I just see this going much the way of the old addict perk. Why pick anything else?
The addict perk is probably the most useless perk to exist for an experienced player, and in some cabals it's actually completely useless. If you wanna ask then who was the strongest one, answer yourself which perk was most gimped one after the perk revamp.
I think that is the exact issue. If you are in a land warfare cabal' date=' going anything else gimps you versus everyone else in cabal warfare.[/quote']
Funny statement. Even if that perk boosts army strength by something like 10-15%, it still wouldn't be as useful as other perks. Before wondering about how to capture my enemies' lands, I wonder how to kill them.
As for the idea, as Trick already mentioned, there is already a perk that does something similar, so I see this as somewhat obsolete, unless the boost is a bit stronger, but then good luck with that, since you will have a big bullseye on your back for every cabal enemy of yours.
My point is... you have wonder how to kill them. My army is inherently better period. There's no wonder, no necessary input... nothing. Your perk can make you better at PK... if you can find and PK the person. If they happen to be in your range to even PK. If you can even finish them. If you don't turn around and die to an enemy yourself in some of the scissors got ROCKED match ups that can happen. If you even CAN PK them. Good WM v Good Savant anyone?
Just by-the-by: How effective will that perk be when the other cabal has your item and you can't get it back?
L-A
your 1% better @ cabal ARMY warfare over me having 103% in multiple of my staple abilities = you better then me for a cabal?
I am curious, which perk you are talking about here, heroic?
Having a thief with "another" perk makes him much more useful in what thieves do as could be said to other perks for other classes.
You mean the tinkerer perk here?
I don't think it would matter how effective it would be. You would still... at all times, with or without standard, be more effective how it was presented. My issue isn't the perk or how strong it is. The issue is that it GLOBALLY affects the cabal warfare game. As I said, I would have no issues if it was an enhanced leadership requiring proximity. It was not presented as an enhanced leadership, but an inherent improvement over the armies of a non-tactician in literally every facet. The fact I can find a rock to hide behind and technically make progress against your armies head to head is my issue. Nowhere does it say you cannot continue to capture land against another good as a good. Just because I think you are a redeemable heathen doesn't mean I am just gonna leave whole regions in the hands of your irredeemable cohorts. Again... if I am outside your PK range... I could just trade my standard with you and you can't stop me. If we can't fight period, you can't stop me. It creates an unnecessary gimmicky edge. I mean... Let's say there are no WM... and only a few savants most of which are good, and the non-goods aren't especially active. I could just roll a good whatever WM tactician. Despite the fact your good savant and my good WM cannot fight, I would gain an advantage over you. You could be 1000% capable of stomping me out including a superior perk... but guess what? You can't. I can apply my bonus all over your territories though. It isn't even as though I am fighting your good. As was said... bastions and garrisoned units do not belong to any one general, but the cabal itself meaning I violate NO rule by striking down the minions of my ideology's nemesis.
Might be cool if it made it so leadership worked if you were anywhere in the area that your armies are fighting, instead of being in the exact room. How would that work for ya KRins?
IKFL
Frankly, KRins, I think you're making much ado about nothing here. A perk that gives a small boost in the effectiveness of your armies, assuming you're creating a char for a cabal that has armies, is a very minor boost in my opinion. Conquered territory gives a boost to cp gain, sure, but it's not a crazy huge one. I was in Savant when it had no territory, and when it had every single previously-WM territory - cp gain was somewhat enhanced comparatively, sure, but hardly obscenely. Yes, you would save some cps in terms of armies created vs bastions captured, and you would save some time in terms of how long it takes to capture those bastions... but is that really as huge a gain as you're making it out to be? Compared to a perk that constantly gives you enhanced luck, or the other perks we've got?
You say you can hide behind a rock and make progress against my armies - uh, yes, try that when I've captured your standard while you're hiding. Granted, in a situation where it's good vs good in vendetta'd cabals, it'd just be essentially standard trading and yes, the guy with the tactician perk would have the edge - but honestly, is it such a regular occasion that we have a cabal with only goods in it at war with another cabal with only goods in it? I'd be amazed if that's happened in the history of FL - after all, I've been here for most of it, and I don't recall such ever being the case.
In all fairness, lets stop considering perk vs perk (because some are going to always be better than others....) and what this would bring:
It gives advantages when in a cabal. If you're uncaballed this gives nothing.
I don't like it on the grounds - most (all? - I don't know what the new perks do as well as the old) perks are something that is always with your character. More xp from kills, less gold in transactions, more healing, more hp, faster learning etc.
I don't like the idea of perks encroaching on cabal territory. That's my personal view. They are something inherent to your character, not cabal based.
Something that gave power to charmies (and by extenion armies when ordered) would get around this. However, does the perk already mention (aristocricy (sp)) already have similar effects and does it extend to armies? If so, why not just extend the current perk if needed?
L-A
They (perks, even this one) are something inherent on your character.
Someone who graduates from West Point is going to lead armies better than someone who didn't go to any martial school at all.
They (perks, even this one) are something inherent on your character.
Someone who graduates from West Point is going to lead armies better than someone who didn't go to any martial school at all.
Ask an NCO sometime what he thinks of the new West Point Officer that he was assigned to. 
Ask an NCO sometime what he thinks of the new West Point Officer that he was assigned to.
An NCO takes care of troops and executes orders given him by brass. The officers are whose strategies and orders are put into place. If a Warmaster sends 3 elite units in cabal warfare, the NCO would be one of the boots on the ground, destroying the savant vortex; the officer would be one going over the maps and deciding what bastions to attack.
I of all people understand your disdain for butterbar know-it-alls. That being said, I'd imagine that's exactly how cabal armies view cabal inductees.
Just make it give you 101 to 103 in leadership (and leadership starts at 100. Like all expertise skills).
Done.
Just make it give you 101 to 103 in leadership (and leadership starts at 100. Like all expertise skills).
Done.
Yawn. God forbid we do something interesting and fresh.
I think I've said it like 4 times. If it was enhanced leadership, with the requirements of leadership to be effective, or even if you were just in the area instead of the specific room then cool. The concept as I read it inherently made your armies superior to a non-tactician which I don't agree with.
Yawn. God forbid we do something interesting and fresh.
Yeah.
Since I'm always against that stuff.
