maybe just an aura for [Knight]s would be better then?

Chivarly ?
What should it increase then?

[godOfKings]

something related to the role i guess, foot knight may b pure armor, knight dmg, shield knight armor/max hp

[Endru1241]

something related to the role i guess, foot knight may b pure armor, knight dmg, shield knight armor/max hp

1 aura effect can only have 1 set of units affected.
There can be further efffects related, casted on smaller subset, but to affect two sets by different effect each, engine needs 2 auras.

Even if engine allowed something like that - I'd make it separate to be clear what aura gives.
Btw. My reason for asking to make engine apply two different effects on two different subsets is two bundle boost to attack and abilityPower for attack-like effects or anything similar - things that in player perspective are the same.

Going for easiest solution would be to give all culture neutral +1/1 armors, some mental resist maybe some small constant hp boost or percentage one. Eventually +1 attack to subset of melee among them.

[DreJaDe]

Being the most diverse out of all the cultures, i feel like it's also fitting to give then a more diverse form of aura...

I could see two forms of implementing this.
A. Through ability
B. Innate aura

With the recent greek leader, maybe we could also do this for the lord except the grouping would be more diverse like instead of just hoplites, even cavalry, light and range would have their own grouping buffs when they are adjacent to each other.

Playing the neutral culture is really diverse with a lot more upgrades than others.

This way, they would be more adaptable to situation which I believe is their current meta.

Cav would have +1 speed/adjacent cav (not stackable)
Foot would have +1 armor/adjacent foot
Archer/skirmisher would have +1 damage/adjacent range
Stone thrower would have +1 range/adjacent stone thrower (not stackable)

...

Also, I dont want to give up on the summoned units albeit I am out of idea. Just really wanted to add a strat that would abuse the peasants.

Maybe let's make this easier
Summon swordsman
Cd: 2
Summon broad swordsman
Cd: 3
Summon men-at-arms
Cd: 4
Needs peasant

Summon upgraded scout
CD: 1
Needs peasant

[godOfKings]

so every 3 turn u would have like 1 of each?

[DreJaDe]

so every 3 turn u would have like 1 of each?

Basically yes

[b2198]

Being the most diverse out of all the cultures, i feel like it's also fitting to give then a more diverse form of aura...

I could see two forms of implementing this.
A. Through ability
B. Innate aura

With the recent greek leader, maybe we could also do this for the lord except the grouping would be more diverse like instead of just hoplites, even cavalry, light and range would have their own grouping buffs when they are adjacent to each other.

Playing the neutral culture is really diverse with a lot more upgrades than others.

This way, they would be more adaptable to situation which I believe is their current meta.

Cav would have +1 speed/adjacent cav (not stackable)
Foot would have +1 armor/adjacent foot
Archer/skirmisher would have +1 damage/adjacent range
Stone thrower would have +1 range/adjacent stone thrower (not stackable)

I like this idea, but if I understood it correctly, that would require 4 different auras. Right? Maybe we can group archers/skirmishers along with stone throwers to reduce that to 3. Though I'm not exactly sure how to balance it, as those increases there seem too strong for me, because even just +1 range is really game changing on units like elite longbowmen and arbalest.

I think I'd go instead with +1 damage (not stackable) for the ranged group, along with a +2/+2 armor (not stackable) for melee foot, and +2 damage, +1/+1 armor (not stackable) for cavalry, or maybe keep the +1 speed (not stackable) for them, not sure. That way they'd differentiate themselves from hellenics and romans in that they have stronger and more diverse "formation" auras, but that get weaker in comparison the more they are stacked.

...

Also, I dont want to give up on the summoned units albeit I am out of idea. Just really wanted to add a strat that would abuse the peasants.

Maybe let's make this easier
Summon swordsman
Cd: 2
Summon broad swordsman
Cd: 3
Summon men-at-arms
Cd: 4
Needs peasant

Summon upgraded scout
CD: 1
Needs peasant

I'm also all up for a summoner that uses peasants. Maybe for balancing sake we could have some 2 to 4 new units to choose from when summoning. Something with "conscripts" maybe? That way they could be adjusted separately from those units that are considerably efficient in stats/turn in the late-game. And maybe have a power closer to that of the weaker crusaders?

...Makes me think if instead peasants shouldn't just be accepted as sacrifices for Crusade Leader's summoning abilities. Probably having the same value as salt carts (so would need 2 for the weak spearman and 3 for the others)?

[Endru1241]

I like this idea, but if I understood it correctly, that would require 4 different auras. Right?

8.
As we are talking about an aura which gives aura.
I thought of two totally different abilities on that point.
- Chivarly - boosts res on targets and grants aura, that increases adjacent misc, flesh and blood units armor/hp ( stackable?)
- Charge - gives aura which grants +1 speed on adjacent (mounted only?)

Makes me think if instead peasants shouldn't just be accepted as sacrifices ...

Evil cult lord detected
But seriously - we could just as well give peasants some boost by aura - +80-100% hp, +2 attack, +1/1 armors.

[b2198]

I like this idea, but if I understood it correctly, that would require 4 different auras. Right?

8.
As we are talking about an aura which gives aura.

Oh, true.

I thought of two totally different abilities on that point.
- Chivarly - boosts res on targets and grants aura, that increases adjacent misc, flesh and blood units armor/hp ( stackable?)
- Charge - gives aura which grants +1 speed on adjacent (mounted only?)

You mean both being applied only around the Lord? I think that could work too, probably would be best if it lasted only for 1 turn (maybe with a strong effect and a cooldown, for coordinated charges?), so that the Lord has to be on the frontlines to be really effective.

Makes me think if instead peasants shouldn't just be accepted as sacrifices ...

Evil cult lord detected

They're gonna get thrown into the meat grinder sooner or later anyway >:D

But seriously - we could just as well give peasants some boost by aura - +80-100% hp, +2 attack, +1/1 armors.

+80% hp might be too much, considering they can already reach 3/3 armor (with tight fabric + dodges + high morale, and would increase to 4/4 with this) and cost only 1 turn, but with a smaller increase to hp that's probably a better idea indeed.

[Endru1241]

You mean both being applied only around the Lord? I think that could work too, probably would be best if it lasted only for 1 turn (maybe with a strong effect and a cooldown, for coordinated charges?), so that the Lord has to be on the frontlines to be really effective.

Not exactly - my though was short range charge aura affecting like 2 or 3 tiles around. It could be adjacent though.
AoE effects are hard to make.

For chivarly it would be an aura of range 5 or so giving aura of range 1 (adjacent only).
So chivarly would mean you can surround e.g. missionary and use it even in open field - e.g. +3 HP would make additional +12 on open field.
Or non-cumulative +5 hp, +2/1 armors for adjacent protected non-military units.

+80% hp might be too much, considering they can already reach 3/3 armor (with tight fabric + dodges + high morale, and would increase to 4/4 with this) and cost only 1 turn, but with a smaller increase to hp that's probably a better idea indeed.

It could be without armor increase.
With +100% hp only rare warscythe would get 24 hp, hoe 20, morningstar 18, other melee 14 and 12 for torch, stone, archer.
For +80% it's 22, 18, 17, 13, 11 (if I rounded in correct direction).
While for early game it's huge - for late game it's still hugely subpar compared to 2 turn units.
If aura would be granted by tech locked behind another thing - it should be ok.

[b2198]

You mean both being applied only around the Lord? I think that could work too, probably would be best if it lasted only for 1 turn (maybe with a strong effect and a cooldown, for coordinated charges?), so that the Lord has to be on the frontlines to be really effective.

Not exactly - my though was short range charge aura affecting like 2 or 3 tiles around. It could be adjacent though.
AoE effects are hard to make.

Oh, right, temporary aura. It's probably better than the alternative even if not considering the work required to make AoE effects.

For chivarly it would be an aura of range 5 or so giving aura of range 1 (adjacent only).
So chivarly would mean you can surround e.g. missionary and use it even in open field - e.g. +3 HP would make additional +12 on open field.
Or non-cumulative +5 hp, +2/1 armors for adjacent protected non-military units.

I think the cumulative version works better, because with it you would need to really focus on protecting what needs to be protected, instead of just leaving it with 1 unit adjacent (and instead leaving up to 4 units to protect it, depending on how much it needs the protection). Probably could even be extended to all units, not just non-military, as +12 hp would be just the extreme case, and a +3 or +6 is not THAT strong on most units. My only fear for that is in regards to workers, that although are way too fragile on one side, are way too important on the other one, so I'm not sure what to do about them in this regard.

And the other ability could be the temporary aura that lasts for 1 turn and has some cooldown, giving +1 speed, +1/+1 armor and +3 attack to units in a 3 range radius, maybe?

+80% hp might be too much, considering they can already reach 3/3 armor (with tight fabric + dodges + high morale, and would increase to 4/4 with this) and cost only 1 turn, but with a smaller increase to hp that's probably a better idea indeed.

It could be without armor increase.
With +100% hp only rare warscythe would get 24 hp, hoe 20, morningstar 18, other melee 14 and 12 for torch, stone, archer.
For +80% it's 22, 18, 17, 13, 11 (if I rounded in correct direction).
While for early game it's huge - for late game it's still hugely subpar compared to 2 turn units.
If aura would be granted by tech locked behind another thing - it should be ok.

[/quote]
Hm, fair enough. Yeah, if it's delayed, it loses a lot of power, since peasants are mostly useful in the early game in heavy capture-focused situations... And a single hwacha with full techs would still decimate their armies regardless XD

[DreJaDe]

Yeah, if it's delayed, it loses a lot of power, since peasants are mostly useful in the early game in heavy capture-focused situations

For me they are usable until 30 turns of playing in 30x30 of bigger maps. If you didnt achieve domination in that 30 turns, peasants pretty much lose their value significantly.

To be honest, I am not familiar with the hardness of the json and stuff when most of the time, while I am most thinking if its possible or not... Kinda feel guilty about it now NGL.

[Endru1241]

So tech for peasants locked behind e.g. To Cavalier (2nd Knight upgrade) ?

[b2198]

Yeah, something like that seems fine for me.

[b2198]

@Stratego (dev) This one should probably be marked as "IMPLEMENTED"? There was some discussion back then on additional stuff to put in the Lord unit, but the unit itself is already in the game.

[Endru1241]

That's another problem for me with tags.
PARTIALLY_IMPLEMENTED is very long, but would be best fit here.

[Stratego (dev)]

ok but what part is not impelemnted?

[Endru1241]

No abilities yet. Only has basic aura.