I’ve been told numerous times by several different players never to create a pure commander. I’ve received pages of information outlining the importance of avoiding such a strategy. Having just had one of the command/agents that I created earlier in the game escape from capture, I’m well aware of the benefits. Now, the extra 5k seems like gold well spent.
However, I wonder if a pure commander might not be useful in certain situations. For instance, what about the case of a navy being used to ‘patrol’ the coastline hoping to intercept enemy navies trying to land an assault? I’ve been told on a number of occasions not to put any character of importance in command of that navy. It is apparently quite common for all characters involved to die in the event of a naval conflict. If the commander is simply sailing around waiting to die, why not use a C30 and save the 5k?
Wait, let me cover my head. Ok, go ahead and let me have it!
my theory is hire for the purpose which makes your reasoning sound as far as I’m concerned…and I don’t think there are ever any nevers or always in this game other then the one I just stated…that there aren’t any
As High Plains said, there’s never a “never”. As a general rule, I don’t care for pure commanders because they get captured.
However, a pure commander is nice for leading a navy on patrol as you suggested because he’s likely to end up dead in a naval battle.
A pure commander is also useful for doing downgrades at the capital and miscellaneous capital orders such as natselling. I HAVE created pure commanders before, but it’s the exception. And there’s a difference between creating a pure commander and using the ones that you started with; most nations start with a couple pure commanders that I’d certainly keep and use, I just tend not to make new ones.
Finally, other perspectives exist; I know of at least one experienced player who would say that as games are likely to only last a short while, you need a better commander now rather than later, and that multi-classing is a waste of gold that could be used to raise more troops with which to crush the opposition.
I hold the same beliefs as br fisher and will rarely make pure commanders…but for every person that agrees with us there will be three that disagree and six more that can’t decide if they have an opinion lol
Definately a matter of taste and also I think partially the nation you play. Some nations need loads of commanders, they dont have to be great, they just need to lead troops…like the FK or Cardi. Also, if I play NG I usually build straight coms, since C40 can make a big difference with cap orders and since most of these guys will get assassinated before they make a decent rank anyway, why waste the cash.
Now if your playing a strict character nation, than certainly multi classing is more useful. Your commanders will most likely be leading companies where the second skill will come in handy, being it either Agent or Emmi…if you made a Com/Mage then we’ll have to ask you to leave! :>
All these are good posts. I think the DS military nations are more likely to create new pure commanders as the risk of kidnap is significantly lower for DS than for FP (so I agree with Fletch on FK). I don’t think it’s a good strategy for NG to create pure commanders as a general rule (so I disagree with Fletch on NG). A skilled CL player can kidnap a whole bunch of NG pure commanders and make NG’s life a living hell as he continues to pay for those characters, but gets no use for them and can’t replace them. Kidnap is a very powerful tool. If you’re playing NG and counting on commander
“churn” you will be in for a rude awakening if you run into a CL player that kidnaps your characters instead of assassinating them…
I’m coming for you and your fragile pc’s, and I’m coming with pure Comms.
C/a’s (or c/e’s, as recruiter-boosters) are useful, and certain nations – NG, or a predictable Eothraim – can use 'em to avoid a roster full of hostages, if they can afford the expense… and if their lower ranks don’t force them into missing a turn of movement by the need to RfsPers.
If your armies move fast without telegraphing their moves, and if you switch Comms to avoid a ScoArmy, you can do quite a lot of burning before they catch you.
I like com/agent/emis the best…my theory is a 10 point commander can recruit as many troops as a 30 point commander so why not improve loyalty in the pop center and since you’ve spent the extra 5k anyway buy that 10 point agent insurance policy vs kidnappings…plus you never know when that <for some nations> elusive stealth may appear…then the 10 point commander can hand off troops to those more worthy to lead them in combat after they return home from battle…well, if they return home from battle lol…but I knew there would be lots of views on this one…that’s what keeps the game interesting…different styles of play to deal with
What is funny is cutting my teeth in a 4th Age game, I do not see how anyone can afford to name multi-class characters until it is too late for them to do much of anything…
As some of the others have pointed out, there is a time and place for single-classed characters and any of the various combos. The flip side, of course, is to expect for your Veteran/Hero army cmdrs to end up doubled…
In the literally hundreds (maybe close to a thousand?!) characters that I have named over the course of the 10 years I’ve been playing, I have actually named a couple of 10C/20M guys: once as a 1650 dwarf in a single player game, and another time with a nation that names agents at 40. In the first case, the dwarves don’t have a mage and always need characters that can recruit (and that mage ended up being one of the most powerful mages in the game); and in the second case, well, 10C/20A characters just don’t make sense if you can crank out an A40 (I agree 10C/20E and triple-10’s would usually make more sense).
The Eothraim or LongRider could do nicely with a c10/m20, who will use a few turns off front to recruit and prentice, then learn conjure mounts and go breed some horses.
Also c10/X20’s are more easy to assassinate/kidnap than their 30/40’ish counterpart.
Like it already has been said, I think it’s a personal style question, if you only want to name single or multi classed chars, and that you get after turns of playing ME.
Yeah, but considering our recent strings of bankruptcy, maybe thats not a good thing!
I see the point of C/M characters, but I think having a Mage 20 is still wasted, even if you have him prentice every turn, he’ll take forever to get his rank to a useful level. But, certainly its a taste thing and to each his own.
Challenge fodder. Put a C30 at the head of your army if you are going up against a nations w/ superior challenge capacity. let him take the challenge and die, allowing your more skilled ‘backup’ com to assume command and advance the army so it doesn’t get pinned.
Company comms. a straight C10 is best for this (‘NamComm’ w/ a 10 rank commander). His only function is to refs/move so why waste the extra maintenece on a C30? saves 400 gold/turn. A C10 has very low stealth-like visibilty. He won’t show on pop center reports, probably not even at high loyalty camps. ScoChar will almost certainly miss him. Whole companies have been wiped out because the enemy got the name of a multiclass company comm and then challenged him while he was moving and using his other skill, pinning the whole company down while the sharks moved in for the kill. Hence the rationale for a straight comm to lead companies. Personally i prefer C10/A20 for most company comms but there is a strong case for the straight comm.
As far as the C10/20M’s go, they are only true “combat” mages in the game and have a variety of devious uses once their rank gets up enough to learn easy/average spells. They are also good for finding artifacts at sea since they can command their own ships.
