it adresses nice roleplaying aspects
imo it would be nice if there is soemhow a 17th unit, a sole character with some guard who is the general of your army.
Printable View
it adresses nice roleplaying aspects
imo it would be nice if there is soemhow a 17th unit, a sole character with some guard who is the general of your army.
I would encourage the custom general idea, but I would prefer to have him be the commander of a unit instead of a mandatory special guard. A specific general unit would take away from the variety of the game; choosing to protect or commit your general should be a crucial strategic choice for the player. This would encourage the selection of specific units and strategies, which would add flavor to armies.
Also, improving the command attributes of your general is a must, it adds more options and strategies in the army selection phase.
I agree with Magyar Khan ...
Konagamato, having the general's unit in the form of a small special guard doesn't mean that you won't be able to engage him in battle ... The small guard should comprise elite soldiers, some that they can make a difference.
VERY IMPORTANT: In MTW the morale it's increased for the units around the general ... This feature could be improved in RTW, so that they should get a lot of morale from the generals presence near them ... Think about it: in many battles warriors railed around a leader or a general, so it's true by historical aspects. Second aspect: you will have to move your general in the most dangerous points of the battlefield, meaning a lot tactical skill needed, risk and excitement http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
I want to pick what unit type my general is in. This would promote variety. A light cavalry general could boost morale easily by traveling up and down the battle line, and a heavy infantry general could provide added defensive might. I am not against the inclusion of bodyguard units either, I just would like the choice of which unit my general commands.
The morale boosting effects of being in the general's proximity are not featured in MTW MP.
A bonus for rally close to the general would be great.
Back to topic.... Hum no, going off topic again, I would like being able to identify each units commander in each units, or at least have some warning when they die.
In MTW, I regret not knowing when my Non-general Chief of Eunuchs dies until the end of the battle.
I like the idea of maybe having a 'command' unit to give orders to units more efficiently.
One way of doing that might be increasing impetuousness for units far away from the general/ not in sight of command units. Or something along those lines.
Louis,
hehehe put my picture on the general with my L337 editing skilz http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif
I voted yes and then realised I did not know what I was voting for. We already have leaders on the battlefield: the guys with big flags and sometimes crowns. I guess the point is to move them individually or something?
I really liked the representation of heroes in the Heroes of Might and Magic IV game - and love RPGs - but I am not sure I want the same in a TW game. I would think a leader's attributes are most important out of the battlefield and wouldn't like them to have too much of a roll in individual combat (what good is one man? especially in the Ancient type battles).
The representation on the battlefield in MTW is pretty good - they can boost morale in their vicinity (or break it, by fleeing or dying!http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif and with their body guard provide a good last ditch shock unit.
Maybe I just want more a nice close-up?
Talking about leader unit in RPG aspect. Why not create a special function for the leader unit where u can actually get 2 opposing leader unit to duke it out in a man to man combat in the battlefield with all the units clashing around them.
There will be a bar indicating their health and the fraction who lost their leader will get a penalty in their morale. That will be real cool
why don't we just make it totally virtual so that we put on special goggles and get weapons and conquer the world in virtual reality. It'll ship with Roman, Celtic, and Greek halloween costumes that we can wear while we're playing. For multiplay we can get with our friends and command different units and if we own elephants we can ride them while we're playing
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/smile.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/pat.gif
micromanagement nightmare
As nifty as that would be (what Lechev said, that is), I don't think we're upto it yet or that TW should have that in the first place.
However, I would like to see leader representations on the map - I think it would add to the realism and historicalness (is that a word?) of the game. I'm not really sure whether the actual bodies and faces should be totally historically accurate. I don't think they should play a major roll in combat aside from better discipline and morale though.
So we all agree: we want the leaders on the battlefield to be visible, corect?
Now I am really confused. They are visible in MTW - they are the guys holding the big flags. If it is your king, there is a crown on the flag. It is important what you do with him, eg when he is alone in the middle of a battle, you get him to run or lose him. Or am I missing something?Quote:
Originally Posted by [b
Well, yes, the leader is the guy with the bigger flag, but if he dies, that the flag is taken by other soldier, so if you missed seeing him fall, than you can't find out if he is dead or not until you reach the campaign map.
And you must admit that you just can't watch every unit leader in the same time
Um, I guess - but you do get a message when your army leader dies or flees. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/mecry.gif
I agree it is really annoying to lose a secondary leader, like a prince, without knowing it. It seems to happen seomtimes if I forget to untick the "tidy up units after combat" option and sometimes I suspect he was not killed, but merely inadvertently merged.
Oh no, he can't merge with other units ... his men may, him no ...
Normally if a nobleman leads a unit and he dies during the battle there will be a significant decrease in valour of the unit that the nobleman was part of.
The poll choices are to confusing.
Code Sample Martel, who had taken up position with his sword towards the back of his troops, hastened to where he perceived the enemy to be most hampered by its own numbers. Changing his appearance from that of a count to that of an ordinary knight, he prised some horsemen from their seats with his spear and clove others in their saddles with his sword. He rallied his men, encouraging those who were hard pressed. Having lifted their spirits, he rushed forward against the adversary.[/QUOTE]
I took this out of "The Plantagenet Chronicles".
Perhaps the general (main general, not a unit commander) should be a detached soldier (on foot, or horse) with greater speed than the rest of the soldiers. He should be able to connect to any unit and automatically become its leader. This unit would have a huge morale increase (varied by the General's reputation). Nearby units (pretty close) would also get a smaller morale increase.
However, when the general is detached, he would be just rallying the troops, giving a smaller bonus but to a larger area (bonus decreasing with distance).
Just my two cents http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
Oh and I'm aware that the quote is from medieval times. Nevertheless, it still applies to earlier times.
You brin the general to the battle in MTW. Why not so in RTW.
1 question
whats the question im supposed to be answering by voting?
he means a general, like you see in the films a unit that stays outta the action that represents "the General" maybe where this unit is situated could affect your sight