Anyone ever done a level 0 horseman?

[peet]

For the humans there's the Peasant, the Woodsman, and the Ruffian, which all level up into level 1 human units.

Has anyone ever done a level 0 horseman?

I'm thinking he would be called a "rancher" or something like that.

Here's some suggested stats:

Cost: 12 or 13 (depends on attack)
HP: 22
XP: 23
Move: 7
Attack: either 4-3 (sword) or 5-2 charge (spear).

He would be able to level up to either a cavalryman or a horseman.

I'd like to have a unit like this for a scenario I'm planning, so if someone's already done it then that would be great.

Peet

[Noy]

no, nobody has.

[thespaceinvader]

I wouldn't give it charge. It would be FAR too fragile. Maybe call it a herder and give it a cattle prod/wooden spear, but NOT charge. Though that might lead to RIPLIB problems, since charge has negative effects... It's a nice idea, though.

[irrevenant]

This actually seems like a variant of the "More units should go up to level 3+" FPI. Just because a couple of lines have been given L0 units doesn't mean it's ideal to "fill out" all the lines. There's a dynamicism that comes from having uneven unit trees.

[thespaceinvader]

You may be right, there. But equally, i wouldn't mind seeing all the loyalists' syandard units have a level 0 - the loyalists are one of the few factions (imho) where there would be enough civilians to make level 0 units for most lines a useful reality - the others wouldn't really have a civilian underclass like the Loys i don't think. Exceptions would have to be mages, HI, and thinking about it, probably horse units - horses are a bit of an expensive prospect for the average civilian i think...

This could also make the Sergeant line a bit more useful, as currently there aren't many oportunities to use the Sergeant's leadership i don't think, so i9t's an uncommon unit, which is a shame, because i like using them on the rare occasions i get the chance.

[Ken_Oh]

I'm nearly done a survival single-player campaign where you start out only being able to recruit lvl 0 units (Peasant, Woodsman and Ruffian) and whatever unit you level up into, you can recruit that unit from then on (until lvl 2; lvl 3 is from advancement only). I had to make a convention to add another layer to lvl 0 so all of the human units can be reached from just those units. It looks like this:

Code: Select all

lvl 0          lvl 0+    

Peasant ------>Trainee
           \\->Initiate
            \->Squire

Woodsman ----->Rangeman
            \->Initiate




lvl 0+         lvl 1

Trainee ------>Spearman
           \\->Fencer
            \->Heavy Infantryman

Initiate ----->Mage

Rangeman ----->Bowman

Squire ------->Horseman
            \->Cavalryman

The Squire didn't actually have a horse on its own, but a spear and sword. I also made Ruffian allow recruitment right into Thief, as there's no lvl 0 for it.

While I don't see any need for this in mainline, I think it would be useful for other projects if there were more level 0 units. For example, there are Orcish villages, right? Then what would an Orcish villager be like? Or would one automatically be as strong as an Orcish Grunt? Or would it be something more like how Peasant relates to Spearman?

By "other projects," I mean, yes, I plan to work on this for myself soon.

[thespaceinvader]

The unit tree you've got there seems a little off... I'd go for peasant, woodsman, ruffian, townsman, squire, probably. There's a thread with some interesting images in the closed Art Dev section.

Peasant > Spearman, Bowman, Sergeant
Woodsman > Bowman, Poacher, Footpad
Ruffian > Thug, Footpad, Spearman
Townsman > Spearman, Fencer, Sergeant, HI ?Mage?
Squire > Horseman, Cavalryman, Spearman
Initiate > Mage

I don't personally like the Initiate > Mage one, i think that they ought to just come out f the general population and level straight to mage - the descriptions indicate that the recruitable level 1 mage is in fact a novice mage, and doesn't become a full mage until level 2. It seems to me that them levelling from townsman seems more likely - i think the townsman would be a semi-noble commoner to the peasant's farmer-type.

I don't know if you'd go for the Outlaws in there, thoguh.

[Aethaeryn]

I like the idea of a squire or some kind of noble youth. Being part of the privileged upper class, he could promote to cavalryman, horseman, or even fencer and sergeant too. He, of course, wouldn't have a mount of his own unless he chooses to go down those career paths that have horses.

I think there could be an interesting UMC where you start as said unit and each promotion path you take in the tree leads to radically different plots...


I don't think townsmen, as commoners, would promote to fencers or sergeants.

Why change Ruffians/Peasants/Woodsmen? I kind of like those as-is.

[thespaceinvader]

I don't really mean commoners... I was saying that as distinction from Heraldic nobility (lords etc). I envision (inspired, i have to say, by the thread i mentioned) the townsmen to be the high-class types who'd educate their kids in such pursuits as fencing, or send them off to officer school so theyy could join the military above the level of common soldiers. Hence HI and mage being in hat line too - they're the ones which would require money (HI - read the description...) or education to achieve.

[Aethaeryn]

I don't really mean commoners... I was saying that as distinction from Heraldic nobility (lords etc). I envision (inspired, i have to say, by the thread i mentioned) the townsmen to be the high-class types who'd educate their kids in such pursuits as fencing, or send them off to officer school so theyy could join the military above the level of common soldiers. Hence HI and mage being in hat line too - they're the ones which would require money (HI - read the description...) or education to achieve.

Well, the mages are basically the scholars so that makes sense. I'd thus see it as this:

Peasant > Spearman, Bowman
Woodsman > Bowman, Poacher
Ruffian > Thug, Footpad
Townsman > Fencer, Sergeant, HI, Mage
Squire > Horseman, Cavalryman, Fencer

The first three level 0s I wouldn't change at all as I personally think they make sense. I don't see how a woodsman can get to a footpad, who has no bow, and that would kill its neutrality by being lawful/chaotic/chaotic in upgrades (thus mostly-chaotic). In addition, a peasant could not achieve the ranks of commanding officer. I also don't like the idea of a ruffian straightening out and crossing chaotic to lawful. In my opinion, alignment changes should be one over at most (e.g. lawful to neutral or neutral to chaotic).

Similarly, I don't think a townsman or squire, being of a higher class, would want to become something as low as a spearman (who is equipped with a spear due to poverty) - they would both be able to afford a sword. Initiate doesn't make much sense, I think a townsman who is more of an intellectual would pursue the path of a mage (or HI for those who like strength, I guess). As a non-mounted path of the squire, I think a fencer would suit it quite well as again, I think nobility when I think fencer.

These minor tweaks for less overlap make things simpler and more conceivable, allowing most if not all humans with just lvl 0s.

[thespaceinvader]

Simplicity's definitely better, i agree. I like the complexity for realism - i like the idea that a spearman/peasant who was good enough could rise through the ranks to become a General, or that a ruffian could straighten out and join the army. But WINR wins this dispute i think. I like that tree.

[Aethaeryn]

If those two lvl 0s are definitely okay, there's townsman graphics here, though that's from April so I'm not sure whatever happened to that particular unit (woodsmen/ruffians are mainline now iirc). Its advancement tree is different than what we proposed here. I don't think there are any squire graphics out there.

[Ken_Oh]

Let me clarify that I'm not suggesting that my system become standard. I'm simply offering an example. In my case, I wanted more lvl 0 play within the campaign I made, so that's why there's an abstraction between normal lvl 0s and lvl 1s (WCs are a really wicked enemy then).

I would defend, however, the creation of a Mage lvl 0, since it really doesn't make sense to take a 6 or 8 gold unit and turn it almost instantly into a 20 gold unit, in the same way that it doesn't make sense to go from a cheap Peasant straight to a Horseman. Sure, a Mage isn't in the ranks of full magi, but what even a lvl 1 Mage could reflect an emmense amount of training (reflected by the 20 gold cost). What would you call one that hasn't gone through all of that training? I think: Initiate.

[thespaceinvader]

I'd say that you get a civilian at level 0 who can afford the training, put them through the training and get a level 1 mage. Not start with a special level 0 who is an initiate BEFORE the level 1 mage which is already a novice.

[Aethaeryn]

Ken Oh is right, though. The Mage unit is more of a graduate, just with no field experience. Also, it would kind of be hard to have a lvl 0 unit turn into a magic-wielding unit with a weak melee. The townsman can't really work out as a pre-mage unit, especially price-wise compared to the price of the other units it can advance to.