Title:
More usefulness for Marshals (Vice-Marshals, Marshals and Generals -High Marshals-).
Summary:
More usefulness for Marshals, giving a bonus to armies commanded by Marshals.
Details:
-Marshals-
The Leadership of Marshals will be used as a 'direct' bonus on the CS of the units of his army:
Marshal Leadership / 5 = Number of units the Marshal can command efficiently. If exceed, the Marshal will be overwhelmed, so no bonus.
Marshal Leadership / 3 = CS Bonus the units get.
A Marshal with 5% Leadership will be almost useless, the only way to 'give' a bonus would be to command only ONE unit (himself): 5/5=1% CS bonus for one unit.
A Marshal with 50% Leadership will be a good one: 50/3=16% bonus, if his army is 10 units or smaller.
Groups of units without army, or armies without Marshal, etc... will 'work' as usual.
-Vice-Marshals-
If only is present the Vice-Marshal, He will 'work' the same way as a Marshal would.
If both are presents, the Vice-Marshal will give a bonus to his Marshal's Leadership.
Vice-Marshal Leadership / 3 = Leadership Bonus the Marshal gets.
-Generals (High Marshals)-
They work the same way than Marshals, but they give their bonus to the Marshals Leadership.
General Leadership / 20 = Number of Marshals the General can command efficiently. If exceed, the General is overwhelmed, so no bonus.
General Leadership / 2 = Leadership Bonus the Marshals get.
So, If a General has a 50% Leadership, and has 2 Marshals with their armies, He would give a 25% Leadership bonus (50/2=25) to his 2 Marshals (50/20=2)... This way, 'his' Marshals will give a bigger bonus to their units.
As always, units alone, or armies without Marshals, would receive no bonus.
In 'Multi-Realm' army groups:
1-The Generals will give NO bonus. (or in some random way).
OR
2-Depending on their General Leadership, the armies would have more or less possibilities of become 'lost' and don't reach the battlefield in time for the battle.
Benefits:
Right now, the usefulness of a Marshal is very limited. Armies can fight as good with Marshals, as without them! An army works in battle as good without ANY command as if commanded by all the realm's military staff.
I would too give a use to the 'Leadership' skill, as well as to chose a formation.
Possible Exploits:
With malus the 'exploits' would be very easy, but if we use only bonus... none, I can think of...
...
Note: The English is not my native language, so sorry for the grammatical/orthographic errors.
Note 2: It seems there is another Feature Requests, Proposed but not Approved, "General Bonus for Multiple Armies in Battles" but IMHO It's not very 'fleshed' and uses a bonus/malus system that is somewhat exploitable.
I would also like to see some kind of bonus (probably only to moral) given to units when the realm ruler is present in the army, increasing as he/she gets to the front lines.
Quote from: Charles on August 02, 2012, 07:21:01 PM
I would also like to see some kind of bonus (probably only to moral) given to units when the realm ruler is present in the army, increasing as he/she gets to the front lines.
Yeah. It was a big deal back then. Royals showing up to raise the morale and stuff.
Quote from: Poliorketes on August 02, 2012, 06:32:49 PM
In 'Multi-Realm' armies:
There's no such thing as a multi-realm army.
+1
Quote from: egamma on August 02, 2012, 08:25:05 PM
There's no such thing as a multi-realm army.
My fault. :P When I said 'multi-realm army', I did mean when more than one realm have armies on the same side, on a battle. -- changed! More understandable now?--
About the rulers, it could be good to give some kind of moral bonus, but with the usual moral of 100% I don't know if it do any good.
bump for an official response
this is a awesome idea......
I think this would risk having people place figureheads with high leadership % as "marshals", while other people give out orders in their place.
I have always favored giving marshals with high leadership % greater options for custom formations.
Quote from: Chénier on October 20, 2012, 08:00:04 PM
I think this would risk having people place figureheads with high leadership % as "marshals", while other people give out orders in their place.
I have always favored giving marshals with high leadership % greater options for custom formations.
A General with high Leadership while other give out orders in his place? Like Blucher and Gneisenau?... ;D
Honestly, giving bonus or giving custom formations, the problem is the same... and there is no way to avoid this... as is no way to avoid to have a ruler, judge, etc, while other noble is the one to give orders in his place.
Maybe you could say something like this could be a SMA violation... or not.... depending of how they worked it.
Quote from: Poliorketes on October 22, 2012, 03:38:01 AM
A General with high Leadership while other give out orders in his place? Like Blucher and Gneisenau?... ;D
Honestly, giving bonus or giving custom formations, the problem is the same... and there is no way to avoid this... as is no way to avoid to have a ruler, judge, etc, while other noble is the one to give orders in his place.
Maybe you could say something like this could be a SMA violation... or not.... depending of how they worked it.
This. Sorraine only has one campaign army, one marshal for that army, and one general (me). It's simply too much chance to send the order to the marshal and hope he gets on to order the army before turn change, so I send out orders instead.
Even if the King or General gives movement, attack and unit setting orders, it is still the Marshal that is running things day to day behind the scenes. It is also the Marshal's efforts on the front line that will give a bonus - or not. I do not really see the conflict. Could someone educate me?
Quote from: Unwin on October 22, 2012, 07:27:17 AM
Even if the King or General gives movement, attack and unit setting orders, it is still the Marshal that is running things day to day behind the scenes. It is also the Marshal's efforts on the front line that will give a bonus - or not. I do not really see the conflict. Could someone educate me?
Nothing to educate you on.
Quote from: Unwin on October 22, 2012, 07:27:17 AM
Even if the King or General gives movement, attack and unit setting orders, it is still the Marshal that is running things day to day behind the scenes. It is also the Marshal's efforts on the front line that will give a bonus - or not. I do not really see the conflict. Could someone educate me?
Yes, there is no conflict! Even if some noble gives all the move/formation orders he wants to the army, the day of the Battle, it will be the General, Marshal and Vice-Marshall, the ones to give orders during the battle, and react to the enemy manoeuvres, etc...
Quote from: Gustav Kuriga on October 22, 2012, 07:05:43 AM
This. Sorraine only has one campaign army, one marshal for that army, and one general (me). It's simply too much chance to send the order to the marshal and hope he gets on to order the army before turn change, so I send out orders instead.
Why don't you just give the overall objective to the Marshal, and let the Marshal handle everything? Granted, it is always nice to have backup. And to have someone who can give orders on the turns you can't be there. (One gives sunrise, the other sunset, for example.) But still, there's no reason the Marshal can't handle the details if he knows what the end objective is. (Unless you don't trust the Marshal's competence.)
Quote from: Indirik on October 22, 2012, 07:40:15 PM
Why don't you just give the overall objective to the Marshal, and let the Marshal handle everything? Granted, it is always nice to have backup. And to have someone who can give orders on the turns you can't be there. (One gives sunrise, the other sunset, for example.) But still, there's no reason the Marshal can't handle the details if he knows what the end objective is. (Unless you don't trust the Marshal's competence.)
Hmmm, I might do that this time around. He seems to have been pretty competent the last few times around whenever I needed him to take the reigns for a couple turns, and always reacted quickly if a report came in.
I agree. things like, "Defend the southern border" or "loot and plunder region X" or "Monitor enemy activity on our north border" or "Move to region Y". There could be a million more. Of course I have never been marshal or general. All just theory to me.
If the army is operating solo, then the Marshal should be able to handle everything. The problem comes when you need close coordination with other realms. Then you either need to accept the overhead from the generals playing relay, or you form a coordination guild and have all the marshals join.
Quote from: Poliorketes on October 22, 2012, 03:38:01 AM
A General with high Leadership while other give out orders in his place? Like Blucher and Gneisenau?... ;D
Honestly, giving bonus or giving custom formations, the problem is the same... and there is no way to avoid this... as is no way to avoid to have a ruler, judge, etc, while other noble is the one to give orders in his place.
Maybe you could say something like this could be a SMA violation... or not.... depending of how they worked it.
It's not the same. Bonuses are passive, the marshal can just follow someone else's orders like a dog and everyone will benefit from him being a figurehead that doesn't even send orders. Formations, on the other hand, force him to go do changes. Which, if he's not the one thinking of them, means delays and potentially setting them too late.
I'm not against bonuses completely. I'm just saying that if they are too great, then you'd probably start seeing silent marshals that let others bark out all of the orders for them, 'cause they are only there to provide their leadership bonus.
\mechanically, the Marshal is primarily a Tactical leader and provides tactical leadership in the for of unit settings and troop formation. This would simply put more relevance to a Marshal's leadership skill by encouraging realms to limit army size to match a Marshals skill in order to get further Tactical advantage.
Movement orders, attack and defense plans and all that, mechanically, seem fall in to the strategy department. This piece of the game is in no way sill based. There is also nothing saying who should be handling this piece of the game. I like a clear chain of command in which Generals give general missions to Marshals and the Marshals make it happen but that is not the only military structure a realm could chose. How involved a Marshal is in strategic matters is really a realm specific decision.
Ideally, this change would result in several smaller Armies in each realm lead by moderately experienced warriors or a larger army lead by an experienced Marshal. Giving additional bonus to CS when a General of appropriate skill and multiple armies are present in a battle further encourages multiple Armies. Marshals and Generals are more likely to be chosen based on their in character experience and not based on player ability and having multiple Armies lends itself to delegation on the Generals part. Especially if you limit the Generals view into Armies. I like the sound of all this!
personally, I am strongly against this. I it very pro old characters, anti newbie. The current ruler of Terran on Dwilight joinied the game only a couple months ago. With this min effect it would make that very much harder as he rose up the ladder, vice marshal, marshal, general, then ruler. With this it would encourage players to not let him become marshal, perhaps not even vice marshal due to the skill factor preventing him from being able to rise to power.
Quote from: Penchant on October 24, 2012, 05:10:11 PM
personally, I am strongly against this. I it very pro old characters, anti newbie. The current ruler of Terran on Dwilight joinied the game only a couple months ago. With this min effect it would make that very much harder as he rose up the ladder, vice marshal, marshal, general, then ruler. With this it would encourage players to not let him become marshal, perhaps not even vice marshal due to the skill factor preventing him from being able to rise to power.
By this logic, we should not have any bonuses for higher skills, because they only benefit those who have been around for a while.
It's good to be friendly to newbies, but it's also vitally important to have goals to work towards. If you give people everything the moment they join, they'll have no reason to stick around.
Quote from: Anaris on October 24, 2012, 05:18:20 PM
By this logic, we should not have any bonuses for higher skills, because they only benefit those who have been around for a while.
Is there a particular synergy going on between high skills and government positions at the moment? I am not aware of any. Skills give bonuses, but they are independent of your position (except for the marshal/leadership link, but marshal is not really a government position).
Quote from: Anaris on October 24, 2012, 05:18:20 PM
By this logic, we should not have any bonuses for higher skills, because they only benefit those who have been around for a while.
It's good to be friendly to newbies, but it's also vitally important to have goals to work towards. If you give people everything the moment they join, they'll have no reason to stick around.
There is a difference between not being as helpful and not being able tomdo everything, and penalizing your realms military because you have lower leadership. Formations are something that amkes you a better marshal as time goes on. This just makes marshals not hurt their realm as time goes on.
As I understand it, keeping within the limits gives a bonus. There is no penalty involved unless you count not getting the bonus a penalty. Additionally, I find this ladder concept to be nonsense. How many characters really follow this ladder? I am betting few.
Quote from: Penchant on October 24, 2012, 05:29:55 PM
There is a difference between not being as helpful and not being able tomdo everything, and penalizing your realms military because you have lower leadership. Formations are something that amkes you a better marshal as time goes on. This just makes marshals not hurt their realm as time goes on.
Honestly, I don't see how is bad to penalize (its non-bonus, the are no penalties) your realms military because your Marshal have no leadership (it's an incompetent), and is good to penalize it because your nobles are young (and low-honour) and only have very small units?
If an infiltrator attacks, it's bad too to penalize new nobles with low-swordship skill? Or is bad to penalize a new infiltrator if he has low infiltration skills?
The solution is not very hard to find: You want to be a infiltrator? train Infiltration! You want to win tournaments and duels? Train your Swordship. You want to be a Marshal: TRAIN YOUR LEADERSHIP!!!
We have skills? Let use them!... We want more RP, well, then give more possibilities to our characters... Let make famous Generals, feared by their skills in the battlefield!!!
Quote from: Poliorketes on October 25, 2012, 12:48:10 AM
Honestly, I don't see how is bad to penalize (its non-bonus, the are no penalties) your realms military because your Marshal have no leadership (it's an incompetent), and is good to penalize it because your nobles are young (and low-honour) and only have very small units?
If an infiltrator attacks, it's bad too to penalize new nobles with low-swordship skill? Or is bad to penalize a new infiltrator if he has low infiltration skills?
The solution is not very hard to find: You want to be a infiltrator? train Infiltration! You want to win tournaments and duels? Train your Swordship. You want to be a Marshal: TRAIN YOUR LEADERSHIP!!!
We have skills? Let use them!... We want more RP, well, then give more possibilities to our characters... Let make famous Generals, feared by their skills in the battlefield!!!
Well there is an issue with your analogy, infiltrator is a class not a position. Win tournament is an activity and there are plenty of those requiring skills but no other position requiring skills.
Next, after re-reading your request I am no longer against it as I believe I was confusing myself with your original idea which I think had penalties, this having only bonus, I do like.
Yes... originally it had penalties, but it simply didn't work with BM structure. the bonus are much better.
Just so we are all on the same page:
An army will receive a small bonus to CS (based on the marshals leadership skill) if the number of troops in the army is less than or equal to the number or troops the marshal can effectively handle (also based on the leadership skill).
Multiple Armies will each receive a small CS bonus based on the Generals skill if the total number of armies are less that or equal to the number of armies the General can effectivly handle (also based on the leadership skill) as long as there are at least two armies present.
In either case the General or Marshal must be physically present in the battle in order for a bonus to occur. Vice-marshals will function as a marshal if they are present in a battle and the marshal is not.
There is no penalty if the the number of troops or number of armies exceed the marshal's or General's capabilities (as determined by their leadership skill).
Does this sound right?
Quote from: Unwin on October 25, 2012, 10:14:36 PM
Just so we are all on the same page:
An army will receive a small bonus to CS (based on the marshals leadership skill) if the number of troops in the army is less than or equal to the number or troops the marshal can effectively handle (also based on the leadership skill).
Multiple Armies will each receive a small CS bonus based on the Generals skill if the total number of armies are less that or equal to the number of armies the General can effectivly handle (also based on the leadership skill) as long as there are at least two armies present.
In either case the General or Marshal must be physically present in the battle in order for a bonus to occur. Vice-marshals will function as a marshal if they are present in a battle and the marshal is not.
There is no penalty if the the number of troops or number of armies exceed the marshal's or General's capabilities (as determined by their leadership skill).
Does this sound right?
Yes, all correct, but the " as long as there are at least two armies present." The General give his bonus to one sole army too... from one army to his limit.
Good. I love the idea. In theory it sounds cool. I would love to hear what tom and/or the dev team might think of the idea in terms of game balance and appropriateness. I have a hard time gauging such things and they have the experience and insight to do so!
I like it, but I'm more an honorary dev at this point, and was never a coder. I don't see this as being a game balance issue (we've been looking for appropriate force-multipliers, and I think this would be good), but coding difficulty is another matter.