[Feature requests] Captain enhancement

Captain can gain experience (should be a game option).

Each time the Captain wins a combat, he gains experience.

How it works.

It can be too difficult to make the Captain has secondary skills, and some of them are useless for the Captain (Ballistics, Diplomacy, Logistics, Mysticism, Navigation, Pathfinding, Scoutism, and new skills to come).

Instead, he can gain primary skills (Attack, Defense, Spell Power, Knowledge).

The Primary Skill Advancement is the same as for heroes types, so each time he win a combat he gains a Primary Skill point depending of his town type (Captain in Castle town, Captain in Wizard town, etc.).

**

Also to help the Captain (and Heroes) to defend the Town/Castle, some buildings gives him bonuses.

Each base creature dwellings, from level 1 to level 6, gives 1 point to Attack skill for defending Captain/Hero (temporary for the visiting hero defending the Town/Castle, permanently for the Captain as he cannot move outside the Town/Castle).

Ex: In a Wizard castle with Habitat (level 1), Pen (level 2), Foundry (level 3) already built, the defending Captain/Hero gains +3 in Attack during siege (temporary for the visiting hero).

The Left Turret, the Right Turret and the Moat buildings each gives 2 points to Defense skill for defending Captain/Hero (temporary for the visiting hero).

Each level of the Mage Guild gives 1 point to Spell Power and Knowledge for defending Captain/Hero (temporary for the visiting hero).

So, per example, a castle with 3 base creature dwellings, the Left Turret, the Moat and a Mage Guild level 3, gives +3 to Attack skill, + 4 to Defense skill, +3 to Spell Power, and +3 to Knowledge for the defending Captain/Hero (temporary for the visiting hero).

Note: The magic points given by temporary Knowledge are automatically assigned at the beginning of the combat, even if the hero does not spend the night in the castle (to get the extra magic points), and removed at the end of the turn if he has some points left (for the visiting hero).

**

The captain can also casts spells depending his Spell Power skill.

If the Captain has at least 6 in Spell Power, he can cast level 3 spells (if the Mage Guild is built and contains combat spells).

If the Captain has at least 8 in Spell Power, he can cast level 4 spells.

If the Captain has at least 10 in Spell Power, he can cast level 5 spells.

*****

How about the possibility to make the Captain can equip artifacts?

Well, improving the Captains is a nice idea. Yet, I don't see a reason why they would have a bonus against regular heroes, except the said experience gain. It might be tricky to arrange everything harmonically with the original game.

The purpose is to help the AI to defend its castles. Frequently, the AI has strong troops to defend its castles, but only the Captain, or a low level hero recruted in a hurry, to lead them. So it's easier to annihilate them, and with fewer loses.

A Captain will fight at most 10 fights during a game, 5 fights is already much, so it would be difficult to gain a lot of experience for a Captain, thus help is needed by the buildings bonuses.

By giving some bonuses to the defender during siege, it would be more difficult, more entertaining, and also add more strategy planning to capture an enemy castle.

Also adding bonuses depending on the buildings already built reflects the value of the castle, the more high is the value of the castle, the more the castle is defended.

Unknown Hero wrote:

The purpose is to help the AI to defend its castles. Frequently, the AI has strong troops to defend its castles, but only the Captain, or a low level hero recruted in a hurry, to lead them. So it's easier to annihilate them, and with fewer loses.

Interesting idea. However, the fact that large numbers of troops are piling up in AI cities just speaks about AI problem.
By the design of the game, the capabilities of the heroes in any case grow faster
than those of the cities (otherwise why are they traveling around the map?).
So the captain of the guard is kind of like a "crutch" from the NWC.
In Heroes 3, this crutch was abandoned, but the AI ​​heroes did not become smarter from this.  Ideally, AI heroes should be smart enough to defend cities.

In my mod (https://heroes2.forumactif.com/t974-heroes-2-bug-fixes-and-mod), a lot has been done to make the AI ​​better, but the level of AI is still not high enough.
However in my mod there are no longer such problems with the accumulation of a large number of creatures in AI cities. That is, they are used more intensively and in a more beneficial manner.

Ben80 wrote:

Unknown Hero wrote:

The purpose is to help the AI to defend its castles. Frequently, the AI has strong troops to defend its castles, but only the Captain, or a low level hero recruted in a hurry, to lead them. So it's easier to annihilate them, and with fewer loses.

Interesting idea. However, the fact that large numbers of troops are piling up in AI cities just speaks about AI problem.
By the design of the game, the capabilities of the heroes in any case grow faster
than those of the cities (otherwise why are they traveling around the map?).
So the captain of the guard is kind of like a "crutch" from the NWC.
In Heroes 3, this crutch was abandoned, but the AI ​​heroes did not become smarter from this.  Ideally, AI heroes should be smart enough to defend cities.

Yes, it is designed to work with the original Heroes 2 AI.
Of course it would be better if the AI could be improved.
But even with an improved AI, I think it could work, I always found the sieges a bit too easy on the attacker's side in Heroes 2 once the hero is a bit strong.

This option has also been refined a bit, you can see that here (among other things):
https://github.com/ihhub/fheroes2/discussions/2972
https://github.com/ihhub/fheroes2/discussions/2976

Ben80 wrote:

In my mod (https://heroes2.forumactif.com/t974-heroes-2-bug-fixes-and-mod), a lot has been done to make the AI ​​better, but the level of AI is still not high enough.
However in my mod there are no longer such problems with the accumulation of a large number of creatures in AI cities. That is, they are used more intensively and in a more beneficial manner.

I haven't tried your mod yet.
I will provide some comments about the changes in the dedicated thread.

Anyway, I can say that I understand you.
I also thought about these things and for some reason remembered WOG and Slava Salnikov with his script for the experience of shooting towers.
At the moment, my solution includes increasing the attack bonus for each magic guild (already implemented in the mod) and adjusting the Archery skill (now it does not allow avoiding the penalty when shooting through the fortress walls).
In general, if the troops are very large, then the role of the shooting towers is not very great.  In this case, only the walls give a tangible (but temporary) advantage due to the penalty on shooting.

***

I forgot to say. There was also an idea for magic guilds to give anti-magic protection to the defender. But did not implement this idea (sort of "unclassical").

Ben80 wrote:

I forgot to say. There was also an idea for magic guilds to give anti-magic protection to the defender. But did not implement this idea (sort of "unclassical").

Yes, no magic on the defenders, a bit too radical indeed.

Unknown_Hero wrote:

Ben80 wrote:

I forgot to say. There was also an idea for magic guilds to give anti-magic protection to the defender. But did not implement this idea (sort of "unclassical").

Yes, no magic on the defenders, a bit too radical indeed.

Actually I meant some percentages of magic resistance for each GM level (like for Dwarves). But still it seems a bit unclassical.

***

Another solution that came to mind: if a player on the 1st day of the week took someone else's fortress from a player who play later, then the newborn creatures disappear immediately after taking the fortress.

Quite often in the game there are situations when the player decides on a difficult assault, hoping to take advantage of the newborn creatures. If one introduce the change that I proposed, and if the player after the assault is left with a rather small army, then he should think carefully whether it is worth assault.

Unfortunately, it is possible that some difficult maps will no longer be passable after that. But perhaps new ways of passing will be invented for some maps.

Were there similar proposals anywhere on the forum?

***

I can reformulate: the weekly increase in the players' castles occurs only after the corresponding player has been given a turn.

Ben80 wrote:

Actually I meant some percentages of magic resistance for each GM level (like for Dwarves). But still it seems a bit unclassical.

Yes, still, as you write.

Ben80 wrote:

Another solution that came to mind: if a player on the 1st day of the week took someone else's fortress from a player who play later, then the newborn creatures disappear immediately after taking the fortress.

Quite often in the game there are situations when the player decides on a difficult assault, hoping to take advantage of the newborn creatures. If one introduce the change that I proposed, and if the player after the assault is left with a rather small army, then he should think carefully whether it is worth assault.

Unfortunately, it is possible that some difficult maps will no longer be passable after that. But perhaps new ways of passing will be invented for some maps.

***

I can reformulate: the weekly increase in the players' castles occurs only after the corresponding player has been given a turn.

Yes, I see, the creatures of the new week appear only when it's each player's turn and not in all players' castles as soon as a new week begins for the first player.
This also means that a full week of growth can simply disappear forever.
Players will delay the attack to the second day instead of the first, even though this leaves a chance for players who don't play first to recruit their creatures.

Ben80 wrote:

Quite often in the game there are situations when the player decides on a difficult assault, hoping to take advantage of the newborn creatures.

This is part of the strategy's spirit.

Ben80 wrote:

Were there similar proposals anywhere on the forum?

I don't remember reading anything about this.

Unknown_Hero wrote:

This also means that a full week of growth can simply disappear forever.

Yes. But I do not see big problem

Unknown_Hero wrote:

Players will delay the attack to the second day instead of the first, even though this leaves a chance for players who don't play first to recruit their creatures.

I think players will usually attack in last day/days of week to still get new creatures later. But if there is an enemy hero nearby, then player will be careful, perhaps.

Unknown_Hero wrote:

This is part of the strategy's spirit.

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a strategy. Rather, it is a boring and dishonest trick.
(of course I use it myself all the time)

Ben80 wrote:

I think players will usually attack in last day/days of week to still get new creatures later. But if there is an enemy hero nearby, then player will be careful, perhaps.

Yes, attack earlier too, but players will avoid attacking on day one, so it becomes a kind of new "rule" a bit restrictive.

"A strange game.
The only winning move is
not to play.

How about a nice game of Chess?"

Ben80 wrote:

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a strategy. Rather, it is a boring and dishonest trick.

Having principles is good.

Ben80 wrote:

(of course I use it myself all the time)

But once the game starts, I use every strategy at my disposal to win, even the most vicious ones. 

If you think about it:

"The best attack is by surprise, from the back and outnumbered."

Unknown_Hero wrote:

How about a nice game of Chess?"

I like chess

Unknown_Hero wrote:

But once the game starts, I use every strategy at my disposal to win, even the most vicious ones. 

If again about chess, then it looks like Viktor Korchnoi (may be you know who is V.K. )
"Chess is war" (V.K.)

However, the modder is the person who can set the rules of the game. I prefer honest ones.

***

I think my proposed weekly growth mechanic would be taken for granted if NWC have used it from the very beginning. And the current mechanic would be surprising. Get your growth, use it to capture someone else's castle (while the enemy cannot do this), and then also get someone else's growth. Not too bold?

Ben80 wrote:

Unknown_Hero wrote:

But once the game starts, I use every strategy at my disposal to win, even the most vicious ones.

If again about chess, then it looks like Viktor Korchnoi (may be you know who is V.K. )
"Chess is war" (V.K.)

It was more in the spirit that once a Heroes 2 game is started, the player forget about the niceties and use everything at his disposal to win.
But, that can be applied to many other games.
I don't know much about the Chess scene.

Ben80 wrote:

However, the modder is the person who can set the rules of the game. I prefer honest ones.

The modder decides the rules of his mod, it's normal.

Ben80 wrote:

I think my proposed weekly growth mechanic would be taken for granted if NWC have used it from the very beginning. And the current mechanic would be surprising. Get your growth, use it to capture someone else's castle (while the enemy cannot do this), and then also get someone else's growth. Not too bold?

Maybe.
I think the game was first designed with the single player in mind, and the human player plays first against the AI.
And the game is more oriented for the player to enjoy playing, rather than a game with "strict" rules.
So it's fun to capture an opponent's castle on day 1 (even without thinking about it) and benefit from the castle's growth, rather than thinking about not capturing the castle on day 1 if you want to have a chance to get that growth.