Age of Strategy Forums

For those of you who've seen the armoured Knight topic (now renamed to Royal Guard or something Idk) this will be familiar to u
HP 60
Power 20
Spd 2
Armour 10/10
Sight 4
High morale, 4 spaces, +1 power and 1/1 armour
Map Editor only: no production
Edit: removed "Produced at castle" and "12-14 turns to produce"

With that stats It'll never be implemented...unless as a fun unit that would cost 20-30 gems. Try something like the inquisitor - A 10 turn unit with exceptional supportive and offensive abilities that can only be trained at Priory and monastery. As of now he is Balanced.

he'll be a only one per player- unit so itll be in some balance but stats are too high

OK, how's about I bring down high morale aura to 3 spaces, and... Uh, I'm no good at balancing.
But I must remind you this is a BOSS UNIT. Meant to be tough to beat. The Inquisitor does this by lowering enemy stats, and raising his and his troops own stats. The General does this by being heavily armoured, and taking most attacks easily. He might be a bit op, but bosses generally are in video games.
Plus, remember what I said: Look at Epic Trainee's stats.

Imho the cost of general shouldn't be higher than 10. even AoF doesn't have 11up-turn units. And keep in mind that epic trainee is a unit made for map editor. He isn't in-game for lot of reasons.

Why should it not have higher than 10 turns ? Above 10 turns for a tanky boss unit that shrugs off most attacks sound very balanced to me. It requires lots of time to make a good capable General. Over 10 turns sounds just right.

What I am saying is there shouldn't be any units with 11up costs since (From what I've seen)none of the Age of variants doesn't have it. Only at a maximum of 10. Aow might have 10up since they work in a different way than AoS/AoF. and stats should be as balanced as inquisitors. (since they are the only ones in AoS that has a 10 turn cost.) And I don't understand why a high ranking officer would come to a battle to die they were more like a tactician or a strategist. So general could work as a buffer unit with decent defending capabilities.

I just remembered this is a historical strategy game so IDK about this general if he's still good to add. And Quad was just saying there isnt any built in option to use 11+ training caise we still need to add in those sprites and json value

I think there were historical generals e.g Alexander the great,Ghengis khan,Napoleon etc.
But why would they be heavily armored? Irl they were more like tacticians & strategist. If they die then who will plan the attacks and strategies?

Many Generals fought on the battlefield, and many did not. So this isn't out of the real of realism. Anyway, you could change the name slightly if you want. I'm not good at this, but something like a Duke would give off a similar effect as General, while also being accurate.

After the medieval era however most generals did not, probably because of how combat changed

Is more like a unique unit,i change hes armor to 6/8,dmg to 12 and high morale affect 6 range.

I have no idea how to balance this but it needs to be tanky. That's the entire basis of this unit. Besides, since its so slow it is more a defensive unit. I think, if we also implemented the throne structure I have posted on this forum, they would go good together: my idea for the throne is that the throne defender cannot move off the throne, and they take damage instead of the throne. It would make sense for a General to sit on one: it might be inside their base of operations, or maybe they are assigned to defend the castle of a king. So it can sort of still hang back from the battlefield, like if the battle shifts closer to the defended castle and they must stay in it and defend the castle.

Also after thinking about it making it a map editor only unit makes more sense: if you lose your general in a battle usually you've already lost. And besides that you can't just make a new one whenever you need them. Like, I'm assuming 1 turn isn't that long, right? Losing a General and replenishing them in like, even 60 turns (I'd call that maybe half an hour in game? An hour, tops? Maybe even 2 hours? ) isn't realistic. Maybe this would make it a lot more viable for the game, as you're not supposed to lose it since you can't make more.