Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

A word on limited elite units

th_battleaxeth_battleaxe BelgiumPosts: 2Registered Users
Good evening.

Back in the days of say, Napoleon, or Empire, we used to march around with armies of rank and file troops, with the odd Guard or unique unit thrown in for good measure. And that worked a treat, in my mind. You really felt the elites were the elites, a cut above the rest.

These days, we can build entire armies consisting of nothing else but the cream of the crop. Now, in and of itself, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure pretty much everyone here has already built a Praetorian army or the like, it can be enormous fun to watch that army march forth and trample the enemy into the blood-soaked dust.

But by having that possibility, we arguably lose a certain amount of flavour and diversity. That's why I would be for a limited unit system, not unlike that we're getting with the Tomb Kings. One that makes elite units available in small quantities per appropriate building.

A system like this would also work beautifully with this time period. One where levies made up the bulk of one's forces, supplemented by smaller numbers (e.g. two or three units) of more professional soldiers to provide a solid backbone to armies.

Let's say, for example, that a level 3 barracks grants you access to Thegns, but limiting them to a maximum of 6 units. Building that same building in another settlement brings the total number of Thegns you can field to 10. Ceorl Axemen, on the other hand, would not be limited under this system, as it is but a unit of armed peasants.


Thoughts and opinions?
«1

Comments

  • HrafnHrafn Posts: 305Registered Users
    I like limited elites. It keeps them special, and also changes how you use them on the battlefield.
  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomPosts: 1,433Registered Users
    Will be interesting to see if there is anything like that in the game. Tomb Kings have a unit cap on elites, so its clearly an idea that the office are thinking about!

    At least levies will stay levies, and not automatically upgrade into elites now.
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 21,134Registered Users

    Good evening.

    Back in the days of say, Napoleon, or Empire, we used to march around with armies of rank and file troops, with the odd Guard or unique unit thrown in for good measure.

    I call BS, it was like that because you never needed more than just the basic rank and file, just like in S2, which had terrible unit balance in campaign.

  • HrafnHrafn Posts: 305Registered Users
    I think the biggest problem with Shogun 2's campaign wasn't unit balance.

    It was the AI's inability to handle the settlement building system to raise sensible armies, coupled with general ineptness on the battlefield.

    You certainly could not win with ashigaru armies in multiplayer campaigns. They just can't stand up to competent samurai armies.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,230Registered Users
    No, I've seen factions develop good compositions of units, whereas randomly generated stacks like that n Kyoto and rebels are hilarious blends of a couple militia plus fifteen cannons. This is ironic, given that in Warhammer it was the complete opposite.

    As for OP's idea, well that goes against the ability to field stacks of elites, so you're really lying when you're saying things like "nothing wrong with that".
    Besides, we already have things in place that limit elite units, they're called upkeep and tech walls. if you want it to go further you can do the way RTW did and have the rarer units be mission rewards, even up to the point where you can't EVER get super units without doing the missions. Lizardmen use this method, though their Blessed Spawn units are really just boosted versions of vanilla troops. CA can just limited this model to super rare units only.
    This can be done further in that regular means of recruiting elite units just take a lot of time, to the point where you would love to do those missions because they can result in getting said units much faster. I'm even envisioning a dilemma event thing where upon succeeding a mission you can opt to recruit an elite unit, or gain some other effects. The choices are left up to the player.

    As for flavour and diversity, elite units were designed in most TW games to straight up replace basic ones, Unless you change this approach players will never see things differently, and certainly not by just making mechanical limits.

    In MTW2 there was a recruitment pool mechanic that limited how many you can train certain units at a time- you could theoretically just camp and get a full army of knights over time, especially if you devote the resources into building more barracks, but this was impractical due to time, money and the fact that knights don't fill a lot of roles.

    As for Tomb Kings' unit capacity, the DLC is not released so I do not think we can adequately comment on it's worth just yet.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • RolloSmersonRolloSmerson GermanyPosts: 79Registered Users
    th_battleaxe I like your Idea. We don't have armies consisting only out of Special Forces. Thx for sharing.
  • Thegn_PhilThegn_Phil Posts: 49Registered Users
    Yes, the limited elite units does have a nice feel to it. However, I wouldn't mind marching around Britannia with an entire army of ring mailed thegns.
  • EfixEfix Posts: 268Registered Users
    I agree and ppl can easily mod out the limit or adjust it if they feel like it .
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Posts: 10,119Registered Users
    Efix said:

    I agree and ppl can easily mod out the limit or adjust it if they feel like it .

    Then just mod the limit in?
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • ShadowtwinzShadowtwinz Posts: 57Registered Users
    IF they returned to old M2tw system it would be certain
  • LordCommanderLordCommander Posts: 1,109Registered Users
    Limited recruitment was one of the best things about Med 2, imo. I'd love to see it return.
  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomPosts: 1,433Registered Users
    Soft caps are okay.

    I want to be able to have a full stack of elites, but I expect to have to work hard to achieve it and have few elites elsewhere!
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Posts: 2,386Registered Users
    Personally, I'd like to see a mix of hard & soft caps.

    Unique or limited units should have hard caps - think some of the unique regiments in ETW or the historical cap of 9 Praetorian cohorts.

    Then there are 'faction elites' which are, logically speaking, the ones which depend on size/prosperity of the faction (noble or aristocratic units, etc.). I could see for these a soft cap tied to imperium, with maybe some boosts from research. Alternatively, some could have their caps tied to certain buildings.

    Finally, there are 'per army elites' - think veteran or evocatus type units - where you could reasonably assume the ability to have a certain number in every army. Again, this could be a soft cap expandable by research.

    Not really elites, but a basic 'line infantry' class could then be available with a 'pool' system like M2.

    A multi-tiered system like that I think would have the flexibility for players who wanted to have 1-2 all-elite stacks to do so, but would ensure some trade-offs for concentrating elites, and would also ensure the strategic and tactical use of more levy-class troops which has always been a facet of warfare.
  • HrafnHrafn Posts: 305Registered Users
    edited January 2018
    Cap the elite units at number of settlements or number of recruitment buildings for that unit type.

    Like it was done with agents in Shogun 2.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,230Registered Users
    On the issue of Tomb Kings' Unit Capacity:

    This system relies heavily on building design, and also seems only suitable for certain factions. If there's going to be asymmetric unit access designs, I'd say Vikings should have this sort of limitation; in return their units are more powerful and you are more confident in their abilities despite fielding chronically smaller numbers of units.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
  • norseaxenorseaxe Posts: 402Registered Users
    This could go well with population if they add population have some kind of class system like nobles they would be elite troops because they can afford armor and farmers would be lower class troops like fird or conscription in nordic factions say you had 300 nobles in region you could recruit 300 elite troops swordsman and armored spearman if you had 1000 farmers you can recruit spearman and axemen and archers something simple like that
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    Like the idea, but I also would like to have the option to have the elites all in one stack if I choose, but thus negating the option to have them in other stacks then if the limit is reached. Don't want a cap only effective in individual stacks. That will be horrible.
  • alstlalstl Member Posts: 314Registered Users
    Hrafn said:

    I like limited elites. It keeps them special, and also changes how you use them on the battlefield.

    I'm not a historian like some on this forum but weren't most soldiers during this era kind of like the national guard - soldier was not their primary profession because the economy simply couldn't support a large full time army?

    That's my perception of England during this time with not much to back it up.
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    alstl said:

    Hrafn said:

    I like limited elites. It keeps them special, and also changes how you use them on the battlefield.

    I'm not a historian like some on this forum but weren't most soldiers during this era kind of like the national guard - soldier was not their primary profession because the economy simply couldn't support a large full time army?

    That's my perception of England during this time with not much to back it up.
    They were raised as fyrd. Yes. Levies mostly. There were also a core of elite troops. Thegns. And later housecarls. That's the short version.
  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    alstl said:

    Hrafn said:

    I like limited elites. It keeps them special, and also changes how you use them on the battlefield.

    I'm not a historian like some on this forum but weren't most soldiers during this era kind of like the national guard - soldier was not their primary profession because the economy simply couldn't support a large full time army?

    That's my perception of England during this time with not much to back it up.
    Most noble men would have a number of sworn men who where professional or semi profesional fighting men, how many would depend on their wealth or ability to support them. These would be the core of the fighting force in the area which the nobleman was responsible for, the rest would be called up to join the friyd and would be drawn from the local population. The time that they would be obligated to serve would be limited so they would usually only be called to serve in emergency’s that could not be handled by the lords sworn men alone.
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    Gonna post this here. Lavelle argues Alfreds fyrd were NOT PEASENT LEVY IN THE SENSE WE KNOW. He shows throughout the book Alfreds levies are professional experienced soldiers, just not thengs.

    "Alfreds fyrd were not thought of as peaset levies. For one thing, Alfreds forces were mounted. The chronicle consistently has them "riding after the Danes" and at one point reports that the English fyrd besieging a Viking army in Chester used the crops in the field to feed their horses. The 'great horse' of the Middle Ages was unknown to the Anglo Saxons, and even in the eleventh century the heriot of the Thegns called for 'palfreys' rather than destriers. Horses, nevertheless, were valuable animals in ninth and tenth century England, and their use by the warriors of the fyrd argues strongly for a select rather than a mass levy."

    Alfreds Wars
    Ryan Lavelle

    Very interesting guys, jack confirmed cav will be restricted to only a few units, but this is to show it was actually used by Alfred. Just not in a heavy horse sense. Also tells of Alfreds fyrd being more of professional soldiers than PEASENT levies. More experienced in war. Interesting.
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Posts: 2,386Registered Users

    Gonna post this here. Lavelle argues Alfreds fyrd were NOT PEASENT LEVY IN THE SENSE WE KNOW. He shows throughout the book Alfreds levies are professional experienced soldiers, just not thengs.

    "Alfreds fyrd were not thought of as peaset levies. For one thing, Alfreds forces were mounted. The chronicle consistently has them "riding after the Danes" and at one point reports that the English fyrd besieging a Viking army in Chester used the crops in the field to feed their horses. The 'great horse' of the Middle Ages was unknown to the Anglo Saxons, and even in the eleventh century the heriot of the Thegns called for 'palfreys' rather than destriers. Horses, nevertheless, were valuable animals in ninth and tenth century England, and their use by the warriors of the fyrd argues strongly for a select rather than a mass levy."

    Alfreds Wars
    Ryan Lavelle

    Very interesting guys, jack confirmed cav will be restricted to only a few units, but this is to show it was actually used by Alfred. Just not in a heavy horse sense. Also tells of Alfreds fyrd being more of professional soldiers than PEASENT levies. More experienced in war. Interesting.

    Mounted infantry aren't the same as cavalry. Also, landowner levy isn't the same as 'professional soldiers.' They'd have to be rich enough to afford their gear (and maybe a horse), but the fact is that a class who spend most of their time managing farms would be decidedly less effective than 'professionals.' Not a peasant mob with no armour, not training, and pitchforks; but not professional quality either.
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    tak22 said:

    Gonna post this here. Lavelle argues Alfreds fyrd were NOT PEASENT LEVY IN THE SENSE WE KNOW. He shows throughout the book Alfreds levies are professional experienced soldiers, just not thengs.

    "Alfreds fyrd were not thought of as peaset levies. For one thing, Alfreds forces were mounted. The chronicle consistently has them "riding after the Danes" and at one point reports that the English fyrd besieging a Viking army in Chester used the crops in the field to feed their horses. The 'great horse' of the Middle Ages was unknown to the Anglo Saxons, and even in the eleventh century the heriot of the Thegns called for 'palfreys' rather than destriers. Horses, nevertheless, were valuable animals in ninth and tenth century England, and their use by the warriors of the fyrd argues strongly for a select rather than a mass levy."

    Alfreds Wars
    Ryan Lavelle

    Very interesting guys, jack confirmed cav will be restricted to only a few units, but this is to show it was actually used by Alfred. Just not in a heavy horse sense. Also tells of Alfreds fyrd being more of professional soldiers than PEASENT levies. More experienced in war. Interesting.

    Mounted infantry aren't the same as cavalry. Also, landowner levy isn't the same as 'professional soldiers.' They'd have to be rich enough to afford their gear (and maybe a horse), but the fact is that a class who spend most of their time managing farms would be decidedly less effective than 'professionals.' Not a peasant mob with no armour, not training, and pitchforks; but not professional quality either.
    You think I care enough to make a distinction on a forum with word games? Im calling it cav because in thrones of britannia There's gonna be a CAVALRY option not a **** MOUNTED INFANTRY option. Come on man. Look at the roster that's out. No **** they dismounted most likely for battle. Im talking about in context of the game. There WILL BE units of cav. I don't like it but its at least not that ahistorical if you use your mind a little. That's my point. Just like catapults in the Anglo Saxons roster. Stupid and not really historically sound but we have them nonetheless. So I really don't know what ur stupid argument is about, cuz there's no mounted infantry option. And you have no idea if the fyrd members were professional quality or not. I just gave you a source. You are just a person on a forum. Most historians agree members of the fyrd were battle hardened. OBVIOUSLY not the same level as a pro equipped thegn or late housecarl. But I don't see ur weird counter point other than a failed attempt to look smart.
  • HrafnHrafn Posts: 305Registered Users
    Wow. Productive.
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    Productive indeed. People should think before they try to argue and embarrass themselves. Just stick to your little passive aggressive liking of aggressive comments if you just want conflict, people. Remember, I didn't start thus argument. But I will end it. And ill end them all. SO DON'T TRY WITH HENRY THE FRANZ SIXTH.
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Posts: 2,386Registered Users
    @FranzSaxon

    No need to get angry. I was just trying to have a friendly debate about the way you interpreted your source. Sorry if it came across wrong.

    As far as 'looking smart' - trust me, I've got enough street cred in my professional life, I don't need an internet forum for that. Military history is probably my oldest hobby, but I'm strictly amateur and I know it - there are a lot of folks on here that know more than me, and I'm ok with that. But I've also found that pushing back can sometimes be good for learning more.

    As long as the response is respectful, fact based, and well thought-out.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,755Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Let's ease off on the personal chit chat. It's a game with a historical context, not major brain surgery. If an opinion or question is posted, on topic and within the Forum Terms & Conditions, there is no need to get upset.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    edited January 2018
    tak22 said:

    @FranzSaxon

    No need to get angry. I was just trying to have a friendly debate about the way you interpreted your source. Sorry if it came across wrong.

    As far as 'looking smart' - trust me, I've got enough street cred in my professional life, I don't need an internet forum for that. Military history is probably my oldest hobby, but I'm strictly amateur and I know it - there are a lot of folks on here that know more than me, and I'm ok with that. But I've also found that pushing back can sometimes be good for learning more.

    As long as the response is respectful, fact based, and well thought-out.

    No, im the one whos sorry you are right I got to aggressive. You were fine man im just a history nitpicky nerd even though I don't look like "one" Lmao I really am with this stuff. Im excited for the game however they do it honestly. So we will see
  • PantoraPantora Junior Member Posts: 19Registered Users
    I rather like the idea of only being able to recruit levi units, and a limited number of 'trained' units.
    To get Elite troops you have to level them up all the way from Levi or normal units with a couple of tiers for each levi,trained, professional and Elite

    It would also be cool if your 'elite units' survived for a long time and were given the option to advance into a General unit, these Generals would be better than the majority of the Generals you can get from a city.

    This way the player is forced to look after its units.

    I also prefer a system that limits the amount of units a General can have in its army based on the Generals level. I do miss the old days of limitless armies, This will force the player to use their general unit in combat to gain experience but also at risk of loosing it in shogun 2 a stray shot from a line of matchlock Ashagaru can kill off your general if your not watching, but a General unit is very powerful and can turn the tide of a battle.

    You can even go further and limit the amount of elite units a General can use based on levels and skills.
    Perhaps this would be a better fit for The Three Kingdoms as most of their Armies were made up of peasants with a couple of small elite squads.
  • daelin4daelin4 Senior Member Posts: 16,230Registered Users
    The trouble with the idea of levelling up levies to elite is threefold:

    1- That's not how Total War normally works (though that;s more tragic than anything)
    2- You'll get debates on what units are appropriate for levelling to elites- should peasant units go all the way to knights? Even in Rome2 there were limitations to unit upgrades)
    3- This is more suitable for more RPG style games like Total War: Battles' Kingdoms mobile game, which features similar unit management.

    Anyways the ways we want out of it can find healthy compromise, such as in certain factions have their own ways of limiting elite units, similar to Tomb Kings' having very different way than other factions. Some "military powerhouse" factions can have inherently limited elite units, whereas factions that have a greater focus on versatility can have no real limits besides high cost and high tech wall. It's one of the few things in this game where it can really have everything, just not available for every faction.

    Corrected action is the most sincere form of apology.
This discussion has been closed.