Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Mercenary Campaign

hephep Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 403
edited June 2015 in General Discussion
What would everyone think of a DLC mercenary rpg campaign, in the style of shadow of the horned rat/dark omen?

You’re the leader of single mercenary army. You own no land. You start small and make money by completing missions/quests set by race leaders, characters, cities and towns in an rpg style.

There is a main story quest or two and loads of side quests, which take you all over the map. It would have a strong story line of main missions, which could include big warhammer characters, for example skarsnik and his tribe are searching for an extremely powerful magic item and you have to find it first.

You can recruit different units by travelling to different cities and hiring them, but you can go bankrupt when you can’t afford unit upkeep, so you may have to disband units/be careful not to hire too many elite units. You can keep some units on a retainer fee, so that you don’t lose them, but you have to pick and choose your army from your retained units for each battle.
The units that you use in battle get paid the full amount of upkeep.

You could hire units from any city/province but certain places would be better. For example travelling to nuln in the empire to hire artillery, athel loren to recruit wood elf archers, Sylvania to recruit a necromancer etc. so it would end up a real dogs of war style mixture of everything. maybe elite units/characters won’t join you until you have built up a certain amount of experience and you can only recruit some rare units after completing certain quests.

If you prefer empire units, then you should be able to recruit an empire only army. You should maybe be able to choose the race and unit type of your general and then customise how they look etc.

You might have to go to cities to replenish your units after battles. Staying out in dangerous areas such as the bad lands at the end of the turn can result in an ambush, so you have to think about temporary fortifications/defences and ordering a unit or two to patrol the area.

You can find (after battles) or buy/sell in cities different armour, weapons and magic items, for example travelling to zhufbar to equip your units with gromril armour or athel loren to equip your archers with powerful longbows/arrows. Marienburg could have exotic magic items. This could make it worthwhile exploring the dangerous areas of the map, to find the better magic items.

You may have to make management decisions, such as your unit of high elf spearmen are refusing to help defend the dwarf karak, do you lose the high elves or do you ignore the dwarfs?
or your bretonnian hero is threatening to kill your necromancer, who do you side with?

There should be loads of extra army micromanagement options available. You would become attached to your chracters and units, especially the early game ones that have got you through the tough battles, so losing one of these units would be awful.
This would really make you consider the risks of losing an experienced unit. Travelling to the other side of the map to hire a replacement unit identical to the one you lost would take a long time and losing a character would be irreplaceable.

What does everyone think?

What other suggestions or features could there be?
Post edited by hep on

Comments

  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,849
    edited May 2015
    It's a very cool idea, but not really a Total War game. With that said, it would make for some interesting downloadable content as a mini-game type of alternative story mode.
    Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

    If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.
  • hephep Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 403
    edited May 2015
    It would have the total war campaign map, so you choose where to go, which missions to do, when to do them and which cities to travel to. It would feel more like skyrim, but with an army behind you.
    You would be exploring the old world as it is and interacting with the races, factions and characters, rather than conquering it like in TW, it could have a strong story element, without being too linear.

    One of the best things about warhammer is the characters and the stories, I think this could really get you involved with those characters.

    Wars could be happening in the background between races, which would make it wise to avoid certain areas at certain times, incase you get attacked In a war that you aren't being paid for.

    But then again, if 3 stacks of an orc Waaagh (possible random event/non quest related), are besieging the city that you have to go to next for your quest, it might be best to try and break that siege to get paid and possibly get a reward. Also, where there is a direct threat there is more likely to be better missions.

    Heading somewhere like mad dog pass should be suicidal in the early game, but going there later on could be part of a difficult mission.

    It would be good if they made the battles difficult enough that taking a shortcut through a forest and spotting a few hidden forest goblin stacks was a truly oh **** moment.
  • hephep Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 403
    edited May 2015
    It could become a very good multiplayer. Imagine having 3 or 4 of your mates that have a mercenary army each, all travelling around the same map doing missions together. You wouldn't have to wait a massive amount of time between turns because everyone only has one army. You could trade units, magic items, armours and weapons.
    You could fight battles side by side (scale up the difficulty or number of enemies when there are more of you).

    You could even make it so that you are in competition with each other over certain missions (whoever gets the quest item back to the city gets the money).

    I can't think of any reason why your army couldn't drop in and out of someone else's single player mercenary campaign, like how you can drop in and out of other peoples games in the borderlands series.
  • NemaLiveNemaLive Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 144
    edited May 2015
    I would like this very much
  • OrkfaellerOrkfaeller Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 2,329
    edited May 2015
    Not talking Warhammer; I allways wished it was possible to play a mercenary faction in TotalWar games. You know, you dont hold territory of your own, you make camp in the provinces of allies instead who pay you to fight their wars for them. Now with the horde feature of Atilla, it miiiight be something that actually finds its way into TotalWar some day.
  • BloodClawBloodClaw Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 303
    edited May 2015
    Its a cool idea but I don't think we will see it takes to much away from the base idea's of TW and it take to much development time / money for what would be a side game.
    My dream has come true my favourite game franchise (total war) + my favourite lore (warhammer) are collaborating for a truly divine game !!!!!

    For some TW lets play's or my prediction and information videos on TW: Warhammer 2 - visit my youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEWi55_w4pBFCy06QGTdOBw[url]

    Twitch : [/url]https://www.twitch.tv/blood_claw[url][/url]
  • hephep Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 403
    edited May 2015
    Blood CLaw wrote: »
    Its a cool idea but I don't think we will see it takes to much away from the base idea's of TW and it take to much development time / money for what would be a side game.

    I think a lot of the features already exist in TW. The horde mechanic, the experience mechanics, the armour/weapons/magic items/mounts have been mentioned by CA when talking about TW:warhammer.
    We already have missions and rewards.
    You could move your army into a city, or next to a city and that would allow you to see items for sale/available missions/units for hire.
    The mechanics exist to go into the middle of nowhere and build fortifications.
    They already have dilemmas in previous TW games, so that works.
    The mercenary panel exists, so hiring units in enemy/allied territory is already there.

    They would need an army general customisation screen, but they could leave this out if it is too much work.
    They would need an army micromanagement screen, not sure what could be included here, but stuff to really get you involved in the details, so that you become more immersed.
    They would need a load of cut scene's or some way of telling the story.
    The multiplayer would need a big overhaul, but multiplayer is somewhat lacking, so the investment now could be used in future TW games.

    A normal campaign map with all of the factions controlled by human players would be a huge challenge. There are issues such as the amount of data to be transferred and how long it would take between turns, whilst waiting for everyone else to press end turn, true multiplayer seems too big to attempt.
    This mercenary campaign multiplayer would overcome those issues, less data transferred because you can only see the area around one army and less time spent waiting for players to end their turns, because you only have one army.
  • HalonHalon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 118
    edited May 2015
    I have always felt that TW owed alot to Shadow of the Horned Rat and an homage like this would be very cool, perhaps as a DLC campaign. A lot of the features required are already in place such as the horde mechanic and missions. If you want a great modern example of how to do this is Mount and Blade.
    More diplomacy options please.
  • Rifugio#8346Rifugio#8346 Member Registered Users Posts: 1,293
    edited May 2015
    Nice idea for a campaign add on, but it would need a lot of work to script the individual events and mercenary engagements. The trick would be giving enough choice to make it replayable and creating interesting events. Balancing the books of paying your units whilst allowing the, to rest an re recruit to replace losses could be quite neat as you may have to temporarily park units whilst the rest of the company moves on.

    Looking at games for additional inspiration The King Arthur RPG game had a neat mechanic where your campaign/event choices unlocked unit recruitment and abilities/laws based on a matrix with two axis. Tyranny/Righteous Christian/OldWays, a varient could be kind of interesting to chart the mercenary captains progress to becoming a staunch if expensive noble defender of the empire, chaos degenerate, double dealing vampire secretly or openly in league with the counts, or perhaps plain amoral sell-sword working for the highest bidder.

    Making it multiplayer may be difficult if you went down the route of an RPG, but perhaps it could still be co-op By having the captains trusty Lieutenant level up separately and control half of the units from the main mercenary force (turns to pick units based, Captain goes first). All the time secretly scheming to become elected captain themselves. Based on relative performance in the battles and popularity either could be elected and the take control of the destiny of the mercenary band (until the next election) unfortunately once on the slippery slope it becomes harder to turn the companies fate around - but the honour of becoming the greatest leader/chaos degenerate of the company may be reward in itself.
  • KrilralKrilral Member Registered Users Posts: 910
    edited May 2015
    For the main release I would rather have them focus all their efforts on the "main" game itself, but I think a mercenary campaign would be a good choice for a smaller, more focused DLC along the lines of Ceasar in Gaul for example. I won't begin to speculate how a multiplayer campaign could work with this, but it would certainly be interesting from a single-player perspective. Perhaps a mercenary campaign could focus on smaller but more complex skirmishes, which would provide a refreshing, but not overly foreign, addition to the traditional large-scale Total War battles. If this would be the case, then it would also fit well with a more story- and character based campaign, perhaps similar to the King Arthur series as mentioned above :)
  • hephep Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 403
    edited May 2015
    Rifugio wrote: »
    Nice idea for a campaign add on, but it would need a lot of work to script the individual events and mercenary engagements. The trick would be giving enough choice to make it replayable and creating interesting events. Balancing the books of paying your units whilst allowing the, to rest an re recruit to replace losses could be quite neat as you may have to temporarily park units whilst the rest of the company moves on.

    Looking at games for additional inspiration The King Arthur RPG game had a neat mechanic where your campaign/event choices unlocked unit recruitment and abilities/laws based on a matrix with two axis. Tyranny/Righteous Christian/OldWays, a varient could be kind of interesting to chart the mercenary captains progress to becoming a staunch if expensive noble defender of the empire, chaos degenerate, double dealing vampire secretly or openly in league with the counts, or perhaps plain amoral sell-sword working for the highest bidder.

    Making it multiplayer may be difficult if you went down the route of an RPG, but perhaps it could still be co-op By having the captains trusty Lieutenant level up separately and control half of the units from the main mercenary force (turns to pick units based, Captain goes first). All the time secretly scheming to become elected captain themselves. Based on relative performance in the battles and popularity either could be elected and the take control of the destiny of the mercenary band (until the next election) unfortunately once on the slippery slope it becomes harder to turn the companies fate around - but the honour of becoming the greatest leader/chaos degenerate of the company may be reward in itself.

    Great idea, bringing morality into it. Too many evil missions for the vampire counts and the empire could put a price on your head.
    Being evil may unlock access to some units like ghouls, but block access to some units like grail knights.
    I like the internal politics idea, where you have to keep your captains happy, in a rome 2 politics style, but more fleshed out.

    The mercenary campaign is an idea that could have a lot of development and end up really detailed, almost its own game, or have minimal development and turn out fairly simple, which would lack some of the features. I just hope someone at CA sees the idea's and considers the possibility.

    Multiplayer could be the hardest feature to implement, but getting it right could make a lot of the multiplayer fans happy. A lot of people want a multiplayer campaign in some form, some are wanting the return of shogun 2's avatar conquest, which is a sort of simplified version of this idea, but this idea would use a lot of the existing mechanics such as the campaign map instead.

    I honestly haven't got a clue how hard it would be to implement but being able to drop in to someone's existing mercenary campaign for a few hours (or for the length of the campaign) would be amazing. I don't understand why more games with a drop in/drop out rpg feature aren't made. Co-op rpg is sooooo overlooked these days.
    Krilral wrote: »
    For the main release I would rather have them focus all their efforts on the "main" game itself, but I think a mercenary campaign would be a good choice for a smaller, more focused DLC along the lines of Ceasar in Gaul for example. I won't begin to speculate how a multiplayer campaign could work with this, but it would certainly be interesting from a single-player perspective. Perhaps a mercenary campaign could focus on smaller but more complex skirmishes, which would provide a refreshing, but not overly foreign, addition to the traditional large-scale Total War battles. If this would be the case, then it would also fit well with a more story- and character based campaign, perhaps similar to the King Arthur series as mentioned above

    I agree, the main game should come first, but we have 3 games, each of which will have DLC. I think there will be room in their schedule to try out a wacky DLC idea like this, for one of the later games.

    I really like the idea of being a small fish in a big pond full of sharks and really feeling like your in jeopardy when venturing into the bad lands for example.
    eg. a mission asks you to retrieve a magic item from an orc tribe, so you venture into the bad lands, perform a raid and have to escape back to the relative safety of the empire, whilst being pursued by orc and goblin stacks, while hoping that the empire guards allow you through black fire pass.

    Having a character based campaign would add to the jeopardy, because your captains, heroes and wizards would be the characters, which you would become attached to. If you have an experienced hero with loads of money invested into his armour, weapons and magic items, then you would really be afraid of losing him, but he would also be a really powerful unit. You would have to really think about where you used everyone, instead of sacrificing units because they are replaceable.

    One of the main problems with total war is that you start small, which is great, and then you become big and start steam rolling factions, which becomes boring and too easy.
    CA have tried implementing late game mechanics to make the late game fun, such as realm divide and civil wars but sometimes they feel artificial, especially when you can predict them.
    But starting tiny and never being able to become big (due to only controlling one army) could provide that early game fun, throughout the game.
  • Rifugio#8346Rifugio#8346 Member Registered Users Posts: 1,293
    edited May 2015
    If the Captain and his Lieutenant(s) were created a hero leaders, adding two player co-op drop in drop-out where the players share command of the units in battle would be relatively starightforward as most of it is already implemented in previous titles. I wouldn't think that adding more than 2 players would not really be worth the effort for one mercenary army.

    Adding some sort of internal mercenary company politics in single player, which could be influenced in the co-op mode would be also nice for the RPG aspect and give the second player more involvement.

    Individual mercenary captains commanding their own armies would not work for drop I /drop out very well. It would also likely take away from the RPG design and linked mission chains. More than two players would be a headache for a number of reasons especially if you wanted to maintain synchronous multiplayer games. Much more feasible asynchronously.
  • hephep Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 403
    edited May 2015
    Rifugio wrote: »
    If the Captain and his Lieutenant(s) were created a hero leaders, adding two player co-op drop in drop-out where the players share command of the units in battle would be relatively starightforward as most of it is already implemented in previous titles. I wouldn't think that adding more than 2 players would not really be worth the effort for one mercenary army.

    Good point, I think this idea is very much a possibility for CA.

    What are your thoughts on this idea? There is a lobby with lots of people displaying their captain and 9 units, you send an invitation to someone to join your army.
    Their captain and 9 units join your captain and your 9 units in your stack on your campaign map. You control where the stack moves, which missions you do and which battles to engage in and split the profits 50/50. That way the 2nd player has a long term benefit, and your less likely to get a battle where an internet troll slowly kills your units off one by one (I don't know if this happens or not).
    Adding some sort of internal mercenary company politics in single player, which could be influenced in the co-op mode would be also nice for the RPG aspect and give the second player more involvement.

    Using the idea above, the internal politics could effect the profit share, for example 49/51, that could create a minigame between the players.
    Individual mercenary captains commanding their own armies would not work for drop I /drop out very well. It would also likely take away from the RPG design and linked mission chains. More than two players would be a headache for a number of reasons especially if you wanted to maintain synchronous multiplayer games. Much more feasible asynchronously

    It would only really work if the individual armies were tethered to each other and had to move about together, but if you tether them then they may as well be in the same stack like you say.
  • Rifugio#8346Rifugio#8346 Member Registered Users Posts: 1,293
    edited May 2015
    hep wrote: »
    Good point, I think this idea is very much a possibility for CA.

    What are your thoughts on this idea? There is a lobby with lots of people displaying their captain and 9 units, you send an invitation to someone to join your army.
    Their captain and 9 units join your captain and your 9 units in your stack on your campaign map. You control where the stack moves, which missions you do and which battles to engage in and split the profits 50/50. That way the 2nd player has a long term benefit, and your less likely to get a battle where an internet troll slowly kills your units off one by one (I don't know if this happens or not).

    Using the idea above, the internal politics could effect the profit share, for example 49/51, that could create a minigame between the players

    Not sure to be honest, I was thinking more as a way to share the campaign with a friend, who can drop in or drop out of the master campaign Whereas is seems a little more involved. For instance those 9 units would pretty soon be the top ranks possible and people would select the most devastating units for their nine. This would be very difficult to balance in the campaign. May be marketable but could be grind territory.
  • KrilralKrilral Member Registered Users Posts: 910
    edited May 2015
    A "persistant-army-lobby-solution" also presents the problem of how to handle different players with different levels of progression along their campaigns. If a someone with 10 end-game units joins someone with 10 early-game units, the game would become way too easy and thus boring. And of course that also goes the other way around, where the game would become way too hard. Personally I would just prefer a single-player campaign with a drop-in/drop-out function, which is probably a little different to what the OP originally intended, but it would solve a lot of problems and still allow people to play with their friends when they so desire.

    On the topic of mercenary politics, that is something that could potentially be really interesting. It would probably be based a lot more on you own actions, rather than the internal diplomacy and random political events that we have had so far. A mercenary company would(unlike the Roman patricians) probably not be particularly interested in where you distant cousin stuck his man-parts last thursday, as long as you provide them with a steady stream of loot and treasure. I could almost imagine mercenary politics working like the integrity-system in TW: Attila, just much more extreme in its effects. To retain the loyalty of your captains and soldiers you would have to regularly win profitable battles so as to pay your men. If you were inactive for too long, your men would start to grow restless, and if you lost too much your captains would start to think you were weak, and thus could be easily usurped as leader of the company.
  • hephep Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 403
    edited May 2015
    Ideally there could be an option to invite a friend or search in a lobby for your co-op partner.

    As a unit ranks up, their upkeep could increase, which would stop it from being profitable to keep using all powerful units. Instead you would keep them in reserve for the big money battles, which would be harder, to reflect the extra profit.

    This would reflect a unit proving itself over and over again and then asking for more money because they feel that they deserve it.

    Instead of having the fixed 9+captain units only, both players could have access to 10 unit slots each.
    The second player could access all of their "in reserve" units and choose from the cheaper, weaker units for the easier battles, possibly even reducing the number of units that they field to maximise profits.
    The payment should be low enough that when you are tasked with destroying a 5unit goblin raiding party it is not profitable to field a 20 unit stack of powerful units.

    Maybe you could hire a "scout" agent to gather information on an enemy army before battle, this would allow you to see what you are up against and therefore pick the right sized/strength army to maximise profit. A low ranking scout could show you half of the enemy units, where as a high ranking scout could show you all of the enemy units. Maybe the scout fails and you go into the battle blind.
    The scouting should cost money, so that sometimes you might be happy to go into battle blind to maximise profits (risk/reward).

    You may have to occasionally disband a high ranking unit with an expensive retainer fee.
    Krilral wrote: »
    On the topic of mercenary politics, that is something that could potentially be really interesting. It would probably be based a lot more on you own actions, rather than the internal diplomacy and random political events that we have had so far. A mercenary company would(unlike the Roman patricians) probably not be particularly interested in where you distant cousin stuck his man-parts last thursday, as long as you provide them with a steady stream of loot and treasure. I could almost imagine mercenary politics working like the integrity-system in TW: Attila, just much more extreme in its effects. To retain the loyalty of your captains and soldiers you would have to regularly win profitable battles so as to pay your men. If you were inactive for too long, your men would start to grow restless, and if you lost too much your captains would start to think you were weak, and thus could be easily usurped as leader of the company.

    Ha, good point. It might work similar to how I imagine an orc waaagh mechanic would work, but with the love of money at the heart of it instead of the love of fighting. If they do have an orc waaagh mechanic it might not be too difficult to implement for a mercenary army.

    If you keep a unit on retainer for a long time they may choose to leave you, possibly taking other units with them, to reflect the internal conspiring. If you keep more units on retainer that aren't used often than you usually use (e.g. 7 units on longterm retainer, 5 usual battle units) then you may get a full on civil war, where they ambush you to steal your money or take control.

    Each unit could have a loyalty meter, to reflect their happiness with how much profit they are making/how often they are winning battles. Maybe you could negotiate how much you pay each unit, rather than a fixed amount based purely on experience and how elite the unit is.
    There could potentially be a lot of micromanaging here, which I think would be very well suited to a mercenary army.
    Setting the game on easy would make it so the micromanaging was unnecessary, but setting the game on legendary would make the micromanaging vital.

    Loot is a good idea, you retrieve weapons and armours from dead enemies, which can be sold. Defeating a powerful high elf character could provide magic items which would sell for more money.

    Maybe the units captains should have personalities e.g. the loyalty of a unit of ogre ironguts(money grabbing ruthless personality) is reducing because you are turning down high paying missions against the empire (due to you being a good guy in this campaign (morality)).
    Personality shouldn't necessarily be race specific, high elves could be evil and ruthless, where as we could have a vegetarian vampire, but they should be more likely to incline towards a certain morality.

    Constantly defeating goblins, which have poor loot could contribute to disloyalty, where as constantly defeating dwarfs which have good loot could contribute to loyalty.
    Perhaps their could be a religious agent, which could help make your units more pious and therefore eager to do good or bad (depending on the religion) regardless of the amount of loot they receive. The downside of this is a religious agent could cost money and if you have a very devout army that is loyal to the church of sigmar, which you then force to attack the empire in a quest, could result in a big disloyalty penalty.

    (Possible management dilemma) You have a vampire in your army, and every now and then a soldier goes missing in the night (possible disloyalty/lowering of morale cause). There is no proof but morale is reducing and the men are conspiring, do you kill him, disband him or leave him be?
  • KrilralKrilral Member Registered Users Posts: 910
    edited May 2015
    @hep

    Let me just see if I understood you right: Regarding the lobby-idea, are you suggesting that the coop-partner has access to his entire roster of units, and then essentially "hires"(i.e. pays for) whichever units he wants to take with him into the coop game. If so, I could see that solving the problem with late-game players joining early-game players because, as you said, bringing high-tier units into a low-tier battle would not be profitable.

    And regarding payment on an individual-unit-basis, that is a pretty good idea, and makes a lot of sense to boot :)
    Realistically I suppose a mercenary leader would pay his men based on the risks they take, so for example the vanguard gets a larger share than the last guys into battle and so forth. Having individual unit loyalty and personality-traits would also be interesting, and could lead to a lot of interesting scenarios. For example you might decide to give a big payout to a unit of cannoneers whose loyalty is faltering, but that is gonna seriously p*** off the unit of spearmen who just lost a hundred men holding back a horde of orcs. And the units going into battle would naturally expect bigger rewards than those units who are held in reserve. The trick here though, is to make sure paying your units doesn't become too much of a grind.
  • hephep Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 403
    edited May 2015
    Krilral wrote: »
    @hep

    Let me just see if I understood you right: Regarding the lobby-idea, are you suggesting that the coop-partner has access to his entire roster of units, and then essentially "hires"(i.e. pays for) whichever units he wants to take with him into the coop game. If so, I could see that solving the problem with late-game players joining early-game players because, as you said, bringing high-tier units into a low-tier battle would not be profitable.

    And regarding payment on an individual-unit-basis, that is a pretty good idea, and makes a lot of sense to boot :)
    Realistically I suppose a mercenary leader would pay his men based on the risks they take, so for example the vanguard gets a larger share than the last guys into battle and so forth. Having individual unit loyalty and personality-traits would also be interesting, and could lead to a lot of interesting scenarios. For example you might decide to give a big payout to a unit of cannoneers whose loyalty is faltering, but that is gonna seriously p*** off the unit of spearmen who just lost a hundred men holding back a horde of orcs. And the units going into battle would naturally expect bigger rewards than those units who are held in reserve. The trick here though, is to make sure paying your units doesn't become too much of a grind.

    Yeah, originally I said a fixed 9 units + the captains unit, but that had problems. So, now I'm thinking that player 2 has access to his entire roster and can only fill 10 unit slots when selecting the units he takes into battle. Player 1 does the same with the other 10 unit slots, and that makes up your 20 unit stack. Each player could only take 2 or 3 units into battle if they want to and the units are selected before battle.
    In an ambush you may be given random units and have to protect your caravans in the middle of the map. (not sure if you would have to pay a battle fee in an ambush?)

    When the army is stationed in a city, you have access to a "hire units" panel. Hiring a unit adds them to your unit roster and you have to pay them a retainer fee. Each time a unit goes into battle you have to pay that unit a battle fee, which is significantly higher than the retainer fee and therefore what each soldier wants to earn (increases loyalty).
    However, when a unit is on retainer for ages they are not earning the amount that they want to earn, which decreases loyalty.

    A unit such as siege artillery, which is worth retaining but doesn't get used often might be worth offering a higher retainer fee to keep them happy and a lower battle fee, because they are expensive enough already.

    Where as a unit that gets used every battle might only need a minimal retainer fee.

    A unit that regularly looses men could demand more battle money than a unit that is unscathed each battle. However a unit that has lost lots of men won't get paid as much as if those men had survived. (possible ruthless battle tactics here?)

    Maybe you should have certain positions in your army, such as 2nd in command or bookkeeper to increase the loyalty of certain captains.

    Jealousy could be a good personality trait to include, maybe you should promote a captain, with "hard" personality traits, to 2nd in command, to keep the men in line.

    I agree, it could get too bureaucratic. maybe payment amounts should be handled in contracts that get renewed every 5-6 turns and the retaining/battle amounts get decided then, but the loyalty could reduce/increase every turn. To give the units a loyalty boost you may have to include them in a battle just for the sake of it.
  • FroGSpAgFroGSpAg Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 1
    edited May 2015
    Sounds great, I would prefer this to full-blown TW.
  • hephep Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 403
    edited May 2015
    I want this as much as I want a full blown TW. I loved shadow of the horned rat and I think CA could do something along those lines which would be truly amazing, without having to do too much extra work, because they could use a lot of the stuff that I expect is in the first warhammer game.

    Warhammer is all about characters, army building/customisation, micro management and storylines. I think this could perfectly recreate those features in a total war game as a DLC.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited May 2015
    I'd rather not. A mercenary campaign in the vein of Horned Rat or Dark Omen would require heavy scripting, make the campaign rather linear and offer little replay value. Waste of time and effort.
  • hephep Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 403
    edited May 2015
    I'd rather not. A mercenary campaign in the vein of Horned Rat or Dark Omen would require heavy scripting, make the campaign rather linear and offer little replay value. Waste of time and effort.

    They could use the skyrim way of doing things, where there are loads of side quests, you can wander off on your own or do the main story line to stop the campaign feeling linear. I think it would be fine as a DLC.
  • bjarkedbjarked Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 1,111
    edited May 2015
    The problem with side quests is that this is a TW game and not an RPG. So you control a lot of units and not just one singel units.
    So simple quest like go get x amount of apples, really does not work for a TW game. They could do them like Arther did it, but not sure how many "newer" game like the heavy reading, which is a same.
  • hephep Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 403
    edited May 2015
    bjarked wrote: »
    The problem with side quests is that this is a TW game and not an RPG. So you control a lot of units and not just one singel units.
    So simple quest like go get x amount of apples, really does not work for a TW game. They could do them like Arther did it, but not sure how many "newer" game like the heavy reading, which is a same.

    This idea is for an alternative DLC campaign, where you control one army only, the RPG questing could work with one army.

    It would use the existing game, but be an optional campaign mode, like the imperator augustus mode in rome 2. It wouldn't be a replacement for the usual sandbox TW campaign.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited May 2015
    hep wrote: »
    They could use the skyrim way of doing things, where there are loads of side quests, you can wander off on your own or do the main story line to stop the campaign feeling linear. I think it would be fine as a DLC.
    Thing is, the last three Warhammer Fantasy RTSs (Horned Rat, Dark Omen, Mark of Chaos) featured linear single army campaigns with a bunch of optional branch missions and sidequests and they did have quite limited replay value anyway. I really think we should move away from this sort of thing.
  • StormWeaver82StormWeaver82 Member UKRegistered Users Posts: 58
    edited May 2015
    I like the idea, Especially if they decided to throw Morgan Bernhardt and the Grudgebringers Back in there as DLC or something. :cool:
    Chance favors the connected mind.
  • hephep Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 403
    edited May 2015
    Thing is, the last three Warhammer Fantasy RTSs (Horned Rat, Dark Omen, Mark of Chaos) featured linear single army campaigns with a bunch of optional branch missions and sidequests and they did have quite limited replay value anyway. I really think we should move away from this sort of thing.

    Think of it more in terms of an open world RPG, with 3D battles. It wont be going from one battle to the next (like in the games that you mentioned), You could choose to explore the bad lands on the campaign map for a few turns if you wanted to, see what quests were available or what units you can hire, maybe attack a few orc tribes (not quest related) to see what magical items you could steal from them.

    It really doesn't need to be linear, but having some sort of main story quest, which you can choose to do or not to do could help to involve you in the world and with the big characters. Like in skyrim, there is a main story quest, but you don't have to do it, you can explore the map instead. But it involves you in the world and with the characters.

    This could have huge replay value, do you want an orc themed army? do you want a dwarf themed army? do you want to be evil and destroy all of the forces of order? Do you want to convert your army to chaos and enjoy some chaos perks, but be hunted by the empire? Do you want to be a devout worshipper of sigmar and try to destroy the enemies of the empire? Do you want to play the campaign in co-op only with your mate? Do you want to go magical item hunting, to find all of the best magical items? Do you want to spend ages building the perfect army, with the perfect reserve troops to handle any situation before you do any quests?
    Do you want to use your army in a multiplayer battle versus someone else's mercenary campaign army, to see how good it is?
    Maybe there should be a mercenary campaign army multiplayer ranking table?
    I like the idea, Especially if they decided to throw Morgan Bernhardt and the Grudgebringers Back in there as DLC or something. :cool:

    That sounds good, they would definitely have to pay some sort of homage to the grudge bringers. At the very least a quest which involves them, at the most maybe you could pick Morgan Bernhardt as your general?
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001
    edited June 2015
    Eh, if the army was completely customizable you are aware the sort of balance issues that would bring with it in a campaign? You didn't have much choice WRT army composition in the older titles for a reason. It would also have to be more linear than Skyrim and co. because an entire mercenary army just doesn't have as much freedom of activity as a single person.
  • hephep Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 403
    edited June 2015
    Eh, if the army was completely customizable you are aware the sort of balance issues that would bring with it in a campaign? You didn't have much choice WRT army composition in the older titles for a reason. It would also have to be more linear than Skyrim and co. because an entire mercenary army just doesn't have as much freedom of activity as a single person.

    The balance would be pretty good in my opinion. The total war campaign map exists as usual, with loads of factions battling and making alliances etc. you control one army, no land. You can choose who you attack, mission based or not. If you do a mission (or choose non mission related) to attack an orc tribe, you might find your one army up against 4 stacks of orcs.

    Most people would want to flee from such a fight, or have a very powerful army to take them on. Alternatively, If you face a small army of orcs, you are not going to field a full 20 unit, overly powerful stack against them, because you will have to pay a fortune in battle payments, which makes the battle un-profitable.

    You will be balancing your army yourself for each battle based on cost, for profit and to avoid bankruptcy.

    With the total war campaign map, you can travel around the map to different cities and hire/fire whoever you want, you can make money from side quests and selling looted/found magic items, you can make money from attacking an enemy and looting their city or you can do the main story quests and make money.

    I don't think there would be any difference between a mercenary army and a single person in the total war campaign map.

    On the total war campaign map single people (agents) are treated/controlled in pretty much the same way as an army, but they can cross borders and enter other factions cities.
    The mercenary army will be able to cross borders and enter cities for quests, hire/fire units or buy/sell magical items.
  • joaamikejoaamike Member Registered Users Posts: 141
    edited June 2015
    Very cool idea, I would play this :)
Sign In or Register to comment.