Compromise Between 0- and 1-Turn?

[TheSavage]

0-turn recruitment (default in RS) is nice because it seems to improve the strat AI and makes the game more challenging. But as time progresses it can become annoyingly repetitive as the AI can throw multiple huge stacks at you every turn. Rather than fight a few decisive battles you're forced to fight huge battles every turn (and then deal with replenishment logistics every turn).

1-turn recruitment is nice because (A) it slows down your early expansion, (B) it seems more realistic to me, and (C) as the game progresses, you still fight a few decisive battles rather than endless huge battles every turn. But it's problematic because, as the AI cannot organize and deploy its troops as efficiently as a human, it hurts the AI's ability to defend and makes it easier to "steamroll" them with a large force.

I propose a compromise, which has also been used to some extent in the RTR:Imperator mod. Leave unskilled/"lightly trained"/levy (e.g. Light Auxilia, city militias, etc.) 0-turn. Make skilled/"highly trained"/elite units 1-turn. This seems to offer the best compromise... it allows the AI to quickly produce some defense, but prevents the AI (and you, the player) from quickly producing and spamming large stacks of elite units.

Opinions?

[Fox Sterlingworth]

Sounds like a good idea. I have not yet reached the late game in RS, so I haven't experienced multiple attacks in the inter-turn yet. That would not fit my style well, since I generally only have time to play one battle at a time before saving the game and going back to it later.

[century x]

There are some elite units in the game where it takes 1 turn or higher. I want to keep it as it is. 1 turn is to way to slow and it gets boring. Taking forever just to make one army. I can't handle that.

[Caius Antonius]

0-turn takes forever to defeat the endless enemy stacks, especially at a late stage of the game.

1-turn is not that repetitive, but it isn't so realistic, as in real life it didn't take 10 years to form a legion.

[century x]

patience is a virtue

0-turn takes forever to defeat the endless enemy stacks, especially at a late stage of the game.

1-turn is not that repetitive, but it isn't so realistic, as in real life it didn't take 10 years to form a legion.

I understand that patience is a virtue but as Caius said. It didn't take 10 years to form one legion. I guess it all depends on players choice. Mines being I like the endless waves of enemy stacks. If you lose then you now have an enemy armada at your capital and theres nothing you can do. I like that kind of challenge.

[Nick_Since_1985]

If you lose then you now have an enemy armada at your capital and theres nothing you can do. I like that kind of challenge.

But that's the problem, I never lose a land battle except when I'am totaly outnumberd...

To be really honest I can't remember when I lost a full stack battle against another full stack...

Anyone remembers the Darth mod? Ah the memories, been wiped out a couple of times playing with the Julia facing the gauls, those were the days.
I never played with Rome again (a united Rome that is), yust to easy...

[martyr]

patience is a virtue

[lesterthenerd]

with 1 turn recruitment, a way to slow down the human player would be to use that garrison script from the mod spqr because each time u siege a settlement a full stack army arises in the settlement. to slow you down even more you could try waiting until they run out of supplies and attack you.

[Taelok]

This is something I've been struggling with myself recently. I switched over to 0-turn recruitment and thought it was great fun, however now trying to take on the Gauls I find myself fighting 3-4 full scale battles *every* turn, which is just frustrating. But, as century x said, raising a legion takes forever in 1 turn.

If light troops only took 0 turns to recruit, you'd still be facing hordes of enemies, it would just be easier for you. Elite troops would perhaps be less frequent too.

[cherryfunk]

Another alternative would be to play 0-turn for the early game, then switch to 1-turn by swapping out the EDU at a certain point...

[NaptownKnight]

Nick, I think you need experience with the Romans to comment on this. I am running a Roman campaign right now, along with a Getae and Macedonian ones (I loose focus, I will play the Romans then want to play the Macedonians and so on lol), and I am fairly well along in the roman one. I am playing as historically as I can, following the house rules, and have just gotten VE Legions. I had to retrain all of my current armies before moving on (I decided that I would build the Army barracks and thus get the VE Legionaries once I had seized Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica, signifying the end of the first Punic War and the beginning of the second). While I was doing this Macedon assaulted me with two full stacks in Illyria . I had to shuttle troops around to cities that had an army barracks, then shuttle them back to the fronts, and after my current round of battles and conquests I will undoubtedly have to shuttle them back and forth to be retrained. The Romans themselves have better stats than anyone else (and rightfully so), but the logistics of the legion system more than make up for any advantage you have an the battle map, and slowing your expansion.

On the subject of 1 turn vs. 0 turn recruitment, I find 0 turn to be more satisfying and realistic. The early game is more fun, and battles are actually fought between ARMIES, not small contingents. CA obviously also thought this was a good idea, as in Medieval 2 there is 0 turn recruitment.

I understand things can get a bit repetitive, and heres what I do. The auto resolve feature always gives me bad results, even in battles I know I would win. Even if I do win, a lot of the times I will take massive casualties. So, what I do, is in battles in which I know I would win, positively, I type auto_win attacker/defender in the console. Yes, it is technically cheating, but it saves a lot of hassle for me. It's not like you loose zero men either, usually you will receive just about as much casualties as you would on the battle map, save for that the enemy usually gets away with a sizable force (I almost always kill all of my enemies on the battle map).

[Hound of Ulster]

Taking forever just to make one army. I can't handle that.

And is unrealistic, at least for the 'civilized factions', all of who historical could raise large armies fairly quickly.

[century x]

And is unrealistic, at least for the 'civilized factions', all of who historical could raise large armies fairly quickly.

Thank YOU. 0 TURN FOREVERRRRRRRR

[pcaravel]

So, what I do, is in battles in which I know I would win, positively, I type auto_win attacker/defender in the console.

I've never used that command. Is there any pattern of the casualties that the RTW engine calculates? For example something like 10% casualties on the winner and 70% on the loser? Or justs assigns random casualties and declares a winner?

[Nellup]

It seems random, I've tested by sending one unit against a stack and using the console to win and your unit often suffers no casualties but the enemy stack can suffer up to 50% casualties. Whereas you will suffer more casualties if you send a stack against a stack and use the console.

This mod certainly isn't easy, particuarly in the late game when your economy is being stretched trying to maintain the empire.

[NaptownKnight]

I've never used that command. Is there any pattern of the casualties that the RTW engine calculates? For example something like 10% casualties on the winner and 70% on the loser? Or justs assigns random casualties and declares a winner?

It gives a little more favorable results for your casualties in auto resolve. If I send a army of 2800 to siege a settlement, and then assault it, using auto resolve I usually take 1600 casualties or some other unusually ghastly number. The enemy usually would only have like 500 troops in the settlement too. I don't want to play every single battle, so using auto_win on the battles I know I would win is what I do. Using the example before, I usually take around 300 to 600 casualties, a much more reasonable result (and almost exactly, if not a little more, what I would get playing the siege).

On the subject of the recruitment, think about what a turn represents. It represents six months, any state at the time could train and arm 3000 + men in six months. Heck, I think movement points should be increased ten fold, as it doesn't take six months to march from Italy's southern tip up to Illyria, but I understand there could be balance issues with doing that.

[Coldcall]

Just as a side i note because i saw people commenting on the logistics of keeping named legions up to strength when they are in the field far from home.

I think in RS the best method for handling the logistics/reinforcements of cohorts for named legions, is not to ship them back home for retraining. Instead ship out new cohorts to wherever the legion is fighting, and chare the reinforcements from that cohort with the ones already in the army who may be lacking in numbers. This way you can also make sure your legions become seasoned veterans without them risking losing all their experience because you retrained them.

[Nellup]

AFAIK, the individual soldiers keep their experience (at least this was the case in MTW), so if you retrain them, the average experience goes down, but after winning a couple of battles, the experience often jumps up a couple as enough new recruits get experience which drives the average right up.

[Mjr Phil]

Retraining doesn't reduce unit's experience, AFAIK. In fact, I tend to fill the ranks of low-exp unit with soldiers from more experienced one. That way first unit gets exp boost and second usually doesn't loose anything. Then I retrain the second one.

[RenovatioImperii]

The real problem is:

If historical armies could be built in one single turn (and not in 10 years), why REAL empires or kingdoms didn't swarm over europe?

In fact, few battles decide a war. The 0 turn could be good cause it has realistic training, but it need serious balancing.
Historically, soldiers were drafted from population and i think this could cause serious unhappiness.

The more % of population is drafted from a city, the more % of disorders and general unhappiness you have in that city.

Moreover, if a king die or a sequence of very important battles are lost, the losing faction will encounter so much unhappines that waging a war could become impossible.

If we can't manage with diplomacy, then we must balance other factors.
1) Unhappiness caused by drafting.
2) Unit upkeep directly proportional to the distance of nearest ally city. (Hard fighting far from home)
3) Four or five lost battle in a row will cause additional unhappiness.

I don't know if these measures need scripts, but this could be a reasonable solution.

PS: I don't like the 0/1 turn mixed solution. I don't want to see AI armies full of paesants and auxilia...