Variation in Troop Trees and Troop Names

[Art Falmingaid]

I do not have access to the Warband single player beta, so I apologize if this issue has already been addressed.

Troop Names
The troop naming schemes get repetitive.  For example, there are 4 different occurrences of "Veteran" in troop names and "Recruit" is used for the base troop of 3 of Mount and Blades factions along with 2 base troops using "Tribesman."  Further, the Swadians and Rhodocks share an entire progression with only 1 difference in their crossbow troops.  With enough variation, the faction's name before each troop type may even be entirely removed if wanted.

One idea to increase name variation in the Warband Expansion would be using names specific to real world cultures and languages, like what has already been done with "Huscarl" for the Nords and "Mamluke" for the Sassanids.  This should, at the very least, be used for the iconic, top tier troop for each faction.

Troop Trees
The troop trees need to be altered so they are more unique.  For example, the Vaegir and Swadian troop trees have identical structure with only the troop names and equipment changing between them.  Also, the Nord and Rhodock trees not only share a similar naming scheme, but have very little difference in the structure between them.  It would seem that the game mechanics can only allow a selection of two promotions for each troop type, but some creative re-arranging could easily accommodate more variety in the troop trees.


If you care, both ideas go along with a previous post of mine on faction differences, found here  http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,92718.0.html

[PrinceGhaldir]

I tottaly agree with this, but while playing some mods for the first time, I cant tell which unit is what: is it ranged? On horseback?
So it would be nice if you can somehow tell if units are ranged etc. btw in Native Expansion is your idea fully implemented

[Art Falmingaid]

I tottaly agree with this, but while playing some mods for the first time, I cant tell which unit is what: is it ranged? On horseback?
So it would be nice if you can somehow tell if units are ranged etc. btw in Native Expansion is your idea fully implemented

Yes, I've seen the forum section for Native Expansion.  It is very ambitious, but it strays from the elegant simplicity of vanilla Mount and Blade.

[PrinceGhaldir]

I love NE, but it isn't very simple anymore, I agree.
But their point of variation is what you mean?

[Art Falmingaid]

I love NE, but it isn't very simple anymore, I agree.
But their point of variation is what you mean?

Yes, each faction has their own set of names for each troop and most are totally different in structure than the others.

[Oskatat]

i know why you suggest it, but basic troops usually had simple names. spearmen, swordsmen, etc. If they were more experienced they would be called a squad of veteran soldiers. Only unique troops, usually with unique backgrounds, received a special name. Janissairies (sp?), genoese, swiss pikemen, huscarls etc

these nations in native, however different, share much of a simmilar history, share a small country and are very likely to share some names as well

[PrinceGhaldir]

First there were only the vaegirs and the swadians.
The rhodoks split of from the Swadians, and adapted their army to fight against swadians.
The Nords came from another country across the ocean.
The Khergits came also from another country across the mountains.

It seems to me that the vaegirs and swadians differ much in troops, Swadians have heavy cavalry and crossbows mostly, while vaegirs have archers, footman, and light cavalry. Different.
Rhodoks mostly spears against the swadian heavy cavalry, and crossbowman, to counter attack swadian crossbows.
Nords solely infantry, complete different history culture etc.
Khergits solely cavalry, same as nords.

The history is certainly not very similar, and even if it is more realistic, I think that the troop trees should be altered, a different culture, so also different naming.

[Art Falmingaid]

First there were only the vaegirs and the swadians.
The rhodoks split of from the Swadians, and adapted their army to fight against swadians.
The Nords came from another country across the ocean.
The Khergits came also from another country across the mountains.

It seems to me that the vaegirs and swadians differ much in troops, Swadians have heavy cavalry and crossbows mostly, while vaegirs have archers, footman, and light cavalry. Different.
Rhodoks mostly spears against the swadian heavy cavalry, and crossbowman, to counter attack swadian crossbows.
Nords solely infantry, complete different history culture etc.
Khergits solely cavalry, same as nords.

The history is certainly not very similar, and even if it is more realistic, I think that the troop trees should be altered, a different culture, so also different naming.

The vaegirs and swadians have different troops, yes, but the progression of troops from recruit is identical.  If you look at an illustrated troop tree, the structure it is exactly the same.  Take a look:



Boring.


I would suggest, maybe, these troop trees instead:



As indicated by dialogue, Vaegirs focus on archers so no other branches of its troop tree should go as high as the archers.  Swadia is most known for its knights, so that should be its top tier unit.  No other branch should go as high.  Also, Vaegirs should not get knights to make that unit more special to the Swadians.  Neither faction should have their infantry go as high in the troop tree since neither places any emphasis on infantry, at least not like Rhodocks and Nords.

In all, a few troop types were removed (brings the number of troop selections more in line with the other factions) which makes each troop tree more unique and places more emphasis on each faction's specialty unit, which should have a unique name.



*NOTE*  Seems like Vaegirs standard infantry will be called "Spearman" according to troop selections in the Warband multiplayer and the Sarrinids infantry will be called "Guards," so the names in the trees may need to change.

[PrinceGhaldir]

Ok, I agree with the point that the troop tree strutcture is identical.
But I don't agree with your point of making the troop tree at some points shorter.

I'd rather say that the Swadian knight is more powerfull than a Vaegir knight, not shorten the troop tree.
And it would be even better if the complete tree is altered, rather then removing or adding some units.

[Art Falmingaid]

Ok, I agree with the point that the troop tree strutcture is identical.
But I don't agree with your point of making the troop tree at some points shorter.

I'd rather say that the Swadian knight is more powerfull than a Vaegir knight, not shorten the troop tree.
And it would be even better if the complete tree is altered, rather then removing or adding some units.

All factions, except the Nords who have 5, have 4 ranks of promotions in their longest branches.  That makes 5 tiers including the base unit.  The difference is that most of the factions have only 2 branches of troops while Vaegirs and Swadia have 3 and each of those 3 branches has 5 full tiers.

It makes sense to me, then, that if Swadia and Vaegirs have more branches (more variety in their troop selection) their troops should not go quite as far in promotions.  The exception would be Vaegir's and Swadia's signature troop, Marksman and Knight, respectively, who have 5 full ranks.

It needs to be this way because without reducing the strength and length of branches of their troop trees, Swadia and Vaegirs can possess a troop of every type (infantry, ranged, and calvalry) that rivals the best of every other faction which is more specialized.  For example, Swadians and Vaegirs can currently produce knights which are are as good as any other mounted unit in the game, sharpshooters or marksman which are as good as any other ranged units in the game, and infantry or guards which are as good as any other infantry in the game.  That is just too much.  It should be Vaegirs produce the best archers in the game and produce good, but not the best, infantry and calvalry in the game.  Swadia should produce the best heavy calvalry in the game and produce good, but not the best, infantry and ranged units.

I would even say they should produce just decent non-signature units instead of good ones because that would place more emphasis and motivation on promoting to their signature troop.

[PrinceGhaldir]

But why shortening the tiers?
It then the Vaegir top tier mounted unit is as easily train as the Swadian Man-at-Arms.
Rather keep the tiers the same amount but less effective, make the Vaegir knight, less powerfull then the Swadian Knight.

[Oskatat]

it already is

for understanding, because maybe i dont, you do not so much as want to change the troop tree, but change their names. footmen become swordsmen or axemen or whatever. The problem/issue is not about the troops and their upgrades, but rather their names.. yes vaegir and swadian trees are similar, because they were essentially the same nation, untill a rebellion, later rhodoks broke off, bla bla bla

am i mistaken?

looking from a single nation perspective, using adjectives such as veteran is easier than having a new name for a troop that just advanced in skill
its only if you look at the grand picture, about which most nations in M&B dont seem to care much, that you see similarities

letting your own sense of order and "how it is supposed to be" (completely different factions) override common sense is in my opinion spoiling the game

[Tsukana]

it already is

for understanding, because maybe i dont, you do not so much as want to change the troop tree, but change their names. footmen become swordsmen or axemen or whatever. The problem/issue is not about the troops and their upgrades, but rather their names.. yes vaegir and swadian trees are similar, because they were essentially the same nation, untill a rebellion, later rhodoks broke off, bla bla bla

am i mistaken?

looking from a single nation perspective, using adjectives such as veteran is easier than having a new name for a troop that just advanced in skill
its only if you look at the grand picture, about which most nations in M&B dont seem to care much, that you see similarities

letting your own sense of order and "how it is supposed to be" (completely different factions) override common sense is in my opinion spoiling the game

[Art Falmingaid]

letting your own sense of order and "how it is supposed to be" (completely different factions) override common sense is in my opinion spoiling the game

I am looking at it from a gameplay perspective, hoping that Warband will seem totally finished, and that every aspect of the game was given more than enough time to get everything as close to the way wanted as possible.  I think we can all admit vanilla Mount and Blade feels not as fleshed out as it could've been.

The idea is to make each faction and each unit within each faction more unique, rather than just equipment variations.

Khergits are by far the most different from the other factions, with all cavalry, the only horse archers, and totally unique troop tree structure.  The other four factions both share massive similarities with one other faction.  Nords and Rhodocks are both infantry factions, have nearly identical troop tree structure (two paths branching from the base unit), and naming conventions (base unit -> base troop type name -> veteran unit, etc.).  Swadians and Vaegirs have identical troop tree structures.  I don't think changing the equipment of each faction is enough, their military should be structured differently and their troops named differently.

In contrast to your opinion, I think having such similarities among the factions spoils the game since a major aspect of vanilla Mount and Blade is choosing a faction and, likely, so will it be of Warband.
To aid the significance of the player's faction choice, it would help greatly if the factions differed more.

[Art Falmingaid]

But why shortening the tiers?
It then the Vaegir top tier mounted unit is as easily train as the Swadian Man-at-Arms.
Rather keep the tiers the same amount but less effective, make the Vaegir knight, less powerfull then the Swadian Knight.

I think we have a misunderstanding.

I do not mean the the Vaegir and Swadian troops in the shortened branches promote earlier, but that they do not have them.  For example, Vaegirs can promote veterans to horseman as quickly as Swadia can promote footman to men-at-arms, but Swadia can promote men-at-arms to knights while Vaegirs cannot promote horseman any further.

I thought to re-name the Vaegir infantry to "guard" to help differentiate it from Swadia's infantry.  Otherwise, it is unchanged just like the Vaegir horseman, the Swadian infantry, and the Swadian crossbowman.

What this will end up doing is placing more emphasis on each factions signature unit and make it the better choice in the long run.  Otherwise, for example, Swadia can have Sharpshooters which rival Vaegir Archers, Vaegirs can have Knights which rival Swadian Knights, and Vaegirs and Swadian can have Guards and Sergeants which rival the infantry of the Nords and Rhodocks.  I think each faction's signature unit should be significantly better than the other factions' similar units in the same type (ranged, infantry, or cavalry).