Every1 play 25 cards, small suggestion to maybe encourage using more

[Kingoko]

Every1 play 25 cards, small suggestion to maybe encourage using more

It's obvious that 25 cards is optimal and almost no1 use more cards in deck. What do you think about this: for every 5 additional cards in deck your leader got +1 strenght. That's not much but will reward a bit players that use more cards. If you use 40 cards your leader got +4 str. Of course those numbers can be different, even higher? Balancing team will set it.
And it's even logically correct = the more army your leader command the stronger he is

What you think?

 

[4RM3D]

What you think?

The amount of extra strength you'll get hardly compensates for using a 40 card deck. Even though, logically speaking, it might make sense, gameplay-wise it doesn't.

The following suggestion is more interesting (and that's not because I was the one that proposed it): https://forums.cdprojektred.com/for...ut-deck-size-and-maximum-of-silver-gold-cards

 

[oOxhaosOo]

The problem with more crads in your deck is you have a lower chance to draw the cards you need.
So the only reason to take a 40 cards deck would be 40 cards that have synergies with each other it would not help me if i draw Dol Blathanna Marksmen and Vrihedd Brigade while having my hand full with trappers and pyros.

most decks have cards they need to have in hand and every extra card in your deck lower the chance to get them.

 

[lemonsplitter]

It's obvious that 25 cards is optimal and almost no1 use more cards in deck. What do you think about this: for every 5 additional cards in deck your leader got +1 strenght. That's not much but will reward a bit players that use more cards. If you use 40 cards your leader got +4 str. Of course those numbers can be different, even higher? Balancing team will set it.
And it's even logically correct = the more army your leader command the stronger he is

What you think?

That depends on the army. I recall reading that one of the factors that lead to the downfall of the Roman Empire was hiring mercenaries and giving out citizenship as an incentive to “serve the empire”, both of which gave the “Barbarian Horde” ample reason to consider hostile takeovers of that appealing empire. After all, some of the barbarians considered the Pax Romana a hostile takeover of their own lands, despite official propaganda to the contrary.

So as it’s been said, looks can be deceiving. A large army may just be a big mess. Frederick of Prussia was considered one of the most amazing commanders of small numbers, so historically small armies can and have won wars.

Regarding the game, Bran boosts from round to round before he’s deployed, some other SK veterans seem to as well. Adding the veteran tag into other factions would be a fair boost, especially to all officers. Obviously applying only to select army units and leaders within each faction like Monsters Wild Hunt, etc.

 

[devivre]

Not every deck works best with 25 cards but yes, for the majority it's the ideal number.

However I don't recommend incentives for using more cards, because for some decks deck thinning is just a lot easier than for others. So any incentives could turn out to be a huge buff for them.

But there could be other game modes with different limitations. That might work for me

 

[duenor]

I always have around 28. Sticking to 25 often means giving up very useful bronze cards.

 

[timetravelingcat]

You have an interesting idea. The only way a small deck is detrimental is if there's a drawing card deck that forces an opponent to use all 25 cards in 1 round. If this becomes the meta most players need more than the minimum.