Veterancy: Kills=Unit upgrade

[Shadoww3]

I've played several games which incorporate veteran units, in that if they kill a certain number of units, they are upgraded in some way, whether it be their armor, life, damage, etc. This always adds to a game, and I think it would do the same for this one, giving an incentive to keep one special unit alive, and giving an incentive for the opponent to kill that one especially. I'm not thinking a big upgrade, just maybe 2 or 3 damage, or 5 or so armor for say 2 kills. And if they got a third, it would be upgraded slightly more.

[AzN_GuY]

hmm... what of abuse?
John Doe has his friend Bob Dole (no relation to any presidents or anything... promise!) fight him something like 10 times with his units and not try at all. Now john has MASSIVELY powerful units for no effort...

[Shadoww3]

Sorry I meant inside one game, they don't carry from one to the next. Should have specified.

[Hashish_Scout]

I think that sounds pretty good, but it would have to be like one kill to become a veteran, since there aren't enough/weak enough units to make it possible any other way, from my view.

[Killer_kev]

yeah i also agree with this, mabey vet units could get a second kind of attack?

[Choi]

As long as it's inside one game that sounds great! Nice idea.

[Stinky Monkey]

That's a great idea.. What about clerics? could they gain better healing after they heal like.. 350HP? say 12HP heal to 15HP?

[xyxaxyz2]

Bad idea.

1) Doesn't make in-game sense.
2) Makes the game less tactical. Don't kill for the sake of killing, kill to improve your position.
3)Makes random blocking even more of an advantage to the lucky.
4)Even more difficult to recover from superior forces and superior setups.
5)Too complicated. This is TAO, not RPGAO.
6)Pointless. What need does this fulfill?

[AzN_GuY]

Also, it makes a winning player more powerful... why make them morrrre likely to win?

[Killer_kev]

fado you always have to rain on our paradyed xyx. although guys point does make some sence

[Shadoww3]

1) How doesn't it make sense?
2) To me it would be more tactical, because "unit priority" would be furthered. Right now it's just to take units like the cleric and witch out as soon as possible- it could be more in depth than this.
3) Yes well, as you can tell I'm not a supporter of blocking.
4) Good point
5) I don't think it's too complicated, the game is quite simple as it is.
6) It would add more depth.

Nonetheless, between point 4 and Azn's point, I agree. Was just raising it as a possibility to see what peopel thought.

[xyxaxyz2]

IRT Killer: Fado?


IRT Shadow:

1) How doesn't it make sense?

In game sense. Why would killing a unit make it stronger? Remember that this is an exact stat tactics game not a more random RPG or strategy game. For example, it makes sense when a military unit fights a battle it becomes better. This is represented in most strategy games by a percentage increase in power that is still somewhat random. A veteran unit can do worse than a first timer, if the dice fall the right way. It doesn't make sence that, before a scout kills the knight, it takes exactly three shots to kill him, no matter what, and after one kill it takes exactly two shots, in all cases.


2.To me it would be more tactical, because "unit priority" would be furthered.

I don't know what you mean. It means the best strategy is the fast kill strategy kill anything easy instead of carefully choosing which units are most tactical to kill. It decreases the uniquness of individual units.

3) Yes well, as you can tell I'm not a supporter of blocking.

Good. Hope you focus on that battle and not this one.

5) I don't think it's too complicated, the game is quite simple as it is.

And it is good that way.

6) It would add more depth.

No it wouldn't. It would decrease the depth, because some units would become more powerfu and the center of everything.