Veteran Soldiers

[Darkson71]

One of the small things that's bugged me in this game is that there's almost no reason to keep a lower level soldier around if you can afford a better one, for example a thief for a treasure hunter or a crossbowman for a marksman.

I know some, including myself, have mentioned giving them experience, or allowing them to upgrade to a better type after X games, but I had another, simpler thought.


After a soldier has survived X number of games (X to be determined, but say 5 or 10) they get a once-per-game reroll on a roll they make (so Shoot or Fight, but not a wandering monster roll).

Thoughts?

[jp1885]

Not a bad idea - nice and simple.

[Duncan McDane]

Sounds good, not too great an impact on the game but it makes them slightly less anonymous and stops people from the standard opponent's wizard hunt.

[Gardensnake]

That's not a bad idea. Another would be to link troop types and let them upgrade to said troop types. So maybe a crossbowman upgrades to a marksman for the cost difference or a thief to a treasure hunter. What about that?

William

[Darkson71]

Already mentioned that in my op.

[WallyTWest]

I've played a few games of this lately... I don't think a Thug is intrested in spending his XP and earnings on better gear or a feat that lets him use two weapons... I think he uses his money on beer and vice....

Most of the followers you can hire are useless thugs. Ruffians and soldiers who will come on for a season and do their best to avoid dying for a few coins. They are not as invested as a wizard or apprentice in the arcane mysteries of Frostgrave. The fact wizards can gain experience is an intresting thing itself... It implies in that environment they are the stars. Those thugs and mercenaries do not have the depth or personality to warrant much more than a stat line that says "Treasure Hunter" or "Barbarian".

[Valvorik]

Isn't one way to handle this in the fiction is the 'narrative fix' of "I didn't fire the thief and hire a treasure hunter, the thief improved and now is the treasure hunter - needing a cash bonus to stay of course".

[Smith]

Isn't one way to handle this in the fiction is the 'narrative fix' of "I didn't fire the thief and hire a treasure hunter, the thief improved and now is the treasure hunter - needing a cash bonus to stay of course".

This is exactly how we play it.

[dartfrog]

Same as us too.

[Darkson71]

Isn't one way to handle this in the fiction is the 'narrative fix' of "I didn't fire the thief and hire a treasure hunter, the thief improved and now is the treasure hunter - needing a cash bonus to stay of course".

Which doesn't deal with my initial point:

"One of the small things that's bugged me in this game is that there's almost no reason to keep a lower level soldier around if you can afford a better one"

It doesn't matter to my point if you (role)play that you fire a thief for a treasure hunter or "promote" a thief to a treasure hunter, it still means that there's no reason to keep a lower level soldier if you can afford one.

[Kegluneq]

Which doesn't deal with my initial point:

"One of the small things that's bugged me in this game is that there's almost no reason to keep a lower level soldier around if you can afford a better one"

It doesn't matter to my point if you (role)play that you fire a thief for a treasure hunter or "promote" a thief to a treasure hunter, it still means that there's no reason to keep a lower level soldier if you can afford one.

Sure there is: you've already paid for that soldier, and his life is cheap.  Feed him to a monster while you run away with the treasure.  Then hire replacements.  For the cost of a man-at-arms, I could hire four thugs.  Each of those four could be fed to a trap, monster, or spell.

Part of the appeal of Frostgrave to me is the simplicity.  I like your proposal for simple veteran rules, but I think its one more thing that needs tracking and something that runs counter to the "life is cheap" mentality of the game.  Henchmen are just that: henchmen.  Experience, to me, implies that the soldier in question got wise enough to demand more pay and better gear, i.e. thug became man-at-arms.

[Darkson71]

For the cost of a man-at-arms, I could hire four thugs. 

And again, you miss the point - I'm not talking about quantity (I normally start thugs and thieves), I'm talking about having the money to trade up - there's no reason not to.
Sure, you can take 4 thugs for one man-at-arms, but that takes 4 slots over one, and if you can afford it there's no reason not to take 3 thugs and 1 man-at-arms, which is better than your 4 thugs, and later on, taking 4 man-at-arms over your 4 thugs.

I'm trying to make a reason to keep the lower soldiers, even when you can afford to replace them.

[dartfrog]

It does depend on your campaing world. You could give each type of soldier a 'hiring' number. If you wish to get a crossbow you may need to roll say 14+ Failed? Then it's thugs for you until next mission. That way you can make certain types of troops harder to get and be less keen on seeing them die. Cheap ones like thugs, dogs or pack mules might have a target number of 4+ If you fail that, well looks like your going in short sunshine!

I'd say knights maybe a high number along with marksmen etc. Thugs and thieves will be 10 a penny in comparison. Not too much paper work needed either.

In fact I think I may well give it a go as we are starting a new campaign soon. I can report back on how it goes.

[WallyTWest]

I kinda envisioned making a hireling deck- where between games you pull out 5 cards per player at the club kinda thing... With diffrent odds depending where you fought and what campaign round it was-

Also a deck of treasure cards like in heroscape that might include traps...

If I could have my way, there would be some nice extras in print (including spell cards..)