Useful and realistic recruits

[iskar]

Realistically no army would recruit hundreds of peasants and not give them some basic protection so they might hope to survive their first battle.
Concerning game balance it would also alleviate a lot of problems with army composition and training, if recruits were slightly less fodder-ish than now. It would also automatically solve the problem of top-tier archers/crossbows being seemingly too strong by routing large numbers of recruits.

The solution would be to change recruits to have some basic gear: A spear (much more common than a sword) and a simple wooden shield, maybe a basic leather helmet/cap. That way they are not automatically massacred by ranged weapons and can defend better in melee.

In the continued absence of properly working training facilities (ever going to be implemented?) more recruits surviving their first battle would also improve troop training rate and reduce the overly large percentage to which armies consist of recruits.

 

[decourcy]

No, no, in the middle ages that is exactly what armies did. An army consisted of three parts, the nobles who could afford their own equipment, a knight might have 2-4 men at arms commanded by a serjant who were generally of non-noble but hereditary class who were payed by knights, and whatever peasant recruits a king or duke felt the campaign needed. As an example at Agincourt, the French brought 3000 peasants armed with short self bows to the battle.

 

[iskar]

Recruits having bows would make them even stronger, as it would allow mass archery at low tiers and basically no cost, ironically, so the Agincourt point kind of goes in my favour.

Also, given that the game works with standing armies and not typical medieval levies, medieval peasant mobs aren't really applicable here.

 

[UBetterNotBeAManHunter]

The recruits aren't standing army troops though? They were probably boning live stock and shoveling cow turds before you showed up all horse and shiny sword.

 

[decourcy]

Bad example on my part!
But these peasants were not particularly trained and these are short bows not the weird short bows in this game. Also they had nothing resembling armour.

 

[iskar]

Communities would equip the men levied from amongst them, though, even just in the most basic manner, simply because they didn't want to see them die. Hence why I don't think makeshift wooden shields would be that unrealistic for recruits while solving a lot of problems at once.

 

[Ruler of Calradia]

Here is my idea how it should be:
Recruits should be just as they are currently, or maybe even worse. They are just civilians who are told they are now in the army. With even tiniest amount of XP they would be upgraded to next tier. And i mean tiny amount of experience, they should upgrade to next tier by just spending a day in the army. This next tier would have spear and shield (or what ever their factional equilevant is) and otherwise they would be equal to current recruits. They may not have training, but now they are proper, if particularly low quality, medieval levy. They know that sharp end of the spear should be pointing towards the enemy. Then it would upgrade to troops that currently come after recruits.

Irl practically nobody practically ever sent people to battle armed with nothing but swords. That is complete nonsense, everyone knew how stupid it was. Perhaps they would form desperate defense in a city, perhaps if they are surprised by the enemy they may not have anything else, but nobody would have them in their field armies as infantry. Vlandian recruits are armed with spears. Spear only levies could have sometimes fought, but even that was really rare. Pretty much all others are fantasy. Irl many who were subjected to levy were required by law to own their own spears, swords and shields, in some cases bows and armor. It varied from time to time and place to place. And usually they were required to know how to use them as well, and train with them.
But i quite like them anyway, i want to be able to gather groups of villagers and send them to battle. However, since real life medieval levy always had more than just swords, new tier should be there to represent them. Actually seeing recruits who are armed as well as looters should only happen if you literally have just recruited them from village before the battle. And maybe even then you should be able to give them shields and spears from the start, but ofc those would have to come from your own inventoy.

Though actually, current tier 2 already represents medieval levy very well. So maybe no need for new tier at all, just make troops upgrade really really quickly from recruits to next tier but everything else would be as slow as currently.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

I second Ruler of Calradia. Make training perks better and that might not be such an issue.

 

[iskar]

That would probably solve the problem as well for the time being and not be unrealistic either.

 

[mangalore]

No, no, in the middle ages that is exactly what armies did. An army consisted of three parts, the nobles who could afford their own equipment, a knight might have 2-4 men at arms commanded by a serjant who were generally of non-noble but hereditary class who were payed by knights, and whatever peasant recruits a king or duke felt the campaign needed. As an example at Agincourt, the French brought 3000 peasants armed with short self bows to the battle.

The first thing you get yourself is a shield because it is a life saver above anything else you may buy, then you buy a helmet. Only after that you care about armor though heavy coats etc. already do serve as basic armor. The point is if you can afford a sword which was very expensive, you can afford a spear, dagger and shield by selling that sword and are a far better equipped basic soldier!

A basic shield is literally a couple of planks nailed together and sawed into shape and already does serve a purpose. A shield and spear would be affordable to plenty of peasants and if we go by history it was the minimum pretty much all armies since antiquity considered a minimum requirement (e.g. to be a citizen obligated for military duty that involves standing in the battle line).

Not sure what you are talking about at Agincourt. The French levied a tax for 6000 man at arms and 3000 gens de trait which can be crossbowmen or archers... however them being paid via tax implies them being professional soldiers who have to be paid, not peasants who decidedly don't have to be paid. Lords were obligated to have certain number of troops equipped and those were the ones showing up, they did not call up some desperate mass militia to fend off the English. In reverse there apparently were plenty of volunteers showing up. One can assume volunteers would only do the volunteering when having a modicum of equipment by themselves.
As it may be the French only deployed their heavy, professional troops anyway, to some extent because the English dicated a narrow battlefield where you could not deploy that many men which also foiled their plans to take out the archers by flanking attacks so heavy infantry advancing in the center, cavalry around the flanks... pretty much the standard way to win battles.


Overall I'd like recruits to get shields and rather not have swords instead. Crappy spears or maces/utensils would be fine then. It is the lack of shields which makes them senseless to have in the line of battle.

 

[decourcy]

Agree on the shield!
At Agincourt the French did pay a force of mercenary crossbowmen. The 3000 short bowmen were peasants that were given some lowering in taxes and rights if they practiced with a short bow like the English Yeomen did; by all accounts they never reached the quality of the English.