General Discussion

[tornnight]

Anything goes.

[tornnight]

I think I'm going to release a Beta of 1.9 in a couple days. There is so much that is new that I need more people looking at it to give me feedback. Stay tuned.

[Sulla's Dog]

I think I'm going to release a Beta of 1.9 in a couple days. There is so much that is new that I need more people looking at it to give me feedback. Stay tuned.

Can I be the first to say "yahoo!".

[Admiral-Krause]

Greetings!

I enjoy the mod, nice enhancement of the vanilla game!

For the next version maybe you include some additions?

Maybe some missing unit abilities. Shield Wall for the militia recruted in castles or command ("eagle" inspires nearby troops) for mounted knights. Maybe some frighten abilitys for super units (special knights, assasins available only with the proper guild)

And it would nice someone could implent the Wagon Fort unit. I try myself but dont find a model. I just have a Venetian Wagon pushed by mercenary spearmen (so that all faction can use them and no whites). I gave them the stake ability. But i cant double them (2 instead of 1 wagon) and cant find the wagon modell.
My vision: Crossbow or Archer unit, push like a siege unit 2 or more wagons, can place stakes(spikes?) before the battle, then place the wagons, and then get behind them and fire arrows also able to fight with knives in melee. But i failed doing that. But must possible using existing models (mabye ram?).


Moreover it would be nice if i can recruit auxillary troops in conquered regions. So when i take as England Paris i can recruit French Militia (forced to fight for me) and when i take Ireland i can recruit Irish Kerns (send the Irish we have enough) or Slavish Folks in Russia etc. But only ancillary, no knights and other but spearmen and militia. Would be a challenge (maybe they have lower moral then normal English Militia). But this is only an idea.

All in all i like to play the Mod!

[Giorgos]

will do. Can't wait, your's is one of my favourites.

[tornnight]

The problem with 'Shield Wall' is that the AI doesn't use it. It gives an unfair advantage.

Inspire and frighten are good ideas. I'll look into it.

The wagon fort definately would have been nice. Apparently CA cut a number of things it had planned.

The only way I can implement recruiting other faction's troops would be via the Mercenary system. I like the idea and I'll look into it in the future.

[tornnight]

I am considering merging the castle and city barracks so that there is only one barracks build tree common between both.

What does this give us?
-More realistic recruitement scheme that includes peasants at the bottom and militia intermixed with proffessional military troops. Militia will always be easier and cheaper to recruit and cost less to maintain. Militia are less powerful than the professional version.
-Realism, historically cities could recruit armies
-Retrain any troops in any settlement (assuming you have the required building)
-AI Factions don't convert their cities/castles so they will now have easier access to all troops.

Let me know what you guys think.

[Scut]

as long as the militia versions are weaker than proffessional armies, i don't have a problem with it.

As of now though, alot of the militia's have the same stats as proffesional equivalents (English Spear Militia vs. Levy Spearmen)

[Admiral-Krause]

I think that would be acceptable, but only barracks no stables. I think that would be good cause in Italy for example there is only one castle in south and i think a wealth and meanful city like Venice or Milan could produce some better units as only militia.

But Scut is right that Spearmen and Seargant are similar, except Militia has free upkeep (depends on wall). Maybe some more differences ???


I attached an image of my best try of wagons. Use sherwood archers soldier animation, Great Cross stats and instead of it a ram. Now i have archers with a ram, driving around the field (also able ramming Gates....). Not enough to implent as mercenaries....

[tornnight]

I agree that there has to be distinct differences.
Many militia are already less powerful, and less expensive than their counterparts. We'd just have to make sure it was consistent.

Here's an idea. Make militia less powerful, cheaper to buy, but more expensive to maintain. Basically you would only recruit it as an emergency measure to fill in the ranks of your free upkeep slots. :hmmm:

Now that looks funny. If I was a wall, I'd be scared.

[Sulla's Dog]

Here's an idea. Make militia less powerful, cheaper to buy, but more expensive to maintain. Basically you would only recruit it as an emergency measure to fill in the ranks of your free upkeep slots. :hmmm:

If they were cheaper to buy, won't the AI flood their armies with them?

I agree, though, that militia have to be weaker than any professional counterpart.

[Forral]

So with the merging of the City and Castle barracks, do you include Stables and Archery ranges in that merge? Otherwise the fact that you'd need castles for any form of dedicated cavalry and archers is a good incentive to build one.

Other than that, it seems like an interesting idea.

Perhaps, like mention, keeping the replenishing rates for millita troops high in the cities, and the rates for the professional troops high in the castles would be good too.

That means you could probably crank out a few professional soldiers every few years from a city to support your militia units, but you would probably need a proper castle to field a whole army consisting of professional troops.

-Forral-

[Roman-Byzantium]

What about Italy however?

A lot of the point of that nation is that Italy's militia are quite badass.

[tornnight]

What about Italy however?

A lot of the point of that nation is that Italy's militia are quite badass.

That fact would still benefit them. Within reason, they will be able to mount a strong/cheap defense with their militia.

Militia is generally thought of as defensive anyway.

[Roman-Byzantium]

Heh, in real Total War?

In real Total war, the only faction I bother to build real Spearmen with is the Byzentines, for armor reasons, lol.

[Orretje]

But if cities can train professional armies, who will still build castles? Maybe the AI will by default and get at a disadvantage that way. And on the other hand its kind of realistic that no professional troops (or troops drawn from noble armies) came from cities so it would take away some realism. And in the later stages of the game I think city-units get better than the castle-units even offensive which also makes sense.

Maybe it's better to just leave it as it is, cause your idea of making militia units expensive last-resort troops would imply that castle units will be the dominating units throughout the campaign, reducing diversity.

[tornnight]

But if cities can train professional armies, who will still build castles? Maybe the AI will by default and get at a disadvantage that way. And on the other hand its kind of realistic that no professional troops (or troops drawn from noble armies) came from cities so it would take away some realism. And in the later stages of the game I think city-units get better than the castle-units even offensive which also makes sense.

Maybe it's better to just leave it as it is, cause your idea of making militia units expensive last-resort troops would imply that castle units will be the dominating units throughout the campaign, reducing diversity.

I'm not sure I agree. It seems to me that it's realistic to be able to recruit professional armies from both cities and castles. Constantinople, for example was a city which recruited a strong offensive military. Not just a defensive militia.

Militia = Low to Moderately trained people defending their city.

The AI doesn't convert castles/cities. Ever.
This can only help them.

Why would the player build castles? For defensive purposes. Castles are stronger and easier to defend. They get better towers, better walls, and better military improvement buildings.

About the diversity. I don't want them to disappear. I just think they should be where they belong. Defending.

I'll try these ideas out tonight or tommorow night to see how it works. I'll only implement it if it plays well.

[infernocanuck]

I think generally, this is a good idea. However, I think there should be more of an incentive to built a castle other then "they're good to defend." This is very true, but I think the purpose of designing the castle/city model to begin with was balance. You had to think, seriously, as to where you should put castles, how many you need, and how offensive you want to be.

However, I do agree that cities.. especially large ones, should recruit armies themselves. Just because a region had a castle did not it was militarily weak or unable to launch an offense.

My suggestions:

Give units built in a castle more "experience". Realistically, life in a castle was pretty much military life day in and day, with constant training. Perhaps have the experience stack with the size of the walls. That would also encourage people to still "upgrade" thier castles.

Modify guilds. Right now, you can have any and every guild in a city. there are no "castle only" guilds (I think.. now that I think about it.. weaponsmith may be castle specific). Perhaps make the armorer, alchemist or even the chapter houses for the various orders, castle-only.

Perhaps we could also talk to Dearmad, and suggest that he code in some "castle only" traits and ancilliaries, for generals who reside in castles for a certain period of time. It would provide bonuses not found in cities.

Incorporating some subtle bonuses, therefore, still allow some balance, and still allow what you are suggesting.

Let me know what you think!

[Jush]

Hey...that's actually a good idea. Here here! Tor, will you be trying to implement this new idea into the next beta? Or rather will you save it for a future version? I think there's definitely enough interest in this mod to warrant a beta test period.

[tornnight]

I think generally, this is a good idea. However, I think there should be more of an incentive to built a castle other then "they're good to defend." This is very true, but I think the purpose of designing the castle/city model to begin with was balance. You had to think, seriously, as to where you should put castles, how many you need, and how offensive you want to be.

However, I do agree that cities.. especially large ones, should recruit armies themselves. Just because a region had a castle did not it was militarily weak or unable to launch an offense.

My suggestions:

Give units built in a castle more "experience". Realistically, life in a castle was pretty much military life day in and day, with constant training. Perhaps have the experience stack with the size of the walls. That would also encourage people to still "upgrade" thier castles.

Modify guilds. Right now, you can have any and every guild in a city. there are no "castle only" guilds (I think.. now that I think about it.. weaponsmith may be castle specific). Perhaps make the armorer, alchemist or even the chapter houses for the various orders, castle-only.

Perhaps we could also talk to Dearmad, and suggest that he code in some "castle only" traits and ancilliaries, for generals who reside in castles for a certain period of time. It would provide bonuses not found in cities.

Incorporating some subtle bonuses, therefore, still allow some balance, and still allow what you are suggesting.

Let me know what you think!

Excellent ideas! The bonuses to units can easily be implemented. In fact that would be the big differentiation. Castles give unit bonus type buildings, while cities give income type bonuses.

Hey...that's actually a good idea. Here here! Tor, will you be trying to implement this new idea into the next beta? Or rather will you save it for a future version? I think there's definitely enough interest in this mod to warrant a beta test period.

Yes I'll add it for the beta, it won't be difficult to add. It will just be difficult to balance.