If your first character dies...

[iSuck345]

Do your mercenaries take over? I am talking after he bleeds out to death, of course. However, I must know, before I go out in a mission to exterminate a town of EVERYONE inside! >:D!

[Duck]

Save your game, and give it a try, I've never had anyone truly die yet.
However I assume your mercs take over if it does happen.

[nuget102]

Doesn't matter if your first guy dies, he's just your starter... You could build him up, recruit another guy, then kill off your first guy and you can keep playing as long as there's ONE character alive... :3

[tkobo]

Kenshi takes a very odd approach in which all of your squad are your chars.So unless they all die,you can just keep playing with the ones that are still alive.

Gonna be really odd if the game gets to the point of hundreds and or thousands of squad members....

[Blxz]

Get out of the mindset of a single guy leading a squad of soldiers. If anything the 'leader' is the player who sits behind the scenes/monitor and gives orders to all your soldiers with the starting guy simply being your first soldier to follow your orders and all subsequent members just being additional soldiers.

When I play Starcraft (for example) I don't name my first marine the leader and hope that somebody else will take over for him when he dies.

[Kamos]

It will still be very awkward without your first guy. I'm sure the shame and guilt will be delectable.

[iSuck345]

Just have your "king" elect a "prince" to be an heir, and there no one will give a crap. In fact, I remember specifically that mercenaries do EVERYTHING for the player, so yeah I don't know what's more awkward, that in real life or the player being the true leader and the one in Kenshi being just an illusion created by the player.

[Blxz]

Just have your "king" elect a "prince" to be an heir, and there no one will give a crap.

Since you have no difficulty imagining your first guy to be a king when you play then I am sure you will find no trouble in simply imagining that some other guy is your chosen successor and that the guy takes over when the first dies. There is no conceivable reason to bother coding this actual situation into the game itself instead of simply using your own imagination.

[toaster Assassin]

Think of it this way. Your actions as the player represent that of the entire faction, rather than one guy. Think of your entire faction as the main character (Which is rather odd). You can name your faction and level it up as you see fit. The first Chracter could be the person who started the faction/cause, however when that person dies there others continue fighting for that faction/cause. (A movement,maybe?)

[iSuck345]

I was not saying that I was imaginating my character as a king or that I had princes, but rather that it works kinda like monarchy. Also toaster, it PISSES me off that people use a man to judge an entire country, they don't even bother hearing their opinion!

[Mask]

I wonder if the plans for morale will be tied to a sort of command structure. It would be neat if your companions could like the First Character, and have their morale drop if he dies. A little bit of internal politics can be quite fun, if done correctly.

[Scotterius]

It will still be very awkward without your first guy. I'm sure the shame and guilt will be delectable.

This. I named my first character 'Scotterius'. There will be some uncomfortable silences in the land of Scotteria when its name sake passes. I have to admit, his second in line is pretty good though

[toaster Assassin]

iSuck345 said: Also toaster, it PISSES me off that people use a man to judge an entire country, they don't even bother hearing their opinion!

Are you referring to what I said here:

Think of it this way. Your actions as the player represent that of the entire faction, rather than one guy. Think of your entire faction as the main character (Which is rather odd). You can name your faction and level it up as you see fit. The first Chracter could be the person who started the faction/cause, however when that person dies there others continue fighting for that faction/cause. (A movement,maybe?)

What I am saying is that YOU do not control just one man, in my own personal view of Kenshi YOU control the WILL of the entire FACTION. (You are not merely one main character, You ARE the entire faction(As a whole)) Not the judging of actual countries based on the view of one.

[iSuck345]

I didn't say that I could control the way other countries view my faction.

[toaster Assassin]

(face-palm)

Are you using Google to translate?


I was referring to my view of the player's faction in Kenshi.

[Kamos]

Your character is the faction. You merely recruit/move the members.

[zibathy]

Get out of the mindset of a single guy leading a squad of soldiers. If anything the 'leader' is the player who sits behind the scenes/monitor and gives orders to all your soldiers with the starting guy simply being your first soldier to follow your orders and all subsequent members just being additional soldiers.

When I play Starcraft (for example) I don't name my first marine the leader and hope that somebody else will take over for him when he dies.

Never seen a response better than this one on this subject. Exactly what I was thinking.

[Blxz]

stuff

Never seen a response better than this one on this subject. Exactly what I was thinking.

All my responses are awesome.

[Goldbrandz]

Letting my main die goes against everything I know, that said I like the concept.

[iSuck345]

stuff

Never seen a response better than this one on this subject. Exactly what I was thinking.

All my responses are awesome.

No, not allways.

Oh and also toaster, YES. I was using google translator. Apparently, I am never using it again. EVER.