cultural recruitment

[Noudelle]

i think we should be able to do both. (even if we already can) but earlier in the game. but i LOVE customising my mercenaries but they're SOOOO expensive please LOWER their price

 

[nox]

i think we should be able to do both. (even if we already can) but earlier in the game. but i LOVE customising my mercenaries but they're SOOOO expensive please LOWER their price

I'm leaning towards agreement here.  The mercs shouldn't triple in price because they become experienced - that is what the player gains from long term service.  I think their up front costs should be high, their maintenance is about right at the base cost.

"Expense" isn't a valid balance factor when there's no "Income" that can be won and protected, and lost.  Caravans and bank interest don't fill those requirements.

 

[foxdie]

With the caravan "exploit" i can just take over the entire map in a couple of man hours, just refuelling at "merc stations". I just don't become attached to my men like in warband at all as they held no value. I remember producing an elite amry in warband, and was so upset when i lost a knight becuase of the work involved training him up. Now i couldn;t give two hoots they're just dispoable.
I hate the merc system, they're just too cheap - they need to 10x there cost, and for emergency situations only!
and/or i'd remove the upgrade equipment option, instead reserve that to your basic faction troops to give them a purpose.
I'd love to see a warband faction style of recruitment tree, but to include the recruit, experiecned, elite statuses too, sometimes you want cheap front line soldiers to you should be able keep them foot soliders but progress them through the rank system (elite etc)
I'd keep the city commanders for extra special order troops only (i.e scotish units only available in certain cities, german in others etc), but again make it chargable.

Just my thoughts, as im finding f&s much less involved, with no attachment to the ingame characters and armies it loses its emotional aspect.

 

[nox]

We are of a very similar mind about this.  Mercs as written shortcut a fundamental part of the game. 

I can remember in warband actually spending a great deal of time raising my standing in multiple villages in an attempt to be able to replenish my numbers, and then travelling with a band of complete newbie troops trying to get them trained up. 

And you're right - losing a veteran troop was painful.  It happened though, and it kept me from ever having a full group of the exact troop I needed.

You probably did what I did was to train them up and store them, and keep doing this until you had a few extras.  Most of my day to day forces were men in training, but when I had a huge fight I'd break out the old guard and have at them.  In times when it was 600 vs 200 and I was hitting an enemy in the field to try to prevent a attritive siege at my disadvantage...

I'd rather lose 10 of any other troop than one of my old guard.

I've been kicking around ideas about how to do mercs differently.  I really want to give the player plenty of ways to recruit troops, and I think the mercenary system while 'neat', is not actually good for the game experience.

One of the ideas I have in my head is to allow the player to hire mercenaries only when they have established land, and the mercs are hired 'as a unit'.  They end up being a completely seperate operating unit like any other lord, and take orders as lords do (but are expensive and actually do what you ask).

Don't go nuts about this, I'm just playing with the ideas yet but I'd have something to generate the mercenary units and that is what you would find at the merc camps to hire - mercenary companies, rather than individual men.

 

[foxdie]

Exactly. I would spend most of my game training and farming my army against lesser enemies in bandits in the search for some experience for them, losing the odd knight to a bandit was severly painfull but part of the ejoyment. Then when you finally commit to that huge battle you've been building up to I would really appreiciate the importance of the battle losing men then, for me was a honorable and worth it, and i looked forward to building it back up again, this time perhaps having less calvary, and more archers to attempt to improve on field efficiency.

In F&S i go to one city after another, replensihing my army after each battle with the huge availability of prisioners. Only after two or 3 castles after my army had been watered down with lesser troops i would disband them all then back a bee-line for the merc camp, then simply rinse and repeat. THere just isn't enough army building in this game. The best amry in the game is just limited by your pocket, and not about the time available to train them which helps really generate a relationship with your amry, and were i find enjoyment.

Oh and btw its great to actually speak to a dev on a gaming board - this doesn't happen enough in most other compannies. though im sure my ideas will never ben used its great to think the next time you sit at your machine i may influence your next change.

I've been kicking around ideas about how to do mercs differently.  I really want to give the player plenty of ways to recruit troops, and I think the mercenary system while 'neat', is not actually good for the game experience.

totally agree

One of the ideas I have in my head is to allow the player to hire mercenaries only when they have established land, and the mercs are hired 'as a unit'.  They end up being a completely seperate operating unit like any other lord, and take orders as lords do (but are expensive and actually do what you ask).

and follow you around like a caravan does? sound interesting. But what if they just provided you with a merc recruit that had its own upgrade tree that still need training? but obviously had higher wage costs, but offset by the fact that an unlimited number is available to buy. so if you still wanted an army of mercs its still feasable but less advantagious and expensive

 

[nox]

I think you'll be surprised to find out that I am very collaborative about design.  I'll explain why I want to change things and invite dicussion.  I'm not looking for approval when I post ideas, I'm looking for feedback and criticism.

I started out playing mount and blade and I was one of the earlier modders, and created a mod very similar to the changes that need to happen to WFaS - which I think is what motivated TW to hire me when I applied. 

That mod was done very openly as well, where I put my source up for download and comment, and incorporated feedback from the players.

To me, the best drive for design comes from play experience with a designer's eye.  It's significant to me that you realize that you're missing something in the game not having to develop your troops - I think that everyone is, they just don't all realize it.  They play the game, and then put it down feeling vaguely unsatisfied and don't realize that they are less invested in the game because of the shortcuts.

That's the funny thing about games.  You can add things which seem like a good idea, but then actually harm the game by circumventing things which were a big part of the game itself - like your comments about growing your troops.  If you just hire throwaways that have top tear gear using money you make running phony caravans, where's the challenge?  Where's the leadership?

So yeah.  I think we have a lot of room for some really cool improvements to this game and it'll make a huge difference.  I know *I* will enjoy it. =)

 

[Assassin123]

Nice job Nox, yeah Mount and Blade was really good and I did start out at the start, but not as a modder and you are trying to improve a game and it will make a huge difference, that troop tree is good

 

[Nakaruru]

I really like the current system.  It may be a side effect of having mainly played a character that works for the khanate, but I have had very few problems keeping my raiders well supplied with horsemen by using the castles as my primary recruitment tool  ( I'm probably showing my khergit bias with my choice of army).  Once castles start to get upgraded it is very possible to get ~20 cavalry per castle. Multiply that by the number of castles the khanate has even at the start and I can replace a very large army with a few days of travel. The biggest barrier was finally getting to the point that I could request a fresh batch of troops when I came to pick up my current batch of replacements.

I wonder if the problem some are having is that people are trying to get very large numbers of specific units, instead of a large number of units that can fill the role they want to different degrees. I would love to field an army with large numbers of circassians as my horse archers. But it is impractical to think I will ever have enough of them, so I have no problem filling in with the many other horse archers the khanate have. I do feel a bit sad when I see I have lost a circassian because of how rare they are.

The overall cost of getting high level troops from a castle is very low compared to upgrading units through all of the branches warband has.  I also like the fact that it forces me to use lesser units more often. I recall in warband building me and my companions to be trainers and getting 50k+ experience from training ~150 men. I could get full armies of top tier troops in a matter of days.  To get the same thing in F&S your faction would need to control 50 castles with the correct upgrades, you to visit them all to order the troops,  then heading back to pick them all up, which is much more unlikely.

Having said that I like the current system I don't like the current mercenary camps. It is to easy to turn them into extremely powerful unit factories with basically a limitless supply ( if you have enough coin that is ).  I'd like to see them turned into stock units with the option to choose which type you want and maybe a couple of upgrade paths. It would still give the player options but they could be much better controlled and balanced.

I would also like to see the ability to recruit from all villages, and from the start of the game. It would give an option besides getting mercenaries early game. I don't want to see them getting the warband treatment and being able to turn into power units. I wouldn't mind them having an alternate path that they can be upgraded into. Although I would like to see them stay below the higher end castle units if that happened.

 

[nox]

I appreciate your feedback.

About how many castles do you think you had to control to be able to keep one 200-man force in fighting shape? 

I see what you mean about using what you can get from the castle, as well.  I think that might need to be explained better to players.

Your point about the mercenary camps is a good one.  I think they may do more harm than good as designed.  I don't know if you read my earlier post but I'm thinking of scrapping that whole system and changing it up to make hired mercenaries act like vassals, to where they are a semi-independent force led by a randomized mercenary captain rather than idealized troops.

That's much later though.

 

[wannyboy]

I would also like to see the ability to recruit from all villages, and from the start of the game. It would give an option besides getting mercenaries early game. I don't want to see them getting the warband treatment and being able to turn into power units. I wouldn't mind them having an alternate path that they can be upgraded into. Although I would like to see them stay below the higher end castle units if that happened.

completely agree, villager troop tree up to medium tier troop which can hold themselves in battle would be nice

About how many castles do you think you had to control to be able to keep one 200-man force in fighting shape? 

Your surgery does matter a lot here because you don't want to loose too much troops. If you use only medium and high tier troops, i think you can recruit about 16 ok units in each castle, 26 if you also recruit basic troops and with militia included i think it comes at 31. If you don't lose too much troops, i think 5 castles would be enough. Anyway i would suggest letting all your commanders recruit nonstop, even those for the lower troops you don't realy need but they make fine militia and might fill up your army if you get raped too badly. I actually realy love those low troops because they are specifically ment for militia. In warband i could never realy fill my city's since i always train my units to top tier and recruiting all those peasants just to train them 1 or 2 level just seemed waste to me

 

[nox]

I don't like the mechanics of the current system.  Forcing the player to run from place to place and deal with funky 3-4 deep menus repeatedly is not my style.

 

[Nakaruru]

I appreciate your feedback.

About how many castles do you think you had to control to be able to keep one 200-man force in fighting shape? 

I see what you mean about using what you can get from the castle, as well.  I think that might need to be explained better to players.

Your point about the mercenary camps is a good one.  I think they may do more harm than good as designed.  I don't know if you read my earlier post but I'm thinking of scrapping that whole system and changing it up to make hired mercenaries act like vassals, to where they are a semi-independent force led by a randomized mercenary captain rather than idealized troops.

That's much later though.

Fighting shape does mean different things to different people and even changes depending on the situation.  If I am generally fighting forces roughly my size and in the open I don't need to have as many of the better units. If I am trying to siege castles the extra skill and armor of the higher tiers makes a noticeable difference.

If I had to ball park the number of castles I need to keep a force of 200 running I would say 7 ( if fully upgraded ) probably even less. If I go to all 7 I end up with 21 cebelu, 21 mirza chambul (or asak-bey), 21 nokhor, 35 jasaq (or oglan ), 35 bajrak, and 3 circassion and/or 3 nogai (can't remember if these are exclusive of each other) for each place that offers them. That is at least 131 trained men roughly every 5 or 6 days (I could pick them up more often but I do need time to go fight, make money, and have fun ). If I am loosing more than half of my force consistently in that time frame I'm not sure having more castles is going to save me or the khanate. As a side note I could still pick up 5 kapikulu and 3 seymen per city. Those and taking jannisary instead of cebelu gives me a decent number of ranged foot units to garrison cities, or to use instead of my horse archers when I attempt a siege.

When I am fighting easier fights I tend to loose more of my less armored and weaker units which means my force slowly gets top heavy with more nokhor, mirza chambul, and cebelu. It isn't upgrading in the traditional manner but the end result is a force of mainly mid to high tier troops.

The idea of making the mercenaries act as independent forces is very interesting. I think I like it. I would want to be able to see roughly what the force would have before hiring them, and what would you do to help a starting character deal with bandits/raiders? As is mercenaries are about the only viable way to start your army.

I don't like the mechanics of the current system.  Forcing the player to run from place to place and deal with funky 3-4 deep menus repeatedly is not my style.

The menues are a bit excessive but the running around I don't mind to much, compared to warband and having to run from village to village recruiting it feels simillar.

One other thing I have noticed is that the trainer skill is unimpressive now. Without the upgrade paths the best you are doing in speeding up vet status. Not bad but I don't think it is worth the investment.

 

[wannyboy]

indeed training only usefull for mercs or for training villagers to militia (think thats longest faction troop line) so again, plz add villager trooptree up to medium tier troops (won't stop saying this until its in the game :p)

 

[nox]

I'd like to add villager volunteer recruitment, at the very least but also considering -

deserter recruitment
freeing prisoners from enemies as recruitment
bandit recruitment (for those so aligned)
village conscription

to make the trainer skill useful, I would like there to be an 'irregulars' tree that all junk troops can level up into.  I really miss being able to train up my troops, and the constant churn of my old vets and the new guys. 

For the hired merc armies, I think what it would be like would be -  you would go to these merc camps and there would be 0-some number of mercenary reps available.  they would give you an estimate of their troop strength and type and their retainer fees. 

I forsee the player talking to the npc that represents that merc company, and the rep would say "We are about X strong of {inexperienced/able/veteran/elite} {poorly/average/well} equipped {type} soldiers.

I.e. "We offer you the service of 50 veteran well equipped light cavalry for a weekly retainer of 1500 thaler, with a combat bonus." 

Mind you this is still brainstorming, but I'd forsee that would would have various kinds of mercs rather than mixed forces.  You might hire a Scottish musketeer mercenary company, and it would have a muster strength of say 30 men, with an experienced captain and the player could 'attach' them to his own army or have them ride beside or even give other orders.

By the way, there's an unused but very cool feature you can do where you attach an army to another army.  You can attach any object to any other, that's how the player's army is 'in' a town on the overmap.

When the player hired those mercs he'd have to front a retainer.  If the mercs got too whittled down they might need to spend time recovering.

It's really not as complicated as it sounds, because they would just appear on the overmap as 'Mercenary Cavalry" and look like a vassal. 

edit:

Another thing, for 'village' recruitment I want the player to be able to 'collect' the recruitable villagers at his castle/town if he has one.  I want the player's game to become more and more macroeconomic and less micro as it scales up.

 

[wannyboy]

Would also need bit polishing if you let them appear on the map. It's OK that lords who follow you run somewhere behind because they are independant army's following you but units like caravans and those mercs should stick right to you and move together with you since they belong to your army, they are an independant group but still a part of your army so they should also behave like that

 

[nox]

Would also need bit polishing if you let them appear on the map. It's OK that lords who follow you run somewhere behind because they are independant army's following you but units like caravans and those mercs should stick right to you and move together with you since they belong to your army, they are an independant group but still a part of your army so they should also behave like that

Well what I am thinking is that the mercs would be either 'attached' to you (like literally IN your group as another group), or riding beside you or sent on various missions. 

And no, they won't be spastic cowards like the vassal AI.

 

[wannyboy]

And no, they won't be spastic cowards like the vassal AI.

lol realy hate those dudes, by the way caravans are also spastic cowards, when i am travelling with 150 elite troops at my side and a caravan behind me and suddenly a group of 50 deserters show up, the caravan runs away instead of following me while i could crush those deserters beneath my heel resulting in them being captured by some tatar raiders who came from the other side. What kinda idiots are they...

and now on topic, think i prefer letting them run behind you but very close.