An argument for 1.1 Balance (Hope you like text)

[DarthDisco]

In various other threads I have seen two subjects talked about frequently; army and agent move distances, and recruitment balancing. I would like to offer an opinion on how these two gameplay devices might be improved for BC1.1.

Currently, I have found that the general consensus on movement points is that they are too high and should therefore be lowered in 1.1 to promote more strategic gameplay. While I agree that having slower armies would force you as the player to think further ahead when you send your Legions out to conquer distant lands, I feel that there is a more realistic way to create the same level of strategic challenge.

This is done instead by changing the duration frequency of the recruitment system. In a word, certain units should take more than one turn to train, and others should take longer to return to the recruitment pool than they currently do. Some will argue that this change will limit the size of armies and to a point I must concede this is true. However, as I will express below, I do not think this is necessarily either a bad, or unstrategic thing.

My argument for both of these changes has its basis in a simple understanding of medieval history. With the current Turn system in BC, every 3 turns constitutes 1 year. Ergo, every turn is 4 months. Currently, with a well developed road system, one can march an army from Constantinople to Jerusalem in 3 to 5 turns, or 12 to 20 months. We know from medieval history that it would only have taken 1 to 2 months at most for such a march in real life, and that by sea the journey would have been measured in weeks.

In contrast, history also teaches us that the act of raising said army for the march, was indeed a far more time consuming task. As a simple example, the 4th Crusade took nearly 2 years to prepare, more than 12 months even if you discount the fact that much of the first year was spent raising money and not troops.

The point here is that raising an army should take longer than marching it, not the other way around. This was true of the medieval period, and, I believe, if it becomes true of BC, it will only serve to improve the gameplay. While slowing army movement would making players think about where they send their forces, slowing army recruitment instead goes an additional step further, forcing players to think about when and what they recruit.

To specify a little bit, I am not proposing that every unit takes 5+ turns to recruit, on the contrary, my idea is both elegant and simple. Tier 1 and Tier 2 units should take one turn to recruit as they do currently. Tier 3 and 4 units should require 2 turns to recruit. And finally, tier 5 units should get the respect they deserve by taking 3 turns to recruit. For retraining purposes, the number of turns would be relative to the damage to the unit, so a tier 4 units with less than 50% damage would only require 1 turn to repair.

This system would also make players take better care of their elite units, as was also the case in the real medieval theater of war. While tier 1 and 2 units will be plentiful, tier 3 and 4 units will be less expendable, and tier 5 elites will be rare and worth their values.

Questions and Comments are welcome. As noted at the beginning of the thread, this is merely my humble opinion, as supported by historical inquiry.

[Kara Kolyo]

I can see one major gameplay flaw here - we will have to fight against militia armies most of the time since the AI loves it's cheap troops. Miraj said that in 1.5 there will be less stack spams, so with this system we will fight not only fewer but weaker armies too. Having not to fight against 5 armies every turn is great, but if we face only militia spearmen and archers - why bother at all?

Don't know about this consensus on the movement rate, but i think that currently it's near perfect and creates big strategic opportunities for both the player and AI

[Captain Spanky]

I would disagree with the OP, but he does raise a good point.

I feel that BC would be better benefited by lower movement speed, and as for recruitment rates, I really have no problems with that at all.

Now, I'm not a historian, I find it interesting, sure, but I dont play Total War games to recreate hisotry. I play to kick ass and take names. I like the way I can assume control of one the powers of that age, but I dont want to play a history book. If this game were to have slower recruitment periods, I think it would detract from the enjoyment of the game, even though it is probably more historically viable.

I think the most important thing with any game or mod is playability, accuracy should not be placed in front. If your ideas were to be incorporated into the game, then I think we would be faced with a lot of low level armies, and while using elites would be fun and quite special, I cant help but feel that the constant use of militia and what not would bore me.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and I dont mean any offense by my post.

[Bull]

I suppose what you propose will discourage players from spamming high-tiered units, and therefore arriving at an army composition that's more in keeping with the medieval world.

Like Kara Kolyo already said, MTWII AI has difficulty gathering together a decent army already, what you propose will virtually ensure that we fight against militia grade armies all the time.

I think this can only be solved when BC goes Kingdoms, since the Kingdoms allows for a recruitment priority to be set for units (it's used in Stainless Steel mod). Actually the current BC feature of giving AI generals traits that encourage pop growth is quite nice in this respect, because if AI's castles upgrade faster than they produce high tiered units earlier and more often, and gives the human player some challenge.

[Aurion]

So, basically, you're suggesting that the BC team put in a clone of the Real Recruitment mod that's a part of SS 6.x?

Don't think so. even at a high-tier military installation in BC, it takes 4-5 turns to raise a full army from scratch. Which you shouldn't, anyways, as you should already have a core standing army to build from.

The Crusade example you cited is fallacious in that Crusades literally pulled in troops from across Western Europe, which was a organizational and logistical nightmare. Wheras in the TW engine units typically hail from the same core area, as opposed to having troops from half a dozen independent nations, especially with the Area of recruitment in BC already.

There's going to be a auxilia system in place for later versions of BC, which will slow down army creation in that it takes time for forces from the corners of your empire to gather, just as it took time for the various Crusading nobility to gather. So I don't think this has a leg to stand on.

[Cromagnon2]

There is a homeland restriction to where to recruit your elite and high tier units
already, so makes no sense in depleting unit pools.

I also find that unit movement is perfect as it is, as you say it is more realistic. So I don't see the point to decrease unit movement.

[Faris ad Din]

The Crusade example you cited is fallacious in that Crusades literally pulled in troops from across Western Europe, which was a organizational and logistical nightmare. Wheras in the TW engine units typically hail from the same core area, as opposed to having troops from half a dozen independent nations, especially with the Area of recruitment in BC already.

There's going to be a auxilia system in place for later versions of BC, which will slow down army creation in that it takes time for forces from the corners of your empire to gather, just as it took time for the various Crusading nobility to gather. So I don't think this has a leg to stand on.

Not applicable to all of the Crusades, and to that point, raising armies rather than marching them required long time periods. The "six week crash" we saw in the United States in 1917 that raised ten million soldiers is a relatively new invention.

The First and Second Crusades indeed lacked organization - they attracted all kinds of fighters with all kinds of motives from thugs to vagrants, and we can see the result in what they did to Antioch and Jerusalem. From what little I know of the Third Crusade, the participating kings, Richard III, Phillip II, and Barbarossa raised large professional armies from their kingdoms, centrally commanded, centrally coordinated, properly funded and supplied. These were much more effective than previous Crusader armies, save for the fact they were facing a similarly organized opponent with even greater numbers in the Turkish/Arab armies of Salahadin.

These armies took quite some time to raise regardless. Richard levied his infamous "Saladin tithe" on Britain, spending the only six months of his life there for the express purpose of raising money for the Third Crusade.

Roman legions took three years to raise and train... Napoleon required several years to form his Grande Armée to march on Russia. All the other professional armies in history until the modern era required lengthy times to form. And this is part of the reason nations maintained standing armies, which are both 1. better in quality compared to the kinds of armies you can raise during the off-winter season (and risk having most of the soldiers desert in the spring to plant their crops if your campaign does not reach its objective quickly enough), and 2. instantly accessible to that matter, as raising such armies required several years.

Every other military force that did not require such a time were ones that simply conglomerated existing soldiers that were available, like the Arab and Mongol tribes when they were united. For sedentary civilizations, the effort is much more labor and time intensive. When Saladin's army was destroyed, he required at least a year to recover and raise his army.

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin :

While Saladin was consolidating his power in Syria, he usually left the Crusader kingdom alone, although he was generally victorious whenever he did meet the Crusaders in battle. One exception was the Battle of Montgisard on November 25, 1177. He was defeated by the combined forces of Baldwin IV of Jerusalem, Raynald of Chatillon and the Knights Templar. Only one tenth of his army made it back to Egypt.

A truce was declared between Saladin and the Crusader States in 1178. Saladin spent the subsequent year recovering from his defeat and rebuilding his army, renewing his attacks in 1179 when he defeated the Crusaders at the Battle of Jacob's Ford.

This "down time" for the purpose of rebuilding an army was at least a year, even given the resources of both Egypt and Syria. The point is, raising professional standing armies was a multiannual effort, whether the commander intends to send them on a one-month march to neighboring regions or a two-year march across continents (like for the Romans or in the Crusades). It is more frequently the case that sedentary civilizations have goals of defending their immediate territories and assets and/or augmenting them with the nearest obtainable ones, and so we have the situation that DarthDisco quite accurately describes - recruitment times for armies often dwarfed their transport times.

That was speaking from a point of historical reality. From a gaming standpoint, it doesn't work very well in turn-based games like M2:TW (it's reflected in RTS where you spend 10-15 minutes building up an army that spends 2 minutes traveling/fighting but that's a different story).

To that matter, unit training costs and upkeep will be raised (or units will be somehow otherwise tweaked) in 1.5 to reduce stackage. This won't be like the changes DarthDisco described, but it'll likely be welcomed by most of the community. No more 2.5 million-troop armies flooding the map!!!

[Aurion]

Well, not to make generalizations, but it's also a slightly more organized affair when it's a single nation. Given that it takes oh...1-2 years of game time to raise up a new army, maybe another 6 months to gather from the different areas of the kingdom and organize, I think the current system actually work rather well.

I always thought that the recruitment system in TW games for higher-tier units was more of a mobilization system than a creation system, given that your best troops are only available at a few select locations, which one could presume are their permanent bases or homes. Like, the men are already there and ready if need be, "recruiting" them is more just organizing them into a cohesive force. One of the bigger problems for the Crusaders was getting all their people there, as say England was a long, long, long, long way from the Levant back then. In BC the action tend to be more ah, locally focused, I guess.

It is creation for crappy militias in that you throw them a spear and shield and tell them to form lines.

I could see maybe 2 turns for they very best units to simulate the need to gather the very best equipment and raid other organizations for their best men, but that's about it.


And now, off on a tangent:

Napoleon did say that his favorite type of enemy was a coalition. The Crusaders didn't ever really work out a cohesive command structure, even for the Kings' Crusade. Richard and Phillip's personal rivalry was quite a hinderance to reviving Outremer, on top of having to contend with Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub.

[Garbarsardar]

The problem is that the AI (that will be forced to follow any implemented changes) is not presently equipped with any kind of strategic "mind" necessary for these changes to be felt by the player as a challenge.

[Strelac]

Moving distances were defined in correlation with AI campaign behavior, to help the AI better indentify routes and targets on the map, as well as compose larger stock of army. IMO, the way they are set today, offers some other benefits as well making the game more challenging.
Regarding the recruitment and refresh times, prolonging the time required to recruit the “quality” troops would lead the AI to stock only lesser grade units. This is not speculation, but fact. Think of it this way, AI is like a drunken sailor who is eager to spend the money, so it makes sense to offer them the best available in order to make the game more challenging for player.

@faris
yes, problems is in application, not PC processing power.

[DarthDisco]

Fair enough. Just as an aside, I never suggested movement distances be increased or decreased, I'm personally happy with them as they are, I just noted that they are not particularly realistic.

So it seems that the problem is that changing recruitment would downgrade the armies fielded by the AI. If that's the case then I suppose I can accept that. I am curious however: Cromagnon2 mentioned that elite units are supposed to have a "homeland" recruitment restriction. This seemed to indicate something more specific than just AOR. As far as I know, with a few (odd) exceptions, all my units are recruitable all across my AOR for all factions I have played.

Some exceptions I know off the top of my head: KOJ can recruit Turkopoles in a much wider AOR than their other units. ERE can NOT recruit ranged units south of Jerusalem [in Gaza specifically] but can still get full Barracks and Stables (whats up with that?)

[DarthDisco]

CORRECTION: I have discovered why I could not build ranged units for ERE in Gaza, because I captured the citadel with a Marksman's range already in it, and the ERE build stats do not provide for the possibility of capturing a marksman's range. Currently the only solution in game is to destroy the range and build a new archery range. This should be addressed in 1.5.

[Cromagnon2]

Currently the only solution in game is to destroy the range and build a new archery range. This should be addressed in 1.5.

Hi DarthDisco. I always destroy unit producing buildings from another culture when I capture a town. I remember playing Rome Total Realism for RTW
where you had to build a pacification building before being able to recruit local troops, that could take quite some turns, but made the game more challenging.
This could be an idea to implement in BC, instead of recruiting insta good troops from a fresh captured region.

[Aurion]

Hi DarthDisco. I always destroy unit producing buildings from another culture when I capture a town. I remember playing Rome Total Realism for RTW
where you had to build a pacification building before being able to recruit local troops, that could take quite some turns, but made the game more challenging.
This could be an idea to implement in BC, instead of recruiting insta good troops from a fresh captured region.

Or EB.

[Kavhan Isbul]

DarthDisco brings up some good points. However, I rarely get to my highest tier units, I usually only manage to get to the mid-tier troops, unless I capture or buy an already developped settlement from the AI.
I also wonder, is there any way to reserve the bodyguard unit only for the ruler and his heir, and give other generals and family members some lower level cavalry unit? For example, nakharars to the Takavor, and aspets to the other generals.

[Aurion]

It might not be doable, although for some factions there are recruitable generals who are weaker than the family member bodyguard units.

Specifically, the Seljuk Turks can recruit Royal Ghulams which gives you a unit of heavy cavalry and a generic general.

If it were left up to me, the whole "extended family" crap that dates back to R:TW would get chucked, and the "family members" as such would be a small circle of people who are directly related to the current ruler as in M:TW, and most of your armies would end up being led by local nobles who could be represented by recruitable generals.

Unfortunately, it might be hardcoded unless you can tie the quality of a FM's bodyguards to some generic "royal blood" trait or something.

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

'twould be easier for you to use an edit, DarthDisco.

On topic, this AOR, while being realistic, is also infuriatingly limited. I am pining away for the auxilia system...

[Aurion]

There's a map somehwere on these fourms that shows the Areas of Recruitment for either 1.1 or 1.5, and lists what areas constitute each faction's "home" area.

[Strelac]

AOR in the initial release was not well structured, if structured at all. We more or less just “loaded” it to allow for mod release. The 1.5 AOR will be based on actually thought out concept, and I think it will be worth the effort. In either way, AOR is here to stay, but we will always continue to shape it to allow practical and fun play.

[Ahiga]

It is possible to feature recruitable generals who use a different bodyguard, such as lacking the 2 Hp.