New recruitment system: recruitment pools

[Myrddraal]

Has this already been discussed? Sorry if it has.



We've made a major improvement to the recruitment system which will pretty much change the way you think about how you can build armies.

What we wanted to get away from was the whole idea that you could only get one unit per turn. It's something that's almost been an unspoken law in games like ours that have a turn based campaign.

The way we did that was to introduce recruitment pools, the idea being that in a city there are going to be a number of able bodied men that could be trained into service at any time, and these pool sizes vary from unit to unit, so for example there's always plenty of men who are ready to be trained as a peasant, but there's not so many men who are ready to be trained into like, eliet cavalry.

When you recruit units, you take them out of their pool, which then replenishes over time, so if you've got the money and the men you can get the troops, and the bigger the settlement, the more troops you can physically train each turn.

The reason we think this is a major improvement is that it makes generating a lot of money much more worthwhile, and it also means you'll spend less time building big armies up, and more time actually using them.


Sounds great to me :grin: A real improvement. I think this will add a whole new aspect to total war which should be great.

The only thing I might add to a system like this is the recruitment of temporary units, or levy, who are recruited very cheaply, but last a limited time.

[Divinus Arma]

This is good info. I like it. It sounds pretty limitting and that elite units will actually matter. In fact, even peasant units will have a place. Good Job CA. :2thumbsup:

[Tamur]

I was wondering if I'd missed this, but i don't think anyone's brought it up yet.

And yes, agreed, I think this is a great addition. It's a nice way to take the abstraction out of a unit needing two turns to create, or whatever. It may take two turns for the recruiting pool to fill up instead, but just a single turn to generate the unit.

[hoom]

Ooh Yay :D
This is a very promising prospect

[ChewieTobbacca]

Very good - it will force realistic army compositions (excellent for modders too!)

[x-dANGEr]

I fear it becomes like HoM&M..

(It has been brought up, and I have brought up that "fear" of mine as well)

[DukeofSerbia]

The way we did that was to introduce recruitment pools, the idea being that in a city there are going to be a number of able bodied men that could be trained into service at any time, and these pool sizes vary from unit to unit, so for example there's always plenty of men who are ready to be trained as a peasant, but there's not so many men who are ready to be trained into like, eliet cavalry.



I can't imagine how serf's armies were in reality...:dizzy2: Serfs (trained peasants) in charge.:charge::laugh4:

[screwtype]

Sounds like an improvement over the old system, but it doesn't impress greatly as a concept.

I'd prefer a system like Imperialism II or LOTR II, where you can recruit as many units as you like per turn, based on the amount of money, material and men available, and how big an army you can afford to support.

But of course, doing it that way would require some careful play balancing, and CA has never shown much of an interest in working on that aspect of a game.

[poo_for_brains]

I like the idea, provided that the AI actually tries to build some elite troops, instead of deciding to build 10 units of peasants every turn: in MTW1 the AI often only had huge peasant armies and the only challenge came from the Golden Horde, and the re-emerging factions who appeared with good armies.

The good thing about this system is that the AI won't have lots of little armies like in RTW - it can build an entire big army in each city

[Furious Mental]

Hopefully the AI will make a point of keeping its forces together.

[Myrddraal]

I'd prefer a system ... where you can recruit as many units as you like per turn, based on the amount of money, material and men available

That sounds exactly the same as:

Dan Toose (CA dev)]so if you've got the money and the men you can get the troops

Only without the fact that with the M2TW system you can't train a pesant to be noble cavalry, which seems an improvement. I'm not really sure what you mean seeing as I haven't played Imperialism II or LOTR II but isn't it the same principal with a little more elaboration?

[rory_20_uk]

I think it's a very good idea. I like that there is a use for cities to be above a certain size - which will mean that core ones will have more of a use than just income generators.

"As many troops as money allows" is a ridiculous abstraction that IMO is far worse than this method.

~:smoking:

[L'Impresario]

I think this is the best feature announced so far, and if the AI can live up to the probably delicate handling between building an economy and recruiting/maintaining military forces, then it'll be a great step forward in the strategical game.

[Lord Adherbal]

in LOTR II you had to make the swords, spear, shields etc yourself. And based on the amount of equipment you had (and men and money) you could train units. I don't see how this system is better then the MTW2 system. First off all creating weapons and armour doesn't fit in the grand scale of the TW games, and it certainly isn't realistic that you ("the king") create the equipment yourself and then give it to your servants for free, thus turning a simple peasant in a heavily armour knight. With a few exceptions soldiers always took care of their own equipment.

[screwtype]

That sounds exactly the same as:


Only without the fact that with the M2TW system you can't train a pesant to be noble cavalry, which seems an improvement. I'm not really sure what you mean seeing as I haven't played Imperialism II or LOTR II but isn't it the same principal with a little more elaboration?

On the face of it, it does sound somewhat similar to the system in LOTR II but I very much doubt it will have anything like the same level of sophistication or careful balance of that game.

In LOTR II, you could recruit up to half the total populace from any one province into your army in any one turn, providing you had the money and the arms to equip them and pay for their upkeep. But there were no limits on the number of troops of a given type you could recruit, it just depended on your resources.

More importantly, every 50 soldiers you recruited cost you 5 "hearts" in that province. Hearts in LOTR II are basically a measure of the happiness of a province. If the province went under 5 hearts in total it would almost certainly rebel, with devastating consequences.

So, you might have 25 hearts in total which means you could recruit 200 soldiers without risking revolt, but because of random events each turn, you'd be pretty reckless to go that low so you might recruit 100 leaving you with 15 hearts. So there were real limits, and real consequences, for recruiting too many soldiers. Happiness management was a concrete skill you had to learn in LOTR II. It hardly exists in the TW games.

Also, in LOTR II money and equipment are really hard to come by, which again puts practical limits on the size of your armies. One of the biggest problems with RTW is that after a short time you have so much money it becomes almost a total non-issue. That's poor play balance.

Basically with LOTR II the military system was fully integrated into the economic system in a very elegant way that forced you to master a set of skills and carefully balance every aspect of your kingdom. In RTW there's very little in the way of real integration, or skill required. It's mostly just a big, empty micromanagement chore.

I'd love it if CA took a leaf out of LOTR's book and developed a fully integrated system. But I just don't believe they will do it. My guess is that the latest changes in M2TW will be a modest improvement but will not address the fundamental imbalances or the lack of integration between one area of the game and the other that RTW in particular, and all the TW games in general, have suffered from.

Oh, and as for Imperialism II, the main difference is that you don't have separate recruitment facilities for each province, you have a handful of master screens from where you control every aspect of the game, which again cuts down hugely on tedious micromanagement.

[screwtype]

Adherbal']in LOTR II you had to make the swords, spear, shields etc yourself.

That's only half right, you could also buy the arms and armour directly from a trader, but it would cost you a lot of money to do so.

In other words, you had a choice about what type of economy you wanted to run. You could run a cash economy, where you concentrated on making stuff you could sell to buy arms, or you could run a labour economy, where you had your peasants building the weapons themselves. A lot would depend on what type of province it was. Try finding that level of sophistication in TW.


Adherbal'] And based on the amount of equipment you had (and men and money) you could train units. I don't see how this system is better then the MTW2 system. First off all creating weapons and armour doesn't fit in the grand scale of the TW games, and it certainly isn't realistic that you ("the king") create the equipment yourself and then give it to your servants for free, thus turning a simple peasant in a heavily armour knight. With a few exceptions soldiers always took care of their own equipment.

You could say exactly the same thing about TW, the king pays for everything in that too. What's the difference?

And as to your comment about you not seeing how the LOTR system is better, it was better in so many ways I could hardly list them all here. Suffice it to say that everything in that game was finely balanced in such a way as to make a real and continuous challenge from start to finish. TW is just an accumulation game where after a fairly short time you have so much of everything that the result is a foregone conclusion.

[Csargo]

I like the idea. Makes things more realistic

[Geoffrey S]

What I particularly like about this is that it makes larger castles/cities strategically more important, aside from the constant upgrading to produce higher class units.

[Myrddraal]

How will this tie in with the castles/cities system. Does this mean that castles will get large populations?

I'm not sold on this, I think it might be better to have cities in general, and then castles to be build like forts in RTW, but which stay forever and have the same recruitment options as they are suggesting. That way they would take their population from the city of the province in which they are. But still the question I have is:

Will castles and civillian cities have similar populations?

[Husar]

I like the new system in M2TW.
And no, I don´t want a system from LOTR2, if I would, I´d go buy LOTR2...

[poo_for_brains]

I think that the seperation of castle and city is, in part, to make it harder for you to expand very easily at a ridiculous rate: keep having castles on your fronts (which will be continuously moving) and you'll not have enough money to expand; if you have cities on your fronts, you'll be easily conquered, and you'll have to move armies from the heart of your empire, but you'll be able to pay for new troops.

If you have your city and castle in the same province, the tactical aspect is moot.


As for population numbers, I reckon castles will have fewer people (can't attract people due to trade, wealth etc.) but not so few that it affects the recruitment pool much.

[TB666]

Will castles and civillian cities have similar populations?
I would guess on a no.
CA has said that cities will have large population thus have to deal with squalors and stuff while the castles will be military only.

[econ21]

I think they've said castles can recruit some high grade feudal type units (e.g. knights). I would expect cities can pump out more low grade units ("urban militia" types) as well as better late game stuff (guns, pikes). I assumed this would be implemented through building restrictions, but it may mesh with a recruitment pool system too.

[TB666]

Guns counts as missile troops I think and according to this screen
http://70.86.3.237/screenshots/00165474.jpg you won't be able to recruit missile units or cavalry in a city.

[econ21]

Interesting - maybe the cities give you artillery? I remember CA saying they open up some good units for the late game.

[L'Impresario]

Well, traditionally the cities were the ones that allowed the mass production of firearms, and the Italian city states were the ones to implement most effectively this new style of warfare . Same thing with crossbows to an extent.
Thus I believe that guns aren't just missiles in this respect.

[CBR]

A bit odd missile infantry isnt allowed in cities. If anything it was cities that had large amounts of good quality infantry, missile or non-missile.

Overall its a nice feature but Im still worried about seeing lots of peasants, as such a unit (with absolutely horrible stats) has no role in an army.


CBR

[Kongsbak]

I think the new system is great, offers a good deal of realism to recruiting, and of course implements great with the city/castle aspect of the game

[professorspatula]

Sounds like an interesting approach. I just hope these peasants are at least partially equipped for war with a basic spear and shield at least. I don't want to see armies consisting of thousands of stupid looking dagger wielding fodder anymore. It didn't feel right when you're just up against AI armies armed with daggers or sticks. Who would bother to summon a levy with that lot? For a last ditched defense perhaps, but otherwise they'd need some equipment before being sent to war.

Regarding the city/castle recruitment thing, I assume castles get the better troops initially, and the recruitment pools refill quicker, but later on cities will provide the funds and better troops needed later on, with recruits available faster as the city gets larger.

It's good to see they're trying a few different things this time around. Does anyone know if civil wars are back though? I can't recall hearing anything about this.

[econ21]

Overall its a nice feature but Im still worried about seeing lots of peasants, as such a unit (with absolutely horrible stats) has no role in an army.

I agree, but I am optimistic as that was one area where RTW improved over MTW. RTW had peasant units but I very seldom saw them in AI armies. By contrast, they blighted the early period of MTW.

[TB666]

Regarding the city/castle recruitment thing, I assume castles get the better troops initially, and the recruitment pools refill quicker, but later on cities will provide the funds and better troops needed later on, with recruits available faster as the city gets larger.

No, if that was the case then there is no need to build castles.
Everyone would just build cities since they would provide the money and better troops so no.
The cities will probably only provide basic low-grade troops like militia but generate alot of money while the castles provide the real troops.
CA has pointed out the difference between the 2 type very clear.

[NeoSpartan]

I am already loving the new feature. The only thing I have unclear is:

-What prerequisits do a castle citizens need to have in order to be avaible for training as Elite troops? Would it be based on the age of the populations, size, money, disbanded ex-soldiers????????

[CBR]

I agree, but I am optimistic as that was one area where RTW improved over MTW. RTW had peasant units but I very seldom saw them in AI armies. By contrast, they blighted the early period of MTW.
Yes I didnt see that many peasants in AI armies but I did see a few and IMO one peasant unit in an army is one too many ~:)

And im just as worried about the AI "peasant syndrome" of recruiting loads of units that might not be peasants but still are bad. It was possible for players to gather lots of full stack high quality armies with just one unit/turn from each province. What is gonna stop the player from doing the same in M2TW?

It would take a very slow replenishment of the recruiting pool to prevent that and then we are back to peasants to fill up the armies. The player might not want to waste money on them but if its the only thing the AI can get then thats what it will buy.


CBR

[professorspatula]

No, if that was the case then there is no need to build castles.
Everyone would just build cities since they would provide the money and better troops so no.
The cities will probably only provide basic low-grade troops like militia but generate alot of money while the castles provide the real troops.
CA has pointed out the difference between the 2 type very clear.

You've not caught the gist of what I was meaning. Yes, I've seen what CA says. My suggestion is simply that whilst castles provide the main fighting force for much of the game, as the feudal system declines later on, and cities become more important, you'll need cities for some of the more hi-tech/advanced units - gunpowder units etc. Perhaps saying 'better troops' was the wrong terminology, but I assume a city's importance grows as the game reaches the later stages - and as others have said, city's will get their own unique units. And with large and booming cities, the recruits for some of the city unit types will perhaps be quite quick, whereas elite units in castles remain slower to replenish. Who knows but CA and the playtesters though.

[TB666]

Oh I get what you are saying now :idea2:

[SpencerH]

Its another interesting change from previous versions and hopefully it wont be too "buggy" when we get it (thats kinda how I see most of the details that have been surfacing over the last few days ie guilds, religion, recruitment).

[Hepcat]

I like the sound of this feature.

[AussieGiant]

I am certainly looking forward to this feature.

I think what everyone, including me wants to know is, exactly "how" will this system actually work in the game.

This is what everyone is trying to guess at the moment.

On the macro side of things it will certainly mean that troop composition will be far more balanced and that is something very good to see.

On the micro side of things there will obviously be a few interesting variables to "work out" once we get the game.

To me these variable will be how the city/castle troop production system really functions. Given there will be one type per region the decisions to make will be very important.

The characteristics I expect to see will be:

Replenish rates

Troop types

Building pre-requisites

Cost

I think CA realises that if they get this "wrong" meaning unbalanced, then they will have some pretty serious "game play" issues to solve.

I personally can't wait to be constantly checking my main Castle to see when the Men at Arms are available to recruit again. Or my Longbowman icon is available to click.

[x-dANGEr]

I think a problem might come up..

It is the start of the campaign, you're playing on VH/VH. The AI will get 10k each turn, and by that will quickly spend his "men pool", and get huge armies at the start of the game that you can't even dream of getting.. More likely, you won't be able to hold them off, but if you do.. The AI will become a piece of cake, with no way of producing any more armies..

Anyone thought about that.. ~:(

[Myrddraal]

Yes again, like all the new features, it depends on good AI. There's no point speculating more on that front, all I can say is fingers crossed.

[Oaty]

I think a problem might come up..

It is the start of the campaign, you're playing on VH/VH. The AI will get 10k each turn, and by that will quickly spend his "men pool", and get huge armies at the start of the game that you can't even dream of getting.. More likely, you won't be able to hold them off, but if you do.. The AI will become a piece of cake, with no way of producing any more armies..

Anyone thought about that.. ~:(

I'm thinking populations will be more along the lines of BI rather than RTW. Plus it will be the elite/noble class units population that will be or should be depleted easily.

I'm guessing/hoping that the the smallest towns in MTW2 will have a good 4-5000 people when starting.

[paullus]

this new system is great news! i'd been asking for something along these lines after news of m2 first came out, though i'm sure it was already implemented before then. i just hope it can work well in game. for ex.: how do you know how many high level units you can recruit as opposed to mid or low level? are there separate populations, or do you get a counter on unit types that shows the maximum number you could recruit of that specific unit?

[Silver Rusher]

A bit odd missile infantry isnt allowed in cities. If anything it was cities that had large amounts of good quality infantry, missile or non-missile.

Overall its a nice feature but Im still worried about seeing lots of peasants, as such a unit (with absolutely horrible stats) has no role in an army.


CBR
That's also a concern of mine, and I think the only solution would be to mod out peasants entirely. This would, IMO, also be quite easy. Spearmen should be the real 'bulk' of the army (correct me if I'm wrong)

I do like this system though, more than anything else because it would seem to give us more control over how the AI recruits units.


I think a problem might come up..

It is the start of the campaign, you're playing on VH/VH. The AI will get 10k each turn, and by that will quickly spend his "men pool", and get huge armies at the start of the game that you can't even dream of getting.. More likely, you won't be able to hold them off, but if you do.. The AI will become a piece of cake, with no way of producing any more armies..

Anyone thought about that.. ~:(
Ah, but maybe we won't have to play on VH anymore because of this system. :idea2:

[Furious Mental]

Hopefully they will program the AI to strike a good balance between large and challenging armies and population growth.

[bazboy]

i agree with x-dANGEr when he says it might be getting too like hero's of might and magic, although many specifics are different, i fear it is edging closer and closer, any thoughts?

[Mount Suribachi]

I like this system, if implemented properly, with AI to match, it should be great.

Regarding peasants, they weren't completely useless in STW (indeed they were banned in MP IIRC), but they were the worst unit. Give 'em a bit of armour and a bit of valour and they made useful bulk for your army.

But what everyone is forgetting is this - by the sounds of things, the player will have to use peasants as well! There are only so many of each unit that can be recruited from the manpower pool, sounds like you're gunna have to bulk out with some low-quality units (which some of us do anyway with RTW to create "realistic" armies, rather than Legions entirely of Triarii)

[Silver Rusher]

But what everyone is forgetting is this - by the sounds of things, the player will have to use peasants as well! There are only so many of each unit that can be recruited from the manpower pool, sounds like you're gunna have to bulk out with some low-quality units (which some of us do anyway with RTW to create "realistic" armies, rather than Legions entirely of Triarii)
Me and CBR didn't. :embarassed:

[WarMachine420]

Sounds like an improvement over the old system, but it doesn't impress greatly as a concept.

I'd prefer a system like Imperialism II or LOTR II, where you can recruit as many units as you like per turn, based on the amount of money, material and men available, and how big an army you can afford to support.

But of course, doing it that way would require some careful play balancing, and CA has never shown much of an interest in working on that aspect of a game.

I'll take this as a troll post for obvious reasons.

Ah ok...I'll give the reasons:

1) you'd prefer a system that is pretty much 100% along the lines of what they just said they were implementing into MTW2? should be pretty happy then huh?

2) It very well may impress some as a concept. The fact that it doesn't impress you is one thing...please don't speak for everyone else.

3) CA has obviously done enough to get some of your money.

4) Imperialism2 and LOTR2 are completely different games. Implementing gameplay concepts found in them into MTW2 would be like cross dressing. Sure it's not illegal and nobody will penalize (no pun intended) you for it but even still...people are going to say that you look a little "wierd" or "off". This is why CA has implemented a similar system that blends into the MTW play mechanics.

I see this as nothing but good news. Anyone who views this as a negative really needs to explain themselves more.

[The Spartan (Returns)]

its nice.

[Bob the Insane]

I think this is fantastic and a logical step forward once they introduced a manpower pool per settlement for the recruiting of troops...

It balances out the production of elite units as well with a mechnaisim other then simply money.

A lot of Mods have a simplistic version of this with militia units haveing a biuld time of 0 so there where only restricted by cash and man power. The only issue with this was that the AI did not appear to make use of the build queues and as such was still stuck with one unit per turn. This gave the player more of an advantage in a gaem will really did not need to make things easier on the player...

Now hopefully the AI will build multiple units per turn too...

[ChewieTobbacca]

In truth, peasants and levy troops made up the bulk of feudal armies until the 1400's when professional standing armies arose to consolidate the power of the king/emperors. The fact of the matter is, most troops up to even the creation of standing professional armies paid for their own armor and weapons. Hence the stories of knights and nobility armed and armored being able to fight large numbers of little-to-no armor peasants wielding whatever weapons they could scrounge up, sticks included. Hence it was significant that when the Hundred Years War began, the French knights being taken down by "crude" peasant weapons such as the longbow was a shock.

[Divinus Arma]

It seems that most like the idea. I do see a problem:

Remember playing RTW on huge units? The AI would always deplete its own resources and never grow.


The same thing could happen here, but with elite units: The AI will likely prioritize elite unit production and potentially deplete itself so much that it never gets a very good army. Once the nobles and middle class are depleted, we will be left facing massive peasant armies with one or two elites in it.


It is a great idea, but I just hope that CA does the AI correctly or it will be a huge deal-breaker.

[Spino]

The recruitment pools feature sounds like an excellent idea that is long overdue.

However after reading that screenshot of the the castle to city upgrade screen I can tell you that the castle/city building feature is really rubbing me the wrong way. It's bad enough that the castle/city building path is not grounded in reality but I can totally see the AI pursuing illogical build decisions for its provinces.

Something tells me modders will eliminate the castle/city system altogether and force players down one build path thus giving the AI a fighting chance against players (provided of course... those features are moddable :sweatdrop:)

[Bob the Insane]

The recruitment pools feature sounds like an excellent idea that is long overdue.

However after reading that screenshot of the the castle to city upgrade screen I can tell you that the castle/city building feature is really rubbing me the wrong way. It's bad enough that the castle/city building path is not grounded in reality but I can totally see the AI pursuing illogical build decisions for its provinces.

Something tells me modders will eliminate the castle/city system altogether and force players down one build path thus giving the AI a fighting chance against players (provided of course... those features are moddable :sweatdrop:)

I think it is maybe a little early to worry about this, personally I see the town/castle thing as an abstraction for the focus of development in a province, military or monetary... As such it works okay in my opinion (but that is a little early to I guess)...

[x-dANGEr]

Yes again, like all the new features, it depends on good AI. There's no point speculating more on that front, all I can say is fingers crossed.How does it do so.. ?! If I had 10k coming in each turn, I'd just buy all men and attack <-- Exactly what the AI would do. Now that's all fine, the problem is that I'm probably more skilled than the AI (No matter what) and will beat him.. Leaving the AI stuck with no men to get..

I'm thinking populations will be more along the lines of BI rather than RTW. Plus it will be the elite/noble class units population that will be or should be depleted easily.

So you're saying we'll be facing full armies of Peasants instead of nothing.. Great news.. Not..

Ah, but maybe we won't have to play on VH anymore because of this system.
You'll just always have the urge too.. My first campaign on RTW (After around 5 months from playing it MP) was on VH, because I thought I'd fight a more skilled AI.. Guess I was wrong..

[Roderic the Emptyhanded]

Even though I like how this system would work... I think it could get a bit, well, weird later in the game (the same issues that was stated above/before that the AI would deplete it's pools and then we would only be facing peasantry-armies).
However, a system (this is only a, erhmm... "suggestion", which could be discussed) where that when you built a, let's say a Castle (Stronghold, Fort etc..) you then could recruit a certain amount of troops per round due to that building. In example the Fort would let you recruit 120 men per turn (all depending on the unit-size we're playing on), The Stronghold would let you recruit 240 men per turn etc etc...

Likewise you could also need to build a blacksmith and a barracks to create let's call them "men-at-arms"... Might seem unneeded but it would be more realistic as you probably can't train troops without somewhere to make their equipment (i.e. swords and shields) and a place to train them (barracks).

So, what's your view on this?

[Myrddraal]

You'll still need blacksmiths and barracks with the CA system I think...


How does it do so.. ?! If I had 10k coming in each turn, I'd just buy all men and attack <-- Exactly what the AI would do. Now that's all fine, the problem is that I'm probably more skilled than the AI (No matter what) and will beat him.. Leaving the AI stuck with no men to get..

It depends on the AI in many many ways... What if the AI continues to build loads of small groups of half decent men, runs out of men from the good pools, has to resort to building whole stacks of peasants etc etc. You'd beat them in a turn. Hopefully this wont be the case, I don't think it will.

[Oaty]

^^ Wiking

Well it can be implemented in many ways unfortanately most pregame news is gray on the details.

As for the A.I. depleting it's own pools, theres obstacles that can be implemented. What I'm curious about is what happens to nobles upon conquering. It would make sense you either have to suply your own to get it started. Or for gamesake and less micromanagement 50 percent of the nobles flee and get added to the conquereds pool and you get the other 50 percent. Then possibly adjusting the percentage for balance purposes. So if you go on a conquering spree you'll be hurting on elites while consolidating the A.I.'s and also can work vice versa.

As far as what a castle allows to recruit a turn - it seems from the news release you'll have unlimited units per turn to recruit from with the only restriction being how many men are there. So upgrading a castle to citadel should maybe increase percentage of growth.

[WarMachine420]

How does it do so.. ?! If I had 10k coming in each turn, I'd just buy all men and attack <-- Exactly what the AI would do. Now that's all fine, the problem is that I'm probably more skilled than the AI (No matter what) and will beat him.. Leaving the AI stuck with no men to get..

So you're saying we'll be facing full armies of Peasants instead of nothing.. Great news.. Not..

You'll just always have the urge too.. My first campaign on RTW (After around 5 months from playing it MP) was on VH, because I thought I'd fight a more skilled AI.. Guess I was wrong..

god dude, relax a little bit. You're OVERLY concerned about things that aren't even an issue yet. Have a little faith that CA won't test the game in it's final phase, see peasant armies running rampant by 1300, and say "ok, let's release this". They know what the reprecussions of that would be and they know that they have a vocal community.

Just the fact that some of you are worried that MTW2 is going to be SHEER GARBAGE, irritates me.

I mean how bad do you think it could be? A step back from Rome? You really believe that?

Let's not worry about things that A) we have no control over and B) haven't even occurred yet.

We'll all have anxiety ulsers before the game even comes out.

As for this VH/VH argument...come on man, do you really think the average gamer was walking all over the AI on VH? Just because YOU do doesn't mean other people do. Take a couple months off from the game...pick it up again...it'll be a little harder. You do anything 20 hours a day and it gets easier...

Apologies for the negative tone on my 2 posts on this thread. Like I said, it's just very irritating to see unfounded negativity. It's worse when the negativity is constantly swirled up around things that the community as a whole feels are "good" news. Just once I'd like to see the whole thread fill up with "sounds good, we'll see how it comes out" instead of people spending hours upon hours arguing and debating things that will probably never even come up.

I mean you go out in November and spend 50 bucks on MTW2 (I'm buying a new pc for it also...at least 2200 spent right there) take it home, and don't like it. What are you going to do...jump out of the window? Stick your head in the oven?

Just relax...breath

[x-dANGEr]

Funny, WarMachine, really funny!

If you're in any case directing your post at me; and I suppose you are (Since you quoted me..).. Oh well...


god dude, relax a little bit. You're OVERLY concerned about things that aren't even an issue yet. Have a little faith that CA won't test the game in it's final phase, see peasant armies running rampant by 1300, and say "ok, let's release this". They know what the reprecussions of that would be and they know that they have a vocal community.
Right.. I guess we should shut down the forum as well.. Since CA would do it's job anyway, right?

Just the fact that some of you are worried that MTW2 is going to be SHEER GARBAGE, irritates me.
Nah.. I'm looking forward to M2: TW MP rather than SP, so I don't really care.

I mean how bad do you think it could be? A step back from Rome? You really believe that?
No, I don't.

As for this VH/VH argument...come on man, do you really think the average gamer was walking all over the AI on VH? Just because YOU do doesn't mean other people do. Take a couple months off from the game...pick it up again...it'll be a little harder. You do anything 20 hours a day and it gets easier...

I'm really sure I'm just a newbie when it comes to campaigns.. And there are a lot better guys than me in the OR-gah! So it isn't really just my thing..

Like I said, it's just very irritating to see unfounded negativity. It's worse when the negativity is constantly swirled up around things that the community as a whole feels are "good" news. Just once I'd like to see the whole thread fill up with "sounds good, we'll see how it comes out" instead of people spending hours upon hours arguing and debating things that will probably never even come up.

You're implying that if the community feels "good" about something, one shouldn't argue it or express his/her negative opinion about it?

Just relax...breath

One.. Two.. One.. Two.. ~;)

@Topic: Well, yes it depends on the AI.. But there is no way on earth they can make a good AI - relatively to a human's mind-. So, that function is going to be another handicap on the AI.. Handicaps we complained about their existance in RTW, for they make the AI only worse..

[Husar]

They should deliver an appropriate interface and braincells from a dog with the collector's edition.:2thumbsup:

[Myrddraal]

So, that function is going to be another handicap on the AI..

I don't think so. When it comes to programming AI, programming an AI to build balance armies is 100 times easier than programming battle AI or the AI that controls army movement.

It depends on the AI, but I think CA are quite capable of producing an AI that uses it's resources wisely. There were some shortcommings in the RTW AI in this respect, but it is one of the easier parts of AI programming.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I got to say it's the first good news and good feature I hear about in MTW2.

Since we have no detail it's a bit difficult to figure out how it will works and how it would impact both building strategy and the economy, not to mention experience.

Personnally, I'd like that mechanism to mimic a bit CK army raising. Meaning you got little control on what kind of specific unit you got, but the different buildings and features (like castle/ city) would change your army composition. (the bad part about CK was army size was tied to economy... a resource pool would be better).

You have a city with adv spearmen / archery ground; your army will have lot of pike and missile. A castle? Maybe more MAA and knights?

Overall a good news

Louis,

[screwtype]

I'll take this as a troll post for obvious reasons.

Ah ok...I'll give the reasons:

1) you'd prefer a system that is pretty much 100% along the lines of what they just said they were implementing into MTW2? should be pretty happy then huh?

No I don't think it's the same system, because in LOTR II you could build any troop types you like. In M2TW, it sounds like you only get to build x amount of this type of unit and y amount of that type. Now maybe I've misunderstood the scheme but that's what it sounds like to me.

Also with LOTR II you can build any troop type you like from the start of the game. You don't have to research a tech tree first in order to get this or that unit.

And in Imperialism II, while you do have to research new unit types, you do it across the board, you don't have a separate tech tree for each province. That's a more elegant system in my opinion.


2) It very well may impress some as a concept. The fact that it doesn't impress you is one thing...please don't speak for everyone else.

And when did I claim to be "speaking for everybody else"? Oh that's right, I didn't. But don't let a little detail like that get in your way.


3) CA has obviously done enough to get some of your money.

So I don't have a right to express an opinion? I beg to differ.

I bought RTW, but I didn't buy BI or Alexander. And I won't be buying M2TW either until I've played the demo and heard what others have had to say about the game.


4) Imperialism2 and LOTR2 are completely different games. Implementing gameplay concepts found in them into MTW2 would be like cross dressing. Sure it's not illegal and nobody will penalize (no pun intended) you for it but even still...people are going to say that you look a little "wierd" or "off". This is why CA has implemented a similar system that blends into the MTW play mechanics.

Yes, they are different games. In many respects, better games. Which is why I would like to see some of their features incorporated into the TW series.

But it isn't really necessary for CA to borrow from these games. I'm sure they could come up with a better system of their own if they applied themselves to the problem. I'm simply saying, they haven't done so in any previous game, so I have my doubts we will be getting a genuinely engaging strategy element in this game either.


I see this as nothing but good news. Anyone who views this as a negative really needs to explain themselves more.

Except that I didn't say it was a negative. I said it sounds like an improvement over the old system. Just not enough of an improvement for my taste, judging by the descriptions I have heard. But maybe I'm wrong about that, time will tell.

Meanwhile, I'd appreciate if next time you tried actually reading a post of mine properly before making a bunch of groundless accusations on top of calling me a "troll".

[Silver Rusher]

And when did I claim to be "speaking for everybody else"? Oh that's right, I didn't. But don't let a little detail like that get in your way.

but it doesn't impress greatly as a concept.
It doesn't impress you greatly, but it certainly seems to be impressing everybody else. And yes, when you say it doesn't impress greatly it really does sound like you were trying to speak for everybody else. Maybe that wasn't what you meant, though. I don't know. :help:

[Spino]

The reason for my concern is because of the basic troop limitations governing cities and castles. Per the screenshot posted earlier it has been established that cities cannot raise missile or cavalry troops. Since players and the AI must choose between the two major build paths you can bet your collective arses that the AI is going to have lots of poorly balanced armies polluting the strategic map especially if the AI has too many cities or castles in a given area... unless of course, the AI cheats like mad.

Even if CA improves MTW2's strategic AI so that it consolidates its armies better than Rome AI's (which simply stunk at consolidation) it will still be handicapped against your average human player.

This also brings us to another issue which has the various factions dependent on a specific build path so as to play to their historical strengths. Just from that one screenshot we can discern that the European factions need to rely more heavily on cities so as to produce high quality infantry. On the other hand the Asiatic and Muslim factions are better off relying on castles which would allow them to produce their excellent light & medium cavalry and archers. Sure, it sounds challenging to a human player and it also sounds like a virtual license to fail for the AI. This could also mean nothing if the disparities between each faction's units has been minimized in MTW2.

One more reason the city/castle system bothers me is because of the potential for horrendously ahistorical outcomes. Is the prospect of facing an AI controlled English army loaded with cavalry and archers but devoid of decent foot soldiers (or artillery) really that appealing to you? Can you imagine fighting a massive Turk army in the Levant utterly devoid of cavalry and archers because they only have wealthy cities left in their provinces? We're talking about the Turks for chrissakes!

As it was with Rome it is a case of two steps forward, one step back; thanks to the city/castle build feature we seem to be heading straight back to the AI build issues that plagued the original Medieval until modders saved the day. Great, the city/castle build feature is meant to challenge the human player... wonderful. It also sounds like a feature that is bound to make MTW2's AI as big a pushover as the one in Rome. :wall:

[x-dANGEr]

I don't think so. When it comes to programming AI, programming an AI to build balance armies is 100 times easier than programming battle AI or the AI that controls army movement.

It depends on the AI, but I think CA are quite capable of producing an AI that uses it's resources wisely. There were some shortcommings in the RTW AI in this respect, but it is one of the easier parts of AI programming.
What a good - no a perfect - AI handling that feature would be like to you?

[Puzz3D]

Regarding peasants, they weren't completely useless in STW ...., but they were the worst unit. Give 'em a bit of armour and a bit of valour and they made useful bulk for your army.
Ashigaru in STW had a spear which gave them an anti-cav bonus. In fact, they were better in melee vs cav archers and yari cav. They were better than no-dachi and samurai archers vs cav as well. However, they had low morale and would rout after taking relatively few casualties. Ashigaru could be trained with guns once guns became available. At the strategic level, ashigaru could deter an attack because the AI looked at the number of men defending a province rather than the quality of the troops, and they would help detered rebels from appearing. You still didn't want to bulid an excessive number of ashigaru units because the AI didn't and you would be at a disadvantage on the battlefield if the AI attacked, and the upkeep was the same on all infantry units since it was related to how much a man ate in one year which was the same for everyone. Only the Oda clan bulid a lot of ashigaru because they got a discount on that unit. All the clans favored training their specific discounted unit.

Pehaps the limit on the number of each type of unit that can be trained will channel both the AI and the player into diversified army composition. Although, later in the campaign this would probably breakdown if a faction had lots of places to train units and that was the only mechanism. On the other hand, we haven't seen a highly sophisticated AI in any of the previous games. Originally, STW was supposed to have a learning AI and simultaneous turns but neither were implimented. Five years later the game still doesn't have either of those features, and it probably never will because it wouldn't significantly increase sales.

It's an extremely time consuming process to test one of these campaigns all the way through. I don't think it's realistic to expect CA to do this kind of testing other than to put the game on auto-pilot and let it run. This of course doesn't test how well the AI does against a human over the course of a campaign. The game is now aimed at the casual gamer. That's the kind of AI you're going to get. As John Bradley used to say, "It's as simple as that.".

[WarMachine420]

It doesn't impress you greatly, but it certainly seems to be impressing everybody else. And yes, when you say it doesn't impress greatly it really does sound like you were trying to speak for everybody else. Maybe that wasn't what you meant, though. I don't know. :help:

Thank you. Saves me the time and effort to explain the English language and it's usage to him.

He also wants this game to be more like LOTR...god help us if CA takes his advice.

[Myrddraal]

Be civil ladies and gents. Keep your handbags away for now. :inquisitive:

[SpencerH]

The reason for my concern is because of the basic troop limitations governing cities and castles. Per the screenshot posted earlier it has been established that cities cannot raise missile or cavalry troops.

While I think for me that a "wait and see" attitude is warranted until the game is out, that is a troubling revelation. I would've thought that a more practical idea would been to only allow basic unit construction from cities (including gunpowder) and certain elites and upgrades from castles.


Since players and the AI must choose between the two major build paths you can bet your collective arses that the AI is going to have lots of poorly balanced armies polluting the strategic map especially if the AI has too many cities or castles in a given area... unless of course, the AI cheats like mad.

So it'll be like RTW then ~:)


This also brings us to another issue which has the various factions dependent on a specific build path so as to play to their historical strengths. Just from that one screenshot we can discern that the European factions need to rely more heavily on cities so as to produce high quality infantry. On the other hand the Asiatic and Muslim factions are better off relying on castles which would allow them to produce their excellent light & medium cavalry and archers. Sure, it sounds challenging to a human player and it also sounds like a virtual license to fail for the AI. This could also mean nothing if the disparities between each faction's units has been minimized in MTW2.

One more reason the city/castle system bothers me is because of the potential for horrendously ahistorical outcomes. Is the prospect of facing an AI controlled English army loaded with cavalry and archers but devoid of decent foot soldiers (or artillery) really that appealing to you? Can you imagine fighting a massive Turk army in the Levant utterly devoid of cavalry and archers because they only have wealthy cities left in their provinces? We're talking about the Turks for chrissakes!

Again its another "wait and see" for me but I agree with you that it could be problematic (and I'm not a TW historical freak). I'm not interested in peasant-heavy armies no matter how "realistic" they are except as an occasional diversion.

[screwtype]

Thank you. Saves me the time and effort to explain the English language and it's usage to him.

He also wants this game to be more like LOTR...god help us if CA takes his advice.

Don't come the raw prawn with me buddy. I'm perfectly cognizant of English usage thankyou very much - more so than you it seems.

If I'd wanted to speak for others, I would have said "it's obviously not impressing anyone greatly" or "it doesn't impress most folks". You presumed, wrongly, that when I said "it doesn't impress greatly" I was attempting to speak for others, which I wasn't. I am not responsible for your presumptions. The least you could have done was ask what I meant if you weren't sure, but no, you chose to take the least flattering interpretation of my words - as you did with every aspect of my post.

In any case, you ought to know that the construction I used is quite common when referrring to oneself and one's own opinions. I can only suppose you don't read a great deal, otherwise you'd be aware of that fact.

Oh, and BTW - Saves me the time and effort to explain the English language and it's usage to him. You are apparently unaware that "it's" is a contraction of "it is". Furthermore, "weird" is spelt with the e before the i. And there's no such phrase as "even still". I guess you meant "even so". Apparently I'm not the one who needs "the English language and it's [sic] usage explained to him".

[econ21]

OK, that's enough. Myddraal has asked people to be civil. Warmachine, screwtype, silver rusher and x-dANGEr: any further posts in this thread have to be in the spirit of ~:grouphug: not :scastle:

Anymore ill-tempered bickering will lead to a warning.

[screwtype]

I've been perfectly civil econ! But I do think I have a right to defend myself from gratuitous attacks, which is practically all WarMachine has done in regards to me since he turned up on this thread.

[Husar]

I got to say it's the first good news and good feature I hear about in MTW2.

Since we have no detail it's a bit difficult to figure out how it will works and how it would impact both building strategy and the economy, not to mention experience.

Personnally, I'd like that mechanism to mimic a bit CK army raising. Meaning you got little control on what kind of specific unit you got, but the different buildings and features (like castle/ city) would change your army composition. (the bad part about CK was army size was tied to economy... a resource pool would be better).

You have a city with adv spearmen / archery ground; your army will have lot of pike and missile. A castle? Maybe more MAA and knights?

Overall a good news

Louis,
What you propose makes sense, but, it's a game, this sounds like it gets closer and closer to a movie, but in a game I want to have control.
Especially if the unit composition had some random elements one might easily get frustrated if the AI always happens to get "better" compositions.

[Dracula(Romanian Vlad Tepes)]

What program can i use to edit photos for the wallpaper contest?(sorry i don't know where to ask)
:help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help: :help:

[econ21]

I've been perfectly civil econ!

The benchmark I use is what would be acceptable in a debate in the workplace or classroom. "Don't come the raw prawn with me buddy" does not pass it.


But I do think I have a right to defend myself from gratuitous attacks...

But you do not have the right to inflict a flame war on the rest of us. It's hard to resist, but replying in kind is not the best way to deal with offence given on the internet. I haven't issued warnings yet, because what you and Warmachine have been doing here is not so serious yet, but it is not a pleasant read and could easily escalate so I am calling time out.

[screwtype]

It doesn't impress you greatly, but it certainly seems to be impressing everybody else.

Okay, look, I didn't do a very good of explaining why the description of this new system doesn't impress me much, so let me try again.

Under the new system, there is going to be, as I understand it, a "pool" of each unit type in each province, with a larger available pool for cheaper units and a smaller pool for the better units. The pools will also apparently be bigger for provinces with bigger populations. So you can recruit as many units from a pool of a particular type as there are available in a province, given the appropriate funds.

Now, I've already said that in theory I like the idea of this. The problem though is that if there is as much money floating around as in previous games, it's actually going to increase your ability to build large armies quickly and quickly dominate the game. So a change like this really needs to be accompanied by changes to the play balance, and we've heard not a word about how this is going to be achieved.

Next, I'm sceptical that separate pools for separate unit types will really turn out to be much of a limitation on the kind of armies you want to build, or on your ability to expand. In the early part of the game, you can only recruit lowly unit types anyhow, and later on when you have the infrastructure, you usually have far more unit building capacity than you need. In which case I find it hard to see how these unit pools will be an effective check on the number of elite units you want to build. So why bother with the limitation in the first place?

Also, while in theory it's good to be able to build lots of units from a single province, in practice this will mean, presumably, that you are seriously depleting the available manpower in that particular province. So perhaps you will want to spread your unit building across all your provinces like you did before. In which case, what is the point of the new system?

The one clear change I do see eventuating from the new system is that you will be able to build armies even faster than before (assuming the available funds and manpower). Many players have already noted how easy it is to just rebuild an army that gets trashed in RTW, so that it never really hurts to lose an army. You just truck the survivors back to the nearest city and bingo! You've got a full stack again. In STW and MTW, when you took heavy losses, you really felt it, because it would take you considerable time to rebuild that army. With an even greater increase in the number of new units you can build in a turn, seems to me the play balance is going to be tilted even more in the direction of the human and against the AI.

The point being that in my view these changes to the recruitment system need to be accompanied by other changes which maintain play balance, or M2TW is going to turn out an even bigger walkover than RTW. We've heard nothing about such changes, so presumably CA haven't included any. What then could be done to limit the power of the human player? I have some suggestions, but I think I'll leave them to another post...

[screwtype]

The benchmark I use is what would be acceptable in a debate in the workplace or classroom. "Don't come the raw prawn with me buddy" does not pass it.

It's a venerable Aussie expression and one usually given tongue in cheek. But I guess its nuances do not necessarily travel well ~;)

[Myrddraal]

The point being that in my view these changes to the recruitment system need to be accompanied by other changes which maintain play balance,

I agree, and the pincipal one is money. The reason it's easy to replace full stack in RTW (an in MTW for that matter, retraining was easy) is that once you get on top, you never have a problem paying for the retraining.

If we get the same levels of money in M2 as we get in RTW then building an army won't be any trouble at all.

Think about playing as the welsh in VI, you just don't get enough money, you have to work you economy hard to support your armies. If they can re-create that more generally for M2 then the recruitment speed won't be a problem

Besides, I don't know that recruitment speed will be a problem anyway. We all seem to be assuming that recruitment pools will contain the entire population (like in Rome)

I hope that when you build a big army, your pools will be depopulated sufficiently to represent a population at war, and it'll take some time before you can replenish your forces. That way you have to make armies count...

[SpencerH]

I hope that when you build a big army, your pools will be depopulated sufficiently to represent a population at war, and it'll take some time before you can replenish your forces. That way you have to make armies count...

I was kinda assuming that was a given with the repopulation (rate) of each recruitment type based upon a variety of factors.

EDIT: ..... variety of factors, ie how happy the people are, whether the city has a governer and what traits he has, winning or losing the war, etc, rather than just money. If what I hope is true we may see situations where one has the money to recruit troops but cant do so because no one wants to join up!

[screwtype]

Think about playing as the welsh in VI, you just don't get enough money, you have to work you economy hard to support your armies. If they can re-create that more generally for M2 then the recruitment speed won't be a problem

But of course, if you have to work your economy hard to get the units you need, this new system with its extra available units and separate recruitment pools will make little if any difference to you anyway. They are only likely to make a difference if you already have a decent sized economy.

It's another reason why I can't see these changes are going to make much difference to the gameplay, except perhaps to further the strengthen the hand of the human player in the later stages. This new system just sounds rather cosmetic and not very well thought out to me. I think at best it is going to add a little convenience in that it cuts down a tad on micromanagement, but I can't see that's anything to get terribly excited about, especially given the potential downside.


I hope that when you build a big army, your pools will be depopulated sufficiently to represent a population at war, and it'll take some time before you can replenish your forces. That way you have to make armies count...

Yeah, I think what's really needed is a more fundamental overhaul of the economic system. But CA have never shown much interest in this side of the game. Perhaps they will suprise with M2TW, but I have my doubts.

[Bob the Insane]

Personally I don't think the recruitment system will suddenly become "perfect" because of this, but it is a step forward...

I mean, look at RTW and a large city of thousands of people and only raise around 200 militia troops in 6 months? That didn't make much sense. I thoght the mod that set recruitment times to 0 so your recruit was based on your money and you population was a much better mechanisim (especially when combinded with maintain costs high enough to force to to disband you large armies after a while). But the killer for this was that the AI could not compete and it simply made the game even easier...

My hope is that the way M2TW works is not only an improvement of the mods in that production of elite units is controled too but my special hope is that because this is integrated into the game now the AI will be coded to handle it...

[Myrddraal]

screwtype, I think you've got the wrong end of the enthusiasm here.

It's not a revolution in the amount of men you'll be able to produce, it's not a revolution in the difficulty of the game, it's a revolution in the atmosphere.

Remember that the game is meant to loosely simulate managing an empire. I think the new recruitment system is closer to life and will really help with the atmosphere of the game. I think the concept is fun, rather than the effect it will have on gameplay.

I think the best games rely heavily on their atmosphere to make them so

[Duke John]

In essence it is little more than the mercenary system in R:TW, which also had the pools that slowly replenished.

It is nice in the way that it simulates how rulers recruited and raised an entire army within a relatively short time. It would be used for a campaigning and disbanded afterwards, sometimes with the effect that there were too many soldiers with nothing to do which could band together as mercenaries (which I believe was also a feature in R:TW) or became a general nuisance (should be an increase in rebel activity).

In general CA has got the right elements together for recruiting and disbanding armies (could be more detailed, but then would M2:TW become a wargame). Where CA fails in my opinion is in limiting how much could be maintained, or in other words, how many armies could be fielded. At the moment there is still little reason to disband an unit as reducement in upkeep is not worth the possibility of raising it again for full price 2 years later.

So what CA really needs to do is ditch the cost of recruiting an unit. Raising an army didn't cost alot, it was maintaining it in the field that was a money drain. Reverse the system, so that raising an unit costs little to nothing but maintaining it costs alot, with a good reduction in upkeep when units are in garrison. There is no danger of abuse as these recruitment pools means that using entire armies as cannon fodder means that your country will quickly be without soldiers.

This would mean that the defence of a region is much easier (good for the AI!) as you can quickly raise a defence force. Steamrolling over entire Europe will be much more difficult as your economy will probably have trouble providing the upkeep. Add in a modifier for upkeep depending on distance to a home region and conquering America will be a very a challenging undertaking as it would be near impossible to maintain a large enemy there, which will put you in the same shoes as the Spanish Conquistadors.

Units will need to keep their experience but that shouldn't be too hard if CA made the size recruitment pool a constant meaning that from Settlement A there can be not more than X knight units, be it in the field, in garrison or not recruited.

The player will have an easier time controlling his army as he doesn't constantly need to check for recruitment, merge armies or other tedious jobs. He just needs to keep his neighbours in check while awaiting for the right moment to attack.

Just imagine: you have filled your treasure to maintain an army in the field for 6 turns. You raise your army and you send it towards a seemingly vulnerable settlement. The enemy reacts by supporting the garrision with more units, making an assault on the walls impossible. Then you need to decide to start a lengthy siege and drain your treasury, to withdraw and disband to cut your losses or to venture further into enemy territory, increasing the stakes even higher. :2thumbsup:


Or course none of this will be seen in M2:TW, but one can always dream :beam:

[WarMachine420]

Don't come the raw prawn with me buddy. I'm perfectly cognizant of English usage thankyou very much - more so than you it seems.

If I'd wanted to speak for others, I would have said "it's obviously not impressing anyone greatly" or "it doesn't impress most folks". You presumed, wrongly, that when I said "it doesn't impress greatly" I was attempting to speak for others, which I wasn't. I am not responsible for your presumptions. The least you could have done was ask what I meant if you weren't sure, but no, you chose to take the least flattering interpretation of my words - as you did with every aspect of my post.

In any case, you ought to know that the construction I used is quite common when referrring to oneself and one's own opinions. I can only suppose you don't read a great deal, otherwise you'd be aware of that fact.

Oh, and BTW - Saves me the time and effort to explain the English language and it's usage to him. You are apparently unaware that "it's" is a contraction of "it is". Furthermore, "weird" is spelt with the e before the i. And there's no such phrase as "even still". I guess you meant "even so". Apparently I'm not the one who needs "the English language and it's [sic] usage explained to him".

look...2 other people told you the same thing I did, argue with them as well. when you say "it's not impressing anyone greatly" that's speaking on behalf of "everyone". Again, 2 other people confirmed this...what, everybody is wrong and you're right? No. You're just obviously very stubborn.

You can go on with whatever grammer lesson you like, the bottom line is you DID speak for everyone and you DID look like the backside of a horse by coming on here and arguing about it after you did it (again, after several people confirmed that you were in fact speaking for others). It's one thing to be dead wrong and look like a big clown (you), it's another thing to deny you did anything wrong. That's just thick headed stubborness. I'd be interested to know where you're from. You and that thick skull.

You lost all credibility when you said you wanted this to be more like LOTR. Most people here would cut your arm off if CA listened to you. Most of us play this franchise because of it's historical flavor, and the realism of the game. LOTR is a fantasy game that has absolutely nothing to do with anything historic and is mainly targeted at children. Sorry, I'll take CA's ideas over Tolkien's.

I hope at some point you can come on and apologize to me as well as the others who you've argued with. Nothing about interpretation...let me go over it one more time: Stating "so far, it's failed to impress greatly" is saying that you know for a fact that so far...the community doesn't like it. If you wanted to show that this was strictly YOUR opinion, you use this little character called "I". You then follow it up with the word "think" because you don't know what you're talking about anyway. Put it together and "I think it has failed to impress greatly so far" is what you get. That would be giving YOU the possession of that thought as opposed to giving a blanket, generalized statement regarding multiple parties that attaches the opinion to an unspecified number of people. Again...were the two other people who told you this wrong too? Everyone's wrong? Just not you?

you: ----------------> :wall:

now please stop...you're making a big fool out of yourself :laugh4:

p.s. Just saw the mods response to screwtype. Apologies...not trying to start a flame war here but the text that he is writing is inflammatory and ignorant. I hope that this post will be taken as what it is: an explanation of the obvious to him. I can assure you, it's dead on my end. I also assure you that he's not done yet. Next he'll come on and tell me that you spell dog "doag".

[WarMachine420]

But of course, if you have to work your economy hard to get the units you need, this new system with its extra available units and separate recruitment pools will make little if any difference to you anyway. They are only likely to make a difference if you already have a decent sized economy.

It's another reason why I can't see these changes are going to make much difference to the gameplay, except perhaps to further the strengthen the hand of the human player in the later stages. This new system just sounds rather cosmetic and not very well thought out to me. I think at best it is going to add a little convenience in that it cuts down a tad on micromanagement, but I can't see that's anything to get terribly excited about, especially given the potential downside.



Yeah, I think what's really needed is a more fundamental overhaul of the economic system. But CA have never shown much interest in this side of the game. Perhaps they will suprise with M2TW, but I have my doubts.

Just out of curiosity...what DO you like about total war? You've criticized the economy, the diplomacy, the AI, the basic foundation of the gameplay logistics, and then called for it to be more like cotton candy games of a different genre.

When you turn on your PC and fire up a TW game...why do you do it? Is this punishment that you inflict upon yourself after you argue about grammer on the internet, or do you find SOMETHING well done and enjoyable about the game? Anything?

[Duke John]

when you say "it's not impressing anyone greatly"
What screwtype actually wrote:

Sounds like an improvement over the old system, but it doesn't impress greatly as a concept.
He never said "anyone". So I think it is better if you stop making posts about screwtype's opinion. You cleary misunderstood him and it isn't considered good manners if you keep nagging about something he never said. screwtype is just a bit cranky (and more of us are) after CA messed up R:TW, just accept that.

[WarMachine420]

What screwtype actually wrote:

He never said "anyone". So I think it is better if you stop making posts about screwtype's opinion. You cleary misunderstood him and it isn't considered good manners if you keep nagging about something he never said. screwtype is just a bit cranky (and more of us are) after CA messed up R:TW, just accept that.

1) Welcome to the discussion...can assure you, you're now a part of it. Wanted to be didn't you?

2) "It doesn't impress greatly as a concept". That's a blanket statement attached to an unknown number of people. See my explanation on how to write and speak English above.

3) He's just cranky? That seems to be telling me WHY he did something inappropriate. What are you his lawyer? I'm sure he can speak for himself...wait until someone calls your post out before you grandstand.

Two other people told him the same thing I did...why didn't you respond to them?

[Faenaris]

In essence it is little more than the mercenary system in R:TW, which also had the pools that slowly replenished.

It is nice in the way that it simulates how rulers recruited and raised an entire army within a relatively short time. It would be used for a campaigning and disbanded afterwards, sometimes with the effect that there were too many soldiers with nothing to do which could band together as mercenaries (which I believe was also a feature in R:TW) or became a general nuisance (should be an increase in rebel activity).

In general CA has got the right elements together for recruiting and disbanding armies (could be more detailed, but then would M2:TW become a wargame). Where CA fails in my opinion is in limiting how much could be maintained, or in other words, how many armies could be fielded. At the moment there is still little reason to disband an unit as reducement in upkeep is not worth the possibility of raising it again for full price 2 years later.

So what CA really needs to do is ditch the cost of recruiting an unit. Raising an army didn't cost alot, it was maintaining it in the field that was a money drain. Reverse the system, so that raising an unit costs little to nothing but maintaining it costs alot, with a good reduction in upkeep when units are in garrison. There is no danger of abuse as these recruitment pools means that using entire armies as cannon fodder means that your country will quickly be without soldiers.

This would mean that the defence of a region is much easier (good for the AI!) as you can quickly raise a defence force. Steamrolling over entire Europe will be much more difficult as your economy will probably have trouble providing the upkeep. Add in a modifier for upkeep depending on distance to a home region and conquering America will be a very a challenging undertaking as it would be near impossible to maintain a large enemy there, which will put you in the same shoes as the Spanish Conquistadors.

Units will need to keep their experience but that shouldn't be too hard if CA made the size recruitment pool a constant meaning that from Settlement A there can be not more than X knight units, be it in the field, in garrison or not recruited.

The player will have an easier time controlling his army as he doesn't constantly need to check for recruitment, merge armies or other tedious jobs. He just needs to keep his neighbours in check while awaiting for the right moment to attack.

Just imagine: you have filled your treasure to maintain an army in the field for 6 turns. You raise your army and you send it towards a seemingly vulnerable settlement. The enemy reacts by supporting the garrision with more units, making an assault on the walls impossible. Then you need to decide to start a lengthy siege and drain your treasury, to withdraw and disband to cut your losses or to venture further into enemy territory, increasing the stakes even higher. :2thumbsup:


Or course none of this will be seen in M2:TW, but one can always dream :beam:

I like your idea, Duke John. Maybe modders will make it so? I think I'll go suggest this to the MTR team, just in case. :)

EDIT: And Warmachine, please mate, let it rest. Continuing your discussion will only earn you a warning from the moderators.

[WarMachine420]

I like your idea, Duke John. Maybe modders will make it so? I think I'll go suggest this to the MTR team, just in case. :)

EDIT: And Warmachine, please mate, let it rest. Continuing your discussion will only earn you a warning from the moderators.

Doubtful...I have received more than one PM by moderators stating that they agree with me fully.

I love seeing the little bonds and pacts (they're certainly not friendships) that develop on forums like this. Then you run to eachother's defense when you make fools out of yourselves.

Duke John was defending someone who was flat out WRONG. It was addressed and it's over. Where you come into play (other than to pull at his coat tail and tell him how great his ideas are...so great they'll never see the light of day in a CA game :laugh4:) baffles me.

What did this have to do with you now?

edit: I just looked and realized that you yourself are not even a moderator. Where on earth do you get off giving directives to other members on the forum about what's going to earn them a warning? A warning for what...debating a topic on the forums? Get lost troll.

[WarMachine420]

In essence it is little more than the mercenary system in R:TW, which also had the pools that slowly replenished.

It is nice in the way that it simulates how rulers recruited and raised an entire army within a relatively short time. It would be used for a campaigning and disbanded afterwards, sometimes with the effect that there were too many soldiers with nothing to do which could band together as mercenaries (which I believe was also a feature in R:TW) or became a general nuisance (should be an increase in rebel activity).

In general CA has got the right elements together for recruiting and disbanding armies (could be more detailed, but then would M2:TW become a wargame). Where CA fails in my opinion is in limiting how much could be maintained, or in other words, how many armies could be fielded. At the moment there is still little reason to disband an unit as reducement in upkeep is not worth the possibility of raising it again for full price 2 years later.

So what CA really needs to do is ditch the cost of recruiting an unit. Raising an army didn't cost alot, it was maintaining it in the field that was a money drain. Reverse the system, so that raising an unit costs little to nothing but maintaining it costs alot, with a good reduction in upkeep when units are in garrison. There is no danger of abuse as these recruitment pools means that using entire armies as cannon fodder means that your country will quickly be without soldiers.

This would mean that the defence of a region is much easier (good for the AI!) as you can quickly raise a defence force. Steamrolling over entire Europe will be much more difficult as your economy will probably have trouble providing the upkeep. Add in a modifier for upkeep depending on distance to a home region and conquering America will be a very a challenging undertaking as it would be near impossible to maintain a large enemy there, which will put you in the same shoes as the Spanish Conquistadors.

Units will need to keep their experience but that shouldn't be too hard if CA made the size recruitment pool a constant meaning that from Settlement A there can be not more than X knight units, be it in the field, in garrison or not recruited.

The player will have an easier time controlling his army as he doesn't constantly need to check for recruitment, merge armies or other tedious jobs. He just needs to keep his neighbours in check while awaiting for the right moment to attack.

Just imagine: you have filled your treasure to maintain an army in the field for 6 turns. You raise your army and you send it towards a seemingly vulnerable settlement. The enemy reacts by supporting the garrision with more units, making an assault on the walls impossible. Then you need to decide to start a lengthy siege and drain your treasury, to withdraw and disband to cut your losses or to venture further into enemy territory, increasing the stakes even higher. :2thumbsup:


Or course none of this will be seen in M2:TW, but one can always dream :beam:
That's right...as "great" of ideas they are...they're just alternatives to what the professional devs have already come up with.

My suggestion? If you want to see these things in action...make a game of your own. Until then, leave this kind of work to the pros...you know, the people who do it for a living.

I personally put my money on a team of Devs at CA with Segas financial backing putting out a better quality project than some forum dwellar

[econ21]

Warmachine240 has accumulated sufficient warning points in this thread and elsewhere to earn a temporary time out. I'll leave his posts to stand, but no one else need feel obliged to reply to them and should certainly not do so in kind.

[Duke John]

Maybe modders will make it so? I think I'll go suggest this to the MTR team, just in case.
It all boils down to the AI. If it doesn't disband its units when the upkeep is too high then it wouldn't be very wise to increase it as it would mean that the AI will always be broke. You could give the AI extra money with scripts, but then it would still keep all its armies in the field, which on the other hand would be good for providing the player with a challenge. If you do give the AI extra money then do it periodically and in big amounts so that the recruitment isn't spread out but in bursts which probably increases the appearance of large armies as opposed to multiple small ones.

[Faenaris]

Thank you, econ21. It was getting a bit out of hand.

EDIT: Well, you got a point there, Duke John. Lets hope the AI can cope with the mechanics of M2TW, that is the one thing I truly want. But, CA has done it before, they can most certainly make a good AI again. :)

[SpencerH]

Just for reader clarity and not to stir the pot, I believe Screwtype was using LOTR2 to mean "Lords of the Realm 2" an excellent, though dated, medieval strategy game that was one of the first (if not the first) to incorporate tactical battles and castle assaults with a reasonable strategic component including unit recruitment based upon the amount of money one had generated and saved. I dont believe he was refering to the RTS based loosely on Tolkiens masterworks.

[sunsmountain]

It all boils down to the AI.

Amen. I love this kind of recruitment system, and just hope they take into consideration:

- AI needs to build tech tree up, and concentrate on certain (for example barracks) buildings in one castle, while concentrating on other (for example stables) buildings in another castle. The reason for this is else their light cavalry and light infantry will face your heavy cavalry and heavy infantry, instead of heavy vs heavy.
- Stop recruiting and disband low level units after high tech units are sufficiently available. They drain upkeep and do not promote interesting fights.
- Supply lines. Having to travel back to a province just to get an army from that place is adding extra turns of non-action. It's better to have the recruitment pool of all the castles shared, so they can be recruited at any castle, except for newly conquered ones (until unrest/culture penalty is solved).

- Other than that, good luck with path-finding and making match-ups on the campaign map, this must be hard to program!

[x-dANGEr]

Many nice suggestions.. But one sentence summed it all up:


It all boils down to the AI.
It really does.. I'm very ok with the system (Not astonished, as it is already there in HoM&M..), but I don't think the AI will be so.. BUt let's hope that ~;)

[Martok]

Just for reader clarity and not to stir the pot, I believe Screwtype was using LOTR2 to mean "Lords of the Realm 2" an excellent, though dated, medieval strategy game that was one of the first (if not the first) to incorporate tactical battles and castle assaults with a reasonable strategic component including unit recruitment based upon the amount of money one had generated and saved. I dont believe he was refering to the RTS based loosely on Tolkiens masterworks.
Yes, I believe he was referring to Lords of the Realm 2 as well. I've actually been playing that game a bit the last few days, and have been enjoying myself immensely. ~;)

In regards to the new recruiting system, I like the idea. As others have pointed out, however, the real test will be how well the AI handles the recruiting system. Given how little CA has talked about the AI (aside from reassurances that they're devoting a lot of effort on it), I'm going with the good old "wait-and-see" approach for now.

Of course, that basically describes my general attitude towards the entire game at this point. At this point, I've seen enough things about Medieval 2--both good and bad--that I'd decided I wasn't going to comment on the game much until it's actually out. (There's a reason you haven't seen me post in this part of the forum very much the last couple months.)

[Mikhal]

this will be awsome and a lot of more realistic as you wont just sit there and pump out preatorian cav/inf like in rome.

i belive that castles will provide all the real elite troops like knights and heavy cav while the last city levels will produce units like cannons. and as some one said before it should be made much harder to get and maintain elite troops like knights so you wont have 100% elite armies like those redicouless urban armies of rtw.

[Mikhal]

- Supply lines. Having to travel back to a province just to get an army from that place is adding extra turns of non-action. It's better to have the recruitment pool of all the castles shared, so they can be recruited at any castle, except for newly conquered ones (until unrest/culture penalty is solved).

IMO it will just make it unrealistic and one of the good points i see in this is that if you want a huge army you would actually have to recruit in all of your provinces, even in the farest corners and that you would have to face all the logistics and troop transportation problems.
if lets say you have counquered 20 provinces, then you would have a pretty large pool and if you then would be able to recruit the whole pool at your frontal castle it would just bring back the arcade style of urban massproduction a'la RTW.

[Duke John]

if lets say you have counquered 20 provinces, then you would have a pretty large pool and if you then would be able to recruit the whole pool at your frontal castle
True, but that could easily be solved by adding a delay in recruitment from far away regions. You could display this mustering of soldiers by having large groups of little men moving over the roads like the little wagons that indicate trade. If a road is not continuous (blockade or enemy region between muster point and recruiting region) then no soldiers can be recruited from the cut-off region.

[Oaty]

Personally I don't think the recruitment system will suddenly become "perfect" because of this, but it is a step forward...

I mean, look at RTW and a large city of thousands of people and only raise around 200 militia troops in 6 months? That didn't make much sense. I thoght the mod that set recruitment times to 0 so your recruit was based on your money and you population was a much better mechanisim (especially when combinded with maintain costs high enough to force to to disband you large armies after a while). But the killer for this was that the AI could not compete and it simply made the game even easier...

My hope is that the way M2TW works is not only an improvement of the mods in that production of elite units is controled too but my special hope is that because this is integrated into the game now the AI will be coded to handle it...


I'm with you there. It sounds like with this system you could pump out 1000 militia in Rome in 1 turn but may take 5-10 years or more until you can do that again. But a small town like segesta you could only get a unit or 2 out of it every 5 years.

Another great thing about this is since STW the A.I. has always want into an expensive defensive mode right from the start. With this system a few A.I. factions could turtle and then all of the sudden open thier can Whoop-something and walk into your territory and give a friendly greeting.

[screwtype]

Or course none of this will be seen in M2:TW, but one can always dream :beam:

Some very nice ideas there DJ. I especially like the idea of a maximum limit for each type of unit that a province can support. That would be a radical change to the game design though, and as you say I see little hope of CA ever adopting a system like that.

Obviously, we both see the need for a limit to the player's capacity to expand. My suggestion though, is for the inclusion of some sort of Malthusian rather than absolute limit as you have proposed here. In fact I just started a new thread on the idea.

I don't suppose my ideas have much more chance of being adopted than yours though ~;)

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

As far as recruitment pools changing the way player expands, the main question is probably whether the pool is empty or at current level when a city/ castle is taken over.

Empty pool will drastically reduce the leverage obtained from a new city/ castle.
Current pool will require careful AI pool management. If anything, I wish AI will try to keep enough cash to raise lot of troops if attacked to 1/ give the player a fight in defense, and 2/ give the player a pooless new city from where he won't expand fast.

// question: how will be the new balance between upkeep/ purchase cost?How will dismissing a unit affect a pool?

Louis,

[Myrddraal]

Realistically, recruitement pools in newly captured settlements would be low (not many volunteers to fight for the enemy)

I hope they implement this.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

What you propose makes sense, but, it's a game, this sounds like it gets closer and closer to a movie, but in a game I want to have control.
Especially if the unit composition had some random elements one might easily get frustrated if the AI always happens to get "better" compositions.

Well, you can have control on the army composition indirectly. Want a pool with more horses? Get a stable. With more archers? Get a range. With men at arms instead of levys? Get a barracks... And so on.

Not to mention... Want cavalry at all? Get a castle... Want pikes? get a city...

Personnaly I welcome the end of the all "knights" or all "triarii" or all "whatever" army. However, if we get complete control of what we pick in the pool, eventually, I am not sure it's going to make a whole lot of difference.

Louis,

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Realistically, recruitement pools in newly captured settlements would be low (not many volunteers to fight for the enemy)

I hope they implement this.

Realistically, yes, but I can see how a moneyless AI sitting on huge manpower pool can snowball and give even more troops to the player...

Either emptying the pool, or using rebellious/ loyalty to lower it... Or religion.

That raise an additional questio: would rebellion get troops from the province pool? In all cases? In some specific cases (civil war?) ?
(-> would be a nasty exploit: "I empty that pool because the loyalty is low, so they rebel with nothing: a case of fake good idea?)

Louis,

[x-dANGEr]

I guess not Louis. Usually, rebellions are kept secret till they're exploded. And more over, they're always organised.

[Tittils]

Great! This is what I've been waiting for! It was so annoying to only be able to recruit one unit per turn. MTW2 is starting to get more and more interesting;)

[SpencerH]

Realistically, recruitement pools in newly captured settlements would be low (not many volunteers to fight for the enemy)

I hope they implement this.

That would depend on the morale status of the city in question. Since not all conquerers would be seen by the conquered as bad guys, a city that's close to rebellion anyway could provide a recruit pool.

[Mikhal]

That would depend on the morale status of the city in question. Since not all conquerers would be seen by the conquered as bad guys, a city that's close to rebellion anyway could provide a recruit pool.
yeah, if lets say the french take an islamic city and then 5 years later an islamic faction reclaims it they would have a lot of bigger pool than the french got when they took it, so maybe this should be tied religion and what ever else popualtion morale stats there will be in the game. maybe the size and re-generation of the pool should rely on the popualtion happieness.

(just some spontaneous ideas, haven't thought em over)


Personnaly I welcome the end of the all "knights" or all "triarii" or all "whatever" army. However, if we get complete control of what we pick in the pool, eventually, I am not sure it's going to make a whole lot of difference.

true... i have always been a perfectionist so i doubt that i will stop micro maniging up these "elite armies" i always use but atleast it will put some pressure on me so if i want a big army i will have to use low-class units to.

[sunsmountain]

if lets say you have counquered 20 provinces, then you would have a pretty large pool and if you then would be able to recruit the whole pool at your frontal castle


True, but that could easily be solved by adding a delay in recruitment from far away regions. You could display this mustering of soldiers by having large groups of little men moving over the roads like the little wagons that indicate trade. If a road is not continuous (blockade or enemy region between muster point and recruiting region) then no soldiers can be recruited from the cut-off region.

Exactly what I had in mind. The point is to reduce micro-management getting all your troops to the front, but it shouldn't make your troops march there any faster. Compare the following situations.

Situation A:

You have 5 castles, each with their own recruitment pool (which is what the CA dev Dan Toose is implying). Each pool has say, 3 swordsman, per year. You buy all of them and then move 5 stacks to one of your front cities, taking 1 stack 3 turns, 3 stacks 4 turns, and 1 stack 5 turns. Appear on the campaign map they do. *little Yoda chuckle there*
Time spent on making the decision, clicking on one castle, bringing up the recruitment pool, selecting 3 swordsmen, clicking ok, scrolling to the next castle, giving way points, etc: 4 minutes.

Situation B:

I have 1 large recruitment pool, from which I can easily select 15 swordsmen. All I have to specify is where I want them, ie the rally point. The game should then delay these reinforcements according to the distance to the rally point. In the above example, that means the delay for 13-15 swordsmen is 5 turns. But the delay for 4-12 swordsmen should be 4 turns, and for 1-3 only 3.

In other words, selecting 15 swordsmen and a rally point is broken down into separate recruitment orders and distributed among my empire according to distance to the rally point. I don't have to worry, the little soldiers appear on the road and start marching. They can't be ambushed, they don't interact until they reach their destination. Time spent: 30 seconds.

If any settlement in between is conquered, the soldiers keep on marching, unrealistic as it may be (the road cannot be destroyed anyway). If the destination settlement (rally point) is conquered, the soldiers cancel their individual campaign map movement orders and instantly appear in their original recruitment pools again. If those pools are no longer available, they are literally lost (or appear out of thin air on the road they were marching on).

All this does is make movement of captain stacks invisible and automatic, IF you use a rally point. You can still use the manual method, of course. In the above example, it's smart for me to select 12 swordmen per year for the lowest delay. After several campaign years, I get 1-15 "left-over" swordsmen for a delay of 5 turns, no matter how many i select.

[Myrddraal]

I really like some of these idea's, but I disagree with a couple of points:


I don't have to worry, the little soldiers appear on the road and start marching. They can't be ambushed, they don't interact until they reach their destination.


If any settlement in between is conquered, the soldiers keep on marching, unrealistic as it may be (the road cannot be destroyed anyway). If the destination settlement (rally point) is conquered, the soldiers cancel their individual campaign map movement orders and instantly appear in their original recruitment pools again.

hmmm. I think it would be better if, should they are obstructed in any way (such as a settlement getting captured in the way, or an enemy army standing on the road), you'd get a message like the "Path Blocked" messages of Rome and that unit would be cancelled.

[Shamo]

yeah,it's just great, u'll have much more soldiers (hehe i love that)
and more realistic, men to train peasant are definitely different those to train knights

[Mikhal]

not sure if i understood you but if you now had this little trade wagon style armies marching for a really long destination and when they are about half way you need those troops some where else would you be able to cancel it so they show up at thier location as a normal army? if not i would been getting pretty pissed on a system like that...

personaly i have always loved micro-managment and that my turns take really long. a good point with CA is that atleast in rome you could select a lot of those kinds of stuff like short or long campaign and manage all settlements so if they implement your system i hope that you can select to use the Rome style to as i don't see the advantage of having wagon like armies on the march instead of real captains. why not just let the AI create a normal army and automaticaly give it the arrow-path thingy to that castle when you use that one big pool thing?

[sunsmountain]

not sure if i understood you but if you now had this little trade wagon style armies marching for a really long destination and when they are about half way you need those troops some where else would you be able to cancel it so they show up at thier location as a normal army? if not i would been getting pretty pissed on a system like that...

mmm, its perhaps best to leave them moving as stacks, but then the multi-turn movement orders that have to be given to them should be automated, as well as placing them in the queue, (after I order 12 or 15 swordsmen from the main recruitment pool of course).


personaly i have always loved micro-managment and that my turns take really long.
Me too, but that's also the reason why i have rarely finished RomeTW campaigns, playing fewer turns and battles, versus all the campaigns and battles i played in Medieval TW.


a good point with CA is that atleast in rome you could select a lot of those kinds of stuff like short or long campaign and manage all settlements so if they implement your system i hope that you can select to use the Rome style to as i don't see the advantage of having wagon like armies on the march instead of real captains.
The point wasn't wagons, though it would look funny, the point was to prevent me from having to go through all my settlement late in the game to get troops. In rome, you have to manage all settlements yourself (except perhaps tax rate) if you don't want all your cities to have stables, barracks, practice ranges and last but not least, the blacksmith. All of them. I'm sure glad that you can select that option instead of being forced to have a general there, but a short campaign doesn't solve the imperial campaign problem: That it's too much management near the mid-end to end to finish the game.


why not just let the AI create a normal army and automaticaly give it the arrow-path thingy to that castle when you use that one big pool thing?
Yes that would be better. The AI would still have to be smart in selecting pools that are closest to the rally point though. So you can quickly drain your pool towards two rally points, if your empire has two borders (most do, roughly). And not limit it to swordsmen (of course), if you want to add some cavalry to the same force, that is possible. But if you send them separately, they're faster (and automated ~:) )

[hoom]

One of the recent vids showed recruitment from a castle, was indeed highly reminiscent of RTW mercenary screen.

Regarding moving up to the front from castles, RTW did include rally points & surely that would do this?
I don't like the idea of some shared pool, too complex to do the delayed arrival & too overpowering if its really instant.

A point to bear in mind I think regarding overpowering, is that you presumably won't be able to retrain until you have sufficient population in the relevant pool so particularly management of elite troops is likely to be very critical.

Regarding the steamroller effect, It'd be cool to see an inbuilt version of the siege script with revenue from a besieged province for the siege turn being diverted into generating a bunch of troops in garrison (from the pool)

Really would like to see an economical situation that does make it worthwhile to recruit for campaign then disband to consolidate.

Also, gotta agree that the AI will need major work to be able to handle all this.

here's a screen grab, is more complex than just the merc screen
https://img216.imageshack.us/img216/7273/m2twrecruitxp4.th.jpg (https://img216.imageshack.us/my.php?image=m2twrecruitxp4.jpg)
Selected is Toledo the Capital of Spain which is a Castle.
Note can only build 3 units (this turn presumably?) so no spamming out huge armies in a single turn.
Probably a big city can build many more units per turn (at least up to 9 per turn anyway)

[gunslinger]

I'm excited about the new recruitment system. Of course the AI won't be able to handle it, and of course the game will be cumbersome and easy to win once you've gotten through the first 50 turns or so no matter how good the A.I. is.

Can you really imagine a way to make the game more challenging once you already control 25 - 50% of the rescources on the map? At that point you are a superpower, and most likely the only one. I've always found that the only exciting time in any strategy game is the beginning of the campaign. Once you get near the halfway point, all you're doing is managing too many cities, provinces etc. and walking over enemy armies which can't hope to be as good as yours because they don't have the income to support it. Even if you had the Holy Grail of the TW wish list, a multiplayer campaign, one player would most likely come out as the leader fairly early on, making the remainder of the game tedious and boring. In fact, MTW comes closer to relieving this problem than any other game I've played by making the provinces so much more prone to rebellion when you get too many provinces.

Lords of the Realm II solved this problem by letting you conquer one map, and then start over again on a more challenging one. Of course, this is would never work in a TW game, as we are committed to our map of the medieval world and the flavor it lends to the game. (Sorry I had to bring that game up, I know it's been a point of contention on this thread, but it was a great game in it's time, and some of the concepts of LOTR II really could be incorporated in a MTW game)

Other than massive, abusive, and unrealistic AI cheating I really can't imagine any other solutions which would make an "epic" strategy game such as those of the TW or CIV flavor much fun beyond the opening moves of a campaign.

My personal solution is that I will refuse to read any guides until I've already become bored with the game. Hopefully, that will allow me to be challenged for quite some time while I learn some of the intricacies of the game for myself. Somehow, knowing the exact mathematical variables affecting my men at arms vs. Varangian Guards based on valor, terrain, formation, good/bad hair day, etc. takes some of the excitement out of it for me. It also makes the game too easy and makes the AI seem even dumber than it really is.

I think that the recruitment pools will be successul simply because they will add another wrinkle that will take time to figure out how to exploit properly, unless, of course, I start out already knowing all of the formulas that make them tick!

[poo_for_brains]

I think that the recruitment pools will be a success so long as the AI remembers to recruit quality as well as quantity, or else it'll only result in even bigger peasant hordes than those in MTW

The good thing about this is that even when you are really rich, later in game, you won't be able to build purely elite armies - the recruitment pools will prevent you acheiving total military superiority so easily, so the AI will have a chance, especially if the AI factions are capable of creating their own substantial empires.

Also, if the AI is good with its merchants, it might be able to stay rich, even if its empire is dwindling
So I think the later game in MTW2 should be better than in the previous titles.

[Martok]

The good thing about this is that even when you are really rich, later in game, you won't be able to build purely elite armies - the recruitment pools will prevent you acheiving total military superiority so easily, so the AI will have a chance, especially if the AI factions are capable of creating their own substantial empires.
For me, this is one of the more appealing aspects of the new recruitment system. It should go a fair ways towards equalizing armies between the human player and the other factions.


I think that the recruitment pools will be a success so long as the AI remembers to recruit quality as well as quantity, or else it'll only result in even bigger peasant hordes than those in MTW

....

Also, if the AI is good with its merchants, it might be able to stay rich, even if its empire is dwindling.
How good the AI is remains to be seen, of course. We can only wait and hope.

[professorspatula]

I wonder how willing the AI will be to disband units this time around. By the looks of things, you're able to recruit a large number of units from the pool at once, unlike RTW. This gives both you and the AI a great opportunity to quickly assemble a large force to meet the inbound enemy who have decided to come knocking on your city walls with rams and catapults and all manner of unfriendly things. But I wonder how the AI will cope when it comes to getting rid of an excess of troops. Will it disband unnecessary units this time around, or merely allow itself to hit financial problems again. This could be crucial to the overall strategy of the AI. I suppose it's all been talked about before, but I haven't been paying attention to this thread for a while. My apologies. I also wonder that if you disband a unit in a city, will that unit go back into the unit pool and be available to recruit again next turn? Or do those elite knights of yours give up the noble life and go back to the peasant life and sleep in their own muck, as befits one who is of the common folk.

I shan't sleep until I have answers to these queries!

[SpencerH]

If one disbands a unit do you think there will be an increase in the recruitment pool ?

[Myrddraal]

There is an increase in pop count in RTW if you disband units in a city, so I imagine so.

[SpencerH]

From a historical perspective most large armies were temporary affairs since many of the same people in the armies had to be back in the fields come springtime else their was no food production. If an army in MTW2 can be disbanded to either the recruit pool of a city (which might not be available for food/trade/gold production purposes) or the production "pool" of a city (which isnt available for unit production), it might be an interesting micromanagement effect for those that like to play that way.

[AussieGiant]

It is going to be great because it will balance out the units.

Of course if the AI can't get itself together then it will be bad.

Personally this recruitment system means that the Arty heavy armies I have seen in the Demo's are just for marketing as I am sure you will find it difficult to do this in the game.

[sunsmountain]

So what CA really needs to do is ditch the cost of recruiting an unit.

This would favor the defender, as per the Shogun boardgame, and put some balance into it, excellent! But please consider, the AI considered(!)/considers(?) purchase of new troops based on recruitment cost. Perhaps these buying algorithms should be thoroughly reconsidered. Let's make a poll on this one! ~:)

On second thought (let's not go to Camelot), Crusades suffer no upkeep so you could recruit all units in your empire, send them on one big crusade (asking permission of the pope), and deal with the consequences later: you'd have a swarm of goodies before reaching Gaza (which you'll make sure never happens), that can all travel twice as fast as normal units!

[Bob the Insane]

Can't say that I agree with ditching the recruitment cost... I mean money in the game is an abstraction for all resources other than manpower and as such it is going to cost you something to raise and regiment/army...

Even with feudal knight's who are supposed to come all equiped you still have to put them up somewhere and feed them and stuff while they are getting "up to speed" on the whole warfare thing. Now I can agree with recuitment costs being much lower (perhaps bearly more than the maintainance cost for militia units. But I would not want to see the cost disappear... I would agree with boosting the maintainence costs so as to encourage the disbanding of unnecessary units (as long as the AI actually made use of this).

It is a shame that the food resource never made it into the game (you see some references to it in the unit files in RTW) as there could have been so interesting stuff going on there. The feature is there in how it affects the city growth or decline with the amount of food contributing to the health of the population. Now imagine armies in a province reduce the amount of food available forcing your settlements into further decline and the amount of food produced is linked to the availble manpower pool. It would force you to make important decisions as to whether you should maintain large defensive armies or (using the recuitment pools) be constantly raising or disabanding armies. It would double greatly increase the problems of having other nations armies wandering around you lands. Even allies, without causing devistation, could eat you out of house and home (a good reason to refuse military access).

But then again it may have bogged the game down in a constant cycle of deploying troops and then sending them home to ensure the harvest was brought in... (to much realisim?) And it is questionable as to how much developement time would be require to get the AI to be able to cope...

[Jambo]

I had a more detailed post on this in another thread, but I just hope that this new recruitment system leads to a smaller number of battles which are of a more critical nature.

Not only that, but I seriously hope that this new system will mean that the AI will properly defend its large fortifications and cities with a sufficient and sensible number of troops. It was disappointing and rather un-epic to assault large cities in RTW that only had one AI general unit defending...