Heroic behavior in battle (removing hero class)

[Duvaille]

In another thread Tom mentioned the difficulty in determining which battle is important and which is not. To have the game determine that objectively is probably quite a challenge. Instead we could have the players define what is important and what is of secondary importance. After all, the players will intuitively know if the outcome of some battle is crucial to them or not.

If there is a battle coming that is quite crucial, you could check a box somewhere that says "be heroic". The consequence of this would be that your character would become slightly more effective in the coming battle but should he be seriously wounded, he would die. If enough of the players click "be heroic" the game decides this is an important battle, and the participants gain valor. The amount of valor could depend on the role of the character in the battle and on total number of participants.

The risk of death should be higher than what the current hero class has, since it would be a voluntary choice made every time the situation warrants it. The box would likely be clicked in a very important defense of a city or stronghold or when assaulting one and it really mattered. Note that if you wanted to keep your character safe, you would never need to click the box yourself. The battle would be "important" if enough of the other players clicked the box, either on your side or on the other side.

My assumption is that the box would be clicked only very rarely. Thus only very rare battles would let you gain "valor" or whatever replaces the current "prestige".

[Shizzle]

I think realms would simply request their commanders to check the box as soon as they fight a minor battle against rogues, to easily gain stats: valorfarming

I do like the idea, but I don't think it can properly assess the importance of battles...

[Duvaille]

Shizzle,

1) valor would not be gained with rogues
2) it would be an inalienable right to not check the box (and there would be no way of knowing who ticked it - except in a case of death/wound)
3) valor farming would have no benefits for the realm as a whole IF recruitment options were based on realm wide relative values. If only 50% of the nobles (the most valorous) could recruit cavalry, it would not help to have more of it. It would still be only 50% of the nobles, maybe just the different ones.

Further, ticking the box would really put the life of your character on the line. Would a realm risk losing a capable troop leader for a minor skirmish?

Another option could be that behaving more courageously would result in a higher chance in being quite severely wounded. A very much higher chance, so you would only really use it when the stakes are  high. Perhaps that would be better, as the death is a rather final fun-stopper. Heroes could still be heroes, and tick the box with an even higher chance of death.

I know I would not tick the box unless it really was an important battle.

[De-Legro]

Shizzle,

1) valor would not be gained with rogues
2) it would be an inalienable right to not check the box (and there would be no way of knowing who ticked it - except in a case of death/wound)
3) valor farming would have no benefits for the realm as a whole IF recruitment options were based on realm wide relative values. If only 50% of the nobles (the most valorous) could recruit cavalry, it would not help to have more of it. It would still be only 50% of the nobles, maybe just the different ones.

Further, ticking the box would really put the life of your character on the line. Would a realm risk losing a capable troop leader for a minor skirmish?

Another option could be that behaving more courageously would result in a higher chance in being quite severely wounded. A very much higher chance, so you would only really use it when the stakes are  high. Perhaps that would be better, as the death is a rather final fun-stopper. Heroes could still be heroes, and tick the box with an even higher chance of death.

I know I would not tick the box unless it really was an important battle.

You miss the point. Say I know we are about to fight a battle with 3 to 1 odds. Chance of one of my nobles being wounded is at all is negligible so a group of us tick the box, hey presto suddenly the skirmish is "important".

Take it a step further, on all islands other then Dwilight we could just use that ubiquitous second character in the realm as the pin cushion. Use them to get as many battles as possible ranked as "important". Since they were likely to be quiet estate fillers anyway who cares if a bunch die? The player will just create another throw away character anyway

So to stop this we say for a battle to count, both (or all realms for alliance battles) have to hit the requisite number of check boxes. Now if a war is a bit lopsided we can punish the enemy realm by ensuring none of the battle generate valor

The take away message. If you could rely on players to be rational, honest and not game the system this would work. Reality is at least some of the player population will make this feature about reliable as a AI selection criteria in actually determining important battles.

[Duvaille]

Yeah, good points. I did not consider the problem with secondary throw-away characters. I admit a strong bias to Dwilight.

[Indirik]

Take it a step further, on all islands other then Dwilight we could just use that ubiquitous second character in the realm as the pin cushion. Use them to get as many battles as possible ranked as "important". Since they were likely to be quiet estate fillers anyway who cares if a bunch die? The player will just create another throw away character anyway.

One possible workaround for that: Count votes from a family perspective. If both characters in the same family check the Important Battle box, then count it as one vote for Important. If only one of the two checks it, then no vote is cast at all. (But you could still count it as checked for increased chances of wounding/death! )

Not necessarily "realistic", as it is possible for one family member to think a battle is important, and the other not. But in cases like this, game play would have to trump "realism". Just like how only one character in a family can take sides in a rebellion. Not "realistic", but important for game play.

Not that I necessarily think this proposed system is a good idea. Just giving an example of how "throw-away characters" can be taken out of the equation.

[Duvaille]

Indirik,

I suppose that would take care of it. Though it would be painful for those who had two characters in a realm an one of them is a priest or otherwise distanced from the same battle.

Though still some problems remain. The importance of a battle should probably be determined for each side individually. Thus a battle with 3-1 odds could not be important for the attacker no matter how many boxes they ticked, but it could be for the defenders. You would sort of require the game and the players to both agree on the importance of the event.

If ticking the box merely increased the chances of wounding (significantly) and would not result in a death (heroes excluded), then it might be rarer for anyone to tick the box for even a throw-away character, if the game would also need to agree on the importance of the battle. Though then, essentially, it might be just as well to have the game calculate the importance by itself. What would remain of the idea would still be a way for a character to increase his personal involvement with a slight increase in effectiveness accompanied with an out of proportion risk.

[Indirik]

I suppose that would take care of it. Though it would be painful for those who had two characters in a realm an one of them is a priest or otherwise distanced from the same battle.

You only count the people actually in the battle. People not fighting in the battle don't count.

Though still some problems remain. The importance of a battle should probably be determined for each side individually. Thus a battle with 3-1 odds could not be important for the attacker no matter how many boxes they ticked, but it could be for the defenders. You would sort of require the game and the players to both agree on the importance of the event.

Hmm... yes, it could make sense for the "importance" for each side to be considered separately.

Though then, essentially, it might be just as well to have the game calculate the importance by itself.

There are various criteria the game could use to determine an importance factor:

• Region type: Cities are more important than badlands
• The region's economic importance, calculated using the gold/food production
• If it's a capital
• Portion of your realm's mobile forces in the battle
• Portion of your realm's total forces in the battle
• Comparative strength of the sides: Close battles are important for both sides. Slightly mismatched battles are more important for the people on the short end of the stick. Massively lopsided battle are not "important" for anyone.

Many of these would be variables, and not simple yes/no options. You would add up the various factors and compare the total to some arbitrary limit. If you cross the threshold, then you have an "Important Battle" for your side.

There are no doubt more criteria that could be developed. And since it is a completely mechanical determination it won't always make sense. But the key is to get enough individual factors that the complexity of the system makes it less susceptible to being gamed.

What would remain of the idea would still be a way for a character to increase his personal involvement with a slight increase in effectiveness accompanied with an out of proportion risk.

That is an interesting idea. "Important battles" and "heroic behavior" probably deserve separate feature requests.

[Velax]

Thus a battle with 3-1 odds could not be important for the attacker no matter how many boxes they ticked, but it could be for the defenders.

Comparative strength of the sides: Close battles are important for both sides. Slightly mismatched battles are more important for the people on the short end of the stick. Massively lopsided battle are not "important" for anyone.

I would disagree with this. What if you had obliterated an force enemy force in the field, then followed them back for a final strike on their capital? The defenders could be massively outnumbered, but it's still an "important" battle for both sides. The defenders are defending their capital, while the attackers are assaulting their enemy's capital (perhaps for the first time ever, perhaps for the last - either way, still important).

[Indirik]

I would disagree with this. What if you had obliterated an force enemy force in the field, then followed them back for a final strike on their capital? The defenders could be massively outnumbered, but it's still an "important" battle for both sides. The defenders are defending their capital, while the attackers are assaulting their enemy's capital (perhaps for the first time ever, perhaps for the last - either way, still important).

The fact that the battle is in a city, and a capital at that, would practically guarantee it was an Important Battle for both sides. Yes, if the battle had occurred in a rural next to the capital, then it would not be an Important Battle. But too bad. Just because you're fighting a hopeless fight against overwhelming odds, that you stand absolutely no chance at all of winning, doesn't mean that it's all that important. It's more of a formality than anything else.

And yes, it is possible for any automated system to make the wrong call. Edge cases and strategic situations will contribute to this. However, not being able to come up with a perfect system that makes the right call all the time doesn't mean that we can't make a good system that adds to the game, even if it makes the wrong call from time to time.

[Velax]

Would need to make sure only the first, and maybe the second capital battle was counted as important. Not the dozen or so that followed it against peasants.

[Indirik]

The presence of peasants making up a significant portion of the CS of one side of the battle could be used as a large negative modifier for both sides.