tech up

[Julianus]

With EB II do we still have to spend dozens of years in building higher and higher level MICs in order to recruit elite units?
I mean, it's logical and historically accurate for some factions, but not always. For example, the EB starting year, 272BC, is the very year Pyrrhos died and Epeiros ceased to be a big player. If they still could not recruit Molosson and Chaonion Agema then, I doubt that they would be able to do so at all, in real history.
I guess it's forced upon us by the mechanics of RTW, since if we allow the Epeirotes to recruit the two Agema from the beginning, they will be mass-producing them right away. But with the new engine of M2TW, the problem should have been solved. We can give the Epeirotes the ability to recruit the two Agema from turn 1, but then they can only recruit 1 unit of them per, say, 12 turns, and can maintain 2 units at the most. Only after you build higher level MIC can you get more of them and faster.
So what do you say?

[Ptolemaios]

That always bothered me as well. Many factions had their elite units for decades, before 272 BC. I think it´s a good idea. And I think it´s possible to link a specific unit to a building in a certain city (E.g. In Third Age TW, you could recruit the fountainguard only in Minas Tirith, without having any MICs).You could use this for units like Massalian and Syracusian hoplites, or Pretorians etc.

[Julianus]

You reminded me, I wonder if it is possible to change the AOR system into something more flexible and creative. If I build a large enough colony of Macedonians in Carthage, which must be vastly expensive and disliked by the local natives of course, why should I not be able to recruit some decent Macedonian troops there? Alexander did the same thing in Syria and Mesopotamia after all, and just 50 years after his death when EB started, we can recruit even Hetairoi in both of them. Considering that EB-era covered nearly 3 centuries, I believe it's only logical that we got the opportunity to re-write history a little as well.

[Ca Putt]

haha, after I read the first paragraph I had the same Idea as you. Still, you had it first so It's your idea ;).

[Arjos]

I'm sure the recruitment pools of M2TW will cover it, as some elites were around in 272 BC, but it would be wrong to recruit them straight away....
All were veterans or land-owners they couldn't be replenish that fast, take for example the declining Sparte...
So certain factions should have elites in their starting armies, but to recruit them again it would require at least a generation...

[Populus Romanus]

Good idea, hopefully it can be implemented.

[Ca Putt]

, but it would be wrong to recruit them straight away....

INDEED, tho many noobs would do it and get broke even faster. think of it, "yeah I can build SPARTANS!!!! oh they cost all my starting money - Awww, what the hell this is SPARTA!!" next thing well have a new thread: "HALP I'm broke on first turn!"
adding it to the FAQ is a must ;)

[Populus Romanus]

I don't believe that Spartiate Hoplitai will cost much more than the average Hoplitai, after all Spartiates are just Hoplitai that come from Sparta. The real limiting factor in their recruitment would be unit replenishment rates rather than cost.

[Hax]

Luckily, the M2TW engine allows us to limit recruitment without having to worry about astronomical prizes to deter players from recruiting too much. When playing as say the Seleucids, don't expect to be able to have three standing full-stacks with six units of elite phalangitai.

[Ichon]

IMO- the recruitment pools along with diplomacy and some better graphics are the best improvements to EB2 from EB.

It does make sense to have some of the elite units able to be recruited for all the fully realized civilizations at the start of EB. Of course in very limited numbers... perhaps only in the Capitol with 1 or 2 max available and very slow pool replenishment.

To get more would require new territories and larger population to draw from. That should probably most of the civilizations actually. Only a few reached their heights during this era. More often than not they bumped into Rome and fell into decline though even Rome obviously between the reforms and the Republic vs the Imperium had different sorts of "elite" troops.

The thing is I doubt there will be very many- "what if" type of units imagining some civilization which had defeated Rome and what sort of reforms their military might have undergone. Still it would be a vast improvement to expand the pool of recruitable elites from 2 to 8 as your culture and faction expands.

It should be a bit of a tough decision to keep those 8 elites gathered in 1 invasion/response army or scattered along the frontiers stiffing the regular troops. Benefits both ways.

[Ludens]

You reminded me, I wonder if it is possible to change the AOR system into something more flexible and creative.

To answer the OP: the poor starting-infrastructure of EB1 was a gameplay decision, not a historical one. I don't know whether this will be different in EB2, but the government/recruitment system will be very different.

I don't believe that Spartiate Hoplitai will cost much more than the average Hoplitai, after all Spartiates are just Hoplitai that come from Sparta.

Spartan Hoplites in EB1 carry the best hoplite armour that money can buy (well, apart from the helmet): these are not common footsloggers, but the regional equivalent of Epilektoi Hoplitai.

[FinnishedBarbarian]

One thing that raises questions (atleast for myself) is the numbers of the recruitable elit units. Social/warrior elite rarely witnessed significant growth unlike commoners. even after years of succesfull conquests the aristocratic classes did not experience growth, sometimes conquest followed by settling period seemed more counterproducing for military. During EB2's time period hellenistic world experienced slow but, sure stagnation even brilliant men like Pyrrhos and Antiochos III could do only a little to try to keep eventuality from happening. After third punic war Rome experienced something of a similar decline which was stopped after the cimbri invasion allowed Marius reform and drill the troops.

What I'm trying to say that team will probably have tough time in deciding the way to make recruitment as realistic as possible, lots of research would be needed to calculate the growth rate of sosial groups so
that increases in manpower pool would be as close as possible to the historical examples. ideas about colonies affecting recruitment may sound intresting and simple way to affect recruitment of factional troops, but one has to take into account that establishing colony that draws settlers to it also takes those people away from some other area (for example you build colony in seleukeia and you receive more hellenic troops there for recruiting those troops would then be taken from pellas recruitment pools).

OFFTOPIC

I am throwing suggestion that "barbarian" units recruitment costs would be significantly reduced compared to eb1's. Most of the barbarian units were irregulars who fought for plunder so what loot they aqquired after the battle was their reward. To balance reduced recruitment costs their upkeep should be raised so to simulate them being not working on farms or other commoner jobs. Elites/professionals not included on suggestion.

[Arjos]

About the off topic, I've read that non-professional units will have 0 upkeep in towns thanks to the garrison slots, so no need to increase the upkeep I think...

[FinnishedBarbarian]

About the off topic, I've read that non-professional units will have 0 upkeep in towns thanks to the garrison slots, so no need to increase the upkeep I think...

yes I am aware of the free upkeep in towns say for klerochoi phalangitai, but I proposed the raising of upkeep for non- professionals because levying 1000 famers could in longterm become as expensive as fielding professionals whose only output to a nation is their fighting skills. Losing those farmers could cause great economic losses and starvation whereas losing some nobles would mean re-distribution of their lands.

[Arjos]

mmmm I don't know, farmers were simply available for limited time, while professionals all-round...

[Horatius Flaccus]

yes I am aware of the free upkeep in towns say for klerochoi phalangitai

Apparently that info is outdated (according to Bobbin).

[FinnishedBarbarian]

mmmm I don't know, farmers were simply available for limited time, while professionals all-round...

Exatly the use of farmers whole year would have caused serious financial difficulties, there is a reason why certain seasons were more campaign friendly. I have only thrown a suggestion which implamention depents on moddability of campaign AI if It can't be made to garrison it's troops when they are not used to conquer then the feature can't be implamented.

[Ichon]

What were the professional units of the barbarians doing when not fighting? Professional as a specialization that only was concerned with war would be such a small amount. Most of the nobles would still have lands to control and other work to be done even if they aren't out in the fields.

Even Rome had full time professional soldiers rather late- I don't know what barbarian kingdoms ever had large numbers of such a thing. Even then Roman soldiers were active in building things quite a long time when not fighting and policing region as well.

[FinnishedBarbarian]

Apparently that info is outdated (according to Bobbin).

Before I continue with this subject (in a proper thread) I would ask did the Bobbin's statement reveal has the "garrisoned units free upkeep" feature been completely abandoned?

[Ca Putt]

What were the professional units of the barbarians doing when not fighting? Professional as a specialization that only was concerned with war would be such a small amount. Most of the nobles would still have lands to control and other work to be done even if they aren't out in the fields.

according to Tacitus these "professional" warriors just lingered around most of the time.

the point about all militia/farmer/Kleucheroi units is that they have a sillily high upkeep (higher than regulars) but get relived from it when "working at home"

When did bobbin say that?

[Foot]

bobbin, in a statement elsewhere, was referring to the statement that there would be an auto-disbandment feature in EBII. He did not mention free upkeep.

Foot

[Horatius Flaccus]

bobbin, in a statement elsewhere, was referring to the statement that there would be an auto-disbandment feature in EBII. He did not mention free upkeep.

Foot

He was replying to someone who quoted this from one of the first 'Steles':

In EB2 we are planning on using the Pezhetairoi as the backbone infantry for the Seleukids & Ptolemaioi, representing them as the “pikemen on field duty”. The Klerouchikoi Phalangitai will still be around and probably almost identical in stats, just slightly worse. The Klerouchikoi Phalangitai will be used to represent reserve pikemen, who unless in time of emergency are back home on their farms tilling their lands. In game terms this means that they will cost about as much as Pezhetairoi to recruit and will be free upkeep as long as they are in cities. This again to represent that they are tilling their land allotments, but should an enemy approach they will quickly arm themselves.

He replied:

No, that was the initial plan a long time ago, things have moved along since then.

So he didn't say that free upkeep was out, just that things have changed.

[bobbin]

Before I continue with this subject (in a proper thread) I would ask did the Bobbin's statement reveal has the "garrisoned units free upkeep" feature been completely abandoned?

I wouldn't say it has been definitely abandoned, just that we are not sure whether we will use it and what we will use it for.

[ziegenpeter]

according to Tacitus these "professional" warriors just lingered around most of the time.

and you believe that?

[Ca Putt]

If I did I'd say:

In the Germanic society warriors did not have to farm or be in any way usefull for society when there was no raiding going on. The rest of the Community had to feed them

which why I did not say that ;)

[Ludens]

I am sorry, but I am not sure what you are trying to say. Any warrior class that doesn't spend serious time honing their skills will be quickly overthrown by angry peasants, who feel that they're not getting their money's worth for their taxes. That is provided the warriors of the neighbouring tribe won't do it for them. Celtic and Germanic tribes were often at a state of low-intensity warfare, so lazy warriors wouldn't last long.

Unless you are saying that "professional warriors" (which I think a bit of a misnomer anyway) don't contribute to the labour force; but how's that different from a regular standing army?

[Ca Putt]

What I'm saying is that Tacitus tells us the above. It's not my theory and I don't belive everything he wrote down. But alas I have yet to find evidence of idle/industrious Warriors so I just point to Tacitus :)

When, as you say, war was omnipresent then Tacitus assesment may aswell be correct. just that they just were as idle as anyone else when one has a break from work. They simply had no time/capacities for other work.

[Arjos]

Imo regarding what they were doing is a moral teaching to Tacitus' contemporary Romans who indulged on any vices...

[Ludens]

Could you provide the full quote? It's bugging me: in Germanic society every freeman was a warrior. There were full-time warriors in the form of chieftain's sworn bands, but I am pretty sure these were supported by the chieftain himself rather than the people.

[Ca Putt]

that's what intriegued me aswell. to my understanding(in EB terms) it's practically all Sweboz units apart from Skutjanz, Jugunthiz and Freespears. I think he says it in chapter 15 of the Germania.