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

Should formations be tied to retinue leader or unit level rather than having a leveled strategist?

cool_ladcool_lad Senior MemberIndiaPosts: 2,232Registered Users
The current system of formation perhaps inflates the value of the strategist over and above any other type of character, since without him, every single unit is incapable of using formations.

This means that for all intents and purposes, the Strategist is a mandatory pick for armies.

Perhaps these could instead be linked to the level of the retinue leader, or maybe even the level of the unit in question.

The strategist could be compensated by adding in other buffs or strengthening their existing buffs to their own units.

Comments

  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Posts: 1,585Registered Users
    You can get ancillaries that will allow you to use formations without strategists.


    But... it would interesting if each hero type at least has access to a skill with one formation - e.g. spear wall for champions.
  • GelstonGelston Senior Member Posts: 1,576Registered Users
    Without this, no one would ever get a strategist.
  • mitthrawnuruodomitthrawnuruodo Junior Member Posts: 1,585Registered Users
    ^ You would still get strategists for the massive increase to ammunition and exclusive access to trebuchets and elite archers.
  • BugmansxxxBugmansxxx Posts: 198Registered Users
    Gelston said:

    Without this, no one would ever get a strategist.

    This is for records mode.

    Yes, formations should be for every character type, or maybe commanding character level.

    Strategists buff missile ammo by huge amount, missile damage +25%, missile ap+10%, missile fire rate +10% fire arrows, flaming shot and they are the only ones who can bring siege weapons.
    Its quite enough to make them very good with out making them a must have like they are now.

    I would like to run armies with out strategists but now its just too much to lose both the most powerful unit type, missile troops with strategist buffs, and formations. Losing one should be enough.
  • GelstonGelston Senior Member Posts: 1,576Registered Users
    edited May 29

    Gelston said:

    Without this, no one would ever get a strategist.

    This is for records mode.

    Yes, formations should be for every character type, or maybe commanding character level.

    Strategists buff missile ammo by huge amount, missile damage +25%, missile ap+10%, missile fire rate +10% fire arrows, flaming shot and they are the only ones who can bring siege weapons.
    Its quite enough to make them very good with out making them a must have like they are now.

    I would like to run armies with out strategists but now its just too much to lose both the most powerful unit type, missile troops with strategist buffs, and formations. Losing one should be enough.
    Even records mode, strategist are the weakest cav unit. I'd just get a commander otherwise. They have great boosts and the ammo buff is from cunning stat.
  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Posts: 210Registered Users
    edited May 29
    that unit formations r tied to strategists is ludicrous imo. strategists should give more campaign bonuses such as supply, better protected encampment, perhaps ambush probability and what not. as for the skirmish, in turn mbe strategist debuff effectiveness against other heroes could get increased if necessary (wider radius for instnace) to keep them useful.
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!!

    appeal to CA:

    skirmish related (applicable for historical titles):
    new innovations in the ToB campaign look very promising! skirmish need that kind of revamp too!
    pls, dont overemphasize unit r/p/s counter-matching as the hierarchical confluence of all decision making
    - ! make unit formations (and perhaps abilities) great again! (charlemagne)
    - ! same with LoS system! (tw:arena/UG:CivilWars)
    - ! same with terrain (ridges) (tw:arena/shogun2/UG:CivilWars)
    you've already made the tools!
    just make use of them!


    menu related (mp skirmish lobby):
    * add "large army" option to quickmatch pls!
    * have "large army" settings be tagged visually in lobby selector (so that all players have easier time in lobby select)
    * pls introduce scheduled rank resets to quickmatch as means to repress unsportsmanlike conduct related to stat fetishism
    * enable shared team funds (sum == opposition funds irrespective of player count) that all members can (optionally) submit to that facilitate the setup of uneven teams

    campaign related:
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign
    * for a much more elegant way of addressing autoresolve of not so decisive battles and how armies reinforce each other mount and blade's marshal system could b a fitting reference. mbe there is a way to integrate the marshal concept in one way or the other
    -or-
    * instead of imposing a hard cap of 20 units per army introduce a more organic approach of having lower ranking officers command ~ 10/15 units at max and higher ones up to ~ 40 (with supply, replenishment and all considered)
    * * reinforcing armies in this case would trickle in so a count of 40 intact units is kept rather than exceed 40+ units
    * dynamic quest/notification-event system (may b interesting for 3 kings)

    + thx for addressing spaghetti lines
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign


    • Tier1: Shogun 2 / Wh 2 / Warhammer
    • Tier2: Age of Charlemagne / Napoleon
    • Tier3: Attila / Medieval 2 / Rome
    • ....
    • Accident: Rome II

    • pending: ToB is yet to b acquired
    • pending: Three Kings not been released yet
    image

    Team Shadowgave
    Team Cao Wei
    wu xing graph

    casual survey on tw skirmish battles
    casual survey provisional analysis
    let's learn about the diplomacy game first before comlaining about vassals!
  • GelstonGelston Senior Member Posts: 1,576Registered Users
    I do love the idea of tying it to individual unit levels. I'd prefer it really, it makes more sense to me. Hopefully a mod can do it.
  • BugmansxxxBugmansxxx Posts: 198Registered Users
    Gelston said:

    Gelston said:

    Without this, no one would ever get a strategist.

    Strategists buff missile ammo by huge amount, missile damage +25%, missile ap+10%, missile fire rate +10% fire arrows, flaming shot and they are the only ones who can bring siege weapons.
    Its quite enough to make them very good with out making them a must have like they are now.

    Even records mode, strategist are the weakest cav unit. I'd just get a commander otherwise. They have great boosts and the ammo buff is from cunning stat.
    Did you not see the +25% missile damage +10% missile ap damage and fire rate buffs in addition to ammo buffs, which i admit is for everyone but strategists by default have much higher cunnig.
    For it´s favoured unit class strategist has by far the best buffs even with out formations.

    Lets say he has +50% ammo, Kong Rong starts the game at that level, thats straight up +50% damage potential. Multiply that with those other bonuses and you get 1.5 ammo x 1,25 damage x 1,1 ap x 1,1 fire rate gives us +2,27 mutiplier for damage potential.
    No other class gives anywhere near comparable buffs so its completely fine that others have better bodyguards.
  • GelstonGelston Senior Member Posts: 1,576Registered Users

    Gelston said:

    Gelston said:

    Without this, no one would ever get a strategist.

    Strategists buff missile ammo by huge amount, missile damage +25%, missile ap+10%, missile fire rate +10% fire arrows, flaming shot and they are the only ones who can bring siege weapons.
    Its quite enough to make them very good with out making them a must have like they are now.

    Even records mode, strategist are the weakest cav unit. I'd just get a commander otherwise. They have great boosts and the ammo buff is from cunning stat.
    Did you not see the +25% missile damage +10% missile ap damage and fire rate buffs in addition to ammo buffs, which i admit is for everyone but strategists by default have much higher cunnig.
    For it´s favoured unit class strategist has by far the best buffs even with out formations.

    Lets say he has +50% ammo, Kong Rong starts the game at that level, thats straight up +50% damage potential. Multiply that with those other bonuses and you get 1.5 ammo x 1,25 damage x 1,1 ap x 1,1 fire rate gives us +2,27 mutiplier for damage potential.
    No other class gives anywhere near comparable buffs so its completely fine that others have better bodyguards.
    And commanders can do it too, to your own admission even. Like I said, strats are only special because of trebs and formations.
  • BugmansxxxBugmansxxx Posts: 198Registered Users
    edited May 29
    Gelston said:

    Gelston said:

    Gelston said:

    Without this, no one would ever get a strategist.

    Strategists buff missile ammo by huge amount, missile damage +25%, missile ap+10%, missile fire rate +10% fire arrows, flaming shot and they are the only ones who can bring siege weapons.
    Its quite enough to make them very good with out making them a must have like they are now.

    Even records mode, strategist are the weakest cav unit. I'd just get a commander otherwise. They have great boosts and the ammo buff is from cunning stat.
    Did you not see the +25% missile damage +10% missile ap damage and fire rate buffs in addition to ammo buffs, which i admit is for everyone but strategists by default have much higher cunnig.
    For it´s favoured unit class strategist has by far the best buffs even with out formations.

    Lets say he has +50% ammo, Kong Rong starts the game at that level, thats straight up +50% damage potential. Multiply that with those other bonuses and you get 1.5 ammo x 1,25 damage x 1,1 ap x 1,1 fire rate gives us +2,27 mutiplier for damage potential.
    No other class gives anywhere near comparable buffs so its completely fine that others have better bodyguards.
    And commanders can do it too, to your own admission even. Like I said, strats are only special because of trebs and formations.
    What are you talking about?

    Commanders do not buff ranged units and their only melee cav specific buff is +20% ranged defence.
    Not quite the same as +2.27 damage multiplier.
  • BugmansxxxBugmansxxx Posts: 198Registered Users
    Gelston said:


    And commanders can do it too, to your own admission even. Like I said, strats are only special because of trebs and formations.

    What are you talking about? Commanders do not buff ranged units and their only melee cav specific buff is +20%ranged defence.
    Not quite the same as +2.27 damage multiplier.

  • cool_ladcool_lad Senior Member IndiaPosts: 2,232Registered Users
    How about giving the strategist retinue bows as compensation and bumping their numbers by a small bit. That way you get a unique retinue and he doesn't become a mandatory/meta pick. He's already doing this in Romance, and the retinue already has skirmish mode.

    I'd personally prefer that formations be tied to unit levels as a way of further marking out veteran units.

    You're never going to have formations outside of the appropriate retinue generally, but tying formations to their veterancy really adds to the value of those veteran units and marks them out as special; men you'd really rely on to carry the day and take on more crucial positions.
  • shattishatti Posts: 185Registered Users
    in records mod, i prefer some sense.

    *strategist buffs battle wise:
    1-should increase ambush chance effectively.
    2-morale buff wide map all the army. ( instead of formations )
    3-better post battle results. maybe, if the morale buff not satisfying enough

    *campaign wise:
    i could ramble and suggest many ideas as everyone could, but i will talk about battle only maybe CA could have a small breath left to tweek it in records mod.

  • ma7moud_al_sharifma7moud_al_sharif Posts: 210Registered Users
    shatti said:

    in records mod, i prefer some sense.

    *strategist buffs battle wise:
    1-should increase ambush chance effectively.
    2-morale buff wide map all the army. ( instead of formations )
    3-better post battle results. maybe, if the morale buff not satisfying enough

    *campaign wise:
    i could ramble and suggest many ideas as everyone could, but i will talk about battle only maybe CA could have a small breath left to tweek it in records mod.

    nice compilation though i have a different idea for point 3, the leadership/morale one, which imo should rather b related to commander class
    instead for point 3 strategist could have better after-battle-replenishment as with more careful logistics come better accommodation for the wounded/injured
    ---Furthermore i am of the opinion, that the current Unit Count(20,21) must be lifted!!

    appeal to CA:

    skirmish related (applicable for historical titles):
    new innovations in the ToB campaign look very promising! skirmish need that kind of revamp too!
    pls, dont overemphasize unit r/p/s counter-matching as the hierarchical confluence of all decision making
    - ! make unit formations (and perhaps abilities) great again! (charlemagne)
    - ! same with LoS system! (tw:arena/UG:CivilWars)
    - ! same with terrain (ridges) (tw:arena/shogun2/UG:CivilWars)
    you've already made the tools!
    just make use of them!


    menu related (mp skirmish lobby):
    * add "large army" option to quickmatch pls!
    * have "large army" settings be tagged visually in lobby selector (so that all players have easier time in lobby select)
    * pls introduce scheduled rank resets to quickmatch as means to repress unsportsmanlike conduct related to stat fetishism
    * enable shared team funds (sum == opposition funds irrespective of player count) that all members can (optionally) submit to that facilitate the setup of uneven teams

    campaign related:
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign
    * for a much more elegant way of addressing autoresolve of not so decisive battles and how armies reinforce each other mount and blade's marshal system could b a fitting reference. mbe there is a way to integrate the marshal concept in one way or the other
    -or-
    * instead of imposing a hard cap of 20 units per army introduce a more organic approach of having lower ranking officers command ~ 10/15 units at max and higher ones up to ~ 40 (with supply, replenishment and all considered)
    * * reinforcing armies in this case would trickle in so a count of 40 intact units is kept rather than exceed 40+ units
    * dynamic quest/notification-event system (may b interesting for 3 kings)

    + thx for addressing spaghetti lines
    + kudos for adding a basic supply system to the ToB campaign


    • Tier1: Shogun 2 / Wh 2 / Warhammer
    • Tier2: Age of Charlemagne / Napoleon
    • Tier3: Attila / Medieval 2 / Rome
    • ....
    • Accident: Rome II

    • pending: ToB is yet to b acquired
    • pending: Three Kings not been released yet
    image

    Team Shadowgave
    Team Cao Wei
    wu xing graph

    casual survey on tw skirmish battles
    casual survey provisional analysis
    let's learn about the diplomacy game first before comlaining about vassals!
Sign In or Register to comment.