Ageing in troop units?

[EatYerGreens]

I am a bit uncertain what you are talking about. Are asking if aging, general upgrading and demobilizing are present in MTW or are you suggesting that these might be added to newer part of the series?

Original intention was asking. But, if it's stuff that's not implemented yet, it could be read as a suggestion. That's an irritating response, isn't it? Oops.

In the first case, the answer to all your questions is no.
Aging: it doesn't matter how old units are, they stay as effective. Sometimes a general does die of old age (if you have VI installed), but he is replaced by a exact copy of the dead one. However, you can enable the 'green generals'-command line, the copy have slightly worse stats and V&V's.

Okay, question answered.

I don't think it would be a sensible addition the game: one more statistic to keep track of

Just something that I think every C-in-C should have to face up to. However, you're right in that excessive micro-management wouldn't make for particularly enjoyable gameplay. I brought it up because if units had to be 'retired' at a certain age (could be done for you, automatically if need be) it would give you the opportunity to train up a replacement unit at a higher tech/honour level or make up the numbers with a different troop type altogether. In other words, units dropping out could work in your favour.

and anyway in reality old soldiers would just be replaced by young ones.

Well, in that case, if valour/honour represents battle experience then shouldn't the valour level decline over time as those soldiers grow old and get replaced by younger, inexperienced ones?

Tech level tends to rise and rise with the passage of time but experience needs to be periodically replenished by sending successive generations into battle, so they can learn for themselves. Of course, STW allows you to upgrade your dojos, representing the improvements in training which would, in reality, be the result of experience gained by your most successful units being shared with the rest of your army - but retraining is involved, which should come at a cost. Hence the argument about tech improvements being allowed to spread across your entire army, not just fresh units but not for free, so you should still have the option of not doing it.

I could argue that MTW et al fit in the category of 'God Sims', in that real world empire-builders don't live forever either. No civilisation had a single strategist as their commander for generations, which is basically what you get with this kind of game. As players, we are also aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the various unit types, whereas real generals only got to find this out through, sometimes painful, experience.

We also know about the course of historical events, know why certain commanders made big mistakes which we can correct or avoid. At the time, every army in history always went into battle thinking it was better than the other side and sometimes got their a^^es kicked because they turned out to be wrong. The only chance to replicate such blunders in the game would be for players to be completely ignorant about history, or warfare in general, or both, short of getting it wrong on purpose.

General upgrading is not present either. The only way to upgrade an old unit is to 'rebuild' it (you don't need to pay for it) and then the upgrades are added.

Ah, so it can be done then? That was the impression I got. I was just using the wrong terminology. Rebuild, upgrade, it means much the same to me.

It is not even possible to turn feudal (early) knights into gothic (late) ones.
Personally, I hope they will get rid of the upgrade system entirely in RTW, or at least trim it down (max +1 armour/weapon). It just complicates the balance of units. Only honour/valour is really important.

See above comments about valour. Should it be perpetual? If so, maybe it represents the reputation of a regiment/unit. We can safely assume that all units take on fresh recruits, year by year. The individuals who gained that valour will eventually leave but the reputation of the unit as a whole persists. We can also assume that not all recruits are of the same quality and the best units only accept the top level new recruits. That would be okay.

[Ludens]

Just something that I think every C-in-C should have to face up to. However, you're right in that excessive micro-management wouldn't make for particularly enjoyable gameplay. (....) Well, in that case, if valour/honour represents battle experience then shouldn't the valour level decline over time as those soldiers grow old and get replaced by younger, inexperienced ones?

Point taken. But I still maintain that it would be rather difficult to keep track of: imagine hearing just before a large battle that your best unit of warrior monks has just retired. And that wouldn't be realistic either: instead they would slowly lose effectiviness as soldiers become older. Or they should be downgraded to militia units, like the Romans did. And how are you going to do this without springing nasty surprises on the player? I'd hate to be the programmer who would have to find a way to implement it.
In reality, generals had much closer ties with their troops and they would realise that after fifteen years, their super-elite no-dachi probably has lost some of its shine. But we are not as close to the troops so the player wouldn't realise that. And frankly, I don't see me acquiting myself with the record file of every single unit in my army. Too much work, too much detail to take up in a few moments. Face it, we are not as close to the troops as the generals.
To get back to my point: units weren't decommisioned, they were 'refreshed' with new recruits. Perhaps the best way to simulate this would be to have high-honour units gradually lose honour as they grow older. This way the proces won't be as much of a surprise to the player, though he might wonder what happened with that high-honour samurai-unit he had had from the beginning. But that still leaves problems with what the starting honour of the recruits must be: zero, or same as dojo in province, or same as dojo were units comes from? Or would they be trained by their more experienced brothers-in-arms? If so, to what level?

We can also assume that not all recruits are of the same quality and the best units only accept the top level new recruits. That would be okay.

That is also possible, but I do not think talent can make up for experience. Not entirely, anyway.

I share your opinion about God games, but do not think it relevant.

Ah, so it can be done then? That was the impression I got. I was just using the wrong terminology. Rebuild, upgrade, it means much the same to me.

For clarity: if you build a unit in MTW, you are stuck with it. Feudal knighst stay feudal knights and never become gothic ones. But you can add weapon / armour / morale / discipline / valour upgrades to the unit later. This is called upgrading (or retraining, because the unit would also gain new soldiers to replace casualties), and was already present in Mongol Invasion.

There is one exception: the bodyguard units (royal knights / ghulam bodyguards) could be upgraded from their 'early' to their 'high' or 'late' forms: this was done by retraining them.

Your remark about Crecy, except for being horribly irrelevant and off-topic, is also incorrect . At Crecy the French knights stayed mounted. You are probably refering to Agincourt.

[EatYerGreens]

Point taken. But I still maintain that it would be rather difficult to keep track of: imagine hearing just before a large battle that your best unit of warrior monks has just retired. And that wouldn't be realistic either: instead they would slowly lose effectiviness as soldiers become older. Or they should be downgraded to militia units, like the Romans did. And how are you going to do this without springing nasty surprises on the player? I'd hate to be the programmer who would have to find a way to implement it.

In terms of keeping track of, I had in mind something along the lines of the Daimyo/heirs info page (right-click on unit), where you can see their current age. This could get a little tedious but you only really need to 'inspect' the troops you are just about to send into battle, not every single unit on the map.

Better still you could have another icon shown on the unit, depicting the 'age band', young, middle-aged, old, with perhaps a progressive marching speed penalty appropriate to the two oldest age ranges. This will affect your maneuvering on the battlefield. Already in STW, you get speed differentials like this - YA faster than YS, which are faster than Naginata and horse vs foot, so formations can get out of shape as they move about.

Also it could factor into how quickly these troops fatigue, during movement and combat. I think it would be sensible for fighting skill level to be maintained to within 90% of their peak (intellect doesn't decline by much with age) or, to all intents and purposes, not changed at all, but the fatigue factor should kick in that bit sooner.

With an icon display you can assess the condition of an army visually, which is very quick to do. Then you can either organise them so armies are well matched in age, so they move together uniformly and can be assigned to new duties as a block, or you can hedge your bets and make all your armies mixed-age.

For instance, in defensive battles, my forces basically hold a position, fend off attacks and don't move a lot. Slower-moving units would be suited to this. Attacking armies need to march almost the full length of the field to engage and then keep up a sustained fight, so the younger ones would be better suited for that.

I agree it would be annoying for a key unit to disappear completely in the turn before a long-planned attack. However, in STW, it's not unknown for the Daimyo to die of old age or illness, leaving behind an army under a rank 0 general, which can be worse, with the loss of honour bonuses across the board. Not good if the heirs are at the opposite end of the map, looking after another front...

In reality, generals had much closer ties with their troops and they would realise that after fifteen years, their super-elite no-dachi probably has lost some of its shine. But we are not as close to the troops so the player wouldn't realise that. And frankly, I don't see me acquiting myself with the record file of every single unit in my army. Too much work, too much detail to take up in a few moments. Face it, we are not as close to the troops as the generals.

True. But you could always make this a task which you only need to look into once every 15 years or so.

To get back to my point: units weren't decommisioned, they were 'refreshed' with new recruits. Perhaps the best way to simulate this would be to have high-honour units gradually lose honour as they grow older. This way the proces won't be as much of a surprise to the player, though he might wonder what happened with that high-honour samurai-unit he had had from the beginning.

That's more or less what I was suggesting. It might catch some players out and generate queries in forums like this but it'll be their own fault for not RTFM.

But that still leaves problems with what the starting honour of the recruits must be: zero, or same as dojo in province, or same as dojo were units comes from? Or would they be trained by their more experienced brothers-in-arms? If so, to what level?

I still think that starting level should be in line with the level of dojo where they were trained. Interesting that STW won't let you build the Sword dojo until after you get Legendary Swordsman event but you can enhance the other dojos without having won a single battle. Maybe similar trigger events should be required? (Not that I'd like it to be that way, I'm forever playing catch-up with the AI as it is, without another disbenefit like that).

For clarity: if you build a unit in MTW, you are stuck with it. Feudal knighst stay feudal knights and never become gothic ones. But you can add weapon / armour / morale / discipline / valour upgrades to the unit later. This is called upgrading (or retraining, because the unit would also gain new soldiers to replace casualties), and was already present in Mongol Invasion.

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Is MI still on sale anywhere? Bit late now, I know but worth an ask, all the same.

[Ludens]

In terms of keeping track of, I had in mind something along the lines of the Daimyo/heirs info page (right-click on unit), where you can see their current age. This could get a little tedious but you only really need to 'inspect' the troops you are just about to send into battle, not every single unit on the map.

You need to inspect them more often: if I send units to be stationed along the frontlines, I don't want half of them dissappearing because I was on a building spree 35 years ago. Your icon idea is a better option.

But I still think refreshing would be more accurate than decomissioning.

But what are we doing? We are discussing the details of a feature which is not present, and will probably never be present. If it is going to be added, let CA worry about it .

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Is MI still on sale anywhere? Bit late now, I know but worth an ask, all the same.

You can get the Warlord Edition for the same money as MI, and it has also a number of extra's, so I recommand buing that one.

I only raised it by way of making the point about weather. If played out in wargame style, with no account taken of the weather and the ground conditions that resulted from it, the French should have won based on the quality and numbers they sent in, versus the numbers and quality they were up against. Of course, this was precisely the reason why they proceeded to go into battle in the first place - they thought it would be a walkover...

Yes, and...? The relation to our discussion is...?

[EatYerGreens]

You need to inspect them more often: if I send units to be stationed along the frontlines, I don't want half of them dissappearing because I was on a building spree 35 years ago.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. Good point. What are the odds of you having an equivalent amount of cash to invest in replacements, 35 years down the line?

Your icon idea is a better option.[/QOUTE]

At the expense of a bit more visual clutter on the unit display, though. You'd also need to have it displayed in the battlefield interface, to be able to take account of this factor.

But I still think refreshing would be more accurate than decomissioning.

But what are we doing? We are discussing the details of a feature which is not present, and will probably never be present. If it is going to be added, let CA worry about it .

True. It was just something I was curious about.

You can get the Warlord Edition for the same money as MI, and it has also a number of extra's, so I recommand buing that one.

I'll look for it next time I'm at the shop, though if RTW is out by the time I get around to it and they are similar in price I'll probably buy RTW instead.

Yes, and...? The relation to our discussion is...?

I only brought that up after the "men available for 40 days per year" thing was mentioned and I'd speculated that this was due to weather considerations. Classic example of weather working against a side which the odds say should have won. Admittedly off topic, so apologies for that.

[Ludens]

I only brought that up after the "men available for 40 days per year" thing was mentioned and I'd speculated that this was due to weather considerations. Classic example of weather working against a side which the odds say should have won. Admittedly off topic, so apologies for that.

OT-warning

I wanted to continue discussing your example: there wasn't so much as a fighting season, it just was that the king had a right to summon his feudal levies for forty days a year, any forty days a year. If he needed them longer, he had to pay. And this quite often happened the French kings during the hundred years war (when they were chasing the smaller English armies around until the English found a good hill and let the French storm themselves to death), so it was not really weather-dependent. The idea is just that the feudal lords need those soldiers as well and since they pay for the soldiers, they got more right to it. The king probably didn't need the army for much longer, so it was a sensible arangement. Except when the king did need them longer.

And your example is flawed, because at the time of Agincourt England had replaced this feudal idea with a system of cash-payments. England needed to fight an oversea war, so the forty days limit (and this includes the time needed to get to the assembly point) was a severe problem. So, during the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, instead of sending men you could pay the king a sum of money (originally, you would have to pay a fine if you didn't show up). For this money, the king recruited soldiers and mercenaries, which he paid from his own pocket. This allowed him to keep an army in the field for as long as he wished, or as long as his money lasted. Also, it made his armies loyal to him alone, and not to their feudal lords.

[EatYerGreens]

Your remark about Crecy, except for being horribly irrelevant and off-topic, is also incorrect . At Crecy the French knights stayed mounted. You are probably refering to Agincourt.

Gah! Well spotted. I did say my history knowledge wasn't that great, didn't I? (not in this thread though). Thanks for the correction.

At least you recognised which one I meant, just from the description.

I only raised it by way of making the point about weather. If played out in wargame style, with no account taken of the weather and the ground conditions that resulted from it, the French should have won based on the quality and numbers they sent in, versus the numbers and quality they were up against. Of course, this was precisely the reason why they proceeded to go into battle in the first place - they thought it would be a walkover...