AGEOD Forums

I tried enabling Leader Rate Randomization in game option to "medium.
I discovered all leaders' Rates are then randomized.
Guess for game and historical reasons it could be interesting to have the chance to randomize rate values only for one star leaders, expecially "generic" leader not having a proper portrait.
It's unhistorical & unrealistic to have all "generic" one star leaders sharing the common 1-1-3 rating.
At the same time, ratings for major leaders should not be influenced by randomize leader rating option: most of them are men that already reached the top in their career.

Leader randomization is primarily for varying gameplay, not for doing a different take on what the proper ratings of leaders are

The option for Leader Randomization governs how much randomization there should be on each leader; not which leaders that should be randomized.

Rafiki wrote:Leader randomization is primarily for varying gameplay, not for doing a different take on what the proper ratings of leaders are

The option for Leader Randomization governs how much randomization there should be on each leader; not which leaders that should be randomized.

I can agree with you.
Anyway some variability in one star leader rates could be useful.
I found quite dumb to have a mess of one star leader all with some standard rates.

JastaV

I believe some kind of RANDOM should be a must in all the games. Remember a high command doesnt know about the exact capabilities of their leaders, until TRIED.

I proposed long time ago to force some kind of random die roll once a general (and any troop) is tried.

If medium random hits you too much, try light random so every leader gets just a +/-1 to their stats.

I ve played leader mod with +/-1 to stats, and some leaders get patethic skills, while others get extra bonuses.

I believe this does not unbalance too much in the big figure.

Leaders are the heart of the game, with AGEOD engine.
Playing US side with Leaders medium randomization enabled the balance of game is strongly modified in favour of player.
With default, historical setting, and not Leaders randomization enabled, I had to wait till mid' 1863-early 1864 before getting some superiority over the enemy.
With Medium randomization enabled I got a clear superiority over AI, Confederate side since Campaign start: I'm referring to April 1861 full Campaign.

Now I wonder, if possible, to get some small randomization of one star leaders, without having to unbalance the game .

play light random... or play CSA medium random

medium random is expresely an option than YES favours the north as their leaders pathethic are even more pathethic... but some bad ones get into good ones...

Might also be interesting to make the abilities randomized and both the ratings and abilities hidden to the player with an increasing chance of discovering them.

Coregonas wrote:play light random... or play CSA medium random

medium random is expresely an option than YES favours the north as their leaders pathethic are even more pathethic... but some bad ones get into good ones...

I'll keep care of your suggestion.
Light random option will be with my next Campaign!

Thanks

JastaV

I like the idea of making the leader's abilities unknown to the player. You should have to judge from experience how lousy they are. At least they should be unknown until you send them into battle for the first time. I'm thinking of the old Civil War boardgame, I think it was by Victory Games, where you had your leaders face-down with just a rank showing until they got into battle, then you found out whether you had Grant or McClellan, Lee or Van Dorn in charge of that crucial army...

Obviously this would be an option or moddable. People should be allowed to play with historical leader abilities if they wish.

Historical leader ability can't couple with hidden ability. U hide Lee but even stones after just 1 match know his ratings. Hidden should combine with random and semi-random. I would drop off the random option totally but am open minded enough to give all optionable.

Coregonas wrote:play light random... or play CSA medium random

medium random is expresely an option than YES favours the north as their leaders pathethic are even more pathethic... but some bad ones get into good ones...

I played CSA on high random and Athena kicked my arse - assuming that Feds got some really good Generals early and went on attack early - I was always playing catch up after that - oh was on hard settings as well.
By winter of 61 it was pretty much all over - Nashville and Memphis both lost along with Freds, Norfolk and Charlottesville and my NM blow 50 and virtually no armies to fight back with and a force of Feds sitting in Montgomery that I could do nothing about.

On this thread, Reiver (and a lot of others) have proposed a lot of wonderful wishes.


http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=3118&page=7

Different strokes for different folks. Friends: I would rather play Monopoly or Risk rather than randomized generals. Ugh! Yuck! IMHO. Please don't give me a "red dot" for speaking my mind. LOL T

Cory: Perhaps we need a better ability-increase system for those 3-1-1 generals who don't step on themselves? LOL T

tagwyn wrote:Different strokes for different folks. Friends: I would rather play Monopoly or Risk rather than randomized generals.

Believe me, discovering General's traits would force you to think 10 times about who to employ before combat and thoroughlly change the aggressiveness with which some players play. I think option is the key to make everyone happy.