Build Tree Poll and Information

**tornnight** · January 31, 2007, 10:57 AM

- CURRENT BUILDINGS -

(Militia Type Barracks)
Town Watch
Town Guard
City Watch
Militia Drill Square
Militia Barracks
Army Barracks
Royal Armoury

(Professional Soldier Type Barracks)
Mustering Hall
Garrison Quarters
Drill Square
Barracks
Armoury

- POSSIBLE BUILD TREES -

Possible build tree #1
This build tree will provide the professional soldiers first and miltia next.
Issues:
- This helps the AI focus on using professional soldiers as their main battlefield units
- Militia units are always secondary and inferior to other available units.
- Longer build tree

Mustering Hall -> Town Watch -> Garrison Quarters -> Town Guard -> City Watch ->
-> Drill Square -> Militia Drill Square -> Barracks -> Militia Barracks -> Armoury
-> Army Barracks -> Royal Armoury

Possible build tree #2
This build tree will provide the militia first and professional soldiers next.
Issues:
- AI will use the strongest units first which occasionally can be militia depending
on the progress of the tree
- Militia occasionally better than other available units.
- Longer build tree

Town Watch -> Town Guard -> Mustering Hall -> City Watch -> Garrison Quarters ->
Militia Drill Square -> Drill Square -> Militia Barracks -> Barracks -> Army Barracks -> Armoury -> Royal Armoury

Possible build tree #3
This build tree features independent build trees for cities/castles ala vanilla MTW2.
Issues:
-Both build trees feature all the units.
-Can differentiate between unit recruitment speeds/experience levels in cities vs castles
-Standard short build tree

Town Watch -> Town Guard -> City Watch -> Militia Drill Square -> Militia Barracks -> Army Barracks -> Royal Armoury
-------------------------
Mustering Hall -> Garrison Quarters -> Drill Square -> Barracks -> Armoury

**tornnight** · January 31, 2007, 11:03 AM

-HISTORICAL BACKGROUND-

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/matthaywo...al_Germany.htm
http://www.hyw.com/books/history/Evolutio.htm

Town troops
The instability of the region meant towns and cities tended to have some form of fortifications and a town militia for defence. The town militia was raised and drilled by quarters. Each quarter of a town being expected to provide, arm and train a certain number of troops. Some of the 'quarters' were centred around the Merchant guilds of the district. Towns often contained arsenals of equipment for their militia, although usually it was up to the individual to supply his personal arms. Those rich enough would have been mounted. The majority of the militia were a mix of missile men, usually crossbows, and spearmen.

The militias were normally only expected to fight in defence of the town and in the immediate locality. Although many cities and towns had ordinances requiring their citizens to train during peace time these were difficult to enforce and as a result the militias tended to be of dubious quality. Though frequently adequate for the defence of the city walls and better than the mass levy, their battlefield role was secondary.

**Beagler** · January 31, 2007, 11:21 AM

I voted for #1 because I want the AI to field professional armies that will pose a challenge. Also, offensive armies would almost never be composed of town militia units, and currently that seems to be all you ever fight against.

**bkyn75** · January 31, 2007, 11:35 AM

Is it possible to give us the option upon installation like you did with the building-times? Or would that be too much work?

**tornnight** · January 31, 2007, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by bkyn75

Is it possible to give us the option upon installation like you did with the building-times? Or would that be too much work?

The big issue is that the balance for the units, building costs, building times, differentiation between castles/cities, has to be tailored to each tree. It would just be too much to maintain. I could be wrong but that's how it seems right now.

**bkyn75** · January 31, 2007, 11:57 AM

The big issue is that the balance for the units, building costs, building times, differentiation between castles/cities, has to be tailored to each tree. It would just be too much to maintain. I could be wrong but that's how it seems right now.

that makes sense.

I vote Build Tree 3, Seperate Build Trees sharing all units then.

**Sulla's Dog** · January 31, 2007, 12:02 PM

I voted for build tree 1 also, for the sole reason of the A.I. being forced into more challenging and interesting offensive armies.

I agree that Militias should not be sent off on expansive campaigns and wars, as they are primarily a defensive force, at least historically as far as I am aware.

Seeing AI armies invading with militia spearmen, crossbowmen and some ballistas does not make me happy.

Tornnight - if you could let us know, once you are able to work on it, how build tree works out in terms of what the A.I. uses for it's armires I think it will be very constructive.

Thanks again for all your hard work!

**Jush** · January 31, 2007, 03:05 PM

Shoot. I voted for #1 but now that I think about it, I kind of want #3 for the experience bonus given by castles.

**Baeksen** · January 31, 2007, 03:20 PM

I voted 3 as it seems to give an easy/good way to differentiate between cities and castles.

And coupled with a difference in the number of units one can recruit from a city and castle, it would still be appealing to build castles.

**Sulla's Dog** · January 31, 2007, 06:02 PM

Originally Posted by Jush

Shoot. I voted for #1 but now that I think about it, I kind of want #3 for the experience bonus given by castles.

I voted for #1 also but now that I think of it, I want #3 instead as it is exactly what I was speaking about and supporting in other threads.

**Forral** · February 01, 2007, 12:52 AM

I did not vote at all.

I think perhaps it would be interesting to keep the build trees separate in a similar manner in which stables currently are dependant on your level of barracks.

Currently you'd need to build a first level barrack in order to build a first level stable. However, building the stables is not a requirement for a second level barrack, so you are able to choose to concentrate on only infantry, if you so wish.

If that same thing was implemented for professional- and militia infantry it might be quite interesting. So you'd need to have access to "militia training facilities" of the same level of the "professional soldier's training facility" you attempt to build.

Could possibly work for archers as well. So first you'd need a militia structure, and only then do you get access to the limited specialized training buildings.

-Forral-

**burrek** · February 01, 2007, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by Forral

I did not vote at all.

I think perhaps it would be interesting to keep the build trees separate in a similar manner in which stables currently are dependant on your level of barracks.

Currently you'd need to build a first level barrack in order to build a first level stable. However, building the stables is not a requirement for a second level barrack, so you are able to choose to concentrate on only infantry, if you so wish.

If that same thing was implemented for professional- and militia infantry it might be quite interesting. So you'd need to have access to "militia training facilities" of the same level of the "professional soldier's training facility" you attempt to build.

Could possibly work for archers as well. So first you'd need a militia structure, and only then do you get access to the limited specialized training buildings.

-Forral-

I like this idea.

Here are my 2 cents:

Keep the separate building trees with the following exception:

For both castles and cities make all basic militia units, spearmen, town, archer, crossbowmen, pike, be recruitable from the first tire military building and control the type available as time progresses rather than based on buildings.

1100-1200 only archers (long recruitment) and spearmen
1200-1300 only crossbowmen and spearmen
1300-1400 only crossbowmen, spearmen, and pike(halberd)men
1400-1500 only handgunners, crossbowmen, pikemen

Any more advanced military buildings would allow training of higher tire units.

Castles
tire 2 - knights (expensive and with long recruitment delay)
3 - sergeants (cheap, better than militias)
4 - advanced units (zweihanders, norse axemen, musketeers, lancers, etc.)
5 - more advanced units

Towns
tire 2 - cavalry militais
tire 3 - men-at-arms
tire 4 - advanced units
tire 5 - regular armies

That way each tire is not bound to a specific unit but rather a unit type which then can be changed depending on time period.

**Sulla's Dog** · February 01, 2007, 08:08 AM

Originally Posted by burrek

I like this idea.

Here are my 2 cents:

Keep the separate building trees with the following exception:

For both castles and cities make all basic militia units, spearmen, town, archer, crossbowmen, pike, be recruitable from the first tire military building and control the type available as time progresses rather than based on buildings.

1100-1200 only archers (long recruitment) and spearmen
1200-1300 only crossbowmen and spearmen
1300-1400 only crossbowmen, spearmen, and pike(halberd)men
1400-1500 only handgunners, crossbowmen, pikemen

Any more advanced military buildings would allow training of higher tire units.

Castles
tire 2 - knights (expensive and with long recruitment delay)
3 - sergeants (cheap, better than militias)
4 - advanced units (zweihanders, norse axemen, musketeers, lancers, etc.)
5 - more advanced units

Towns
tire 2 - cavalry militais
tire 3 - men-at-arms
tire 4 - advanced units
tire 5 - regular armies

That way each tire is not bound to a specific unit but rather a unit type which then can be changed depending on time period.

If it isn't building-based, then what's the incentive to build? Upgrades? Ok, but really the motivation while playing is to get X building built so that Y unit, your reward, becomes available.

**Ivniciix** · February 02, 2007, 01:23 AM

I voted for #3. Seperate build trees makes the most sense to me...and army units being better than militia does as well. However, I could see where some units could be in both trees but have a greater experience level if they came from a castle. Perhaps this means naming them differently such as Militia Archers/Spearmen vs Levy Archers/Spearmen (Levy for Castle-regular army versions).

You could use this approach only in the early years since there are probably enough unit types in later eras to not need it. However, I can also see where it might be valid to have "town" black powder and "army" black powder units too. I'm not sure I have a preference except that castle units need to be better than town units....with the notable exception of seige equipment I think...they would likely be better built in towns where there are craftsmen.

The question is would the AI know the difference and use it if it were only an experience boost? And, would the AI simply put army units in towns and ignore the "free" status for garrisoning with the "proper" units?

Edit: I may have made a confusing statment regarding "Black Powder" units. I meant black powder infantry might be suitable for both trees. I think wooden seige equipment ought to be a city building while cannon ought to be a castle building to simulate the construction of "arsenals".