retraining troops....

**NicSO** · 02-26-2005, 19:00

We all know that retraining is way to fast and that is unrealistic. If I must train unit by unit it would be ok that retraining is also in that order.
It would be good thing to see mod which enables troops retraining one by one like in MTW and STW. Game is to easy this way.
I would like to see this change in totalrealism mod 6.0...

**Khorak** · 02-26-2005, 20:07

I don't see it as unrealistic. It's a six month period. I find it more unrealistic that a massive city is incapable of training more than a single tiny unit every six months.

**The Stranger** · 02-26-2005, 20:40

i agree with khorak, a city with 90,000 inhabitants should be able to train more than 240 men max each 6 months

**Khorak** · 02-26-2005, 21:34

Originally Posted by Emperor Umeu 1

i agree with khorak

You'd best go get yourself checked out then. It can be contagious, you don't want to put loved ones at risk.

**screwtype** · 02-26-2005, 21:46

Originally Posted by Khorak

I don't see it as unrealistic. It's a six month period. I find it more unrealistic that a massive city is incapable of training more than a single tiny unit every six months.

True but then in any six month period the game only allows you to move a unit maybe a hundred miles or so. Given that Roman armies could march 20 miles a day it's totally unrealistic.

So the point is not really whether or not it's realistic to be able to retrain nine or ten units at a time, it's how that easy retraining affects gameplay. And in gameplay terms it just makes the steamroll effect all the more apparent.

**AntiochusIII** · 02-26-2005, 22:10

Instead I prefer your opposite. Say, make every unit takes 0 times to train. Now it's balanced, because you need to overhaul the cost and upkeep higher to keep the game reasonable and harder.

Harder work, but more fun and no more freakish slow training.

Of course, it's a matter of opinion, but I don't wanna see that in RTR, so...

**NicSO** · 02-26-2005, 22:29

The game is to easy this way, tooo easy, childplay.

Someone was writing about this in some other topic, maybe bugs, dunno but game would be harder because this way we are all jus pulling army back, retrain it in only one turn and thing asre like no loss never occured.

**screwtype** · 02-26-2005, 22:48

Originally Posted by NicSO

The game is to easy this way, tooo easy, childplay.

Someone was writing about this in some other topic, maybe bugs, dunno but game would be harder because this way we are all jus pulling army back, retrain it in only one turn and thing asre like no loss never occured.

Yeah, totally agree, you hardly ever lose a battle but on the rare occasions you do suffer some losses, you can make them up so easily the loss is completely insignificant.

IMO this is just another part of the "dumbing down". The idea is to give twitch gamers more action, more battles and not to upset them too much with the need for strategic planning. But for those of us who *want* a decent challenge, it's all the more reason the game ends up a yawn.

**screwtype** · 02-26-2005, 22:44

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Instead I prefer your opposite. Say, make every unit takes 0 times to train. Now it's balanced, because you need to overhaul the cost and upkeep higher to keep the game reasonable and harder.

I think that's a fair enough approach too, Antiochus, in fact I've considered it myself.

But the problem is that money is too freely available as well, especially once you grab a few provinces. So I'm not sure that just making units more expensive would work in the long run, although it would certainly make things more challenging at the start.

BTW I have proposed the idea of a cost for attacking (only for the human player) to make it hurt more when you lose. For example, if you had to pay double the unit upkeep cost for any unit which participates in an attack, that means you would need to keep a gold reserve in order to mount an offensive. And sometimes you would run out and only be able to defend against the enemy instead of continually expanding.

I also think the steamroll effect could be lessened if the cost of attacking got progressively greater the further away from your (original) capital the battle is fought - to represent overextended supply lines. For example, if you ended up paying three times or four times the normal unit upkeep cost to fight battles far away from your home province, that could do quite a bit to lessen the steamroll effect I think.

**Stlaind** · 02-28-2005, 15:46

what probably happened was that multiple units kept getting reduced below the minimum size for the toop (size setting appears to matter) and got auto-combined with another unit. I have seen this happen to me and I would assume that it happens to the AI as well.

**Quillan** · 02-28-2005, 16:09

I would have thought the same, but they were all full strength. I cannot believe they would have gone through enough troops to have 40+ units of warband with 3 silver chevrons, all at full strenght, simply through combining survivors. A few, yes. Not that many.