Recruitment-Very important

#1Imagine this. (ill use Bi as the example) You conquered a samaritian town with the byzatines. The game makes it so you cant recruit any samaritian unit, yet in real life they are still there- did the virgin horse archers just dissapear?I think you should be able to recruit some or all of the other factions special units for a time, maybe with reduced valour.

#2 I think you should be able to recruit units higher up the tech tree without having the all powerful 10k worth barracks that take decades to get. Ill use RTW as an example this time. You cant recruit the spartan hoplites without the super- barracks. Yet in reality every spartan-man was a...spartan hoplite.You should be able to recruit higher in the tech tree but not in mass. Maybe you could get 1000 thousand regular chivalric knights but not over 100-200 gothic knights.Then of course once you get however many you wanted once you reach that paticular building.

#3 Unit replacement, its very annoying once you just won a seige and got in the enemy town and....there isnt a good enough building to replace your depleted forces. I think you should be able to replace your units (but not at the regular price), with less buildings up the tech tree then originally neccarily.but this shouldnt get carried away, make it 25% more expansive and 25% less valour.

Any thoughts? Im thinking #3 could use alot of tweaking. I think there should generally be more units in the start of the game, and more variety. And make the game more realistic.

I def like number 1. The Mongols didnt conquer all the land they did with all Mongol units.

I like number 2 as well but that might be hard to implement, then again it might not be. When ever I play (for example in early in MTW) I used to actually save my titles that gave command ratings until I could produce better units lol, so it would be nice to get a handful so they can be the leaders of the units.

as for number 3...to make things easier u should just be able to replenish ur ranks after a siege or take over of a city BUT for one or two turns only. Or maybe still be able to replenish ur ranks with (civilians) from your other cities that can train the given troops.

My opinions:

1. Yes, more regionally based (as opposed to faction based) units is cool...

2. I am in agreement with this too essentially but it is also good if you tie in number one so that a faction's most elite troops are tied to the faction's home lands (like the Spartans actually)... I don't think artifical limitations are necessary.

3. I am actually opposed to how easy it is to replace you losses from a recently captured settlement already (provided it has the right level of barracks, etc) so I would not want to see it getting even easier. I liked RTR's implimentation or culture based barracks. You could even tie this to point 1 to make things really interesting and give yourself a strategic choice by tying a regional unit to the settlements orginial culture's barracks. So if you replaced culture with your own you would gain access to your faction troops but lose access to the unique regional troops. Actually I think RTR might have had that too (or Roma), I can't remember...

Interestingly, from the sounds of it you want RTR style recruitment? If so, then I agree :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sovereign

Interestingly, from the sounds of it you want RTR style recruitment? If so, then I agree :)

---

Sounds like it!

I too would like to see a greater emphasis on the recruiting procedures, to bring the game closer to historical fact. The original MTW had some glaring problems with it's gamey approach to recruiting:

1) Early feudal europe didn't actually have any feudal knights in MTW. Save for the personal retainers of the king and princes, battles were fought between peasants, with no nobles in sight. Surely the kings vassals didn't all fight as bodyguards of the royal family?

2) All armies were standing armies. In reality plenty of campaigns faltered when the nobles felt they had fulfilled their feudal obligations for the year. It's completely unrealistic to do a WW2 style conquest from britain through france, spain and north africa, ending in egypt half a century later with much the same army. Medieval campaigns were generally much shorter, with less ambitious objectives. The crusades were special in part because they broke with this "limited warfare" concept.

3) Raising hungarian horse archers in scotland was not a problem. In reality, you might find that somewhat difficult. Region, population and culture should be far more important than the nationality of the leader and buildings in what and how much you can recruit.

It would be absolutely spectacular if MTW2 would implement recruiting practices as a technology you can develop. You could have tribal levies (one province, one army), feudalism (the king and his vassals), permanent guards (as feudalism, but with some standing forces) and Ordonnance (complete standing corps of regulars). Add in cultural differences, like mongols always being tribal, but having an easier time keeping their army going for a long period, and I'd be one happy camper:2thumbsup:

The mongols didnt really have a standing army, just every man was their army :book:

I agree with point No1. Obviously the units of a particular region should be available once that region is conquered

.....Orda

I was kinda going for " Omg, your ideas are awsome. Implement everyone of them, your a frekin genius " ...But this will have to do :wall: