That's interesting but don't you afraid to unbalance the gameplay in that manner by favorising too much the big factions?
That's interesting but don't you afraid to unbalance the gameplay in that manner by favorising too much the big factions?
Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader
It might. This was just a brainstorm, I'm sure the idea can be refined much more.
Then again, a large faction with 5 castles can already outproduce a smaller faction with only 1 castle.
It could add some more importance to all of your settlements, where currently I feel I have a few core ones where I produce all of my units, and the rest are simply there to provide money.
There will still be more than enough units to look forward to, I think the plan is to remove only the very late units, those that come after the pike and shot event (1510). No one's gonna miss those, unless you plan on playing over 750 turns.
I like idea of PerXX. This was actualy what i am thinkinging about.
RSII has a nice system of 'specialising' the settlement once it gets to minor city level (so minor city/castle) which involves an expensive 'building' of either economic or military focus (once one of these has been built, you can then build an 'economic and military focus' at the higher level of settlement).
Economic focus allows for more economic buildings to be built at the cost of military units, military focus allows for military producing structures to be built at the cost of economy. The focus 'buildings' carry an income bonus/malus as well as a public order one, I think (law).
So you could have required structures in order to build the 'focus' building, which would give the same kind of effect PerXX was describing without a need for it to buff the bigger factions.
You could try to balance the power of the Horse Trainer, Infantry Trainer and Archery Trainer (or similar) buildings by having them create disorder and reduce law / happiness. That way a large empire will have to carefully consider where they will put them - you can't just place them in border settlements without planning, as that will cause revolts and force larger garrisons, but smaller empires can build them as their borders are closer to home.
I think the specialism idea proposed by Larkin is a good one, and could be combined with the recruitment system of Rome Total Realism. Basically some buildings in the settlement are faction specific and thus have to be rebuilt once a settlement is captured, to represent the process of establishing a new government in a captured settlement.
Perhaps you could have the barracks chain for both city and castle available to build in both types of settlement, and you choose which one to build when the settlement is captured (the old chain is destroyed). Building down the town / city watch option unlocks economy buildings and boosts public order but only allows militia to be recruited, whereas building down the barracks / armoury route unlocks recruitment but doesn't boost public order and restricts the choice of economy buildings. That way you can specialise your recruitment, and larger factions can recruit in more settlements (including cities), but recruitment centres become harder to garrison and maintain, particularly at high levels.
You could also expand that to other powerful units which were contemporary at the start of the game, like the Scholarii, Varangians, Canons of the Holy Sepulchre, Edessan Guard etc. Have a few of them for the faction at the start but they have to be protected and returned to their origin settlement to be retrained on a regular basis, reflecting the fact that these units were generally developed to protect their designated settlement / building and thus should spend at least part of their time there for training etc.
About that list:
Units I wouldn't really remove:
quapakulu: Why?
menaulatoi: Altough they might be a bit unhistorical, it's at least something for the byzantines to "develop" in a way.
doppelsoldner: Early enough to keep them in in my opinion, they also were pretty important representing the rise of twohanded weapons with all the heavy armor at half/fullplate age.
pikemen: Why?
NE mortar
NE ribault
NE culverin
NE cannon
ME cannon
NE serpentine
I think some variety in artillery is necessary and good. There's no point to remove them (yet).
Smolensk infantry -> theyre eastern spearmen right now and basically similar to the armored sergeants in the west. Why remove them?
I like the idea about the siphonatores.
Not sure how I like the trainer idea, but I think it has some good aspects. I wouldn't really know how to script this though.
Bending units to several buildings crashes/doesn't really work. Counting hidden_resources could perhaps be done via script but that would be quite complicated.
Local building recruirements for buildings are no problem obviously. So the last part about mines/merchant buildings would be doable.
Larkins idea would work obviously, but where's the historical evidence? Why wouldn't you be able to build a market when you have a barracks in your city? It's more both going hand in hand than excluding eachother in my opinion.
A bit similar to the training idea would be different morale boni for units at recruitment time and link this to a general. So instead of losing the ability to train those units without a "trainer" general, they will just be much more unorganised and easier to route. The question is how would you get such a trait/ancillary for your general? Would be also interesting to know how morale values actually affect autoresolve.
That's where the focus on both comes in at the larger level of settlement - so you can have both.
Although if memory serves, markets and 'basic' economy structures were allowed alongside militia barracks and 'basic' military structures. It's more for advanced buildings with a clear speciality, like specialised industries, tax offices etc etc.
it's a pretty long list of units to be removed, i am wondering wich are those early units that are so much more important, should we make a list of units to be added now ?
I completely agree with you MWY, artillery is neccesary... And canons holy sepulcre,eddesan guard,siphonatores and other strange and powerful units could be few recruitment and very expensive(siphonatores idea)
About menaulatoi we wrote in other post that they should appear about 1200 or before,due the bizantyne army had early pikemen and they were very useful(they appear about 1500 due decission about gameplay,not about historically)and right now there aren't any pikemen unit for bizantines at the beggining of the game...
Doppesoldners are late units(1500) but they can replaced for other german units with bigger sword,for example a reskin of swabian footman( a big men and terrify soldier with double hand sword...) and this for much other units...
THE MORE YOU SWEAT NOW,
THE LESS YOU BLEED IN BATTLE!!!
Sign the petition to remove hardcoded limits for M2TW
What about an complete AOR system? Except for elite or very specific units, all factions should be able to recruit most of the units but only restricted to the area where they are.
It's illogical for example that a Muslim faction invading northern Europe can recruit Camels up there. On contrary, it's a bit strange that CS can recruit Euopean peasants in Middle East or Scots are able to recruit Highlanders in any castle
I know that it would be a huge work to do but it would also be more logical and realistic.
Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader
Yes Lifth you're right, more logical AOR system in general except for specific units as peculiar factions units ( sholaii for byzantines, longbowmen for england, mameluk for egypt...) it is really a good idea
THE MORE YOU SWEAT NOW,
THE LESS YOU BLEED IN BATTLE!!!
Sign the petition to remove hardcoded limits for M2TW
I like the concept but would you, for example, have England (or France or Germany or anyone) be able to recruit Highlanders if they capture Scotland? Would the Crusader States, Georgia or ERE be able to recruit Ghulams if they captured Egypt? Seems to me like some units would no longer exist if their home region was captured, or at least would only exist as rebels and wouldn't support an occupying force. Although I am happy to hear examples of factions who did that IRL.
I think the current AOR system covers most of the units which would be recruited from a specific area - my preference would be to force factions to build their own military infrastructure before they can recruit, similar to RTR, thus showing the time, effort and money which must be devoted to being able to raise new armies in occupied territory.
They're more than just a bit unhistorical. Currently they are pikemen used to hold the line, instead they should function more like halberdiers, second row shock infantry used to attack an already engaged heavy cavalry. Historically they were used by ERE in it's heyday (10th, 11th centuries) though I've seen records they were still used later but they appear in small numbers (just like most native professional infantry). If you want them to be historical, they should be altered and available from the start or maybe a bit later for gameplay reasons (heavy mail or heavy lamellar event). They would need a high level barracks, to show their rareness and a lot turns to recruit, to show their intense training.
Or we can do something similar to the Siphonatores. That means they're available from the start but after an event, they can only be retrained in some settlements.
Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader
THE MORE YOU SWEAT NOW,
THE LESS YOU BLEED IN BATTLE!!!
Sign the petition to remove hardcoded limits for M2TW
Nope. Some Norse Bishops and Archibishops went at war/crusade but in the same way as for the other Catholic factions. There's no point to create a specific unit for them or we'd need to create it for all Catholic factions and would call it "War Clerics" or something like that.
Under the patronage of Flinn, proud patron of Jadli, from the Heresy Vault of the Imperial House of Hader