[0.86] Champion immortality problem

from Elemental Forums

I do get, and appreciate, that champions don't just die the first time you defeat them (or have yours defeated) - but there should really be a more-than-tiny chance to permanently kill/lose a champion. I'm getting a little upset about killing the same enemy hero for the 20th time. He has a list of injuries much longer than his actual positive traits and is negligible in combat. Likewise, for my own champions, I'd like for some to heroically and permanently die after their nth defeat. Perhaps 5ish losses (or linked to hero level) are acceptable per champion - but after that the risk of permanent death should be real, not remote.

 

3,187 views 6 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

Adding to that: I understand it would be work, but perhaps the corpse would be a retrievable item left on the battlefield (only available to the owning player) and death as well as life magic could have some spell variant that revives the corpse and allows the champion to be used again in some form.

 

Reply #2 from Elemental Forums Top

After all injuries are acquired by an enemy champion perhaps he/she should receive a percentage penalty on constitution each time they are killed that will eventually render them with zero hit points - effectively killing them!

Andy.

Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

Killing a Champion permanently means losing spells permanently. The AI just needs to learn that at a certain point a hero should be retired to a castle. That is what humans do afterall. Personally I think there are too few heroes in .86. I have double the heroes in my games and the AI is finally able to use magic. But they still don't build a good stack of doom. 

Oh, and there is a potion to remove all injuries from quests. If .86 had quests this would be less of a problem.

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 3
The AI just needs to learn that at a certain point a hero should be retired to a castle.
End of seanw3's quote

I'd prefer if the AI were to learn first about not letting his Sovereign/Champions roam the coutryside by themselves or in armies not worth the name. That and being more careful about their pathing when strong monsters are around. Prevention is the best medicine. I have only lost Champions in battle a couple of times or so.

Reply #5 from Elemental Forums Top

Yea, having a champ retire to a city after achieving X level of ineffectiveness might be best.

Alternatively they could be partitioned off to questing instead of warfare ... but assuming that all quests disappear after any attempt (not just after success) ... and always the first attempt at that ... this could cause a further problem with lack of quests (weak champ pops all the quests and loses each time).

 

Regardless, the AI should not be using severely weakened champions on the campaign trail.

Equally, once an AI's economy is robust enough they should begin to build stronger, more elite (and costly) units, and phase out the older models ... by disbanding weak/inefficient troops on the very turn that the powerful troop is either built or reaches the front line.

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting Wintersong, reply 4

I'd prefer if the AI were to learn first about not letting his Sovereign/Champions roam the coutryside by themselves or in armies not worth the name. That and being more careful about their pathing when strong monsters are around. Prevention is the best medicine. I have only lost Champions in battle a couple of times or so.
End of Wintersong's quote

True, the AI should be better at protecting their Champions. I'd say protecting the Champions is even more important than protecting the sovereigns.

As there is not a lot of mana in the early game (to lose), and the early game is when champ injuries seem to be happening the most.