Author Topic: Recruitment Overhaul  (Read 163 times)

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3070
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Recruitment Overhaul
« on: June 17, 2017, 04:43:04 AM »
Lets see if I can finally write this down so it makes sense. As I mentioned in previous threads I think the balance of M&F is off. The idea of having a history for every warrior is great, the idea that you personally have to order every single training to me doesn't stack up. You are a noble, don't you have minions to handle stuff like that, just as trade flows where supposed to be about the "bigger" picture. That was the starting point for me, so I thought about how we train troops and the often talked about desire to have "better" unit groups and it occurred to me that as a noble what you would be most interested in was ensuring you had battle ready units, and leave the fine details of recruitment and training to achieve those objectives to others.

To me it seemed that a solution would be to define a number of units or groups for each settlement, define the composition in terms of size and equipment and then allow the game to train warriors into those units as needed and as equipment allows. Probably there would need to be a way to define priority for equipment so that you ensure those units you most desire are not lacking as some other unit grabbed all the equipment needed. Either that or completely change the production system for equipment.

At the same time I have always been dissatisfied with the building tree for equipment production. As a concept it works nicely, but the building names, equipment pools and equipment distribution between buildings has always seems arbitrary, and the building names in particular are often just weird, like guardhouses being used to train certain equipment rather then you know, being a place guards use. In line with the new unit system I was thinking barracks at least would become the building needed to define a unit. You would be able to build several barracks, and require one for each unit you wish to house within the settlement. Probably barracks would also come in different sizes to house units of differing sizes.

Now there are obviously lots of details still needed, some of which I have answers for, some I don't, but I was wondering in general if this was a direction that was worth pursuing before putting in more time working out details.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

silvershot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« Reply #1 on: June 17, 2017, 09:16:31 AM »
I'm in favor of it... Or at the very least GROUPING like loadouts (regardless of experience) when mobilizing or assigning them. In that case, you'd probably want to be able to draw from veterans, draw from fresh recruits, or draw from a mix (at random).

HOWEVER: It would be nice to know of especially extraordinary soldiers! If you have a man in your retinue who survives 15 bloody battles and has as many kills as any good First One you know, he's probably pretty special. Maybe it could translate into "normie" promotions for NPCs or even non-First One PC roles in the future (at your discretion, I don't really have a suggestion there other than having some history calculated at least behind the scenes could lead to future improvements akin to these).

I'll push one of my other suggestions which could translate into both flavor and utility here -- named loadouts. As a free account or paid account not using the feature, it could just act as an easy training mechanism. For paid accounts or as a flavor feature unlock (cheap price per each, or just once and done for forever/some time) it could show up on reports/battlefield. You want to call light armored swordsmen on horseback hobelars? Great, now everyone is imagining lightly armored English/Scotsmen on ponies!


Loadouts could be tied to estates, families or possibly realms. "Recruit 60 hobelars and 40 jinetes and meet us at <place>" if you want to be some amalgamation of Spain and the Isles. They'd display in battle as 120 Immortals (Heavy Infantry) (Or even mixed infantry, in the case of immortals which usually had a loadout including some form of ranged weapon) or 40 Paladins (Heavy Cavalry) or something of the sort.

I guess it does open it up for silliness abuse, but in a perfect world it lets realms and families develop a unique military culture...

Constantine

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 244
  • Karma: +19/-10
    • View Profile
Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« Reply #2 on: June 17, 2017, 04:27:35 PM »
I actually like this idea and it resonates with my own thoughts, I laid out in the top 10 thread. It follows the design of King of the Dragon Pass (did you start playing it?) and does make the recruitment process and army composition a lot more straightforward and even.


My only concern is that I don't yet know if removing this particular element of microing would be good for the game because it was actually one such elements many (myself included) tend to enjoy.

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3070
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« Reply #3 on: June 18, 2017, 04:23:45 AM »
I actually like this idea and it resonates with my own thoughts, I laid out in the top 10 thread. It follows the design of King of the Dragon Pass (did you start playing it?) and does make the recruitment process and army composition a lot more straightforward and even.


My only concern is that I don't yet know if removing this particular element of microing would be good for the game because it was actually one such elements many (myself included) tend to enjoy.

Nope, mostly I was thinking about the fact that we simply don't have a concept of "units" in the game, and that it would be nice for them to exist, sort of an extension of the request to be able to name groups. It also ties in with Andrews idea of NPC captains and the like.

I'm in favor of it... Or at the very least GROUPING like loadouts (regardless of experience) when mobilizing or assigning them. In that case, you'd probably want to be able to draw from veterans, draw from fresh recruits, or draw from a mix (at random).

HOWEVER: It would be nice to know of especially extraordinary soldiers! If you have a man in your retinue who survives 15 bloody battles and has as many kills as any good First One you know, he's probably pretty special. Maybe it could translate into "normie" promotions for NPCs or even non-First One PC roles in the future (at your discretion, I don't really have a suggestion there other than having some history calculated at least behind the scenes could lead to future improvements akin to these).

I'll push one of my other suggestions which could translate into both flavor and utility here -- named loadouts. As a free account or paid account not using the feature, it could just act as an easy training mechanism. For paid accounts or as a flavor feature unlock (cheap price per each, or just once and done for forever/some time) it could show up on reports/battlefield. You want to call light armored swordsmen on horseback hobelars? Great, now everyone is imagining lightly armored English/Scotsmen on ponies!


Loadouts could be tied to estates, families or possibly realms. "Recruit 60 hobelars and 40 jinetes and meet us at <place>" if you want to be some amalgamation of Spain and the Isles. They'd display in battle as 120 Immortals (Heavy Infantry) (Or even mixed infantry, in the case of immortals which usually had a loadout including some form of ranged weapon) or 40 Paladins (Heavy Cavalry) or something of the sort.

I guess it does open it up for silliness abuse, but in a perfect world it lets realms and families develop a unique military culture...

Loadout names are something that was requested early on and rejected by Tom. I think his concern was having 4000 different names for what amounts to the same troop type. If I recall correctly I was one of the people asking for it. Personally I would think about tying loadouts to realms if we where to have them.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

silvershot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« Reply #4 on: June 18, 2017, 04:36:28 AM »
Nope, mostly I was thinking about the fact that we simply don't have a concept of "units" in the game, and that it would be nice for them to exist, sort of an extension of the request to be able to name groups. It also ties in with Andrews idea of NPC captains and the like.

Loadout names are something that was requested early on and rejected by Tom. I think his concern was having 4000 different names for what amounts to the same troop type. If I recall correctly I was one of the people asking for it. Personally I would think about tying loadouts to realms if we where to have them.

Well, the world did have basically a ton of names for basically the same loadout for awhile...

De-Legro

  • M&F Dev Team
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3070
  • Karma: +105/-54
    • View Profile
Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« Reply #5 on: June 18, 2017, 04:41:18 AM »
Well, the world did have basically a ton of names for basically the same loadout for awhile...

Sure, but other cultures didn't see them or need to care about them. In real life you can see the loadout of other troops and designate them as per you own cultural norms or needs.
He who was once known as Blackfyre

silvershot

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 46
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Recruitment Overhaul
« Reply #6 on: June 18, 2017, 05:20:39 AM »
Sure, but other cultures didn't see them or need to care about them. In real life you can see the loadout of other troops and designate them as per you own cultural norms or needs.

I do agree generally that at least larger realm types and sovereign realms are probably good enough (Duchy and above, perhaps, excepting sovereign baronies, counties and marches). Associating a cost with loadouts might also help mitigate it. I know I'd at least be willing to spend credits on naming some unit types, though I'm just a Count. I can definitely understand the counter-argument to the concept.