Weapon upgrades

[Quinn Inuit]

What does everyone think of allowing weapon upgrades? Do they make the game more realistic (access to better skills, metal, etc.), or do they make certain units (*cough*archers*cough*) unrealistically uber?

[Carados]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I've an idea...
Rather than provide weapon/armour bonuses, how about they give an experience bonus?

The weapon/armour bonus isn't the problem, but the potential +9 attack and defence skill that you get through experience. Giving everyone +1, +2 or +3 experience depending on weapon quality might actually reduce the impact experience has, because everyone will have more experience.

[darth_dov]

I'm not an expert, but I like the second option best. I don't want units to become too powerful later on, but they did get better technology, so 1 upgrade level makes sense to me.

[Slowpoke]

What about removing the first two buildings (blacksmith+armorer, blacksmith+weaponsmith)? The way I envision it, you replace them with a building (Market prereq.) called something like Smelter or Furnace which adds a trade bonus and is necessary for the upgrade tree (after all, large-scale arms/armour production needed quite a considerable metal industry). This building should be rather expensive and time-consuming to build (more for the 'civilised' peoples, less for the 'barbarians'). The 'civilised' peoples would then be able to build the Foundry (+2 small/heavy weapons, +2 armour, +1 shields), while the 'barbarians' would be able to build the cheaper (-50% cost, -25% build time) Armoury (+1 small/heavy/armour, +1 shields). The second level would add a further +1 to all, except shields. Basically have only two upgrade building levels, who add more consistent bonuses (although in the case of 'barbarians', unit training/upkeep costs will probably need to be adjusted slightly downwards).

[Mogan]

Hm. I actually liked the idea by Slowpoke best. I think it would end up pretty balanced as well.

[GraaEminense]

I always thought armour upgrades made far more sense than weapon upgrades, and missile weapon upgrades the least sense.

Slowpoke's idea has merit. Of the ones presented, keeping it as is would be preferable.

[Sadistic Magician]

I really like what slowpoke said too. Excluding missile weapon upgrades is a simply good idea.

[leemyster]

Perhaps there could be a system where weapon upgrades i.e. armourers and foundries are only available in certain areas e.g. high end upgrade buildings are only available in places where there were historically a supply of good quality metals or metal smiths.

Likewise we could make the differences in metal work more extreme between the factions e.g. say the germans were not skilled metal smiths then maybe they should only get access to blacksmiths, or even more extreme none at all. While at the same time more 'civilised' factions or factions which historically occupied areas with good metal work should get access to higher upgrades with say Pontus or the selucids (or w/e accurate) could have the ability to get +3 (i.e. gold) on units so as to show how their metal work was superior to say the gauls.

Edit: I'm only giving the respective factions as theoretical examples

[JaNuZ99]

Perhaps there could be a system where weapon upgrades i.e. armourers and foundries are only available in certain areas e.g. high end upgrade buildings are only available in places where there were historically a supply of good quality metals or metal smiths.

Likewise we could make the differences in metal work more extreme between the factions e.g. say the germans were not skilled metal smiths then maybe they should only get access to blacksmiths, or even more extreme none at all. While at the same time more 'civilised' factions or factions which historically occupied areas with good metal work should get access to higher upgrades with say Pontus or the selucids (or w/e accurate) could have the ability to get +3 (i.e. gold) on units so as to show how their metal work was superior to say the gauls.

this

though i also really like slowpoke's proposition.

[Mogan]

Hm, your ideas are good, but then the Celtiberians would actually have the highest tier of smiths, as their Spanish steel was renomed all around the world for being virtually unbreakable. Ever heard of King Arthur and the Excalibur? Some people regard this legendary sword as possibly a Roman sword, made in Iberia that was inherited, and thus had the ability to break the unpure-Saxon swords. Just a theory tho.

Also, I think the Germans were fairly good smiths, just that they didn't have much resources avaiable, (so the choice between many poor weapons or few good ones were quite self-explanatory).

How about we make them smiths a part of the AOR? Almost. We tie the higher tie smiths to areas which were historically know for excellent craftswork (like, you control Iberia as Romans, then you get the highest tier)? This could work if we had hidden resources. Then Gaul and German areas would only have access to say armour +1, not because "they weren't good enough", but because they didn't have the technology for mining to the full exploit, thus limiting them with lesser resources. This could create some interesting features, that no other mod have.

[Carados]

Alternatively... we do away with the whole weapon and armour bonus and instead treat it as an economics building. Copper/brass/iron/weapons can all be imported/exported, after all. We don't really need to show an improvement to weapons and armour in terms of their quality because for the most part the actual units themselves will represent that.

Swords were rare in Germany but they became more common as time wore on. Did they learn how to craft those weapons? Possibly. More likely they acquired the weapons through trade and raids with the Celts. Incidently, a middle tier swordsmen unit for the Germans will become accessable should you start developing your trade buildings. There isn't any need for us to have any bonuses to weapons and armour - we should simply have a different unit that has better arms and armour.

[Boom S]

I don't quite agree that weapons bonuses should be represented by hiring new units. IRL you change the weapons of your soldiers, not hire new ones just because you have a new variety of sword.

I agree that there should be one upgrade level at most and some units, like spears or missile units should not get an upgrade. that said, if a culture shifts from wooden javelins to iron-tipped javelin that should mean one upgrade level.

[Caligula Caesar]

You can retrain units for weapon and armour bonuses.

I really don't get why people say the Germans were low on resources and didn't have much iron. There is a reason why the Ruhrgebiet (around the Rhine) is the most densely populated areas in Europe, besides being the powerhouse of Germany. Not to mention that the German economy is based on manufacturing. Iron is actually more available than you might think.

[Mogan]

I've always believed that those vast resources only became accessible during later years due to lack of proper mining in those areas. Or permanent settlement for that sake.

[Caligula Caesar]

There were settlements in southern Germany at least, and there was widespread trade. Athenian pots have been found across Europe

[Quinn Inuit]

Aye, but they weren't necessarily trading their local iron. Germans didn't have access to a lot of metal in the early days. They were still using clubmen up into Tacitus's day, IIRC.

BoomS: This is sort of the grandfather's axe paradox. If you give the same guys new armour, new weapons, etc., at what point is it a new unit?

I'm surprised this poll is so close. It's a tough call, isn't it?

[Carados]

I think Dawn of War has some units we could use if option four wins.

Each option has merit. Technologies did improve and for that reason it seems logical that we should give everyone (excepting ranged units) the capabilities for +3 weapons and armour. You can never underestimate the appeal of growth, and gaining better weapons and armour definitely counts as growth.

That said, +3 attack and +3 armour doesn't make all that sense for some units. Low level units suddenly find their attack power increased by nearly 50% - are those knives equal to satisfactory swords?? Likewise, how does an unarmoured unit justify having +3 armour?! Surely a helmet can't give that much protection. If this was M2TW then we can actually give them armour to justify this. For a falx unit, +3 armour could easily be represented by the addition of greaves and a good helmet. The Roman legions would have extended armour on the arms and plates around the neck and so forth (for protection against the falx). Unfortunately, RTW just can't accomodate for this.

My arguement for getting rid of the bonuses is that these bonuses are already factored in with higher quality units. A principle, by virtue of being richer than an hastati, already has better arms and armour and this is demonstrated by their higher attack and armour stats. There will always be poor people who can't afford the best equipment. We have to remember that it was more often than not the responsibility of the individual to provide their own arms and armour. A nation might get rich, but would the poor get rich? Why would the rich people give money to the poor so that they can afford better equipment? Of course, sometimes the poor would get richer. The nature of Roman politics and society means that eventually more and more hastati could afford all of the equipment that a principle could. How is this best represented? Simply by recruiting more principles with the greater wealth that the faction has gained through conquest. How does a faction get wealth? They either conquer an opposing people and take their own weapons and armour. Alternatively, they'll trade with another nation to gain better weapons and armour, or at least the resources to craft better weapons and armour.

There is only so much a weapon or armour can be improved before it becomes something else. Lets take the linothorax. That grants 4 armour in our system. If you were to add +1 armour to that unit, what would it represent? You could say a helmet or greaves, but practically every single bearer of the linothorax have greaves and helmet already. So what else? Well, you could add a few bits of metal armour to vulnerable locations? Perhaps a curved plate of metal or scale armour on the flank without the shield to protect against stab attacks that get through their parry. +2 armour, well... there has to be more metal somewhere doesn't there? Maybe the shoulders would have increased protection to protect from overhead blows that hoplites and similiar like to do. This is all well and good. Now, what about +3 armour? Not much left for us to add stuff now. Lets just slap on metal to the other unprotected bits... wait... now it's exactly the same as a chainmail suit?! Our system gives chainmail 7 armour. A linothorax with +3 armour (thus effectively turned into a mail suit) grants 7 armour. That's a thorakitai? Why not just recruit a unit of those with all that money. Much better that way, wouldn't you think?

[Quinn Inuit]

I think that's an excellent argument for a limited bonus.

How should we implement that? Just give a +1 bonus at the blacksmith level, or give the blacksmith an income boost and make the bonus at the next level?

[Sadistic Magician]

I think that's an excellent argument for a limited bonus.

How should we implement that? Just give a +1 bonus at the blacksmith level, or give the blacksmith an income boost and make the bonus at the next level?

Second one. If you allow only 1 bonus that should be harder to get --> longer development.

[GraaEminense]

Carados makes a compelling statement for limited upgrades.

Weapons upgrade (no missiles) with Blacksmith, Armour upgrade with Armourer. Or the other way around -I think armour is more valuable game-wise and represented more significant 'modernization' historically than weapons upgrades (artificial distinction, of course).+1 bonus max, nothing for missiles.

It's still valuable, but it's a hefty investment for limited gain and nowhere near enough to make a poorer troop the equivalent of a richer one.