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

2»

Comments

  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomPosts: 1,433Registered Users
    My problem with levies -> to elites is that is not how it worked. Levies are levies, and your warrior class is your warrior class.

    Which is why I am very pleased with the upgrade paths in Thrones, as it makes sense.
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Posts: 2,386Registered Users
    I could see 'levelling up' in an Empire-timeframe game (since many of the 'elite regiments' were simply regular line regiments that became famous through exceptional performance). For this period, though, being 'elite' was class-based, so I don't really see it.

    There's also gameplay problems, namely that it would risk unbalancing the game towards smaller factions and more aggressive campaigning (i.e., fewer units seeing more action) which could leave more defensive players or larger factions simply being overpowered because they haven't 'levelled' as high a percentage of their units; and that levelling would probably need to be based on something other than veterancy, given that in recent historical titles it's my experience that chevrons are gained mainly through training, and lost through post-battle replenishment (which has the awkward effect of making more battle-tested units less 'veteran' than units that sit behind the lines with a trainer).
  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    tak22 said:

    I could see 'levelling up' in an Empire-timeframe game (since many of the 'elite regiments' were simply regular line regiments that became famous through exceptional performance). For this period, though, being 'elite' was class-based, so I don't really see it.

    There's also gameplay problems, namely that it would risk unbalancing the game towards smaller factions and more aggressive campaigning (i.e., fewer units seeing more action) which could leave more defensive players or larger factions simply being overpowered because they haven't 'levelled' as high a percentage of their units; and that levelling would probably need to be based on something other than veterancy, given that in recent historical titles it's my experience that chevrons are gained mainly through training, and lost through post-battle replenishment (which has the awkward effect of making more battle-tested units less 'veteran' than units that sit behind the lines with a trainer).

    I see where you are coming from not wanting fryid troops becoming kings Thiegns, although it was not unheard of rising above your birth class it was possible. I do think that within a class there is room for veterancy progression through experience and success on the battlefield.
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Posts: 2,386Registered Users
    Kregen said:

    tak22 said:

    I could see 'levelling up' in an Empire-timeframe game (since many of the 'elite regiments' were simply regular line regiments that became famous through exceptional performance). For this period, though, being 'elite' was class-based, so I don't really see it.

    There's also gameplay problems, namely that it would risk unbalancing the game towards smaller factions and more aggressive campaigning (i.e., fewer units seeing more action) which could leave more defensive players or larger factions simply being overpowered because they haven't 'levelled' as high a percentage of their units; and that levelling would probably need to be based on something other than veterancy, given that in recent historical titles it's my experience that chevrons are gained mainly through training, and lost through post-battle replenishment (which has the awkward effect of making more battle-tested units less 'veteran' than units that sit behind the lines with a trainer).

    I see where you are coming from not wanting fryid troops becoming kings Thiegns, although it was not unheard of rising above your birth class it was possible. I do think that within a class there is room for veterancy progression through experience and success on the battlefield.
    Yeah, not saying social classes were static, but such 'promotions' would have been very individual - you wouldn't have had entire 'units' raised to another class. Within a class, sure; although I have trouble thinking of what veterancy progression would look like (vs. tech).

    What occurs to me, if people wanted a little more flavour to individual units, would be a 'medals' system where a unit that performs exceptionally well could get a (single) trait awarded to them. E.g. the fyrd spearmen of Witanceaster (just to make something up), against all odds, hold their shieldwall at a critical point in the line through an entire battle, and proved pivotal in its outcome. As a result, they become famous for their shieldwall. In terms of game mechanics, the unit defeats (say) 3 equal units or higher units prorated by tier (so, 1x tier-3 = 3x tier-1) in a single battle, without breaking formation, so they get a moderate bonus to the relevant formation, and maybe a small badge on the unit card (similar to the xp chevrons). If you set the bar for getting the traits appropriately high, maybe limit the number that can be achieved per battle, and only allow one 'trait' per unit, you could end up with a handful of diverse units as legacies of your major battles, without unnecessary management for the player, or 'RPG' progression which doesn't really fit with TW. Whether it would be worth it or not to get a little more immersion for the extra clutter is another question (but that applies to any sort of 'progression').
  • KregenKregen Member Posts: 484Registered Users
    tak22 said:

    Kregen said:

    tak22 said:

    I could see 'levelling up' in an Empire-timeframe game (since many of the 'elite regiments' were simply regular line regiments that became famous through exceptional performance). For this period, though, being 'elite' was class-based, so I don't really see it.

    There's also gameplay problems, namely that it would risk unbalancing the game towards smaller factions and more aggressive campaigning (i.e., fewer units seeing more action) which could leave more defensive players or larger factions simply being overpowered because they haven't 'levelled' as high a percentage of their units; and that levelling would probably need to be based on something other than veterancy, given that in recent historical titles it's my experience that chevrons are gained mainly through training, and lost through post-battle replenishment (which has the awkward effect of making more battle-tested units less 'veteran' than units that sit behind the lines with a trainer).

    I see where you are coming from not wanting fryid troops becoming kings Thiegns, although it was not unheard of rising above your birth class it was possible. I do think that within a class there is room for veterancy progression through experience and success on the battlefield.
    Yeah, not saying social classes were static, but such 'promotions' would have been very individual - you wouldn't have had entire 'units' raised to another class. Within a class, sure; although I have trouble thinking of what veterancy progression would look like (vs. tech).

    What occurs to me, if people wanted a little more flavour to individual units, would be a 'medals' system where a unit that performs exceptionally well could get a (single) trait awarded to them. E.g. the fyrd spearmen of Witanceaster (just to make something up), against all odds, hold their shieldwall at a critical point in the line through an entire battle, and proved pivotal in its outcome. As a result, they become famous for their shieldwall. In terms of game mechanics, the unit defeats (say) 3 equal units or higher units prorated by tier (so, 1x tier-3 = 3x tier-1) in a single battle, without breaking formation, so they get a moderate bonus to the relevant formation, and maybe a small badge on the unit card (similar to the xp chevrons). If you set the bar for getting the traits appropriately high, maybe limit the number that can be achieved per battle, and only allow one 'trait' per unit, you could end up with a handful of diverse units as legacies of your major battles, without unnecessary management for the player, or 'RPG' progression which doesn't really fit with TW. Whether it would be worth it or not to get a little more immersion for the extra clutter is another question (but that applies to any sort of 'progression').
    Yes I can live with a system like that, what I really meant with vetrancy progress was in fact something like this after all if a unit fights more often then they either get better or are defeated.
  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomPosts: 1,433Registered Users
    Experienced units already get better stats though. Sure, it's not particularly distinctive, but my battle hardened levies will fight better than my freshly recruited ones.
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • BreadboxBreadbox Posts: 785Registered Users
    From the info dump it would appear that the core would indeed be levies,while elites are rarer.

    This is the direction I can personally like alot.Elites are elites because they are a minority.
    Warhammer meme armies are an atrocity.
  • mahboi1mahboi1 Member Posts: 771Registered Users
    I'd even be in favour of hard caps for elite units, like only 5 per army. The tier system is ridiculous, armies didn't go from consisting entirely of levies, then warriors, then nobles! By essentially making 2 3rds of the roster obsolete by the late game you reduce the amount if viable playstyles (no human wave tactics), you make the armies samey and lacking in flavour, and it's completely immersion breaking and historically inaccurate. Praetorians and Chosen and Cataphracts are supposed to be special. What's special about a unit that I can make a full stack of in a few turns?
    Sigmar wills it!
  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomPosts: 1,433Registered Users
    mahboi1 said:

    I'd even be in favour of hard caps for elite units, like only 5 per army. The tier system is ridiculous, armies didn't go from consisting entirely of levies, then warriors, then nobles! By essentially making 2 3rds of the roster obsolete by the late game you reduce the amount if viable playstyles (no human wave tactics), you make the armies samey and lacking in flavour, and it's completely immersion breaking and historically inaccurate. Praetorians and Chosen and Cataphracts are supposed to be special. What's special about a unit that I can make a full stack of in a few turns?

    This has already changed. Units upgrade in ToB, but levies stay levies. So even late game your armies will be a mix of levies and elites.
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    tak22 said:

    Kregen said:

    tak22 said:

    I could see 'levelling up' in an Empire-timeframe game (since many of the 'elite regiments' were simply regular line regiments that became famous through exceptional performance). For this period, though, being 'elite' was class-based, so I don't really see it.

    There's also gameplay problems, namely that it would risk unbalancing the game towards smaller factions and more aggressive campaigning (i.e., fewer units seeing more action) which could leave more defensive players or larger factions simply being overpowered because they haven't 'levelled' as high a percentage of their units; and that levelling would probably need to be based on something other than veterancy, given that in recent historical titles it's my experience that chevrons are gained mainly through training, and lost through post-battle replenishment (which has the awkward effect of making more battle-tested units less 'veteran' than units that sit behind the lines with a trainer).

    I see where you are coming from not wanting fryid troops becoming kings Thiegns, although it was not unheard of rising above your birth class it was possible. I do think that within a class there is room for veterancy progression through experience and success on the battlefield.
    Yeah, not saying social classes were static, but such 'promotions' would have been very individual - you wouldn't have had entire 'units' raised to another class. Within a class, sure; although I have trouble thinking of what veterancy progression would look like (vs. tech).

    What occurs to me, if people wanted a little more flavour to individual units, would be a 'medals' system where a unit that performs exceptionally well could get a (single) trait awarded to them. E.g. the fyrd spearmen of Witanceaster (just to make something up), against all odds, hold their shieldwall at a critical point in the line through an entire battle, and proved pivotal in its outcome. As a result, they become famous for their shieldwall. In terms of game mechanics, the unit defeats (say) 3 equal units or higher units prorated by tier (so, 1x tier-3 = 3x tier-1) in a single battle, without breaking formation, so they get a moderate bonus to the relevant formation, and maybe a small badge on the unit card (similar to the xp chevrons). If you set the bar for getting the traits appropriately high, maybe limit the number that can be achieved per battle, and only allow one 'trait' per unit, you could end up with a handful of diverse units as legacies of your major battles, without unnecessary management for the player, or 'RPG' progression which doesn't really fit with TW. Whether it would be worth it or not to get a little more immersion for the extra clutter is another question (but that applies to any sort of 'progression').
    Loll they made zero innovations in combat. Shield walls are just abilities like Attila, so formations are nonexistent. Invicta says units still love through each other in combat when he played. His video is a must watch. Its Attila combat which is fine cuz I love Attila combat the most, they just better have thrones optimized and I really woulda loved to see real formations for the exact thing you said. Adds flavor And possibility even on a unit upgrade ability level.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Posts: 2,506Registered Users
    I'd like to see caps on Elite/Special units brought back. Although, if I remember right, they had unit caps in Rome 2 at first and then removed them because a lot of people didn't like it. I think OP's idea of having unit caps for Elite/Special units tied to specific high-tier buildings would be a good compromise.
  • Total_War_VeteranTotal_War_Veteran Posts: 446Registered Users
    edited March 2018
    Yeah, limited caps of elite is what makes them elite. Thegns were elite, trained thoroughly and only for war, but such men are indeed precious few.
    Fyrd or levies can be made more hardened which each battle they've won but not upgrade them into new units since their class is not changed at all. If someone wants an army of elite, they can hire mercs but only if they have money for it.
    For the gameplay, im all agree with the caps on elite unit.
    Full support for CA and CA_Ella
  • MattzoMattzo Member United KingdomPosts: 1,433Registered Users
    The caps as implemented in Thrones is my preferred solution. Elite units feel elite without the player being arbitrarily constrained to x amount per army.
    "Everything in war is simple. But the simplest thing is difficult."
  • CnConradCnConrad Senior Member Posts: 3,130Registered 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?

    Are you KIDDING? Have you not read anything about this game?
  • twwatchertwwatcher Posts: 2,248Registered Users
    Yes, ToB recruitment sounds pretty interesting especially the types available not tied to buildings rather tech unlocks and global recruitment - this impacts on what types of buildings can then be designed for the limited slots available. Sounds like a system the AI will be able to handle better as well in terms of basic recruitment while still suffering from poor replenishment/decreased pool size if getting battered etc.

    Elites have a cap via their smaller pools and lower replenishment rates but as Jack explains late game you could still have a stack of elites if you want but would not be easy and slow to replenish.
  • th_battleaxeth_battleaxe BelgiumPosts: 2Registered Users
    CnConrad said:



    Are you KIDDING? Have you not read anything about this game?

    I'd like to point out that this thread was started on January 22nd, before anything was known on this subject.

    That aside, personally, I like this system. It feels right for the time period.
  • vintagepurplevintagepurple Posts: 775Registered 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.

    dude you are consistently one of the worst and most hostile posters on this forum. cool it.
  • tak22tak22 Senior Member Posts: 2,386Registered Users
    Thread was dead for a month. Don't really need the necro; especially don't need it just to get back into personality stuff.
This discussion has been closed.