Recruitment Time

**Dan113112** · July 31, 2012, 09:22 AM

Why does it take so long to recruit certain units in this game. I was playing as England and it takes 8-9 turns to recruit one Light Men-at-Arms. Since one turn is one year in the mod then that is completely unrealistic. Taking 9 years for one unit? In the meantime I get enemies which practically spam Light-Men-at-Arms and other early proffesonials. What gives?

**CloacaMaXima** · July 31, 2012, 09:41 AM

Umm, my Light men at Arms recruit in a turn... are you perhaps talking about the time next company becomes available for recruiting?

**Dan113112** · July 31, 2012, 09:48 AM

Yes. My question is why does it take so long for the next to be available?

**CloacaMaXima** · July 31, 2012, 09:55 AM

Because professional units come from the wealthier classes of the society. In most cases troops had to buy their own equipment (at least partially), so only richer folks could afford becoming professional soldiers with quality equipment. And if you don't happen to know, most of the population is quite poor

Same goes for feudal units, such as knights. Only nobles of some sort can become knights and nobility is quite rare. That's why they're called "nobles" and not "commoners".

In both cases, there simply isn't enough qualifying people in the regions population to form lots of these units in a short time frame.

**Dan113112** · July 31, 2012, 10:05 AM

I know that different types of soldiers are drawn from poor, middle, and upper classes of society. But even in the description it says that Light Men-at-Arms are poor or at least drawn from poorer sections of society. I can understand feudal units and nobles buying their own equipment but shouldn't professional type units be supplied by the lord or the state?

**CloacaMaXima** · July 31, 2012, 10:31 AM

Well, I think this is a feature of Real Recruitment/Real Combat compilation, which is included in SS 6.4. You should go to the sub-mods section and ask in the RR/RC topic about this, they can likely explain it better and in detail to you

**Vissewalde rex de Gerzika** · July 31, 2012, 03:45 PM

Gotta agree that the time for some units is just a bit too much, but then again i am in early game (turn 60). It takes me 12 turns for 1 unit of mailed knights as Scotland, i dont have anything better than castles because of the slowed down population growth, i could just capture a couple of fortresses from AI i guess, but i can get by using hobilars and border horse units as my main cavalry + i dont really have any archers too - 8 turns for a unit of highland archers.

**Dan113112** · July 31, 2012, 05:18 PM

As I said before, I know that feudal units being often very elite would/should take years as many of these soldiers devoted their entire lives to war and training. I understand that militia units are just that and take almost no time at all to recruit. But some professional units like the Light Men-at-Arms should not take that long since they are peasants that have signed a contract and been given better training. If it actually took 8-9 years to train Men-at-Arms then raising armies would take forever and you would not have seen as many big battles as you do in history.

**Duck of Death** · July 31, 2012, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Dan113112

If it actually took 8-9 years to train Men-at-Arms then raising armies would take forever and you would not have seen as many big battles as you do in history.

But, think about it... in medieval times, how many BIG battles did you see? and how often did they happen? with how much build-up time?

More often (during this time period) it was smaller battles with relatively small armies. And even when there were larger armies fighting, it was mostly peasant level troops with a very small knight (or similar elite) contingent.

**Duck of Death** · July 31, 2012, 05:04 PM

I agree with Maxima and DeLion... Medieval armies could be populated with poorly trained masses of troops faster (even then it was tough to get more then peasants in the short span of 6 months (1 turn)).

Getting actual quality units took a few years and getting a single elite unit took many years. As said... Knights trained for a decade or more to get to the level where they were considered elite and there werent many of them training for that long.

Playing as realisticly as possible, this makes me treasure my expensive unit of Knights and be very careful with them. I wont even send Knights into an auto-battle (at least early on when theyre scarce).

**Head of the Heavy Chargers** · August 01, 2012, 11:56 AM

A Spanish king said one can train a knight to master arms in one year, but it takes 10 years for a knight to master the horse. Also steppe people were superb horsemen, because they had been riding since children. People fit for horse archery role were chosen by their skill with horse rather than archery.

It shouldn't take more than 6 months to a year to train someone become good with arms. Though it takes years for one to become an olympic champion with different arms.

**PapaRosario** · August 01, 2012, 11:58 AM

Originally Posted by Head of the Heavy Chargers

A Spanish king said one can train a knight to master arms in one year, but it takes 10 years for a knight to master the horse. Also steppe people were superb horsemen, because they had been riding since children. People fit for horse archery role were chosen by their skill with horse rather than archery.

It shouldn't take more than 6 months to a year to train someone become good with arms. Though it takes years for one to become an olympic champion with different arms.

So it should actually be easier to recruit dismounted knights rather than being more difficult as it currently is?

**Head of the Heavy Chargers** · August 01, 2012, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by PapaRosario

So it should actually be easier to recruit dismounted knights rather than being more difficult as it currently is?

All knights were men-at-arms (professional soldiers), but not all men-at-arms were knights. I think knights and professional soldiers were both very good at fighting on foot while knights fought mostly on horseback. I think when this game says u can recruit a unit of 60 knights on horse or 120 knights on foot I think not all of them are knights. A lot of them are professional soldiers with as good equipment as knights and serve the nobles in combat.

I think the gap between dismounted knights and light men at arms is too wide. There certainly were soldiers who were equiped with good weapons and armor and matched knights in personal combat skills. Not in morale though. Now knights beat LMA hands down.

In SS dismounted knights are rare and become available too late. IMO the whole recruitment system is flawed when higher tier units availability are based on stone buildings.

**Judeman266** · August 01, 2012, 02:05 PM

Recruitment based on buildings is just a way to show the advancement of the recruitment system. Maybe in SS 7.0 there will be a different recruitment system. Even if there isn't, there are submods which change the recruitment system one being HURB.

Also SS differentiates between knights and men at arms by having two entirely separate units, which are available in different quantities throughout the medieval period. That's why early knights gave much better equipment and skill early on. Knights are wearing heavy mail, while light men at arms are wearing light mail. As we approach the mid 14th century knights and men at arms become almost on par because of the affordability of the equipment.

**CoeurDeLion** · August 02, 2012, 12:31 PM

A lot of good points in this discussion.

Duck is spot on about the frequency of medieval battles. They were rare and most often were sieges. If a general or a king fought in three field battles his entire life, it was considered a lot. This is primarily due to the extremely decentralized nature of medieval society (at least in Europe) and the un-organized nature of medieval economics. In comparison, ancient armies like the Greek cities or the Romans, had highly efficient methods of collecting revenue, supplying troops, coordinating logistics, etc, as did more modern armies such as Europe in the periods after the Thirty Year's War.

On the other hand, I do think 8 years for a company of Light Men at Arms is a bit silly. As I mentioned before, I play 2TPY so I can generally get a new company every 3 or 4 years though I forget the exact number of turns at the moment. That is perfectly reasonable to me. Here's why.

#1 Population Density - Medieval people lived overwhelmingly in isolated rural areas. Only a small percentage of the population lived in large towns or cities. Even then, those cities were very small by modern standards. London for example, circa the Norman conquest might have had 15,000 residents total and that is being generous.

#2 Poor Logistics - Continuing to use England as an example, the total population of England in the late 11th century was between roughly 1.5 and 2 million. As stated above, the overwhelming majority of which lived in one of the approximately 13,000 villages, hamlets, and small towns. There was no postal service, very few developed roads, and even fewer accurate maps. News spread, if at all, by word of mouth and most of these rural people never ventured more than 15 or 20 miles from their home village. In short, the means for organizing men was scarce at best. Even organizing a hundred men from a handful of villages to be in one place at the same time was an ordeal.

#3 Lack of Resources / Mentality - The concept of a standing professional army was not present in most medieval societies, with the ERE being the major exception. There was very little training available and most soldiers were essentially seasonal employees who may or may not have any experience with weapons or armor. Furthermore, there was no assembly line for equipment, no standardization for manufacturing, and very little organization in general outside the local level. Since most battles of the period were local small scale affairs, this was not an issue for many centuries.

Now, England is just one example. The Italian city states as a different example, were more densely populated and retained a good deal of Roman technology and knowledge but, lacked the political/social cohesion to use it effectively. The Byzantines were able to muster large forces and organize them on a regular basis, being the successor state of the Roman Empire, but due to poor leadership and cultural disunion, were unable to really capitalize on it.

As time moved on, this changed and armies gradually became more centralized and professional, as did the governments of their respective nations.

I think all of this is very well reflected in SS.

I would recommend embracing it rather than fighting it. The early period, at least for me, is generally one of modest expansion at a regional level followed by a decently long period in which I focus on building my infrastructure and economy so that by the early/middle 13th century my nation is a "factory" capable of churning out high volumes of quality troops and thus, enabling me to go empire building from there on out. Of course, we all have our own ways of playing, this is just my take on it.