Heroes leading armies

BrightestLight

I think heroes leading armies would be super healthy for this game in a variety of ways. you limit the number of troops they can command to 10, or some other number considerably smaller than 20, and make it so that they cannot perform any agent actions if they are leading an army. this means that there is a reason to have smaller armies/battles, and adds variety. i think there's more that could be done with this, but what do you think? I feel this could be an excellent feature for game 3.

EmeraldThanatos#7267

I agree, but I'd rather see that as a part of not needing lords in an army or having multiple lords from older total wars. If that system returns then heroes could lead armies as lords wouldn't be required. But I don't see that returning until at least the next historical title so heroes leading armies will have to do.

Mogwai_Man#4978

It would be a cool option but the AI would just swarm your half stacks.

It would be much more useful in a MP campaign though.

thebiglez

is there a mod for that, it sounds great!

Archmark#3881

EmeraldThanatos said:

I agree, but I'd rather see that as a part of not needing lords in an army or having multiple lords from older total wars. If that system returns then heroes could lead armies as lords wouldn't be required. But I don't see that returning until at least the next historical title so heroes leading armies will have to do.

I don't understand why it was changed. This current system is clunky (I don't know is that the right word, but I can't think of anything else).

Helhound#7332

As far as how hero functions in conjunction with your army, I actually want to see them go the other way round with it. Heroes no longer take unit slots, can't lead armies, but can still be attached to armies. You attach up to a maximum of three heroes per army that occupy hero slots divorced from the 20 unit limit. Likewise your lord would not count as part of your 20 stack either. So up to 24 "units" total.

Too late for this second part, but if the above were the case then I'd also have liked to see a rebalance where lords and heroes were less of an individual unit in their own right. More of a battery for the army around them with a few notable exceptions.

Queco

Fear_The_Wolf said:

As far as how hero functions in conjunction with your army, I actually want to see them go the other way round with it. Heroes no longer take unit slots, can't lead armies, but can still be attached to armies. You attach up to a maximum of three heroes per army that occupy hero slots divorced from the 20 unit limit. Likewise your lord would not count as part of your 20 stack either. So up to 24 "units" total.

Too late for this second part, but if the above were the case then I'd also have liked to see a rebalance where lords and heroes were less of an individual unit in their own right. More of a battery for the army around them with a few notable exceptions.

I agree. They have already done something similar with Three Kingdoms. A full stack in that game is 21 units, 3 commanders and 18 units. If CA were to just tweak that a little bit then it could work here as well.

endurstonehelm#6102

BrightestLight said:

I think heroes leading armies would be super healthy for this game in a variety of ways. you limit the number of troops they can command to 10, or some other number considerably smaller than 20, and make it so that they cannot perform any agent actions if they are leading an army. this means that there is a reason to have smaller armies/battles, and adds variety. i think there's more that could be done with this, but what do you think? I feel this could be an excellent feature for game 3.

On the table top in 3e and 4e, the character with the highest leadership was the general. That character could be a hero, and did not have to be a lord.

RomeoReject#1666

endur said:

BrightestLight said:

I think heroes leading armies would be super healthy for this game in a variety of ways. you limit the number of troops they can command to 10, or some other number considerably smaller than 20, and make it so that they cannot perform any agent actions if they are leading an army. this means that there is a reason to have smaller armies/battles, and adds variety. i think there's more that could be done with this, but what do you think? I feel this could be an excellent feature for game 3.

On the table top in 3e and 4e, the character with the highest leadership was the general. That character could be a hero, and did not have to be a lord.

We kinda have that already in Garrisons.

Units can be the leaders, as can Heroes.