Catulus
05-10-2003, 16:00
For those who have not:
“King of Dragon Pass” is a sort of role-playing game where player leads his small clan in attempt to unify all other clans of the area in to a kingdom. Clan’s nobility, the leaders, are important part of the game – of these the player assembles clan ring which then advises the player on different decisions. Player also assigns these leaders to perform different tasks such as leading a raiding party or being diplomatic envoys etc. It’s a very good game all in all and worth a try.
Now, since CA took a step towards role-playing with the generals in M:TW, I thought that it would be logical to go even further with R:TW. I think that system similar to KoDP would work just brilliantly with TW series. Let’s say that player would have “a hand” of leaders at his disposal - these would be family members, legates, senators, clients etc. and all of them would have their own skills, strengths and weaknesses. These leaders would then be assigned on different tasks at hand.
Leaders would naturally act as army commanders, but there could be multiple posts in one army (such as commander of cavalry, quartermaster etc.). Leaders would carry out also all diplomatic missions and they would replace all diplomatic units. For example, it would be up to the leader send on spying mission to recruit the spy network he needs on his area. The trick is that you never have enough competent leaders to go around and even those would have their weaknesses. Send a good diplomat, but who is also known to be arrogant, on a mission to Syracuse and they might just send him back, Germans might just send his head pack Good infantry commander doesn’t know which way to sit on a saddle, in which case you definitely want to appoint separate cavalry commander. Understand what I mean?
Leaders could also present faction differences and have more profound effect on tactical battles as well. Here is an example: at the beginning of 1st Punic War Rome doesn’t have a single competent maritime commander – but the Player could use a good infantry commander. If this is coupled with ships equipped with Corvus and boarding tactics he has a fair change against the Carthaginian fleet (better than fair in suitable circumstances). But, since the leader lacks any true seamanship and the Corvus makes the ships even more un-seaworthy the fleet is likely to suffer horrible casualties to the elements. It would be better to train some young and promising leader on the secrets on sea warfare, or perhaps players Greek allies would provide him a suitable man.
With armies overall commander would have an effect to marching speed (at strategic map) and upkeep of his troops as well as their moral(honor), lower commanders would give their bonuses on their own troops only. In tactical map, more competent leader would (with certain modifiers) always start on more advantageous position. In ambushes the ambushed side would have to start in marching order in the middle of the map while his opponent gets to deploy on both sides. This way even the best army might easily loose when under bad leadership (this would also give the compute the edge I think it needs).
With this kind of “personnel management” the possibilities are practically endless
So what do you think?
“King of Dragon Pass” is a sort of role-playing game where player leads his small clan in attempt to unify all other clans of the area in to a kingdom. Clan’s nobility, the leaders, are important part of the game – of these the player assembles clan ring which then advises the player on different decisions. Player also assigns these leaders to perform different tasks such as leading a raiding party or being diplomatic envoys etc. It’s a very good game all in all and worth a try.
Now, since CA took a step towards role-playing with the generals in M:TW, I thought that it would be logical to go even further with R:TW. I think that system similar to KoDP would work just brilliantly with TW series. Let’s say that player would have “a hand” of leaders at his disposal - these would be family members, legates, senators, clients etc. and all of them would have their own skills, strengths and weaknesses. These leaders would then be assigned on different tasks at hand.
Leaders would naturally act as army commanders, but there could be multiple posts in one army (such as commander of cavalry, quartermaster etc.). Leaders would carry out also all diplomatic missions and they would replace all diplomatic units. For example, it would be up to the leader send on spying mission to recruit the spy network he needs on his area. The trick is that you never have enough competent leaders to go around and even those would have their weaknesses. Send a good diplomat, but who is also known to be arrogant, on a mission to Syracuse and they might just send him back, Germans might just send his head pack Good infantry commander doesn’t know which way to sit on a saddle, in which case you definitely want to appoint separate cavalry commander. Understand what I mean?
Leaders could also present faction differences and have more profound effect on tactical battles as well. Here is an example: at the beginning of 1st Punic War Rome doesn’t have a single competent maritime commander – but the Player could use a good infantry commander. If this is coupled with ships equipped with Corvus and boarding tactics he has a fair change against the Carthaginian fleet (better than fair in suitable circumstances). But, since the leader lacks any true seamanship and the Corvus makes the ships even more un-seaworthy the fleet is likely to suffer horrible casualties to the elements. It would be better to train some young and promising leader on the secrets on sea warfare, or perhaps players Greek allies would provide him a suitable man.
With armies overall commander would have an effect to marching speed (at strategic map) and upkeep of his troops as well as their moral(honor), lower commanders would give their bonuses on their own troops only. In tactical map, more competent leader would (with certain modifiers) always start on more advantageous position. In ambushes the ambushed side would have to start in marching order in the middle of the map while his opponent gets to deploy on both sides. This way even the best army might easily loose when under bad leadership (this would also give the compute the edge I think it needs).
With this kind of “personnel management” the possibilities are practically endless
So what do you think?