Demiansky

Unit Recruitment and a Call to Arms!

Unit Recruitment and a Call to Arms!

If anything has been used to exhaustion in strategy games it’s the way in which you recruit units.  In games like Total War, Civ, and pretty much any other of their kind, building units involves setting a “build project” in a city followed by a period of time that must elapse.  When the unit is complete, it then stands around indefinitely demanding maintenance whether a war is on or not.  In essence, an army is always standing.

 

I think a lot of us would agree that this method has gotten a bit stale, so I’ve come up with a different way (and as a minor plus, more historical way) to create and maintain an army.  Rather than having the bulk of your army standing at all times, you declare a “Call to Arms” when you need your citizens to go attack another nation, defend their own, or pursue some other such crusade. 

 

Now before I begin, let me just say that there will still be a role for the previous method of designing and training soldiers, but these “professional” soldiers wouldn’t generally be the bulk of your army in an all out war.  You will still train full time soldiers who will be your “professionals” and demand maintenance full time.  They are the guys that go adventuring with your sovereign and such.

 

However, most of your soldiers in dire circumstances like war will come from a Call to Arms.  When a war is declared, either by you against a foe, a foe against you, or a foe against your ally, a box would open with some details and an option to declare a call to arms.  When a call is made, your citizens will grab what weapons are available and appear outside your city as units, at which point they can be sent to the front to join ranks with your professionals.  A Call to Arms can be called at any time, but certain circumstances will increase the number of your citizens willing arm themselves and fight for you. 

 

For instance, if you declare war against a sovereign who you have been at peace with for decades, have robust trade with, and who’s name is “Cromwell the Generous,” your modifier toward your Call to Arms will be severely negative, and a smaller army will be called to fight the war (you have declared an unjust war and your lesser nobles resist fighting it for you.)  On the other hand, if you declare war, or are attacked, by your arch villain “Golgoth, Eater of Souls and Slayer of Peasants,” everyone from your highest nobles to lowest of plebeians will be willing to rush to your cause.  You can declare a Call to Arms cold turkey without any war declaration, but you won’t get too much out of it.  Your most successful calls would come the moment that a war has been declared. 

 

If you’ve encouraged other civilizations to like you, it is literally more difficult for them to call up an army against you, rather they would have to primarily use their professionals at the sovereign’s personal command.  This makes a genuine “peaceful” approach to playing the game much, much more plausible and meaningful.  Rather than being insulated by a mere “score” that you’ve been cultivating to discourage enemies from attacking you, your diplomatic exploits would have an effect on a successful campaign against you.

 

This also brings up some interesting spell ideas to artificially increase your Call to Arms score if you want to go to war without a very compelling reason.  For instance you might have a spell called “Just Cause” by which you gain a higher Call to Arms score when declaring war on an evil civilization.  Another might be “Causes Bellum” which raises your score less than Just Cause, but it works on anyone.

 

When the war is over, your citizen soldiers go home and tend to their shops or fields once again.  While they are at war, your economy and happiness take a hit depending on how many have gone to the front, and the penalty deepens as time goes on.  If your army is utterly defeated while away, then that segment of your population is gone until it can re-grow.

 

I’ll be posting some greater detail as to how a Call to Arms system might work.

146,158 views 73 replies
Reply #26 Top

I would prefer to go extra-simple, with equipment divided among the peasants based upon resource availability, wether pure addition or, my preferred, upon Probabilty ... if say you had Iron, Copper, Steel, Mithril, Glass, and Wood, and lets say you were making weapons out of all of these, well, A couple peasants might have mithril, while some more would have Steel and Glass weapons. Even more would have Iron, and Plenty would have Copper. The rest would be equipped with wooden weapons beffiting a frankenstein tale (pitchforks and clubs).

This was my initial thought too, but I thought of a snag.  If you've had iron for the entire game in a city and your equipment score has been growing during that duration and you suddenly build a glass blower or lumber mill, your soldier's shouldn't show up to the muster field during a CtA with 1/3rd iron, 1/3rd glass, and 1/3rd wooden weapons.  Otherwise, the player can exploit this and juggle buildings around in his city before war to get a specific outcome (crap, I need spears so I'll temporarily destroy my iron and glass sources!) 

Reply #27 Top

if you have an equipment score to grow, then distribution would be based upon equipment score. If you just built a new resource thingy, you probably only have 1.0 units (or 2.0 units) so that many soldiers will be equipped ... however many peasants attributes to 1.0 units, (or alternatively 1% of peasants for each unit available, although this would encourage bigger peasant armies ... which I'm okay with as its such a large investment, and gigantic army is kind of the theme of this ideal)

Reply #28 Top

Wow!  This is a fascinating idea.  If done well it could really help re-define the genre.  I definitely think it could be done exceptionally well.  More importantly it gives more options.  You could focus on making your professsional soldiers total death machines, or on having a large and reasonably well trained and equipped militia available.  You could also have some heroes who function primarily as Generals to command and aid the militia.

I'm not sure that this would actually require a total conversion to accomplish.  Creating and equipping an army based on population and techs/buildings shouldn't be too difficult.  I'm guessing that creating the user-interface portions would be the most difficult.  If it could be created from the same screen as professional troops then it might be pretty reasonable.

Reply #29 Top

Quoting Valiant_Turtle, reply 28
Wow!  This is a fascinating idea.  If done well it could really help re-define the genre.  I definitely think it could be done exceptionally well.  More importantly it gives more options.  You could focus on making your professsional soldiers total death machines, or on having a large and reasonably well trained and equipped militia available.  You could also have some heroes who function primarily as Generals to command and aid the militia.

I'm not sure that this would actually require a total conversion to accomplish.  Creating and equipping an army based on population and techs/buildings shouldn't be too difficult.  I'm guessing that creating the user-interface portions would be the most difficult.  If it could be created from the same screen as professional troops then it might be pretty reasonable.

Yeah, this system keeps all of the features that have already been mentioned, and the algorithms involves with what units appear during a Call to Arms are very simplistic.  I would expect that if any company would try something novel like this, it would be Stardock.  If only we can get Frogboy's attention, now--- though I doubt I have his ear, having gotten in a heated (and as I know now, misfounded) debate with him about attack score variables.

There seems to be general support for the idea, with discussions revolving around specific details of how it might function,  Even if there isn't a novel angle to recruitment like detailed above, something untried might truly make Elemental stand out. 

Reply #30 Top

well, as far as untried, living lairs and actually meaningful quests will be a pretty big plus to pull of in a sophisticated 4x game on the level of the Civilization series.

things like Call-to-Arms are nice, organic, and still under control of the player. It should probably be considered more of a last ditch effort, except for nations which specialize in having extremely large populations and adept peasant armies (adeptly led that is ... whether by the tyrannical commisar or the brainwashing demagogue) ... (mainly in the form of massive Morale bonuses for peasant armies, so they don't immediately route at everything ... and also being formed into a more sophisticated militia rather than simple rabble)

Reply #31 Top

Quoting Tasunke, reply 30
well, as far as untried, living lairs and actually meaningful quests will be a pretty big plus to pull of in a sophisticated 4x game on the level of the Civilization series.

things like Call-to-Arms are nice, organic, and still under control of the player. It should probably be considered more of a last ditch effort, except for nations which specialize in having extremely large populations and adept peasant armies (adeptly led that is ... whether by the tyrannical commisar or the brainwashing demagogue) ... (mainly in the form of massive Morale bonuses for peasant armies, so they don't immediately route at everything ... and also being formed into a more sophisticated militia rather than simple rabble)

Yeah, if Elemental can pull off living lairs, I'll be impressed and very happy.  As for CtA, I definately see it being a greater defensive tool than an offensive one, unless the attack has just cause on his side. 

One thing that I haven't mentioned about a Call to Arms yet is that a mini Call to Arms can be called in a specific city automatically whenever a city is attacked.  Basically, the same citizens that can be mustered in war also act as city militia.

Reply #32 Top

Yep ... I would like for the Prestige level to perhaps effect militia number or perhaps militia morale ... while the rest of the numbers would be peasant rabble ... high populations more due to food would have more peasant rabble, while high (or even smaller populations) with significantly more Prestige (architecure/culture) would have more willing to become official militia ... so prestige would be a deciding factor on how much smaller the mini-call-to-arms is ... is perhaps what I am saying.

Reply #33 Top

Quoting Tasunke, reply 32
Yep ... I would like for the Prestige level to perhaps effect militia number or perhaps militia morale ... while the rest of the numbers would be peasant rabble ... although High prestige cities would more naturally have large populations anyways.

Well, I wouldn't want citizen soldiers to necessarily just be peasant rabble or nobles.  I imagine there would be regiment of middle class clerks, craftsmen, or artisans who might have studded leather, long swords, and a steel buckler.  

Reply #34 Top

well yea, I don't consider prestige to mean nobility necessarily, but culture. Militia would be those with limited training/funds to buy better resources/slightly better equipped, or perhaps those more likely to be equipped with what little amounts of iron weapons are lying around. What I mean to say is, less cultured cities will be less likely to have such middle-class citizens for a proper militia ... although even militia could be normal peasant class, merely more inspired by the level of prestige.

Like prestige effects population percentage distribution, what-not, but prestige also effects a much lower number of absolute militia availability. All im talking about is something similar to the Rise of Mankind mod for Civ 4 ... in there was influenced based warfare, and as long as the culture of defending nation was greater than the attacking nation, another unit of draftees would be created ... with the general concept being that the more cultured a city was, the greater percentage of that population you would have to fight through (a city not worth fighting for would have the peasants run back into the wilderness, or something, rather than fight vs the enemy)

Reply #35 Top

I remain unconvinced. I mean for most of the problems I've brought up, the solution involves adding complexity, adding sliders, etc. I still think people will be really confused as to what goes into their equipment score, and then having sliders that affect priorities on a system that is vaguely defined and hard to keep track of just makes that problem even worse.

Also, you are treating this as if everything is going to be a free market, which is fine, but not necessary. It needn't be a total iron-grip situation, either, but people buying their own weapons would decide what kind of weapons to buy based on a combination of cost and usefulness. If they are aware that most of the opponents they might face will be mounted, pikes would be in higher demand even if they cost more. Additionally, if you want to extend your anecdote further - what is there to prevent me from maintaining stockpiles of certain types of weapon or armor that I can then hand out to my peasantry at need? Think of the Battle at Helm's Deep, for example, where everyone capable of fighting was equipped from the armory. 

Regarding the lumbermills in particular, that might be me misunderstanding what lumbermills do. I can't actually build cities in the current beta without the game freezing... If lumber mills are a building that you build next to a source of lumber, which then provide lumber as a resource - then ok, I see where you're coming from. 

The idea of having a handful of peasant templates that can only be edited outside the game is definitely not something I'd like to see. Whether I decide to focus on a small professional army or a horde of peasantry, I want to be able to customize them. 

But really, the more 'fleshed out' this idea becomes, the less appealing it becomes to me... You keep saying all my concerns have been addressed in previous posts, but they haven't been.

Reply #36 Top

It would at least be worth to try out in a future beta. I doubt peasant experience will accrue in-to enough to be worth keeping over economic potential. As far as that goes, I think once you feel a unit has lived beyond its point of relative useful-ness, you need to either make the decision to re-train and re-equip those people, or retire them (losing their level).

Reply #37 Top

Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 35


I remain unconvinced. I mean for most of the problems I've brought up, the solution involves adding complexity, adding sliders, etc. I still think people will be really confused as to what goes into their equipment score, and then having sliders that affect priorities on a system that is vaguely defined and hard to keep track of just makes that problem even worse.

Also, you are treating this as if everything is going to be a free market, which is fine, but not necessary. It needn't be a total iron-grip situation, either, but people buying their own weapons would decide what kind of weapons to buy based on a combination of cost and usefulness. If they are aware that most of the opponents they might face will be mounted, pikes would be in higher demand even if they cost more. Additionally, if you want to extend your anecdote further - what is there to prevent me from maintaining stockpiles of certain types of weapon or armor that I can then hand out to my peasantry at need? Think of the Battle at Helm's Deep, for example, where everyone capable of fighting was equipped from the armory. 

Regarding the lumbermills in particular, that might be me misunderstanding what lumbermills do. I can't actually build cities in the current beta without the game freezing... If lumber mills are a building that you build next to a source of lumber, which then provide lumber as a resource - then ok, I see where you're coming from. 

The idea of having a handful of peasant templates that can only be edited outside the game is definitely not something I'd like to see. Whether I decide to focus on a small professional army or a horde of peasantry, I want to be able to customize them. 

But really, the more 'fleshed out' this idea becomes, the less appealing it becomes to me... You keep saying all my concerns have been addressed in previous posts, but they haven't been.


Well, you keep criticizing the idea on the grounds that it doesn't give the player as much meticulous control as professional soldiers.  But that's sort of the point.  And the whole point of the idea to begin with is that you don't and are not supposed to have complete control over your citizen's behavior.  Not all of them are arming themselves so that they can fit snuggly into their sovereign's army, which is why not all of them will answer the Call to Arms.  Many are arming themselves for their own private protection, prestige, or in case their ruler gets out of line and they need recourse.  With what they arm themselves with likely involves convenience.  When you are declaring a call to arms, the whole point is that you are getting whatever reinforcements that are available: not manicured professionals who are tailored before hand to your every strategic need. Now, before you begin shouting the pejorative of the hour ("Random, Random!!!) take note that there are plenty of ways to influence them, but not completely control them to a T.

So if you need mostly spearmen, but you also get a regiment of axmen that don't fit into your strategy quite as well, it still takes strategic savy to decide how they can be useful.  If you've had the foresight to click muster a few times and notice that a few regiments of axmen kept showing up, then you've probably already thought of one.  Besides, an extra axman is better than no extra axman.  You may not like it because it doesn't ratify some personal compulsion to tailor an hand paint every part of your army, both methods require a lot of strategy.  And to be frank, mine is simpler.

But the general idea that I'm putting forward is what matters.  The idea isn't complicated at all, as you claim.  As a matter of fact, it's better than simple: it's intuitive.  Sure, if you look at the wall of text I've devoted to retorts and clarifications it will look complicated, but let's look at it from the ground up, as it would be explained to a new player.

---your general populace will fight for you in time of war, and they have an equipment score that represents their privately owned armaments.  That score grows whenever you have both unused resources and weapon smiths.

---what kinds of weapons are in their hands is implicit in the equipment score and depends on the resources you have, with certain resources being favored to certain weapons.  You can click a button to see what weapons your citizens will bring to battle with them should a war occur.

---you also have a calibur score.  It makes your citizens better at fighting.  It grows when you have free barracks buildings.

And that's the extent of it.  If I want more spears, I know that gaining access to more lumber mills gives me more spears so I construct more lumber mills.  Now, you were demanding to have extra features tacked on to this idea to satisfy your personal taste to meticulously customize every unit in your army, to which I added a few more easy-to-use features.  I'm not going off on a limb when I say a few slider bars in an empire management screen isn't complicated, especially for a core game feature.  You were the one that was suggesting a storage interface for each type of weapon in each city, so I don't see how you could find a few slider bars on your empire city mentally taxing.  

Yes, we can always demand that a game could use more customization options, but customization begats complexity.  For instance, I could demand that there be storage for every resource in every city and demand that every one of them can be transferred to other cities at my command.  Would you get more control out of it?  Of course you would, but it would be insanely tedious.  And just because you don't have 100 percent control over something, doesn't mean that there is less strategy involved.  Because you don't have complete control over a Call to Arms, there is actually strategy involved with trying to gain the outcomes that you desire.     

With the current system, if you wanted 3/4ths of your militiamen to be spearmen or swordsmen, making it so would be pretty intuitive, even without the sliders.  If you have the compulsive need to personalize every single one of even your levy soldiers, then accomodating you specifically to consumate that compulsion is only going to do the game damage. 

Reply #38 Top

With the current system, if you wanted 3/4ths of your militiamen to be spearmen or swordsmen, making it so would be pretty intuitive, even without the sliders.  If you have the compulsive need to personalize every single one of even your levy soldiers, then accomodating you specifically to consumate that compulsion is only going to do the game damage.

I humbly apologize if unit customization is one of the aspects of the game i'm most excited about... Quite frankly I'd like to be able to play Elemental and have a vast horde of lowly troops and still have troop customization be relevant. In your system, it's not: the extent of unit 'design' that you get is to not use your resources in order to influence some nebulous 'equipment score' to represent more, say, spears than swords. And I think even that amount of control would be trickier than you're making it out to be. For one, you have to count how many resources you aren't using per turn, which seems like it will be particularly difficult in Elemental because projects will use however many resources that are available, being completed faster the more resources you throw at them - automatically. With that in mind it will not be so straightforward to control how many resources you aren't using.

Likewise I would like to field a vast army of peasantry and still get to use whatever experience system they put into the game. In your system, I wouldn't be able to - except for the odd hero or professional soldier here and there. Realistic or not, upgrading units with experience, giving them perks and all that is fun and I would hate for that to be taken away from me for the sake of some realism.

I have never said there aren't good aspects about your proposal, and I have never said that it's not innovative (it does and it most definitely is). I personally think it would be difficult to make it actually be intuitive in implementation, regardless of whether it can be explained intuitively, and more importantly I don't think it would be fun. I apologize ahead of time if my opinions or preferences "do damage to the game."

Reply #39 Top

While this idea is innovative, it doesn't fit in with my idea of 4x empire building games.

The Call to Arms system sounds a bit more in line with God sims like Populous, Black & White where players don't want to be burdened with stats and management details.

At best i believe a Call to Arms system is more of an alternative method of raising an army rather than becoming the primary aspect of warfare in 4x games. Something a bit like the Crusades system in Medieval Total War. Something to add a new dimension to the strategies available but not crucial.

I enjoy army management. And i bet most people who want to play 4x games also enjoy army management. That is part of the draw of 4x games, balancing army,tech and industrial management. If army management becomes secondary and winning wars become an issue of managing a good call to arms score, then i think part of the fun of Empire management is lost.

Remember what happened to Masters of Orion 3. It attempted to create a new approach/paradigm to the space empire game. It failed miserably because it not only failed to draw in new fans to the genre, it also alienated the existing fans of the genre. Eventually, literally, nobody wanted to play the game.

Reply #40 Top

you Would be able to upgrade the peasantry with experience ... it would last as long as the war would last (there were suggestions on how to keep up with the experience afterwards, but the point is your Horde Army will still be gaining experience!

you only lose experience when you re-settle into a city.

In any event, I agree it would be best as merely an "optional" approach to warfare ... perhaps from a culture/prestige/socializer specialist point of view, or rather a more passive socialist. Either that, or some crusade function from a religious perspective. Either idea works, and these special troops would be good to not require upkeep/ect, since its special circumstance.

Heck, this could even be a "Special Ability" for one of the factions that is less oriented ... and the people are resourcefull and if you attack suddenly there is a whole Iron-armed militia! of course they will all only have 1 hp, but no upkeep ^_^ (well, except food upkeep I guess)

Reply #41 Top

Remember what happened to Masters of Orion 3. It attempted to create a new approach/paradigm to the space empire game. It failed miserably because it not only failed to draw in new fans to the genre, it also alienated the existing fans of the genre. Eventually, literally, nobody wanted to play the game.

While your other points were all good, this one here seems to be making an argument against innovation.  For instance, this argument would be reason too also not to try the new diplomacy system based on intermarriage.  I know we are all expecting a lot of other great things out of Elemental and if you try too many bold, daring and new features at once, at least one of them might ruin the game.  But I don't think we should ever be trying to discourage innovation toward diversity in the gaming market.  The problem with Master of Orion 3 (after the billions of bugs) was obvious.  It offered very precise command and control options and auto-govern options.  Because you could always get a lot more efficiency out of governing yourself, it created a situation where you had to govern hundreds of starsystems personally to be effective.  With my original suggestion with a Call to Arms, you don't have an either or options.  With your professionals you can govern down to an iotta.  With the rabble, you can only make broad strokes.

As for the other points, I agree with you.  If you only had a call to arms responsible for raising a military, you'd be playing Populous in which you only influenced, instead of commanded, your soldiers.  This was never something I wanted.

What I've always envisioned in Elemental was that 9/10ths of battles would occur outside of warfare in dungeons, roaving monsters, and adventuring.  These battles would involve your heroes and professional soldiers--- all of whom are completely customizeable.  With my idea, war would be different: instead of all out war being orderly and coreographed on the battlefield, it would sloppier--- something that you have to think very dynamically about.  In war, you would have droves of soldiers that fit broader tactical roles rather than fit into precise tactical niches easily.  If you want them to fit, you have to mash them in.  You still have your professionals who cleanly fit tactical roles, though: the units that carve a shape from the hodge podge and form the tip of the sword.  

If a feature like this was implemented in early betas, players could get a feel for how influencial they want citizen soldiers to be in the outcome of warfare.  Will a CtA account for 75 percent of your military strength in warfare or 25 percent?  I always envision that around an average of half of your military might in "slaying power" would come from a Call to Arms.  And a CtA could always go the way of most other features in the game--- it could have a toggle option in the game creation menu to accomodate those who demand complete control.

Reply #42 Top

Likewise I would like to field a vast army of peasantry and still get to use whatever experience system they put into the game. In your system, I wouldn't be able to - except for the odd hero or professional soldier here and there. Realistic or not, upgrading units with experience, giving them perks and all that is fun and I would hate for that to be taken away from me for the sake of some realism.

I still see professionals being the other side of the coin in warfare.  They will be the ones making the daring moves on the battlefield, inflicting routes, and carving past militia to penetrate the enemy's ranks.  Not to mention they won't be the ones that get snuffed out in an instant.   

There is nothing wrong with enjoying authoritarian control over your game, but if it mandates that everyone else have to exert that same control over the game to be as efficient, then there's a problem.  I used to play in a lot of Master of Orion 2 LAN parties down in Miami, and I had a friend that insisted on using every option for control to eek out every last iotta of efficiency from the game.  Even when his empire had grown to 20 planets, he was visiting every planet every turn to juggle citizens in order to get that extra .5 percent of efficiency.  In the early game while I had 4-5 colonies, I tended to each unit of citizenry to make sure I wasn't over producing food or losing production and research.  When my empire grew to 15 or 20 colonies, it just turned into plain flat out tedium.  Sure, my friend enjoyed every moment of his playstyle, but I always felt like Master of Orion was rewarding tedium where it wasn't necessary (as a sort of poetic justice for making us wait on his long winded turns, I stomped him into the ground almost every game).  Everyone at the LAN party knew how to juggle citizens to earn that extra efficiency, but almost everyone ignored it after awhile because it subtracted from the fun of the game.     

What I find fun is developing grand strategies and novel solutions.  I am very competitive, analytical, and efficient in strategy games.  I usually always try to go the extra mile to maximize efficiency and observe and exploit even small advantages if it doesn't cost anything.  Yes, I customize my units very purposefully and for specific tactical functions, but at a certain point this can become busy work and for a lot of us, very unfun.  I may want to have an army of peasants, but I certainly don't want to have to personally customize every last one of them--- not only because it will take a lot of time, but because it won't even make much of a difference.  A Call to Arm remedies this.  It rewards strategic thinking without the busy work that a lot of us find unfun.  

So what you see as a shortcoming in the Call to Arms system, I in fact consider a great strength.  Personalizing for everyone as long as it doesn't involve tens of thousands of soldiers.  That's why we'd still be able to personalize our professionals, which will take vastly less time than would be spent on customizing masses of peasants or militiamen.    

 

Reply #43 Top

Your army is silly because it works both ways. Those of us who enjoy customization lose it under your system. To switch around some words in your own sentence:

"There is nothing wrong with enjoying limiting control over your game, but if it mandates that everyone else lose that same control over the game, then there's a problem."

Additionally, you're overcomplicating the matter, I think. 

  I may want to have an army of peasants, but I certainly don't want to have to personally customize every last one of them--- not only because it will take a lot of time, but because it won't even make much of a difference.  A Call to Arm remedies this.  It rewards strategic thinking without the busy work that a lot of us find unfun.  

You wouldn't be customizing each and every soldier. Just like you didn't customize each and every ship you constructed in GC II - you design a template, then train/build that template. Admittedly even that got tedious in GC 2 but that was partially a product of the long chains of techs that provided minor bonuses and forced you to continually upgrade your templates. Elemental appears to be doing several things to minimize that. I, personally, would probably only have a handful of different types of peasantry even if a peasant rabble was my focus. What templates I end up emphasizing would depend on the context of each individual game; sometimes perhaps a larger concentration on (cross)bowmen would be strategically favorable for me, perhaps another time it'd be pikemen or swordsmen. As often as not I'd have to make critical decisions in forming my military, including making sacrifices - just because a horde of pikemen would be ideal at some point doesn't mean I have the resources to actually train that many pikemen. I'd have to settle for a sub-optimal army composition and I'd sitll have to make many of these strategic decisions that would also result from a CtA mechanic. Perhaps sometimes I'd largely forego armor, but sometimes I might outfit my peasants with decent or even good armor. It all depends on the situation. If for some reason my lands are overflowing with resources, perhaps I can afford to field a large, well-equipped army of peasants. If not, maybe I'd settle for a large, mediocre-equipped army. Or perhaps I'd equip most of them poorly but have a small number of well-equipped peasants.

I enjoy those kinds of decisions. I do not foresee myself enjoying deliberately trying not to use my resources in order to get a favorable balance of equipment types and quality - and similarly not using my barracks in order to keep my peasant caliber as high as possible. That just seems like it'd be a boring game of min/maxing, made especially difficult due to the somewhat nebulous nature of these numbers...

Reply #44 Top

Pidgeon, it's a matter of what parts of the game you are controlling.  No one is recommending giving absolute control or strip away any and all control.  Like I mentioned in my last post, it's a matter of asking the general gamer populace what happy medium gives people the amount of control that doesn't become tedious and unfun.

I think I misunderstood you on the peasant point.  I was lead to believe your primary issue was being able to level up peasant armies, which made me think of clicking on each peasant regiment and picking attributes that you wanted to give them upon gaining experience, giving some minor improvements in some areas and another specific number of peasants improvements in other areas. 

And I see your point about obsessive players trying to find values in a more nebulous system, but you see, it's nebulous specifically so that this behavior isn't productive, and players aren't forced to nit-pick in order to be efficient.  My vision was that your economic decisions take precedence, and that your citizens work around it.  In other words, if you had to go out of your way to build a bunch of extra lumber mills to get a whole bunch of spears, then you are likely sacrificing a much more sound, well rounded strategy.  I think you are putting the carriage in front of the horse.  The system would be made to reward minor endevours to tweak your citizens equipment values, and generally not reward twisting your economy in knots to get the precise results that you want.  And what you would expect to see in this system is a much higher frequency of well rounded armies in which you see a higher-frequency-than-average of horsemen in an enemy's army with which you would respond with a higher-frequency-than-average number of spearmen.  You respond by building an extra lumber mill, not transforming your entire economy for the purpose. 

With this kind of paradigm, there will very rarely be opponents with almost nothing but horsemen with which you must respond with almost nothing but spearmen.  I'm aiming for a game that rewards larger scale strategic thinking instead of busy work.  When a call to arms is announced on both sides of a war, you won't know exactly what an enemy has, so nit-picking about minor attributes isn't what is important.  You might know that your enemy likes to field a lot of horsemen, but you won't know exactly how many, therefore you won't know exactly how many spearmen you'd need to maximize small margins of efficiency.  What you do know is that there is a certain range of spearmen that are a good aim to move toward.  In other words, fielding 40 percent spearmen would make as much sense as fielding 45 percent, giving your knowledge.  Trying to pick a very specific amount of pin-point customized peasant units to fill a role though won't yield a definitive advantage.  Customizing a manageable number of professionals will.  

But this specific matter of whether more or less control is good or bad in certain circumstances is over shadowing the other advantages that a Call to Arms has to offer.  A Call to Arms makes large armies of diverse units much more plausable in game because armies aren't always standing.  It also adds much more dynamics to warfare fatigue and minimizes the steamroll effect, which we can all probably agree is not a good thing.  It also remedies the curse of Monolithic armies.  Each war you fight against different opponents will showcase a broad range of different units and caliburs.  And of course there are the other advantages too: it can be linked with diplomacy in all other advantageous ways.  And all else being equal, it is fresh.  Even if we were to assume that the player loses one part of customization that turns out to be fun instead of tedious, there are plenty of other positive features and potential that outweigh it. 

Reply #45 Top

I enjoy those kinds of decisions. I do not foresee myself enjoying deliberately trying not to use my resources in order to get a favorable balance of equipment types and quality - and similarly not using my barracks in order to keep my peasant caliber as high as possible. That just seems like it'd be a boring game of min/maxing, made especially difficult due to the somewhat nebulous nature of these numbers...

To address this specific question, I think it's a case of putting the carriage before the horse, again.  If you have to use your barracks, then it's likely that whatever you are using it for is more important than the small amount of calibur that you lose during that time.  The system isn't supposed to juxtapose these decisions against one another.  If you want to keep your calibur high, then you build another barracks.  If you want a slightly higher bulge in spearmen, you build an extra lumber mill.  The system would be built so that you aren't recruiting professionals all the time unless they were completely slaughtered in a recent war.  You could generally expect that you'd be training professionals somewhere around 20-30 percent or some other arbitrary number.  So if you wanted more calibur, the decision would come down to whether you'd build an extra building or wouldn't, and the opportunity costs involved with it.

Reply #46 Top

I think I misunderstood you on the peasant point.  I was lead to believe your primary issue was being able to level up peasant armies, which made me think of clicking on each peasant regiment and picking attributes that you wanted to give them upon gaining experience, giving some minor improvements in some areas and another specific number of peasants improvements in other areas.

Well I do want to level up my peasant armies, just like I'd level up all my other troops. Leveling up troops has always been one of the more rewarding aspects of combat in my experience. Now, I will concede that for example in Stack-of-Doom vs. Stack-of-Doom in Civ IV, or Colonization, it could get old; but that had as much to do with no real interface to deal with armies on a larger scale. Nonetheless I will feel like there is something missing if my peasants are just peasants and no matter how often they fight, they don't improve.

With this kind of paradigm, there will very rarely be opponents with almost nothing but horsemen with which you must respond with almost nothing but spearmen.  I'm aiming for a game that rewards larger scale strategic thinking instead of busy work.  When a call to arms is announced on both sides of a war, you won't know exactly what an enemy has, so nit-picking about minor attributes isn't what is important.  You might know that your enemy likes to field a lot of horsemen, but you won't know exactly how many, therefore you won't know exactly how many spearmen you'd need to maximize small margins of efficiency.

In other words, armies will be largely the same. The only variation you'll really end up with is in your professional soldiers. So people will have there small number of professional soldiers, which they'll customize to their heart's content, then supplement them with vast numbers of a homogenous crowd, and everyone's crowd will be more or less the same. I think the most likely outcome of that is people will just tailor their professional troops to best counter the opponent's professionals, and let their rabble be rabble. It's hard to tell, but a definite conclusion to draw is that armies will be much less diverse (compared to each other). They will all be forced to be diverse, but armies will generally look the same.

I want to be able to choose whether to build up a small army of elite troops, forego elite troops in favor of a horde, or do anything in between. This Call to Arms system seems like it will kill those options; everyone will end up with a core of professional troops, but a huge portion of their wartime armies will be peasantry gathered by a call to arms. Field professional troops will be a continuous (and significant) drain on your economy, so why would anyone ever aim for a largely professional army if it's by far and away the more expensive option (particularly when the alternative is essentially free)?

In terms of affecting my equipment score by, say, building an additional lumber mill... So if I want to affect my equipment score, I can't just shuffle around what I have now? Let's say for some reason I decided to train most of my professional troops as pikemen; as such, I'd rather my peasantry not all show up wielding spears. But if I happen to have lots and lots of lumber mills lying around, I'm screwed? I either have to destroy lumber mills, use it up, or obtain an equally large quantity of other resources? If I manage to tie up all that lumber so that my equipment score is no longer being dominated by spears... what about bows and arrows? Can I not have one without the other?

Then there is the other sticky point that you've continually ignored - based on the current resource economy, the only way to really have unused resources is to not be building anything that requires said resources, because resources will be shipped to where they're needed and an unlimited quantity of resources can go towards a single project, with the effect of speeding it up. We have no control over this. So if there are effectively no resources going unused, perhaps despite our best efforts (besides stalling everything) - what then? Our peasants will go to war wielding blades of grass?

Reply #47 Top

I’ll be posting some greater detail as to how a Call to Arms system might work.
Can you post an executive summary?

Reply #48 Top

For call to arms to work, there will first be an absolute value of militia based upon population (maybe modified by relative/absolute prestige) ... at any time when an enemy or monster enters the influence range of a city, a Muster can be called, or rather a "Call-to-Arms". This will be the basic militia which is determined by only economic factors, and will be a relatively small force (1 out of 10) ... so 100 militia for 1000 citizens. Now, if you are at war with a country, various civic, religious, and diplomatic factors will grant you a "justification score". Your base score is 10 (1/10), and cannot be lowered.

Once war is declared, your score naturally rises by 10. At this point your relative justification score is also added ... basically if you have been opposed by nation X for 100 years, and they are opposite your alignment, and have invaded you several times, and they are different religion ... then you can probably get maximum Justification score. Im thinking 60-70 might be max justification score (or lower) just because using 90% of your population as soldiers seems somewhere in the realm of disbelief ... although if there were women models and children models (old people models) it could be alot more believable. Im pretty sure "everyone" fought to defend Berlin.

Normally a Justification Score should be anywhere from 30-40, although truly unjustified wars could have negative modifiers that drag it down to 20, 15, or even 10. But it can not go lower than the natural 10 (militia).

Call-to-Arms, when at war with multiple nations, and only nation A enters into the influence range of a city, but the nation really hates Nation X (who is also at war with you), you can either use Justification score of Nation A, or 3/4 (or half?) justification score of Nation X, whichever one is higher. So in any battle situation, even if its a wild troll, justification is always its max possible. If Nation X enters your influence zone, you will have justification score of say 40, and if a wild ogre enters, you will have a justification of 30, because the people are mostly rallied already (and some-what mobilized) ... essentially this means that such measures are only for defensive purposes, and Im not sure exactly how any "Offensive" or "experience" mechanics would work ... I kinda assume the peasants help fight against the enemy, to defend the city, and are either routed into the countryside, or defeat the big-bad and the survivors go about their every-day lives.

Perhaps there could be a "flag" system for how "tough" a citizenry is, 1-5 system. And the higher the flag number, the increase in HP and morale of each Peasant/Militia soldier, and the Militia (10% of population) will probably get better weapons. In my mind its just an organic way for a city to protect itself (and its farmland) ... not necessarily a way to wage the next era of "peasant wars" or to make each battle feel like the "peasant rebellion" ... if you want that, then recruit a giant army of peasants .... this is only a defense mechanism (in my mind).

Reply #49 Top

Lol, will post more when I'm not working 16 hour shifts :-)

Reply #50 Top

u lol'd at my detailed explanation? -_-

/sarcasm