Champions - what's the point?

As with my post on Dynasties. I have a few problems with Champions the way they are currently implemented in the game.

Currently Champions are wandering heroes, that you can hire, equip, potentially marry and imblue with essence and ultimately use on quests for your faction.

However, the cost for these units is currently prohibitive considering their benefits.

First, from a cost standpoint. Each hero requires gildar to recruit. Any hero beyond a 1st level champion costs usually too much to recruit and a party of them is too expensive for the game economy. Cost to equip a single champion, currently can be exorbitant. Consider, equipping a 1st level champion with a short sword, leather cuirass, leather armlets, leather helm and leather leg greaves will cost you an additional 360 gildar. A single soldier with the same equipment costs 23 gildar. So the question you need to ask yourself is a single champion worth 15.5 soldiers?  Obviously, there is a cost disconnect between the shop value of common equipment and it's production equivalent which needs to be addressed.

Second, each champion can be imbued with essense to make them magic users. However, with the current magic system, the sovereigns cost in permanent mana loss compared to the minor benefit you get from the champion having magical use is of questionable value. In most cases, it seems like it would be better to 'grow your own channellers' using the dynasty system rather than impart some of your sovereigns essence on a champion. And in a real sense, a champion functions just fine without it. However, I will admit that if you can't get your dynasty started quickly enough, it's sometimes worth the cost to have another magic using champion.

Third, currently you can marry champions. However, if you are a male sovereign it is much harder to find a female champion than it is to find a male one. Also, it doesn't seem to make any difference in the game if your spouse is beautiful or ugly, strong or weak, a champion imbued with magic. Ideally at some point, the attributes of your spouse will make a difference, however, that's a topic for another time. Currently in the game, you do seem to need to hire the first opposite sex champion you find and marry them.

Forth, the final real advantage is that champions to lead armies, can go on quests, uncover special adventuring locations and use special equipment. Again, to use them in this capacity requires funding for equipment (and as creatures become more powerful, more expensive equipment). Your hope is that through experience and the purchased equipment, they become a force on the battlefield. However, often parties, squads or companies of normal soldiers are more effective at a much lower cost. If you invest your champion with magic and increase their essense at the cost of not increasing their normal attributes (like strength, health, combat speed) it can allow for some specialize attacks, but often the hero is then weak during physical confrontation.  

Fifth, there is also some real value in that champions have a 'profession' and can add some marginal value to your faction simply by parking them sans equipment in a city to add bonuses to your kingdom or empire. Again, in this case, hiring a 1st level hero gives the same benefit as spending more gildar for a higher level one. In this case, champions are worth their cost, but they are really more of a specialist not really a 'hero' in the sense of the word.

Summation:

Shop values for common equipment needs to be massively decreased, not increased. You should be able to outfit your champion in common equipment for not much (or any more) than it costs to outfit a single soldier. However, the shop should carry much more 'uncommon' equipment that is not available to the common soldier class.

Some NPCs should already be channellers and should cost more. Those that are, should be limited to one/two spell books so that you should hire ones that align to books that your Sovereign already knows (or you hope to acquire through research). This will add more interest to the game. If not magic, then give each a special attack or defensive feature much like what some monsters have.

Cost of higher level NPCs needs to come down by a significant amount AND they (all levels of champions) need to come equipped with better equipment making them worth the expense in gildar.

There needs to be an equal amount of male and female champions in the game.

Professional skills should increase over time. This makes the specialization a more valuable resource and consquently more valuable if traded to another faction during the game.

Champions should be potential difference makers in the game. Their initial cost should be an investment in that potential. I also believe that champions should require a on going wage much the same way as soldiers do.

Those are my thoughts on Champions.

 

43,507 views 65 replies
Reply #1 Top

Hm... at least consider the hero that gives you 1 gildar per turn, other gives 20% food bonus to the city he station in (can be difference between growing city or not) , there are some other advantages.

Plus heroes can use equipment.

Reply #2 Top

As with my post on Dynasties. I have a few problems with Champions the way they are currently implemented in the game.


Some NPCs should already be channellers and should cost more. 
 
End of quote

 

I agree with most of what you say except this. The whole point is that magic is very rare, and so are channellers. I don't think any NPC should be a channeller unless imbued by an AI sov.

 

Reply #3 Top

I noted that champions can have a 'profession' that can give your faction certain advantages and in this case, it's a marginally useful function, but then they are mostly a specialist and not really a 'hero' or 'champion' in the spirit of the game. The profession should be something that also makes the Champion special, not the sole reason for their existance. Either that, or call them specialists.

Also, I mentioned the equipment thing in my first point. The current cost to equip a hero is stupid expensive.

JMO.

Reply #4 Top

Quoting Lord, reply 1
Hm... at least consider the hero that gives you 1 gildar per turn, other gives 20% food bonus to the city he station in (can be difference between growing city or not) , there are some other advantages.

Plus heroes can use equipment.
End of Lord's quote

 

Yes, and level 1 heroes give the exact same benefit as the high level Champions do for far less money (as the OP said in this post).

 

He addressed the issues with equipment in the first part of his post.

 

Every time a hero or Sov levels there should be options to vary or specialize their effects on your Kingdom, no the mind bogglingly simple "add one point to an attribute" that we currently have. That is a "system" I would expect to see in games done during a 7 day development challenge, not retail production titles.

 

 

Reply #5 Top

Love the idea about lowering equipment cost for champions and providing rare equipment (for champions only). The rare equipment of course would be very expensive. As it is now, the last place I want any champion I hire is in a fight. And I think champions should be good for a fight.

Reply #6 Top

I agree with most of what you say except this. The whole point is that magic is very rare, and so are channellers. I don't think any NPC should be a channeller unless imbued by an AI sov.
End of quote

Okay, then do something else that makes them a bit more special on the tactical battlefield, like the ability to 'heal' a unit or 'Increase' morale, or to resist fire, ice or fear. They need to be more 'special' in my opinion.

Reply #7 Top

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Weak, massively overpriced and ridiculously fragile at higher levels.  Why bother even getting champions only to have them become one-shot kills for some level 4 ogre or the like?

Reply #8 Top

Quoting Dethedrus, reply 7
I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Weak, massively overpriced and ridiculously fragile at higher levels.  Why bother even getting champions only to have them become one-shot kills for some level 4 ogre or the like?
End of Dethedrus's quote

 

I have to agree with this statement.  As it is I don't even bother hiring champions past level 1 unless its to marry my sovereign.  Female champions are also extremely rare so I've been contemplating just using female sovereigns until this is fixed.

 

The benefit does not out weight the cost for how fragile they are.  They never seem to get better either.  Even if you level them up and give them decent equipment they still end up getting 1 or 2 shotted.

Reply #9 Top

In most of the games I recently started I had abundant females running around, so it is - like resources - depending on luck.

Reply #10 Top

They are indeed very weak. I equipped a champion with exactly the same gear as my sovereign (both lvl 1) and my champs get one shotted whereas my sov survives a LOT longer in a battle.

In counter point champ actually start with weapons but your sovereign does NOT?? I wonder ho wmany folks had their sov cowering in fear 8(|

RAT

Reply #11 Top

I don't know if this will be a popular suggestion, but I'm of the opinion that Champions should be the general with which you control your armies.  i.e.  All battles without a Champion are "auto-resolved".  You have to have a champion in the fight to control tactical battles.

 

However, that would be a feature which takes away something from the player, and those features are never very popular.

Reply #12 Top

Quoting Gnasche, reply 12
I don't know if this will be a popular suggestion, but I'm of the opinion that Champions should be the general with which you control your armies.  i.e.  All battles without a Champion are "auto-resolved".  You have to have a champion in the fight to control tactical battles.

 

However, that would be a feature which takes away something from the player, and those features are never very popular.
End of Gnasche's quote

Interesting idea, but what if instead of taking away that ability, you just played around with the units starting morale? Starting morale for a units that go into combat without a champion(s) would be dependant on a combat rating comparison. For example, if your units have a CR of 50 and they are facing a monster(s) also of 50, morale starts at 50. For every champion, that morale value is effected upwards based upon the Champion level.

Just a thought.

 

Reply #14 Top

I like the idea of being able to hire NPCs that boost your city abilities (i.e. +20% to food).  But there needs to be true "Champions" who specialize in adventuring or combat.  And, as such, they need to be able to fight pretty well.  But, more than that, they need to add something to regular soldiers.  Adding to morale of the army would be a good start.  Also add leadership or other pluses.  Lastly, while I understand channellers being rare, at least if you give them magic user abilities, they can contribute to the battles in a unique way. 

 

I would also like to see some type of combat spells that add meaningfully to combat - like spells that increase attach strengths or defense strength across the board.  Or Area of Effect spells (think artillery) to soften up the approaching enemy hoard.

Reply #15 Top

Quoting Gnasche, reply 12
I don't know if this will be a popular suggestion, but I'm of the opinion that Champions should be the general with which you control your armies.  i.e.  All battles without a Champion are "auto-resolved".  You have to have a champion in the fight to control tactical battles.

However, that would be a feature which takes away something from the player, and those features are never very popular.
End of Gnasche's quote

 

Quoting nitey47, reply 13

Interesting idea, but what if instead of taking away that ability, you just played around with the units starting morale? Starting morale for a units that go into combat without a champion(s) would be dependant on a combat rating comparison. For example, if your units have a CR of 50 and they are facing a monster(s) also of 50, morale starts at 50. For every champion, that morale value is effected upwards based upon the Champion level.

Just a thought.

 
End of nitey47's quote

 

Both of these are interesting and good ideas.

Reply #16 Top

Quoting nitey47, reply 13

Interesting idea, but what if instead of taking away that ability, you just played around with the units starting morale? Starting morale for a units that go into combat without a champion(s) would be dependant on a combat rating comparison. For example, if your units have a CR of 50 and they are facing a monster(s) also of 50, morale starts at 50. For every champion, that morale value is effected upwards based upon the Champion level.

Just a thought.

 
End of nitey47's quote


Yeah, that's a better thought.  I like to think of the champions as leaders, rather than superheros.  Giving them an ability like improving morale and more would be a great way to make them important.  When you saw an enemy army with a champion, you'd want to avoid it until you got an equal champion-led army.  This would make champions much more valuable.  You'd want to keep them at the back of battles, but you'd still need to equip them to be safe.

Reply #17 Top

You can hire multiple champions early in the game, when you have little money for example, and you really have to stick them in cities and keep them away from fights. It does take far too big of an investment to get them properly equipped for battle. And champions should definitely be leaders of armies, not just farmers that reside in towns or someone who adds 1 gildar per turn.

They need to be special and should be equipped and skilled based on their level and cost.

Good original post!

Reply #18 Top

Quoting Gnasche, reply 17

Quoting nitey47, reply 13
Interesting idea, but what if instead of taking away that ability, you just played around with the units starting morale? Starting morale for a units that go into combat without a champion(s) would be dependant on a combat rating comparison. For example, if your units have a CR of 50 and they are facing a monster(s) also of 50, morale starts at 50. For every champion, that morale value is effected upwards based upon the Champion level.

Just a thought.

 

Yeah, that's a better thought.  I like to think of the champions as leaders, rather than superheros.  Giving them an ability like improving morale and more would be a great way to make them important.  When you saw an enemy army with a champion, you'd want to avoid it until you got an equal champion-led army.  This would make champions much more valuable.  You'd want to keep them at the back of battles, but you'd still need to equip them to be safe.
End of Gnasche's quote

 

This would have to go hand-i-hand with making morale matter but it is a good start towards champion reform.

Reply #19 Top

nitey47 : k1

but about the channeller champions. natural abilities for champion seems to be a very good idea to compensate;

I would add, as I said before (lost somewhere in the forum) that champions should not have only one point to level, but at least 3. That, or the stats should go up automatically depending on the champ class, and that one point is the one you choose to place.

The prices are definitely needing to go down the ones of regular soldier, with gold change for the materials. I must be possible to mod this.

You should also have a way to order special stuff, and not only randomly find them in the shop. Technologies to enchant gear, or enhance existing gear quality for heroes only would be nice. It could be made has components, like "high quality handle speed + 0.25" or so.

Reply #20 Top

Also,

 

You should be able to kill champions who are wandering around in the wilderness - because they're annoying, especially if you're never planning on hiring them...

 

-tid242

Reply #21 Top

Champions are there to be upgraded over time, getting better and better, soldiers are bought to die as cannon fodder. To get champions have to be a long term investment. End of discussion..... ;)

Reply #22 Top

I think too many players get confused as to what a Champion & Hero should be vs a god. Those other games allowed you to make and hire gods. Elemental puts in realistic champions and heroes capable of dying not being immortal.

Reply #23 Top

So the question you need to ask yourself is a single champion worth 15.5 soldiers?
End of quote

No, especially if those troops are in parties, squads, etc, getting combined stats, and forming uber units where just ONE of them would vaporize the champion.

For now, I grab the champs for their bonuses if the cost vs benefit works and stack them up in my capital.  Outside of that, I think they're useless.

I suppose you could imbue them and use them for extra teleport bots for your real troops but marriage/children works as well or better.

 

Reply #24 Top

Heroes need more special abilities that do not require mana.  Combat techniques so to speak.  Also if they fall in combat they should be knocked unconscious and gain no XP for the battle but should not be killed.

Everyone is right about the cost of gear.  Although we have to be careful since items like medicine packs can be stacked.

Reply #25 Top

Quoting Gnasche, reply 17



Yeah, that's a better thought.  I like to think of the champions as leaders, rather than superheros.  Giving them an ability like improving morale and more would be a great way to make them important.  When you saw an enemy army with a champion, you'd want to avoid it until you got an equal champion-led army.  This would make champions much more valuable.  You'd want to keep them at the back of battles, but you'd still need to equip them to be safe.
End of Gnasche's quote

 

It should be a choice in how your specialize your heroes during the leveling up process.  There should be tacticians/leaders and then there should be front line combat troops.  Tacticians should try to avoid physical confrontation but should have abilities they can use on their soldiers, like boosting morale, increasing DEF or ATK for n turns, that kind of thing.  

The frontline troops, on the other hand, should be a bulwark in your front lines.  They're champions after all.  Brad said multiple times about how he wanted super powerful units/sovs to be like Sauron in Lord of the Rings, smiting hordes of enemies.

Regarding making Champions a requirement for tactical battles, I hate that idea, personally.  You can do it much better just by creating incentives for you to include them in your armies, so a "leaderless" army is going to perform at a suboptimal level.

Right now, regardless of balance, Champions are boring.  They're dull.  They should be a primary component of the game, and I think they need a drastic overhaul to become that.

(Also, as a last note, Administrators need ways to level up and increase their passive resource bonuses).