Just like facebook i would send a heart reaction to this thread. Very much cool :)))
This will seriously make battles interresting 
And The cooks would have greater functions. Now everyone builds 40 cooks and stops at that.
But with your unit idea, i would need lots and lots and lots of cooks to overcome this new unit effect.
Or just build more of that unit to avoid enemies effect.
Winning wars by insults and demoralize is another way of victory. Also Psycological attacks hurts better than physical attacks
Much thanks, i like this!
Since it is a non combat and only affect the morale of the battle.. having 50 more cooks.. then you eliminate the effect of this unit... and since cooks cannnot be killed.. it doesn't change anything at all.. appart that you increase the upkeep of an army by 180 per hour..
Only way to do this is by adding another unit called assasins.
These should go and kill themselves (Not suicide), but killing another assasins in the enemy army. If no assasins are found, then they should attack cooks and doctors.
Or just cooks. Or perhaps immobilize them (Not kill them)!
Meaning = Putting to sleep, so less cooks can have an effect each round. Next battle, the cooks are active again.
I mean ya that's true assuming you have enough cooks.
We couldn't make it too powerful or it would be over in a single round... imagine if there was no cap and someone had a line of speermen and 10k propagandist.. that would be pretty funny.
do you have a suggestion on how to tweak the idea then? I just though it would make teh battles more interesting.
I can't think any..
For me the problem with the battles is that they are too slow... And the rewards isn't good enough.. Even against barbarians lvl50 you need 8 hours battle.. 8 hours.. it is TOO LONG... and then another 3 hours to get the loot...
I understand that the developers wanted to protect the people and give them a chance to fight back.. but this way.. it isn't practical.. you need too many hours for a simple battle.. for a ridiculous reward.. I remember battles that lasted one week of so...
the whole battle system should be rewied.. When it was introduced.. the town centers were lvl24 or something... and the walls similar level... now you need 4 rounds to break the wall.. (aka 1 hour..)..
Until last year, i never reached the population limit in my cities, it wasn't worth it (it was more profitable to sell the wine, in stead of using it in taverns..) now it is easy to have full population in cities with city hall over lvl 40.. Thus the income of every town is bigger.. everyone has (or he will have) 2-3 cities more.. Thus.. bigger armies.. and even longer battles..
i totaly understand that your intensions is to make some battles shorter... to be able to win in 2-3 rounds.. And i totaly agree with that..
but i don't think that a new unit will change something about it..
It will be better to add a parameter in cooks.. that they will be able to affect a battle for a number of rounds only, after that if no new cooks added in the battle, the existing ones they will have no effect... Thus after some rounds your army will run out of morale...
We also need bigger battlefields.. And maybe the battlefield should be defined by the attackers army size...
Display MoreOnly way to do this is by adding another unit called assasins.
These should go and kill themselves (Not suicide), but killing another assasins in the enemy army. If no assasins are found, then they should attack cooks and doctors.
Or just cooks. Or perhaps immobilize them (Not kill them)!
Meaning = Putting to sleep, so less cooks can have an effect each round. Next battle, the cooks are active again.
actually that's a great idea, it gets the same effect but can't be circumvented by just having a bunch more cooks.
It will be better to add a parameter in cooks.. that they will be able to affect a battle for a number of rounds only, after that if no new cooks added in the battle, the existing ones they will have no effect... Thus after some rounds your army will run out of morale...
We also need bigger battlefields.. And maybe the battlefield should be defined by the attackers army size...
Ya I agree I think a lv18 town has the largest field... they should probably add new larger field say around 30-35
I like the idea the cooks also.. like instead of ammo they have "supplies" that run out.. unless they're cooking the dead from the last round.. anyone up for some soylent green?
The battle structure would make no sense. In a real battle - the cooks will be far away and they will be guarded, for that matter they cannot be flanked because there are the sword bearers who are the flanks. What do you suggest, assassins?
The most important question imo. always is "how would this Update improve/change the game".
Especially when it comes down to the Battlesystem, small changes can have huge effects (also negatively).
I like the general idea of demoralizing the Opponent, but the Unit... I don't know...
Fights could/would still last for hours/days, only difference is that there is 1 more unit-type on the field for each side fighting against each other and trading of 50/50.
Or People just add 50 more cooks (if they dont kill cooks), end of the story.
Or battles end earlier but the Units survive, but usually if you want to fight, killing the opponent units is one of the main goals, so who does that help?
Why make such a change to Battles in the first place?
If you don't like super long battles, there are plenty of other options.
The lack of Rewards imo is the bigger problem, PvP-Map, more PvE-Elements (maybe even for whole alliances), fighting is not attractive currently anyway, think that needs to be targeted before making any changes to the actual fighting.
The battle structure would make no sense. In a real battle - the cooks will be far away and they will be guarded, for that matter they cannot be flanked because there are the sword bearers who are the flanks. What do you suggest, assassins?
this is not real and a game.
if it was real Steam Giants, multi ricket ships and gyrocopter should not exist in this game, since it is a classical age game!
also, if food and healing from doctors can reach to the front line, then the doctors and cooks should be killed too!
Also reducing the battletimer should be an option too here. If this was a real fight, it does not take 15 minute and the troops were not to fit in small battlefield like this game. The apponent fights at full force and nothing gets out into reserve. The townhall does not determine the size of battlefield if it was a real fight. But the land surrunding the city does.
Lastly. In real battles there are also traps for the defender and large towers shooting at the enemy.
And the battle timer is not 15 minute. Not instant either.
For me the problem with the battles is that they are too slow..
I've been involved in battles which took days. Over a week, even.
Display MoreThe most important question imo. always is "how would this Update improve/change the game".
Especially when it comes down to the Battlesystem, small changes can have huge effects (also negatively).
I like the general idea of demoralizing the Opponent, but the Unit... I don't know...
Fights could/would still last for hours/days, only difference is that there is 1 more unit-type on the field for each side fighting against each other and trading of 50/50.
Or People just add 50 more cooks (if they dont kill cooks), end of the story.
Or battles end earlier but the Units survive, but usually if you want to fight, killing the opponent units is one of the main goals, so who does that help?
Why make such a change to Battles in the first place?
If you don't like super long battles, there are plenty of other options.
The lack of Rewards imo is the bigger problem, PvP-Map, more PvE-Elements (maybe even for whole alliances), fighting is not attractive currently anyway, think that needs to be targeted before making any changes to the actual fighting.
But in our current situation one can simply build 60 cooks or 50 and end of story!
They dont die, they dont run out of food and the player does not loose moral!
Same thing. Also it will make the game better by adding extra tactics to win the battles!
Also it will make the game better by adding extra tactics to win the battles!
But what tactics could that be and how would that improve the game?
Again, Battles aren't attractive currently for most players and that has nothing to do with tactics (more the opposite, many players are discouraged when they get completely beaten by someone who understands the Battle-system way better).
But i dont understand your question.
It will make it better by adding another way of victory, without having to loose much units and / or have long battles.
Morale loss, is the one that determins the battle result.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
And yes i can agree also, that these these assasins cannot attack the cooks, until enemy assasins are killed. If there are no enemy assasins left, then swordsmen should be the next target or light infantry If no light infantry are left then the cooks. (So they can be flanked)
Otherwise... why would they have hit points and damage if they cannot be killed? The damage is 20, but they lift moral by 1%, how does that make sense:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Or cooks can have ammo function. When they run out of ammo, the food runs out and no more moral lifting!
The more cooks, the more ammo pilled together just like regular units.
why would they have hit points and damage if they cannot be killed? The damage is 20, but they lift moral by 1%, how does that make sense:
Because it did matter in the past and was never removed.
It will make it better by adding another way of victory, without having to loose much units and / or have long battles.
But why would there be no long battle?
Why would your opponent have none of these, but you do?
Why wouldn't both sides lose the same amount without anything relevant happening in that regard and where would be the tactical aspect?
As I mentioned, I like the general idea of demoralizing the Opponent, but neither do I think that this is what Battles need currently, nor do I believe that this Unit would improve Battles in general (apart from the fact that it would proly result in way too much work, compared to way too little gain).
The battle structure would make no sense. In a real battle - the cooks will be far away and they will be guarded, for that matter they cannot be flanked because there are the sword bearers who are the flanks. What do you suggest, assassins?
I imagined their assassin suggestion to be impostures, cloak and dagger stuff like combat spies so not part of a regular battle.
I always assumed the battle took place over a period of time/days.. after all when the battle is raging exactly how long do cooks have to make meals and everyone has time to eat anyway with the current system if not taking place over time?
Think of it like this when dealing with air units like gyro's and naval speedboats.. those units can only fight each other.. nothing else can kill a gyro or a speedboat but another gyro and speedboat.
Only gyro's can kill bombers, or speedboat balloon carriers.
So assassins killing other assassins 1st, and then cooks is actually very similar. currently docs, cooks, tender ships are immortal.
Expanding the assasin role to naval battles could be pirates/profiteers going after tenderships.. i mean that is after all a cargo vessel full of valuable supplies 
I also like LaChDaNaN's idea of the cooks having finite supplies.
Display Morewhy would they have hit points and damage if they cannot be killed? The damage is 20, but they lift moral by 1%, how does that make sense:
Because it did matter in the past and was never removed.
It will make it better by adding another way of victory, without having to loose much units and / or have long battles.
But why would there be no long battle?
Why would your opponent have none of these, but you do?
Why wouldn't both sides lose the same amount without anything relevant happening in that regard and where would be the tactical aspect?
As I mentioned, I like the general idea of demoralizing the Opponent, but neither do I think that this is what Battles need currently, nor do I believe that this Unit would improve Battles in general (apart from the fact that it would proly result in way too much work, compared to way too little gain).
This is why i suggest assasins, because without them then yes you are right. This only one unit does not help winning wars, if the apponent also has 50 extra cooks and thats it. If the developers only add this unit, then it would not make the game better. I totally agree with you.
But with assasins killing the cooks, then these unit would have an effect. Providing the enemy has none to fight them back. Things that kills the assasins are assasins and light infantry. However spearmen are weaker than swordsmen and swordsmen are weaker than assasins to kill them back.
Or
Cooks with ammo fuction.
or
Both. (cooks with ammo and assasin idea)
Even if the apponent does not have the propagandist, you can still make a different by your assasins, when they kill enemy cooks. The enemy would not generate morale, but you do when you have cooks, and the battle ends when one side gets to 0 moral.
All this is a matter of some math and equations. Which should be left to the developers to think it through, balance it and make it better if needs to be!
But the way i see it, it can be done.
For me, there should be only one change.. The battlefield.. and how it is defined..
Since the size of the armry is lower than the garisson limit..
Then the battlefied should be adjusted by the biggest army.. either it is the offender or the defender
until the defenders army size is lower that the garisson limit and the units can hide inside the city...
Imagine the battles in lord of the rings (the movie) or the game of thrones (the series) you don't see people stay in reserve..
Each army tries to create the biggest and stroggest first line...
Thus for me the things that need to be done is:
add option for allied battles..
if a battle is allied, other forces can join the battle in the attacher side, if you choose to go alone, no allied forces are allowed to join the battle on the attacker side. (they could still support the defender)
in the allied battles, there will be a round 0, in which allied forces can join the battle... the duration of the round could be shorter,, 5 min or even less.. in that round neither the defender or the attacher could see the each other amry... it should be somehting like the troup movement before the battle begins..
If the size of the defending army is bigger than the garrison limit and the battle is outside the walls then the cell size of the front line should be dynamic and equal with
floor( max(size of 1st line units)/35)
then the capacity of the other cells should defined accordingly...
For example, if someone sends 2000 hoplites.. the cell size should be 57.. instead of 50..
if one alliance gathers 10,000 hoplites.. then the cell size should be 285..instead of 50..
if they have also 1,000 steam giants..then the cell size should be even bigger and reach 357.. (so in total in the first line there would be 7xtimes the soldiers that are going now. thus the battle should end faster.. )
When the size of the defender will be less that garisson then the battles will be similar as now...
