|
Post by jacobdebroedere on Oct 27, 2007 19:09:35 GMT
1. Militia/levies should have a 0 turn recruitment time. If it's possible to mod it they should also be trainable during sieges.
2. I don't think a four turns per year script is a good idea, in my experience with some mods it causes a lot of bugs and lag.
3.There should be an AOR for elite units. Militias and levies should be trainable in whole you empire, but elite units like for example Aztec eagle warriors should only be trainable in their historical regions. Trainable local elites should replace them.
4.For civilizations who sacrificed their prisoners the exterminate settlement option could be changed to 'sacrifice prisoners'.
5.River ports constructable in settlements near a river can increase trade(similar to a trader). This could replace the trade income produced by ports in RTW.
6.I think public order should be easier to maintain then in normal RTW(by improving temples bonuses, or adding new buildings giving public order).
These are just some suggestions, I won't get mad if you don't like them(or if they are impossible to mod). Post your constructive critics below.
|
|
|
Post by Filibusteria on Oct 27, 2007 21:16:05 GMT
i agree with them except with number 3. Imagine you're playing aztec (as many will do) and youre loosing against the mapuche. You want to crush them (which is impossible, btw) with some cool animal pijama units, but then you would have to travel all along the map to get them into campaign, and then you'll already be defeated.
|
|
|
Post by Rah'Majashan on Oct 27, 2007 21:28:05 GMT
I disagree Fili. I think it will make more sense to have to move your elite warriors all the way across the map. I mean, lets take Alexannder the Greats army for example, he couldn't recruit more Macedonians as he moved deeper in Asia, he pretty much began protecting his veterans more and more with the use of more readily expendable local levies.
If we use your example as the Aztecs making it all the way across the map it would be more realistic that they would have less faction native units in their army by the end.
What is your reasoning for suggestion number 1?
I personally don't know much about coding traits or scipting such things, so I leave all of this up to others to decide whats appropriate and what's possible.
|
|
|
Post by meliritiatl on Oct 28, 2007 6:10:04 GMT
1. Militia/levies should have a 0 turn recruitment time. If it's possible to mod it they should also be trainable during sieges.I dont agree, i dont see the reason why
2. I don't think a four turns per year script is a good idea, in my experience with some mods it causes a lot of bugs and lag. If thats true then we should abandon the idea.
3.There should be an AOR for elite units. Militias and levies should be trainable in whole you empire, but elite units like for example Aztec eagle warriors should only be trainable in their historical regions. Trainable local elites should replace them.
What you are saying gave me an idea, but i dont know if its possible, maybe a coder can help us. What if the factions can recruit their native units only in the cities they start from at the beginning of the campaign and later from any city they conquer they get only to recruit local troops and not their own? I mean if the tlaxcallans take technotitlan they wont be able to produce crane warriors there but only cuachiqueh and the rest. What do you think?
4.For civilizations who sacrificed their prisoners the exterminate settlement option could be changed to 'sacrifice prisoners'.
I dont have an opinion on that
5.River ports constructable in settlements near a river can increase trade(similar to a trader). This could replace the trade income produced by ports in RTW.
Thats not a bad idea. do we need to add extra building in the building tree?
6.I think public order should be easier to maintain then in normal RTW(by improving temples bonuses, or adding new buildings giving public order). Public order should remain an issue for some civs like the maya who faced many uprisings. Public order gives us one more tool to balance the different civs together, i mean for balancing the civs we should focus on factors like ARMY, ECONOMY, PUBLIC ORDER, GROWTH RATE, ABILITY TO MAKE ALLIANCES. So that means that for example a faction that has top rated army, like the Aztecs perhaps, will have a slow growth rate and no ability to make alliances. Or the Maya can have great economy but terrible public order factor. If we strike out public order we lose one factor that is essential for balancing the factions i think.
|
|
|
Post by jacobdebroedere on Oct 28, 2007 9:21:43 GMT
Militias and levies are just citizens driven into combat without much training, so their training period should be shorter then the training period of real soldiers. The only reason levies were used was because the large numbers of troops you could rally in a very short time when needed. When a city is under siege, it would be logic that the citizens take up the weapons to defend their homes, but because the city is under siege it wouldn't be possible to train elite units which need more time to train(or resources for their animal pajamas ). Fili, in you example the Aztecs could try to crush the Mapuche with local elites. If they get to the Mapuches they first had to conquer Incan lands, so they could raise an Incan style army(pajama men with bronze maces,run!). And if the mapuche decide to attack the Aztec they could use Mixtec units. Maybe the amount of native units trainable in a conquered settlement should somehow relate to the manner the settlement was conquered, if you would exterminate the population they are less likely to fight in your army. River ports can be added to the building list, and should be only constructable in settlements on a river. Using public order to balance the game is a good idea, it would add some extra historical flavour to the game.
|
|
|
Post by Filibusteria on Oct 28, 2007 12:36:39 GMT
What you are saying gave me an idea, but i dont know if its possible, maybe a coder can help us. What if the factions can recruit their native units only in the cities they start from at the beginning of the campaign and later from any city they conquer they get only to recruit local troops and not their own? I mean if the tlaxcallans take technotitlan they wont be able to produce crane warriors there but only cuachiqueh and the rest. What do you think? But what if they conquer the rebel settlements which have their same culture? still wont recruit their units? I tink its not a good idea. What we could do is make local units to recruit in other civ cities, but, werent the aztec jaguar warriors people who captured an "x" number of prisoners? Then, why couldnt a man trained in a conquered diaguita or incan city capture x prisonars and become a jaguar warrior?
|
|
|
Post by jacobdebroedere on Oct 28, 2007 13:56:20 GMT
That's a good point. hmm... maybe you should have the option to choose whether you want your full homeland unit roster or a more native unit list. Full homeland should be only available in settlements which have the same culture. And there should be a 'in between' option for cultures directly neighboring yours so that you would be able to train 50% homeland units and 50% natives(for example Aztecs could train full homeland in the rebel settlements with the same culture, 50%natives in Maya settlements and 100% natives in Mapuche lands). This would add a whole new dimension to the game. For example when the Incans conquer lands in the Amazonia forest it would be wise to train some native warriors with a bonus figthing in jungles rather than your homeland Andes troops.
|
|
|
Post by Rah'Majashan on Oct 28, 2007 17:55:49 GMT
Can we accomplish this with building trees? Because the units you are able to recruite are based upon the buildings you have available.
I might be way off here. I'm not really too knowledgable in this area.
|
|
|
Post by Roman_Man#3 on Oct 28, 2007 17:59:50 GMT
yes, use buildings for this.
|
|
|
Post by jacobdebroedere on Oct 28, 2007 19:11:56 GMT
Although I'm not an expert on this I think it's possible with buildings. Some sort of embassy building could allow native units to be trained(if you have the appropriate level of barracks/ranges), and something like a governors house would allow homeland units. These buildings could exclude eachother like the different types of temples.
|
|
|
Post by Rah'Majashan on Oct 28, 2007 20:53:01 GMT
I always thinking more in the line of, you would have to destroy old buildings and start a new building tree in the settlement you conquered in order to get Elite warriors. Like building a new barracks line or a new Temple line.
But what ever works.
|
|
|
Post by meliritiatl on Oct 29, 2007 3:12:48 GMT
guys remember that recruiting units from new buildings, that we havent discussed that yet, means to model new line of buildings which means a lot of more work. Keep that in mind before you suggest sth. Anything more complicated means more work, more modelling, more skinning more anything. So i suggest this: each civ starts with a certain number of cities right? Usually 3. I suggest that we can recruit the faction units only at these settlements and in the cities we occupy we can recruit only foreign troops, of the faction that lastly had the ownwership of that city. If rebels take over one of the three faction cities and we take it back then we will be able to recruit out troops once again. If rebels take over one of the settlements and we take it back then we will be able to recruit units of the faction that owned the city from the very beginning of the game. Thats it, simple and clear. If we start adding quotas or new buildings we risk having to many bugs and we need more building modelling work. One more thing. Since this beta will be about mesoamerica i suggest the money unit to be jade. Jade was considered ver precious in mesoamerica and its certainly more fit to call the exchange unit "jade" than "unit" or "tribute".
|
|
|
Post by Filibusteria on Oct 29, 2007 13:08:05 GMT
If we name the unit jade, we would have to change it again after the demo. Mel, imagine that youre playing maya, and you conquer a rebel sttlement adjacent to your city. Wouldnt you be able to train your maya units if the rebel settlement has mayan culture? Or, wouldnt a gobernor train his men his way even if they are in a conquered city? I mean, an inca ruler could conquer a chanca settlement, but still train inca style troop, because thats what they are used to. They would make weapons and fabrics easily, considering the native american textile and metallury talents. Please consider that.
I suggest that a faction should be able to recruit local levies in conquered settlements, but not elites. An aztec warlord tha conquered a maouche town shouldnt train mapuche noble spearmen, but aztec warriors, teaching the subjugated population to wield a macahuitl and dress animal skins. What he could train is local levies, like mapuche axemen,because they are the bulk of the population. Do you get my point? Also, making special buildings and stuff would require to change the tech trees, which you and I have already made. Thanks
|
|
|
Post by Rah'Majashan on Oct 29, 2007 16:54:37 GMT
Buildings and such will probably be based upon cultures I would think. All I'm saying is, once you attack a city of a different culture, in order to get your units to be built, you would need your own cultural buildings. But, seeing as I plead ignorance in this, then we shall do what ever is easiest.
Also, we will need building cards for all of the buildings. Oh, and unit cards. I need to add that to my master goal list.
|
|
|
Post by jacobdebroedere on Oct 29, 2007 19:16:34 GMT
I just got a magnificent idea of how you could decide what recruitment tree you want. There should be pseudo-buildings in the construction list, costing 0 money and turns to build. When you build the appropriate building(which shouldn't appear on the battle map) it enables the recruitment of native/homeland in the barracks.(depends on which 'building' you choose). These 'buildings' should only exists as building cards, so there is no need for extra moddeling or skinning.
|
|