Healers working together in a region

[fifo]

Hi,

I think healers should be working together. If they don't have anything to do they should help allied units.

[Foundation]

Thanks for the suggestion.  I'm sure someone else will point out some flaws to this.

[fodder]

only if the other player spend hours to allow his healers to do stuff.

[De-Legro]

I'm not paying my healers to go off helping other units. If none of my men need tending too I am sure that they have plenty of tinctures and potions to make in order to ensure they are ready when I need them.

[Draco Tanos]

You're also not paying them to stand around fiddling with their robes while in the camp next to yours, allied soldiers who may have very well saved your life, and will if there's a second battle, are dying.

[De-Legro]

You're also not paying them to stand around fiddling with their robes while in the camp next to yours, allied soldiers who may have very well saved your life, and will if there's a second battle, are dying.

Quite Right, I prefer them to stand around an taunt the dying. It is much more fun for all involved, plus I prefer them to wear leather aprons rather then robes, much easier to clean all the blood off. And like I said, they aren't twiddling their thumbs, there is always work to be done to ensure they are completely prepared for when I need them.

Hell why stop at healers, I should be able to order any scout in the region to scout somewhere, just incase the owner isn't going to be online in time to issue a scout report for the army. Oh and I should be able to use someone else's caravan to loot food, or sell the food in their caravan for my gain. Probably would be handy if I grab their carts too if they have no wounded in them.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

There are healers that can heal everyone in a region friendly to you though: It's called townslands and cities. Do strongholds have them? I never remembered that.

Anyway, let's not also forget how doing this could very well lead to someone being assigned the paraphernalia mule just so other people don't have to worry as much about their finances. You should know how to take care of your unit and all necessary adjuncts. It wouldn't be too nice to have a system where the most practically efficient method was to make one or two people go around with no unit and only healers so they'd be the designated healers.

How many people are complaining about how boring treaty maintenance is, something even more crucial than healing a few soldiers' lives? Now how many would complain heavily about how boring it is to have only healers? Probably only a few, since the ones who complain would be the ones who actually get stuck with the job. Put it on new players and they'll probably quit. Put it on veterans and they'll probably rant about it.

[Vaylon Kenadell]

I like this suggestion, but then again, there's a number of things that units in the same region should be able to share but can't.

It wouldn't be too nice to have a system where the most practically efficient method was to make one or two people go around with no unit and only healers so they'd be the designated healers.

I don't think people will do this. As unreliable as other people are, and with the chance of them not moving out in time or getting delayed, most people will still bring their own healers in order to have reliable support.

[De-Legro]

I want the ability for my healers to masquerade as the healers of the enemy, and instead of healing the wounded they poison and kill them. I would find that far more enjoyable then assisting in healing some lousy solider from my own realm.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

I like this suggestion, but then again, there's a number of things that units in the same region should be able to share but can't.

I don't think people will do this. As unreliable as other people are, and with the chance of them not moving out in time or getting delayed, most people will still bring their own healers in order to have reliable support.

Yeah...That would be not doing it for the wrong reason. It means they refrain because it may jeopardize their plans, and not out of any moral charity. Obviously not everyone would do it, but when a realm gets desperate some of them have gone to even more questionable means. Also, if they figure out who's consistently active, and it's someone who *shock!* is disliked by the leadership of the realm due to *intra-realm conflict lol*, then there you go you have your potential healer mule candidate. That would most likely make him/her even madder against your realm's leaders, but hey, intra-realm conflict yay!

[De-Legro]

Yeah...That would be not doing it for the wrong reason. It means they refrain because it may jeopardize their plans, and not out of any moral charity. Obviously not everyone would do it, but when a realm gets desperate some of them have gone to even more questionable means. Also, if they figure out who's consistently active, and it's someone who *shock!* is disliked by the leadership of the realm due to *intra-realm conflict lol*, then there you go you have your potential healer mule candidate. That would most likely make him/her even madder against your realm's leaders, but hey, intra-realm conflict yay!

Probably covered under the IA rights about recruiting whatever unit you want, but then maybe not. 

[songqu88@gmail.com]

IA protects the right to recruit the unit type you want, meaning: Infantry, Archers, Cavalry, Mixed Infantry, Special Forces. You get to pick whichever you want, no one can tell you otherwise.

Discussing IA gets into territory that is often undesirable, but it is fairly clear that players can be ordered how many men they must have. Not building or destroying certain recruitment centers is allowed as well. Anyway, how it applies to paraphernalia is...well, it doesn't appear to even be covered, interestingly enough.

For the most part it's common sense that if you have no unit, every paraphernalia except scouts and caravans would be useless. Maybe demolition tools might work. But banners, carts, and siege engines can't even be used without a unit. Healers, however, can, but they do nothing without any wounded men except eat gold. So I find it quite ironic that the one paraphernalia that is in a potentially ambiguous area not limited by mechanics and not actually useful without a unit would lead to a question about whether players have the right to choose what paraphernalia they can have.

[De-Legro]

All kidding aside, the current healer effect is balanced against the fact that they only effect the unit of the noble that has the healers. If we change that then we upset the game balance as suddenly they have the potential to be more effective. To counter that we would probably see either the cost per week increase, or see a reducing in their % changes to aid wounded men to compensate.

This is the main problem with idea's that are based on things like "but it makes sense that they would assist the rest of there army." Of course it makes logical sense, the real question is what cascade effect would it cause in a system that wasn't designed that way.

[fodder]

um.. the "easiest" way to do it would be the noble with the spare healer have to issue a command... and only if he's got no wounds/wounded.

then the game would randomly select 1 other noble with wounded troops and add that healer's effect to the target noble's healers (who's stationary in the region)...

i assume there's some sort of diminishing return for healers anyway? so any cascade would probably not be all that significant.

[De-Legro]

um.. the "easiest" way to do it would be the noble with the spare healer have to issue a command... and only if he's got no wounds/wounded.

then the game would randomly select 1 other noble with wounded troops and add that healer's effect to the target noble's healers (who's stationary in the region)...

i assume there's some sort of diminishing return for healers anyway? so any cascade would probably not be all that significant.

How has that not affected the balance though, even in the simplest case you have hedged the bets from requiring the cost of healers for both nobles, to potentially only requiring the provision of healers for 1 out of the 2. Its not so much the chance that each unit will have MORE healers and thus better effects, it is that you would be able to get similar effects to what we have now, for a smaller cost throughout the army. Perhaps that wouldn't unbalance things, as each realm has the same opportunity, only a Dev that knows more about how combat and attrition was designed to be balanced would really know.

The first thing I though of when I saw this suggestion was, Infantry often have the burden of buying siege engines. If healers could be shared then nobles using archers, who arguably need healers less, could carry the bulk of the healing assets to share out the "relative" cost of the army.