Adding Hero to the battle and pitched battles before the main war ?

**Mithridates II the Great** · July 21, 2012, 07:03 PM

Do you think adding a hero and pitched battles can be done ?

A hero can be like an agent , who is the best and most experienced fighter in the country or province that can be used for the army morale or leading and etc .

In this case the hero can level up and get more skills and become stronger like other agents .

About pitched battle :

Pitched battles were done in historical battles and the result of them had a great affection on the army ,morale and even the final conclusion . ( we can use generals or heroes for pitched battles )

**Strifeblade** · July 21, 2012, 07:20 PM

I think having some kind of veteran centurion agent with skills similar to the foreign veteran from FotS would be awesome. Coolest agent in TW history IMO. Having him able to duel the enemy general going into a battle or duel other agents going into a battle would be an awesome feature.

**Destraex** · July 21, 2012, 09:44 PM

I think that adding hercules and batman would help battles.
But yes I agree with veterans - rather than the hero term - for some battles. However they should not be seperate units added at will.
They are not travelling circus men of supreme god abilities.

**PROMETHEUS ts** · July 22, 2012, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Destraex

I think that adding hercules and batman would help battles.
But yes I agree with veterans - rather than the hero term - for some battles. However they should not be seperate units added at will.
They are not travelling circus men of supreme god abilities.

Lol hercules ok but not batman please , is not historically correct , perhaps leonidas? Or the dioscuri ?

**Hero of Rome** · July 21, 2012, 09:56 PM

Why not just an ancillary character called "Veteran Centurion/Officer/Chieftain/whatever" that gives a morale boost? Having an uberpowerful character running around on the battlefield killing people, that's not how warfare worked at this time(or any time).
I also don't get what you mean by "pitched battle".

**Rorarii** · July 21, 2012, 10:02 PM

Many nations prayed to the gods before battle, maybe spiritual side-kicks to increase moral.

R

**oppaiO_O** · July 21, 2012, 10:22 PM

i think what he means is having a "hero" or a veteran unit fight it out before the battle starts and if your dude wins then you get some bonuses like morale boost and such and if he gets massacred then you loose some men perhaps and morale cause they are too afraid of the other guy the same should happen to the enemy too...like how that monk guy and the takeda samurai fought it out at the beginning of the little vid in shogun... i think it could be done as a replacement for the generals speech before the battle instead of him speaking he sends out one guy since CA has the general giving speeches during battle

**Szlachta** · July 22, 2012, 01:09 AM

That's Champion warfare.

I would like Hero units as well, whether they be agents, general types, or just units. Pitched battles would be interesting as well. More battle types, the merrier.

**windsupernova** · July 22, 2012, 01:14 AM

Hope the add a Blademaster

Anyways I don't get your concept, you mean like:

Hero Agent who can challenge the champion of another army and if he wins the army will be demoralized?And if he is "attached" on an army it will have more morale?

**Jester** · July 22, 2012, 01:31 AM

an amazing general is already a hero unit actually

especially since CA have improved their roles over the last titles

**Mithridates II the Great** · July 22, 2012, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by windsupernova

Hope the add a Blademaster

Anyways I don't get your concept, you mean like:

Hero Agent who can challenge the champion of another army and if he wins the army will be demoralized?And if he is "attached" on an army it will have more morale?

well . I didn't mean a super power , unbeatable hero . he is just the best fighter of your land .

you can see such pitched wars in the history . and about morale . its clear that when your best fighter beats the enemy's your troops have better condition and morale in cooperation with the enemy .

**Alkaline Earth** · July 22, 2012, 05:28 AM

Skip to 4:09

This would be cool

**HappyGoodVibes** · July 22, 2012, 01:28 AM

By all means have a "hero" unit, but do it properly and with the real historical "hero units" that there were. The Gauls favored sending a warrior to fight before the battle in a 1v1 duel, because if their warrior won it would reduce the moral of the enemy. Roman armies often received such a challenge, but refusing to play the Gaul's game, the offer to single combat was universally ignored by legions. It would be an interesting option before battle "The *Tribe Name* offer to demonstrate who will win this battle under the eyes of the Gods, shall we send forth our champion?" With maybe a yes/no answer option and a dice roll to see if you won or not followed by the appropriate follow-up message and a morale reduction in the appropriate army.

Having a single super soldier in battle is silly though, because such a thing didn't exist, and troops that don't fight as a unit are easier to kill in that type of warfare than troops that work together.

And am I the only one who hates the agent mechanic? I don't want to micro-manage a stupid agent sending him around places. Spy networks are bought and paid for, you don't train a spy in Rome and send him to Persia, you hire a Persian in his own country. Diplomats would operate on their own, let government absorb their cost and make it so I don't have to bother with moving them around (I need to focus on positioning my armies), if it's really an issue just automatically send a diplomat to the center of any empire or crisis there is automatically and have a delay for when diplomatic relations are established. Assassins are everywhere, and in their cost to hire should also be included that they are near your target and you don't need to send them halfway across the empire. That type of unessential micromanagement should simply be done away with.