Leaders killed by bad weather?

[blackbellamy]

Should that be? He was moving all by himself to join some troops and died of pneumonia? IMO leaders shouldn't attrition away.

[Sol Invictus]

I think it should be possible, but very rare. Imagine if you are playing The Rebels and Washington catches a nasty cold; game over. leure:

[blackbellamy]

I don't mind having leaders shot, in fact I strongly encourage it, as it builds character I haven't yet finished a full campaign without losing at least half my leaders. I just don't want them buried in a snowdrift.

[Queeg]

Death by disease is fine with me. Adds some favor to the game. And given the time period covered by the game, it's quite realistic.

[Pocus]

We are neutral about this rule... It means that if several ask, then the rule will be transformed as an optional rule. (this will eat a bit of time not put in another thing, so we prefer that you are more than one asking this ).

[Gresbeck]

Should that be? He was moving all by himself to join some troops and died of pneumonia? IMO leaders shouldn't attrition away.

I disagree. First of all we should think that leader icons don't represent individual men, but small units: the leader and his personal guards and attendants. These units are required to let the leader stay alive and not get captured, especially in bad wheather (can you imagine Washington knocking on a peasant's house door and asking for a piece of bread?). When moving in enemy controlled territory, they should suffer high attrition, even if there are apparently no enemy units (enemy controlled territory is always an abstraction for a territory with invisible units, acting as police and public order forces, otherwise it woluld make no sense to let 51% controlled territory work to remove fog of war). Last but not least, you shouldnt't think at disappearing leader necessarily as dead leaders, the disappearing leaders can be thought also as an abstraction for captured leaders.

[Pocus]

killed by weather leaders should be able to benefit from the special redeployment rule (reappearing in a friendly city). Is this not the case?

[Gresbeck]

killed by weather leaders should be able to benefit from the special redeployment rule (reappearing in a friendly city). Is this not the case?

Probably I'm missing the point. Are we talking aboout leader disappearing in friendly territory or in enemy territory? I insist leaders should suffer attrition like any other unit when moving in enemy territory. Probably they shouldn't disappear at all when they stay in friendly controlled regions.

[blackbellamy]

killed by weather leaders should be able to benefit from the special redeployment rule (reappearing in a friendly city). Is this not the case?

Not sure. What happened was that on turn 1 of the 1775 campaign, I ordered Putnam to move to Albany alone from Ward's Boston stack. On the next turn I see a message on day 1 that Putnam has been killed by bad weather right in Boston, after he disengaged from Ward's stack but before moving anywhere. I searched all my cities and couldn't find him. Maybe he reappeared next turn, but I didn't check.

[Pocus]

this is not automatic, and if he recovers, the message tell you that.

[pasternakski]

Well, sports fans, I hate to be a naysayer, but I say, "Nay." Let's leave it alone. I think the uncertainty this injects is one of the best points of the game. First, it doesn't happen very often and only does so under limited conditions that smack to me of being historically sound. Second, it puts you on that "nothing is certain" edge. Third, it's the "Stonewall Jackson" factor.

In my opinion (oh, oh, here we go), there's been too much "I think it should be this" and "I think it should be that" and "I'd like to see" and "It would be nice to have" and "I just had this idea, so I'm making this suggestion" lately.

Let this game live and breathe a little, willya? I thought I had learned several neat little techniques until new patch changes showed up and made me into an idiot. I would like to understand this game a little and get good at it without it changing underfoot all the time.

Pocus, you recently posted something like, "I am willing to make this change, but only if more than one of you here on the forums wants it." That's beginning to worry me...

[unbbmas]

Totally agree pasternakski.
Pocus you are doing a great work for a great game.

[Gallus Sinensis]

Let this game live and breathe a little, willya? I thought I had learned several neat little techniques until new patch changes showed up and made me into an idiot. I would like to understand this game a little and get good at it without it changing underfoot all the time.

Maybe changes should be rated in 4 categories :

-bug correction : to be implemented ASAP
-AI improvements : according to the needs felt by AGEOD developpers (after all, "she" plays in the name of AGEOD)
-cosmetic changes in the interface (like Victory panel, pop up details, etc) : according to a simple majority of players wishes
-rules changes : only after a poll shows up a qualified majority of players wanting them, and even then, these changes should be optional at the start of a game.

[Pocus]

Pocus, you recently posted something like, "I am willing to make this change, but only if more than one of you here on the forums wants it." That's beginning to worry me...

I know you would quote me on this one

Ok, there is 2 sorts of things, gameplay wise:

a) the things that we believe is what make the identity of BoA, what is our vision of it. These things have very slim chances to be changed, excepted if you were all saying: this totally ruins the game, please reconsider.

b) things where we have not a strong position, and has been made like that in the code, because this was the first solution we thought about it. There is nothing wrong to propose an alternative, as an option, if several of you would prefers the second solution. For example, I don't mind giving the option to have leaders NOT suffer from weather casualty, if they are in a region with 51+ loyalty. After all it can make sense no?

I understand your concern Pasternaksi, but rest assured, we won't add anything & everything just because a player ask for it. Beside that, we are starting to commit more and more time to our next game, so BoA will receive mostly bug fixes, IA enhancements and gameplay rules which can be used in bip.... biiip .... biiiiip (oh darn, I wanted to say the title of the next game, and messed with the keyboard!)

[Adam the VIth]

Hmmm....interesting topic -- how many of the higher level leaders (the type represented in the game) were killed or captured (or died of disease)?

Dr. Warren bought it at Breeds Hill
Benedict Arnold was wounded several times and turned coat
Daniel Morgan was captured @ Quebec, but released
Montgomery was killed @ Quebec
Benj Lincoln obviously captured @ Charleston

I don't know much about many of the leaders......

I tend to lose a TON of leaders.....which is fine, but I wonder if anyone can give us a sense of whether the game is killing them off at too high (or too low) of a rate? I can do some research, but was just wondering if anyone else knew.

I love the game -- just always looking for ways to improve it.

BTW: prisoner swaps would be a great addition, but likely rather complicated from a coding point of view.

[Sol Invictus]

Your a cruel man Pocus; just go ahead and say The Seven Years War and get it over with. You know you want to.

[frodon]

Dr. Warren bought it at Breeds Hill
Benedict Arnold was wounded several times and turned coat
Daniel Morgan was captured @ Quebec, but released
Montgomery was killed @ Quebec
Benj Lincoln obviously captured @ Charleston

Simon Fraser was killed during the Saratoga campaign. De Kalb was killed at Camden. Mercer at Princeton. Pulaski at Savannah. Johann Rall was killed at Trenton. And Ferguson (not sure he is in the game) was killed during the southern campaigns.

There was a fair share of killed leaders during the French & Indian Wars. Montcalm, Wolfe, Braddock and George Howe comes to mind. And Dieskau was seriously wounded and captured.

But I agree that the casualty rate in the game might be a bit high. But I have only played one full campaign, so the high leader casualties I took might be a coincidence...