Captain Artemesia at your command!

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Idea for some character type that bridges the commoner adventurer and the noble...whatever the noble does: Player-controlled "captain".

The concept is that of a low-ranking noble or someone who is not exactly a commoner but not high ranking enough to lead a unit as a knight or similarly ranked noble. Since in BM, just about every noble character is actually the upper elite of nobility, there is a lot of room to stick this "captain" class in there.

How would this work? The character stats would be the same, for the most part since all character classes operate according to Physical Age, Honour, Prestige, Hours, Money, and Status. As a minor nobility, I suppose the Captain could use silver, since he has to work with the smiths and stuff for repairs to his own equipment. That would probably be done using silver. Everything else works in much the same way, though for balance purposes, the Captain's time pool works the same was as a non-priest, non-adventurer's time pool.

Ok, now what's the point of this Captain? Like all other characters, he comes with skills. However for him, the only relevant skills are Swordfighting, Jousting, and Leadership, so basically, the Warrior's relevant skillset. What do these mean? Well, for Infantry, Mixed Infantry, and Special Forces, the combat strength is increased linearly according to the sum of the Swordfighting % and Leadership % divided by...3 I guess (Maintains balance or a 100/100 sword/lead Captain would provide a 200% bonus to CS rather than a 67% boost, which is still pretty good) For Cavalry, it would be (Jousting skill% + Leadership skill%)//3. For archers, it would be Leadership skill% * 0.67.

Now, how would this work? Well, actually the mechanics aren't too hard. If I had any idea what the variable names used for BM were I could probably write out the entire Captain class in a couple of days. So first, let's talk about the most important mechanic for the Captain class, their entire reason for existence: Fighting in a unit.

If we actually tried to simulate the captain fighting in the unit it might get messy. Instead, we'll do a different method that works to hopefully satisfying results. First, we must define whether the captain is part of a unit. For that we will use similar code to the estate system. A captain can serve any noble character in the same realm. This information is then assigned to both the noble and captain, much like the current estate system assigns knight to a region. Using a similar framework, we can give the noble control over his captain, to give good mark, bad mark, kick out, etc. In order to make sure that the new captain isn't fighting with any other captains for the spotlight, we could alter the script for a unit such that the entry of a player-captain automatically deletes the existing NPC captain. I think it should not be too hard to add a line in the unit display that allows instead "Captain Name" instead of a preset randomly generated name. This would allow the noble to actually see that his captain is indeed Captain Artemesia, for example. It could use the first name too. Not too hard, just insert the string when a player-character captain exists.

Now the second part of handling the captain in a unit is to make sure no other PC captains can exist under the same noble. The NPC captain is easy to take care of. Just boot him. However, for PC captains, they can only serve under a noble who does not at that moment have any PC captains. This is also not too hard to do (I could even do it myself after May 19) as one would simply add a test before any "oaths" can be made to see if there exists a captain for that noble. If so, then the option to take a captain would be unavailable to the noble, and the captain would also get the check and be unable to serve a noble with a PC captain.

Ok, so now that we have settled how to integrate the captain under a noble's command, let's talk about units. First of all, I intentionally made sure to say that the captain would be under the noble, not unit. This is because the unit can vary through many battles, and it would be very difficult to make a satisfactory system where a captain is bound to a unit. It would also make players mad if they died because their noble TL was dumb and left them to die, or they get stuck as captain in a militia unit. So how exactly do they function for units? I'll now explain that.

I showed the algorithms above for how the CS % increase is determined. Let's say that Captain Artemesia serves under Sir Artemesia, who is at this time fielding infantry. Captain's swordfighting skill is 33% and leadership skill is also 33%. That means sword + lead = 66 and 66//3=22. Therefore, Sir Artemesia's infantry unit gets a 22% increase to CS. However, if we want to get more realistic such that the captain actually has to be present for battles, we can make that bonus rely on a region check, to give that bonus only when the captain and noble are in the same region. Again, not too hard. We do this all the time for stuff like oaths and item trades. This would simulate the captain being with the unit and in battle, and disallow lazy captains who sit in the capital while the noble fights with a juiced up unit. Now for a part that I originally forgot: What happens when the noble changes unit type? No problem, the Captain simply uses the skills relevant to that unit type as bonus. So if Sir Artemesia drops his infantry and picks up cavalry, Captain Artemesia now provides a bonus according to his jousting and leadership skills rather than his swordfighting and leadership skills.

But now we should look at how the captain actually functions in battle. After all, he does go into battle. Well, he'd be coded pretty much like a noble hero. He participates in the battle, can get wounded (maybe even die. Hey, that's the risk of creating a Captain?). His in-battle mechanics are pretty much exactly the same as a hero's, so that should not be hard at all. Just make sure to separate the parts in case the noble also happens to be a hero. I don't have a clue about what the BM code looks like, but if I had to guess, currently the noble ID is linked uniquely to the unit ID, and in battle, the noble participates in some way, and counts as a valid target, and has some reactions tied to what happens to the unit (getting wounded). It probably wouldn't be hard to copy-paste what a hero noble does, and change some names to allow both a captain and a hero to react independently in the same unit, as well as for captain and non-hero. This avoids the potential problem of having the captain and noble linked by fate, meaning a wound to the captain also is a wound to the noble because they share the conditions that lead to wounding. However, because the system already distinguishes wounds to the unit from wounds to the noble, this doesn't sound at all difficult.

From this, we can then set an independent set of conditions that determine the skill gain, and H/P gain from battles for the captain. I see no reason why the current noble system for such gains is insufficient, so we can just give a new part for the captain to gain those numbers independently of the noble.

Now that we are done talking about how the captain gets into a unit, and battles with them, let's talk about how he gets paid. A unit gets paid anyway, and it should make sense that the captain, as part of those men, gets paid alongside them. I would rather have a sort of stipend system because that would be much easier. We can just use the current oath system and modify it so that the captain gets a share of the noble's tax income after all other taxes. The captain would therefore get paid at the same time as taxes for all nobles are collected, which I suppose makes some sense. The captain is the highest ranking in the unit, and as low-ranking nobility, could get some special treatment. This would make the implementation much smoother too, as now the current lord-knight oath system can be used for the backbone of the noble-captain system.

And now, apart from giving a boost to a noble's unit, and risking your life battling for mostly someone else's glory, what else is the captain good for? Well, he can possess unique items too, and would use them much like a noble would, with some slight text changes to reflect that it's the captain, not the noble leading the unit, using the item. I suppose he can also provide a small passive buff to morale, cohesion, and training. This might be more difficult, but the captain could use his own money to repair the unit's damage where smiths don't exist, but that might involve some balance issues. Still, that money should go somewhere...Maybe the captain can also pay the unit? This would lessen the stress of a unit left at home during a 10-day tournament (Those exist, right?)

In summary, the Captain is a battle-centered adjunct class. It allows you to take part more directly with the unit, giving a more personal feel (hopefully) to battles you participate in.

[Vellos]

I really like this.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

There are some concerns which I should address in seeking to justify why this would actually add something to BM and not just be a pointless addition.

First, there's the question of how this would be any different from a hero. Even though heroes are supposed to lead their troops, when I had played heroes, it still felt like I was the guy hanging back watching my friends beat up my enemies. There was never a personal feeling of "I am the badass who just owned you all." Because, well...I didn't really see it as me actually inflicting those casualties. The current battle system for nobles really is one in which the nobles sit in the back sipping their tea (As well they should. Vulgar fighting is for commoners after all, too much confusion, and none of the elegance and pride in noble duels. No matter how many you kill in battle, they are mostly all unimportant. And if you die in battle, you, a noble, highest among men, would risk dying at the hands of a nameless commoner. How uncouth!) Occasionally a stray arrow might hit them in the face, or if enough break through, some angry guys with swords and guys riding horses can charge through and smash the tea party. End all is, it doesn't get my testosterone flowing, and sometimes it's nice to get the "Grr, I smash you with my sword!" feel.

Obviously, we're still human, so none of that ridiculous one-man army nonsense. But it does create the existence of a character type that is all about the PVP competitive edge.

So then the next concern is balance. I agree that as it is now, it could probably be very easily abused. Just make a rich duke field a ton of high quality troops, and pay for he best captain. He'd be a one-man wrecking unit. Balance issues are something that I'd think about during the testing phase for the class. We do test all features lots of times before they're released...I would hope. I'm sure the testers could find good suggestions.

Now, back to the big question of "Why?" that I feel some people still might be asking. Well...sort of for the same reasons people play adventurers. "I went out to the abyss of despair, killed the demon lord, and got back this Burning Scythe of Evil Doom!" *Patchouli slams a giant burning scythe on the tavern table and brags*

In a similar vein, "I led the 12th Sirionite Infantry against 3 to 1 odds, survived, and hacked through a hundred men." *Captain Artemesia flexes his blood-stained bicep, most of which isn't his blood.

If nothing else, it'd probably make people fight a bit more...Hopefully.

[vanKaya]

One question I have is wouldn't the Captain have to mirror the travel movements of the noble and his unit and wouldn't that get a little tedious after a while?

Also I consider myself a part of the battle and not just sipping on tea. How else would injuries happen? I mean, yes, it can be a stray arrow that manages to hit you as you supervise your men but I'd much rather rp it as a wound suffered as I fought alongside my men.

I like the idea in general though. Maybe it could be a possible subclass for advies....

[songqu88@gmail.com]

About as tedious as marching as a noble with your army  ;D

There's no penalty for not always following your noble. You just don't give any bonus, and get no skill and H/P gain. Your noble might not be too happy either, and he is the one paying you...

Besides, it's just like all the other classes. Don't like being unable to field units? Don't play a priest then. Don't like being unable to loot? Don't play a cavalier. Don't like being seen as lower class and doing odd jobs for nobles? Don't play an adventurer.

I like to be upfront about what people are getting into, and BM does a good job of this. So by the same token, I think the initial creation "warning" would be something like "You can very likely die as a captain within a couple of days, you'll probably be forced to follow your noble commander everywhere, but you get to feel like you're actually one of the soldiers." I guess.

This is just out here on the forums to see whether people actually would like to play from the perspective of one of the soldiers, albeit the highest ranking soldier below the noble and his command staff. The major concern I have is whether it would be of any use, and all concerns about balance and where it fits into the larger game comes after the first hurdle.

[cjnodell]

I do not feel that playing such a character would be much fun myself. Others may though. I just keep trying to figure out what one would do as a Capetian. Follow the Noble/Unit. Be automatically included in battles if I am in the same region of my Noble/Unit when a battle starts. Get the same feedback a Hero gets and the same risks. Possibly pay the unit. Role play. I really do not see anything that this character would be actively DOING aside from following the Noble/unit around and paying the men.

Adventurers hunt undead, repair equipment, move around, collect bounties etc...
Priests preach, hold lordships, act as ambassadors etc...
Nobles lead units, rule regions, lead armies, rule countries, serve as diplomats, etc...
Captains follow nobles around...

I do think, however, that this would make a great system for NPC Captains... Another thread!

[Shizzle]

Perhaps a better idea would be to offer the optin to take a personal oath of a commoner, offering a salary in return? After that you can roleplay it any way you like...

[cjnodell]

An idea cropped up on that other thread I created... What if PC Captains lead and manage small units and Knights lead and manage one or more Captains? This might give the Captain a more active role...

[fodder]

the role of a captain would essentially be that of a 2nd character to go with the 1st character as a noble. of same player.

you don't see npc captains not turning up for a battle or end up in a (non) battle on his own.....
"hey.. i blew my hours training whilst waiting for the orders whilst my captain didn't.. and he's turned up against a billion men on his own"
or...
"some dipstick blocked the road and my captain got there on his own..."

now.. if you were to ban players with captain/noble serving each other.... not unlike advy/nobles can't trade each other stuff... how many would take it up? there might be the oddball or two who paired their capt/noble off, much like 2 players crossing trading their items... won't be common.

expansion of npc captain has more legs than this really...

[Velax]

I would play this class. As long as there are sufficient incentives for a captain to want to stay with his noble's unit, I think it would work.

As for balance issues, perhaps the captain's bonus could be scaled down as the unit's base CS increases. For example, if the captain's bonus is +20%, the full bonus would be applied on units under 500CS, for units between 500 and 100 CS it would receive +15% and for units above 1000CS the captain bonus would be halved to 10%.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

the role of a captain would essentially be that of a 2nd character to go with the 1st character as a noble. of same player.

you don't see npc captains not turning up for a battle or end up in a (non) battle on his own.....
"hey.. i blew my hours training whilst waiting for the orders whilst my captain didn't.. and he's turned up against a billion men on his own"
or...
"some dipstick blocked the road and my captain got there on his own..."

now.. if you were to ban players with captain/noble serving each other.... not unlike advy/nobles can't trade each other stuff... how many would take it up? there might be the oddball or two who paired their capt/noble off, much like 2 players crossing trading their items... won't be common.

expansion of npc captain has more legs than this really...

When you get a character as a duke of a rich city, do you make another character to be his knight for mutual benefit? Some do, some don't. And I do think this is rather relevant, because you were stating in the first sentence that a noble will make a captain for his own unit. While doubtless some probably would, I don't think that, with character limits the way they are on continents (Count the captain as part of the 2 per continent limit), many people would really limit themselves to one character and a toady. But hey, some would because of the benefits. That's completely their choice, much like it is one's choice to double up in a realm and swear an oath to your own rich family member duke.

As for the captain not making it to the battle, just because our class changes doesn't mean IR suddenly evaporates. Adventurers are protected by IR too, so it's a blanket over all players, regardless of class. Now, certainly one could boot a captain who was consistently being late and useless. After all, what are you paying him for if not to be a useful participant in your battles? If they can't keep up, they best not serve you. If you're that worried about your captain being with you all the time, make this clear. Even now, we can protest out council members who consistently don't do their jobs. It's one thing to be inactive, but another to be derelict of duties. If you aren't going to be responsible in the position, one in which you may be depended upon by other players, then that is discourteous. If you know you can't maintain the activity required of a class or position, then don't play it. You have the right to play any class, yes, but you don't have the right to have any positions.

That means in the event of a really useless captain, then tell your realmmates about him. You're a noble, that's how nobles work, by spreading rumors/facts/other words. Tell everyone "Hey, Captain Lazy never marches on time, and never gets to battles until at least three days later. I would advise anyone against offering a place for him in your unit and to seek a more reliable captain like Captain Reliable."

Like, common sense? You wouldn't elect a judge that does nothing but click "play" once every week and doesn't ban, fine, or do anything, would you? Likewise, don't give a captain any pay if he can't keep up with the unit, which in turn must keep up with the army. Chain of command, simple as that. IR doesn't protect ineptitude or irresponsibility. Hopefully the lack of income would provide incentive for a lackadaisical captain to get his act together and actually be a part of the well-oiled war machine the class would be designed to be. If not, then maybe the player will reconsider whether he really wants to play a captain. Everyone gets to choose his or her class. That does not mean that every class must appeal to everyone.

[Hossenfeffer]

I think one of the limitations of a Captain character would have to be that he didn't get to control his own movement.  Where his noble went, he would automatically go as well.  However, he could have actions of his own to perform that would mitigate the potential boredom.

I guess the obvious question is: what's the end game for a Captain?

For a noble there are several: becoming a Duke, a council member, founding a religion, etc.  For an adventurer there's becoming a noble.

What is a Captain aiming for?

[songqu88@gmail.com]

Woah, I had no idea some players actually considered that there was even an "endgame" in BM. Guess it takes all kinds...

Anyway, if I had to say what the ultimate goal would be, it would be reputation. That is basically the same as with all other characters as well. I find it a rather pragmatic goal if one truly considers the "endgame" of an adventurer as becoming a noble. That is merely the code-enforced end to the class, yes. But I can't imagine that the ultimate goal of every adventurer is to become a noble. And if it is, color me surprised out of my mind.

I think that the class would be one that caters to those who desire personal achievements. Captains would still technically be nobility, so they can't be sent to the dungeons haphazardly as adventurers, so there's not as big of a risk when roaming alone looking for a unit with which to fight. I thought I was pretty clear initially in explaining the point, but I guess I was not.

Here's an observation I think I've found to hold true in this game. The only long-lasting "prizes" in BM are those made from impressive feats accomplished either through effort or by chance. Do you really play a character just to get into a position, or start a religion? What about after that? Unlike novels or movies, the action does not end when the climax is over, and the credits start playing to the ending theme. In much the same way, the path of a captain is to keep fighting and surviving until you become the meanest badass on the continent, one who would have even kings vying for your service. Sound boring? Meh, at least you'd actually move around with a unit and battle, so long as you find the right place. I'd imagine that would be a bit higher on the excitement scale than running around with a dozen caravans pushing grain, or sitting in various regions doing some bureaucratic work.

Ah, but then, one might say, "Those have RP potential!" My response would be, "Dude, you're the soldier who leads a noble's unit. Your sword has hewn through hundreds of enemies (Or will someday). What the heck is wrong with you if you can't make some RP out of that?" Ah, but then the reply may be "After a while that gets stupid and boring." To which I must say, "That applies to all situations anyway. The lack of imagination on the part of any player is no fault of the character's coding."

I hope I have made some points clear. What I am intending ultimately here is to offer some players the chance to feel as though they were personally a part of the action, much like adventurers might have been somewhat intended to allow some players to feel as though they were directly hunting down monsters and undead. Right now, even heroes don't really feel that involved in the battle. Sure, your unit does something. Great. But you never get the feeling that you actually did anything, unless of course, you use your imagination, in which case it wouldn't matter much if there were no such things as battles anyway, you could probably imagine a full-blown war on your own.

[fodder]

isn't it the point... that no unit, no captain.. so the captain isn't something separate from the unit. having a captain that buggers off somewhere when no npc captain does that is just plain illogical.

either the captain is so useful and thus much better than the npc +x number.. whereby just about everyone would want one, or it's so useless that it'll basically be for roleplay purposes only.. in which case, there's no real need for it to have its own movement separate from the unit/noble, whilst he's hired. you can just have the captain set some aggression stance in a battle (and no.. it won't start wars) and let the whole thing essentially autopilot whilst hired.. and he can move around to train / look for new boss when not hired. none of those stuff about captain paying the noble's men. (incidentally npc captain should get paid if pc captain gets paid).. especially not when he gets paid with silver (eh?)

at the end of the day, the advy doesn't really affect a noble's game. sure, there might be the odd item.. or it might spend half a day to walk ahead to a region and scout... ... but that's nothing. can't really compare advies and captains.

[Hossenfeffer]

Woah, I had no idea some players actually considered that there was even an "endgame" in BM.

Perhaps you misunderstand what I mean by end game.  I merely mean that to which a character aspires.