This game needs medieval 2's recruitment system

[The Glizzy Goblin]

This game has giant trolls that can clober Imperial state swordsman, these units are going to become pretty useless late game when you have Steam tanks and demigryph riders available.

CA cannot allow these units to be spammed, Even if they cost 10,000 gold or something hugely expensive, they will still be spammed until they can form entire armies. If anything, enforced variety via the Medieval 2 method is the best bet.

In medieval 2, you had a recruitment pool. A level 3 barracks, could per say, allow you to recruit a max of 3 units. So you recruit them. next turn however, you are only able to recruit one unit since you depleted the available supply of soldiers, you have to wait before you could recruit anymore. This would do wonders for warhammer, so if you wanted a badass unit of Demigryph knights (elite knights that ride griffins that can't fly) you have to wait 6 turns and pay a fortune.

This is sorely needed for warhammer, or else Greenskin armies are just going to be massive giants and wizards instead of mixed armies. This will ruin online play too, since I can guarantee balance is going out the ♥♥♥♥ing roof with all the new stuff, that CA doesn't want the community to test (Suspicous, and here I am trying to be optimistic)

Instead of a balanced army including Skirmishers, State pikeman and swordsmen, a good number of steamtanks and artillery, pistoleers and etc. We will just get armies that spam elite units. Previous games also had this problem, just exponentially increase the amount of money a unit costs in multiplayer like medieval 2 did (just more extreme) so having 20 steam tanks or demigryph knights are # to the 10(127th power) more expensive.

[Spice must flow]

Medieval II recruitment system is trash as well. It doesn't prevent elite spam. They need something more advanced, like recruitment limit for specific units.

[dinoexperten]

Originally posted by Spice must flow:

Medieval II recruitment system is trash as well. It doesn't prevent elite spam. They need something more advanced, like recruitment limit for specific units.

no its no. its perfactly balanced rome 1s rectrment system was trash. God the more i think the more i realise how bad rome 1 is two todays standerds

[Spice must flow]

Please enlighten me, how would Medieval II recruitment system prevent me from unit spamming. It only makes spamming longer, but it doesn't matter, because we don't even have time limits in latest titles.

[Valmirius]

Originally posted by Spice must flow:

Please enlighten me, how would Medieval II recruitment system prevent me from unit spamming. It only makes spamming longer, but it doesn't matter, because we don't even have time limits in latest titles.

Reynold Sanity explains why this system is much better:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6eaBtzqqFA

It makes you think twice about risking the loss of your your best units because they take so long to make each one (preventing elite spam). You are rewarded for having a great economy by having upgrades for towns (the same turn by turn risk to reward) with gold you can afford, so luxuries are possible. The same is possible for elite units which cost a great deal more. Rome 2 has a stupid preset slot system. In Rome 2, there is no reason to utilise weaker units (which should be faster to move but less armored as a balance) as you can get the best Roman one's in 15 turns. Recruitment limits limit army composition and player choice. I do agree with you in terms of Hero units however.

[[GRVTS]Fat Bastard]

Originally posted by Valmirius:

Originally posted by Spice must flow:

Please enlighten me, how would Medieval II recruitment system prevent me from unit spamming. It only makes spamming longer, but it doesn't matter, because we don't even have time limits in latest titles.

Reynold Sanity explains why this system is much better:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6eaBtzqqFA

It makes you think twice about risking the loss of your your best units because they take so long to make each one (preventing elite spam). You are rewarded for having a great economy by having upgrades for towns (the same turn by turn risk to reward) with gold you can afford, so luxuries are possible. The same is possible for elite units which cost a great deal more. Rome 2 has a stupid preset slot system. In Rome 2, there is no reason to utilise weaker units (which should be faster to move but less armored as a balance) as you can get the best Roman one's in 15 turns. Recruitment limits limit army composition and player choice. I do agree with you in terms of Hero units however.

So because some guy I don't care about says it's better I'm suppose to blindly follow?

[Valmirius]

Originally posted by GRVTSFat Bastard:

Originally posted by Valmirius:

Reynold Sanity explains why this system is much better:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6eaBtzqqFA

It makes you think twice about risking the loss of your your best units because they take so long to make each one (preventing elite spam). You are rewarded for having a great economy by having upgrades for towns (the same turn by turn risk to reward) with gold you can afford, so luxuries are possible. The same is possible for elite units which cost a great deal more. Rome 2 has a stupid preset slot system. In Rome 2, there is no reason to utilise weaker units (which should be faster to move but less armored as a balance) as you can get the best Roman one's in 15 turns. Recruitment limits limit army composition and player choice. I do agree with you in terms of Hero units however.

So because some guy I don't care about says it's better I'm suppose to blindly follow?

His arguments are reasonable, and I certainly explained them for you, and also why unit spamming is more likely in the current system, not the older one. I just stated why you should have more issue with the current one. It isn't just this guy's opinion, it's a fact based on risk and reward of unit choice that existed in the older TW's...at least more prominently in comparison.

Medieval 2's system is not perfect, but it's far superior to the current method, it encourages army diversity, not just using the best of the best because there is no sane alternative. I'm curious if you have ever played Medieval 2?

[The Glizzy Goblin]

Originally posted by Spice must flow:

Please enlighten me, how would Medieval II recruitment system prevent me from unit spamming. It only makes spamming longer, but it doesn't matter, because we don't even have time limits in latest titles.

Until you got disgustingly powerful 125 turns+ into the game, odds are you are going to be fighting battles on your expanding fronts that dent your armies.Your recently captured forts, that aren't heavily damaged, aren't likely going to be able to produce Teutonic knights, so you send peseants to the front and merge your damaged units.

Of course when you get disgustingly powerful you can produce so many armies you will never have to do this, but the recruitment system atleast makes it more micro intensive and less spammy to do that.

[ArchaicReaper]

I mean, they could just put a limit on the number of special units you get. In lore, there are only 7-8 Steam Tanks so maybe you can only get a few across all armies. I feel like that would be a little easier than whatever Medieval II did.

[Desmond]

Medival 2 system only worked like that for 2 turns. then you had unlimited numbers. or if you just had 2 castles....that many has. so I dont see a reason to try and glorify a system that dont work.

and an army with 19 units of steam tanks wont work like all total war games special units are good for a purpes. like the ninjas. you dont get an 19 stack army of ninjas cause they are badass they will be surrounded and killed. you need to balance the army like all games.

And forcing someone to play a certan way is not the way to go. if I wanna have a army just of Samurais vs gunmen I should be able to. if I wanna have an army of shock chav only I should be able to....and again that wont really be good against any army. but I should be able to do it.

[Valmirius]

It's only glorified because it's better than the current one in allowing as many playstyles as possible lol. Not this mass slinger crap. It's hardly perfect but I'd play a game with that style of system (not necessarily a carbon copy) a whole lot more than the simplified and boring one. I agree that we should be able to utilise entire stacks of certain types of units as a playstyle though. They also need to ensure the AI is a bit more varied in its choice of fielded armies but also suiting their faction's strengths and weaknesses. I'd also say they'd be better off removing the army cap and just having it tied to gold and maintenance costs.

[Desmond]

Originally posted by Valmirius:

It's only glorified because it's better than the current one in allowing as many playstyles as possible lol. Not this mass slinger crap.

the mass slinger sounds more like a balance problem than economic and limitation problem.

[Valmirius]

Balance, of course. But then the mustering and upgrade tree (if I remember, there was an economic and military trees to choose from) encouraged you to stop recruiting units that became redundant. And that recruiting system enabled stack spamming of those units. As I said, the issue was that you'd rapidly outclass such armies and wouldn't have a reason to field anything weaker, especially as Rome. So when the AI utilised so many slingers, you'd be able to rout them easily.

Don't even get me started on the economy problems lol. Because happiness was province spread (the last I played anyway, but I doubt they changed that) you could just build max happiness buildings in one place suddenly riots would stop in the entire province even as you took the rest by force. So essentially an exploit. Resources became just stats, and trade between certain factions suddenly became banal lol. I guess you could summarise it all as streamlining. I miss that building system too, you could improve the armor of your units with certain buildings back in the day. So it's kinda tied to economic improvements in that game.

[Spice must flow]

Originally posted by Valmirius:

Don't even get me started on the economy problems lol. Because happiness was province spread (the last I played anyway, but I doubt they changed that) you could just build max happiness buildings in one place suddenly riots would stop in the entire province even as you took the rest by force. So essentially an exploit.

It has nothing to do with exploit. Current happiness system does a good job at stalling your military progress, so you can no longer casually take a city after city, like you did in Medieval II and Rome.

Originally posted by Valmirius:

Resources became just stats, and trade between certain factions suddenly became banal lol.

FYI, you need specific resources to build some structures. If a player is smart enough, he can get some nice synergy and faction-wide bonuses from resources. Current system, which was introduced in Shogun II is rather interesting. I hope, that CA will keep it.
I don't undertsnad what you mean by "trade became banal".

Originally posted by Valmirius:

I miss that building system too, you could improve the armor of your units with certain buildings back in the day.

Those buildings are still here.
What I really miss though, is that upgrades no longer change apperance. I could care less about armour change, because in many cases it was confusing. Weapon upgrade, however, were really cool, because they featured unique models for swords, spears, etc.

[Valmirius]

It IS an exploit since you could conquer cities without negative repercussions just by improving public order in one region. It'll allow a blitz of conquering for the rest of the province. That's not stalling military progress, it's making it more expedient. Riots would at least occur in Medieval 2 if you went on a complete conquering blitz, with this logical method (exploiting the game mechanics) you can just skip them entirely over the entire campaign if you follow that method to the letter. The building system also allows poor choices to screw your settlements up for what you intended them for, and I recall them being poorly explained.

I didn't realise there were buildings that required resources, that's nifty actually. What I mean by banal is that it that unlike Shogun 2 there is no limitation to the amount of trade links, so there was no incentive to turn down offers (aside from curbing growth in a petulant attempt). You'd be a fool to do so as you'd lose out on money. That is kinda boring.... just accept all trade for the sake of it, without any strategic thinking in doing so. I really digged Shogun 2's system too. So you can just get those buildings like that I guess.

[Spice must flow]

Originally posted by Valmirius:

It IS an exploit since you could conquer cities without negative repercussions just by improving public order in one region. It'll allow a blitz of conquering for the rest of the province. That's not stalling military progress, it's making it more expedient. Riots would at least occur in Medieval 2 if you went on a complete conquering blitz, with this logical method (exploiting the game mechanics) you can just skip them entirely. The building system also allows poor choices to screw your settlements up for what you intended them for, and I recall them being poorly explained.

OK let's compare happiness exploits in ME II and Atilla.
Attila:
-For your method to work, we need to start our conquest with a city, because towns can't sustain themselves in terms of public order. This already narrows our conquest opportunities.
- Now we have to invest money into sanitation, because diseases can wipe out your armies and srew up public order.
- Then we have to invest A LOT of money and wait several turns to get the best public order buildings. All this while balancing food and sanitation, because those circuses have their own downsides.
- Every captured capture instantly hits -10 to public order. There are other negative modifiers, like banditry, devastation, instability which fade away after several turns . Morevoer your conquest forces a migration, which will add a permament -9 to public penalty. By capturing 2 towns you can harm public order by -50, which is big.
-Make sure to demolish all obsolete buildings. Unlike ME II churches of rival religions will not magically disappear: morevoer, they will take food and money from you. Try to balance food production, because -4 public order due to food shortage ain't nice.
- You may also want to assign a good governor and issue an edict to speed thigns up.
As you have stated, we can avoid rebellion, but it takes a lot of resources, some time and planning. If you are doing a real blitzkrieg, like 3 settlements in 3 turns, a rebellion will be imminent.

Medieval II:
- Slaughter population;
- Your army is free to go;
- Set taxes to low;
- Hire the cheapest militia unit;
- Build a casual church, if local population follows different religion;
That's it. No rebellions. Combination of "slaughter population" and "low taxes" Is the real exploit here, don't you think?