Prodigial_Knight wrote:True I gave that example without taking into account royal/noble bonuses, which in DnD terms would be a template and as you said broken as it appears to have 0 drawbacks, to illustrate what I thought were the trade-offs between a commissioned Warlord and a field commissioned Warlord.
If we look at the practical situation Creen has the royal advantage against Peck in addition to having been popped as a Warlord (+ his lightsaber).
Now I want to know if the bonuses derived from nobility are uniform or they vary with rank, an interesting case study Cesar is the CW under Don a very practical King and much is made of him being the lowest level of nobility yet still Don didn't appoint a promoted warlord but I might be over thinking things and Cesar was just the best Warlord at the time.
The might be one drawback. Jillian was going to have to sacrifice sixty turns of her capital's production to produce an heir. We do know that it takes extra turns to produce a warlord as an heir. We don't know if it takes longer for a Royal side to produce a warlord than a non-royal side. Given their greater attributes, it would not be unreasonable to expect a royal/noble warlord to take longer to pop than a commoner. Still, if you have the Schmuckers, it is much quicker to just promote a unit to warlord than to pop one.
The greatest disadvantage the Royals seem to suffer is their own hubris, and I think Caesar is the perfect example. He's been referred to as barely noble, but I doubt, to use your terminology, that there is a different template for a Viscount, a Count or a Duke; there is probably simply a noble
template. Still, in their vanity, royals and noble end up putting undue importance to something that in reality just a matter of semantics. Also, we saw Artemis be made into a political scapegoat at court and exiled to manage a city, which was a waste of her ability.
Xarx wrote:The trade-off, if theres is one, may come down to cost or time. How much of your productivity will be tied up in popping a new noble warlord vs. how much it will cost to promote a common one.
But really I think it's more a matter of merit. Yes, a noble warlord has better stats and levels faster, and that's great, but there's no guarantee that he won't be a twit. Some rulers might prefer to put proven warriors in command.
We know for a fact that Count Topotato was in fact a twit.
Lamech wrote:Final thought: Trading away the Royal Heir - isn't that basically what Delkey did? Sure it will take a while for the previous overlord to die, but he'll get the whole side under his son's (daughter's?) control.
I'm sorry, I don't follow. Delkey allowed their heir to spin off a new side and lent support for the endeavor. How is that the same as trading away the heir?