Could heroes lead (move) armies?

NickCageStoleMyFace#5594

Please hear me out. I’m not saying they should I’m just giving an argument.

I have been thinking about Heroes and wondering if they could possibly lead or move armies but not effectively.

I’ll explain

Say if your Lord died in battle, you wouldn’t automatically need to recruit another Lord to fill his place, you could instead chose for the Hero to lead temporarily.

Of course there will be massive debuffs from doing this like, movement range, no agent actions, fighting effectiveness, cannot recruit new units to the army unless it’s a certain lore friendly Legendary Hero like Ariel or Ghoritch.

If you wanna go further you could say a hero can only lead a 10 stack, you have to choose who you wanna disband to get to that number.

It wouldn’t be advisable to have a hero lead your army but I don’t think it’s that uncommon in lore.

It could also help if you want to travel reinforcements from your territory to enemy territory without having to recruit a lord every time.

Not saying the recruit new Lord when Lord dies should go away but, it’s always weird to me when that Lord pops up out of nowhere. Was he in the army to begin with? Was he just a travelling Lord? 🤣

In previous Total Wars of old, you didn’t need to have a General to be able to move an army around.

I know it seem like a big change but it truly wouldn’t be. Lords leading the army would still be 100% the way to go effectively.

I know the forum likes shooting down new ideas, but I’m just spitballing.

Heretical_Cactus#7598

Doesn't 3 Kingdom do something like that ?

Where the heroes can lead small warbands and the Lords can take 3 Heroes in their group to have bigger armies

Bastilean#7242

Seems like a waste of energy on CA's part. Heroes have a roll that they were designed for and it's not leading armies. Same goes for generals, they weren't design to perform agent actions or to waste their army leading talents.

Instead of having heroes leading armies just have no leader after a general dies, so CA picks whichever unit is the most expensive to show on the campaign map. The army needs to recruit a new general the normal way instead of magically promoting one out of thin air.

Having no general in an army is perfectly legitimate and not something I ever understood CA not doing... well the truth is it requires more code in the campaign files to show all the troops on the campaign map. With that said, it's not that much work for people who already have the art and animation assets in the battle files.

#610044

i miss in medieval 2 you could move any unit around to reinforce settlements etc anywehere. i hate this future with only lords being able to move armies

tadakatsu#9524

Storeslem said:

i miss in medieval 2 you could move any unit around to reinforce settlements etc anywehere. i hate this future with only lords being able to move armies

its more realistic having a leader tell people where to go. it makes no logical sense for squads of units to be going to destinations without anyone leading them

doclumbago#6250

It would be cool if Heroes/ Lords were more flexible in their role.Just have characters you can assign to armies. That could settle the old Isabella LH or LL argument

Sultschiem#8734

arthadaw said:

Doesn't 3 Kingdom do something like that ?

Where the heroes can lead small warbands and the Lords can take 3 Heroes in their group to have bigger armies

3 Kingdoms essentially allows you to have 3 generals in your armies.

Each has their own retinue. The general in the first slot, leads the whole army and can give army-wide boosts.

Each General has also 5 "Retinue"-slots for units to fill up with. These retinues belong to that general and some(especially the advanced ones) are exclusive to certain general-types. E.g. a Scholar can get advanced ranged and artillery units.

You can move the generals only with their entire retinue.

The coolest part about this tho is.... Governours are also generals, meaning they can have a personal retinue of 5 units to add to the garisson of a province.



I thought from generals, army management and from governor management, it was one of the best games.
Made your selection of generals and governors meaningful and you couldn't spam "heroes". Not to mention you could just switch generals and get different bonis for the entire army.

I really hope they use exactly that system for Dogs of War..... meaning you can get Merc-Leader characters with their own retinues. E.g. a Halfling Character can hire Halflings. A dwarf dwarfs etc. and you can mix and match your armies with certain synergies (e.g. a Dwarfs and Elves don't like one another and get penalties if in the same army, same with imperials and norscans)

PoorManatee6197#6481

tadakatsu said:

Storeslem said:

i miss in medieval 2 you could move any unit around to reinforce settlements etc anywehere. i hate this future with only lords being able to move armies

its more realistic having a leader tell people where to go. it makes no logical sense for squads of units to be going to destinations without anyone leading them

A leader knows when to separate his army for tactical advantage.

Rewan#2358

Each General has also 5 "Retinue"-slots for units to fill up with. These retinues belong to that general and some(especially the advanced ones) are exclusive to certain general-types. E.g. a Scholar can get advanced ranged and artillery units.

6. Nitpicking but let's be accurate.

DarthEnderX-#6513

tadakatsu said:

its more realistic having a leader tell people where to go. it makes no logical sense for squads of units to be going to destinations without anyone leading them

Except "realistically", literally anyone could be a leader. You don't have to have a lord or master wizard around just to issue orders.

A simple squad leader can do that.

#568367

tadakatsu said:

Storeslem said:

i miss in medieval 2 you could move any unit around to reinforce settlements etc anywehere. i hate this future with only lords being able to move armies

its more realistic having a leader tell people where to go. it makes no logical sense for squads of units to be going to destinations without anyone leading them

You really have no idea what you're talking about do you


Armies are always divided into dozens of subdivisions. Hell even in a basic unit there's a single captain leading each unit to keep them together as said unit.


In real life and in Warhammer armies always send individual units to complete tasks, accompanied by somewhere higher in rank if the situation demands.


In real life? Just read up any news on the current conflict or any in history

alpharender33#2889

Future Total War games should use the Three Kingdoms system, that seems the most effective and balanced. No need to change anything in WH3 too, too much work and makes no sense to change fundamental gameplay elements.

yolordmcswag#6132

IMO lords and heroes should be completely reworked, including making heroes able to command armies, and having several lords in one army.

BeerTheReaper#3213

I can see what you are going for but it just seems like it will needlessly overcomplicate the system. I also have very little faith in CA's ability to implement something like this well.