Recruitable Sub-Leaders

Brainstorm ideas of possible additions to the game. Read this before posting!

Moderators: Forum Moderators, Developers

Forum rules
Before posting a new idea, you must read the following:
FleshPeeler
Posts: 162
Joined: June 19th, 2006, 8:37 pm
Location: A mystery wrapped in an enigma smothered with a three cheese blend.
Contact:

Recruitable Sub-Leaders

Post by FleshPeeler »

Many maps are being made that have multiple Keeps. Currently, the strategy is to recruit enough units that you can rush another Keep and take command. This is fine and I think it works as a unique play style.

But what if you could recruit extra leaders to fill those other Keeps? To recruit a sub-leader, you select any unit from your standard recruit list (aside from scouts and Horsemen), and with a ticker box in the Recruit window, you can choose to pay 20 more gold to make that unit a Subordinate (Sub-Leader).

A Subordinate:
-May recruit on a Keep, just as your Leader can
-Has no traits, just like your Leader
-Is randomly named like any other unit
-Requires no upkeep, just like your Leader (you payed an extra 20 gold for it)
-Does not count towards win conditions. If a Subordinate is killed, you do not lose the game. Likewise, if your Leader is killed, you lose the game even if you have Subordinates.

I'm not entirely devoted to this idea (though I might use it in custom maps), it just came to me and I'm curious as to what others think of it. Thoughts?
What if nobody ever asked "What if?"

FleshPeeler . . . Editting 5 times per every 1 post.

User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: Recruitable Sub-Leaders

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

FleshPeeler wrote:Thoughts?
My first though: Either it's useless, or it's useful, and if it's useful, it takes away from the strategy of where to put your leader normally.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.

Dragon Master
Posts: 1012
Joined: February 11th, 2006, 1:04 am
Location: Somewhere

Post by Dragon Master »

I agree with EP

User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

Dragon Master wrote:I agree with EP
Uh, this forum is for, like, brainstorming and coming up with ideas, not for agreeing with people. Agreeing is for the other forums. :P
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.

User avatar
Zhukov
Art Contributor
Posts: 1685
Joined: November 9th, 2005, 5:48 am
Location: Australia

Post by Zhukov »

I think this is practically an FPI.
It has been suggested about three times (while I've been here) and turned down each time.

maliciouskorean
Posts: 57
Joined: January 1st, 2006, 4:53 pm

Post by maliciouskorean »

i like this idea, i think it would be too easy for you to be able to recruit a unit like this.

instead i think it would be cool if this was implemented as a unit ability, maybe given to a lv3 unit. it could be balanced like leadership, the unit would not be as strong as most lv3 units, but they would have the ability to recruit on a keep.

Dragon Master
Posts: 1012
Joined: February 11th, 2006, 1:04 am
Location: Somewhere

Post by Dragon Master »

Fine, since everybody wants my input these days: I like the idea, but sounds strictly like campaign material. Nothing much to say beyond that.

zol
Posts: 161
Joined: July 12th, 2006, 4:31 am

Post by zol »

I've thought of variations on the theme before.

Some situations make me wonder about having a unit that lives in the keep or has to be hauled tediously to another one, and why is it even a unit at all. And also happens to be the team "flag". And how only one spawn can be used at a time, and castles can't be changed etc.

Have thought of various models/refactorings, but it's just imagining different game designs in the end.
finite, infinite, definite

Kel
Posts: 63
Joined: June 14th, 2006, 3:21 pm

Post by Kel »

True, allowing more than one leader (or subleader) would be interesting for a campaign.

Steelclad Brian
Posts: 110
Joined: November 15th, 2005, 5:26 am

Post by Steelclad Brian »

If I get around to it, I hope to create a large-scale multiplayer map that allows the player to create sub-commanders. It's not a good idea for basic Wesnoth though.

FleshPeeler
Posts: 162
Joined: June 19th, 2006, 8:37 pm
Location: A mystery wrapped in an enigma smothered with a three cheese blend.
Contact:

Post by FleshPeeler »

Steelclad Brian wrote:If I get around to it, I hope to create a large-scale multiplayer map that allows the player to create sub-commanders. It's not a good idea for basic Wesnoth though.
Same here. I thought of experimenting with different map builds that would present interesting situations like this. The suggestion certainly was not for mainline Wesnoth, but rather to test the general reception of the idea for a custom map.

It seems people are at least interested in seeing what could happen with this, so in the future I'll try my hand at a map like this.
What if nobody ever asked "What if?"

FleshPeeler . . . Editting 5 times per every 1 post.

User avatar
Viliam
Translator
Posts: 1341
Joined: January 30th, 2004, 11:07 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia
Contact:

Post by Viliam »

Kel wrote:True, allowing more than one leader (or subleader) would be interesting for a campaign.
Recruiting subleader as a general rule would IMHO be too much change.

But it could be nice if scenario script could give you two leaders - maybe only for the selected scenarios. Maybe they should have different recruitment lists (think about when Konrad first cooperates with Li'sar in HTTT); maybe also different recall lists (unit can be recalled only by that leader which recruited it). From programming point of view, recruitment lists and recall lists would not be specified per side, but per leader.

FleshPeeler
Posts: 162
Joined: June 19th, 2006, 8:37 pm
Location: A mystery wrapped in an enigma smothered with a three cheese blend.
Contact:

Post by FleshPeeler »

Viliam wrote:
Kel wrote:True, allowing more than one leader (or subleader) would be interesting for a campaign.
Recruiting subleader as a general rule would IMHO be too much change.

But it could be nice if scenario script could give you two leaders - maybe only for the selected scenarios. Maybe they should have different recruitment lists (think about when Konrad first cooperates with Li'sar in HTTT); maybe also different recall lists (unit can be recalled only by that leader which recruited it). From programming point of view, recruitment lists and recall lists would not be specified per side, but per leader.
Yes, I always wondered what happened to those Ogres that were beating me around . . . I was disappointed when I couldn't summon them myself (in 1.0.2, I don't know if this was changed in 1.1.7).

It would also allow a player to play multiple factions at once, an interesting suggestion which would pose new binary strategies. Very, very intriguing . . . .
What if nobody ever asked "What if?"

FleshPeeler . . . Editting 5 times per every 1 post.

wiscados
Posts: 3
Joined: August 21st, 2006, 6:37 pm
Location: Faroes

Damn! Too slow!

Post by wiscados »

I joind this forums to post this idea, guess someone best me to it!

Here is why I think it is a good idea:

I'm playing 3 player online, and I[blue] fight very hard against the red, while yellow just stands back slowly building his army. I finally finnish of the the red one, now what? I stand alone with a small army against a big one! If wasn't rewarded for beating the red, why should I even bother?

Waiting for the other two to beat each other is far the superior stradegy, but if everyone did it, it would be an endurence match, which are boring, and attacking one would put you in danger, so, to not get killed, you would just wait, and wait, and wait.... It would be a loooong boring match!

If I could take over his/her castle and recruite his/her soldiers(fx. if I am undead and s/he is orcish, I can recruite orcs with my subleader), I had a reson to fight the red one, and the yellow would be punished to just sit around waiting, balanceing the game by forcing him/her[yellow] to act and participate in the game, because s/he now must take over the red, or blue[mine], castle, to get an advantade in the battle, not just doing nothing.


That's my two cents...
Who the hell has taken <i>my</i> username: iAlta?!?!

User avatar
Elvish_Pillager
Posts: 8129
Joined: May 28th, 2004, 10:21 am
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: Damn! Too slow!

Post by Elvish_Pillager »

wiscados wrote:I'm playing 3 player online,
Now, THAT is not a good idea.
It's all fun and games until someone loses a lawsuit. Oh, and by the way, sending me private messages won't work. :/ If you must contact me, there's an e-mail address listed on the website in my profile.

Post Reply