Veteran VS Rooky recruits

[Silverhawk]

I was thinking about realms, wars and the troops. One thing struck me as odd, that is that realms that go to war all the time seem to have equal troops as realms that sit around doing nothing. So I came with a proposal. It´s still rough, but might be wearth to discuss.

1. Realms that are at war might develop over time a bonus to the training score of recruitment centres. Veterans would come back from the war and pass on their skills at the recruitment centres (or be recruited aggain). Realms that have only peace and don't see battles that often would see a drop of training over time.

Some realms might start wars to keep their recruits trained and have a better army ready for when it really counts. Also, as the weapons and armour of the recruits don't change those scores stay the same.

2. The bonus or penalty should reflect the troops. I was thinking of 10-20% of the traing the troops don't have. Let me explain this.

RC, training 20%. These are very weakly trained militia. They would benefit a lot from constant war as they could learn a few basic skills for survival. The opposite is also true, as they most likely are farmers or other low peasents during peace time they will forget even more basic skills. Their range of training would be from 2-38%. (100%-20%=80 80*0.20=18%)

RC, training 90. These are highly trained troops. Profesionals that gain a long training before they are ready for recruitment. Or they are from a regions with a long military tradition. (something like that) These troops won't learn much from a war. Also, in peace time these man keep training and stay sharp. They won't return to their other jobs, as being a soldier is their job. Their range from training would be from 88%-92% (100%-90%=10  10*0.20=2%)


Part 1 is the basic idea of my suggestion and part 2 is how it could possible work out. I am very curius about the ideas of other people on this matter? (and please, focus on this matter and let's not end up with a discussion about to much peace, as I know there are people out there that love to whine about thats subject :P)

[Anaris]

1. Realms that are at war might develop over time a bonus to the training score of recruitment centres. Veterans would come back from the war and pass on their skills at the recruitment centres (or be recruited aggain). Realms that have only peace and don't see battles that often would see a drop of training over time.

There's a problem with this theory.

That problem is that by and large, troops don't come back from wars and retire.  They pretty much fight till they die. 

Yeah, some get set up as militia, and then the militia units slowly lose members until they auto-disband, but mostly, people keep their units until they get slaughtered.

[vonGenf]

(and please, focus on this matter and let's not end up with a discussion about to much peace, as I know there are people out there that love to whine about thats subject :P)

Sorry, but I have to squint very hard to see the difference.

[Silverhawk]

They pretty much fight till they die.

I think that most of those "deaths" are actually man that desert in the heat of battle. These deserters return home and could be recruited again. Of course, this is just my vision of the matter. But I hardly see that a noble goes out and look at all corpses to see if all his man are reallyd ead on the battlefield. When they don't apear at the end of battle at the camp then they must de dead. Especially after a defeat.

[Anaris]

I think that most of those "deaths" are actually man that desert in the heat of battle. These deserters return home and could be recruited again. Of course, this is just my vision of the matter. But I hardly see that a noble goes out and look at all corpses to see if all his man are reallyd ead on the battlefield. When they don't apear at the end of battle at the camp then they must de dead. Especially after a defeat.

Well, you certainly win points for originality.  I can't see a single thing in the actual game that could remotely suggest such an interpretation.

[Silverhawk]

Well, you certainly win points for originality.  I can't see a single thing in the actual game that could remotely suggest such an interpretation.

Well, a unit fighting to their death might be close to what we see in game, but is it realistic? It goes nicely with the knight in shining armor that most people tend to see, but in reality? I thought most battles in medieval times where not won by the number of kills but by the number of soldiers routing.

[Tom]

Well, a unit fighting to their death might be close to what we see in game, but is it realistic? It goes nicely with the knight in shining armor that most people tend to see, but in reality? I thought most battles in medieval times where not won by the number of kills but by the number of soldiers routing.

Which were then slaughtered.

I'm not aware of any actual numbers for medieval battles, but for the famous ancient greek Battle of Marathon, we do have a precise number of losses for one side: 192 athenian soldiers lost their lives. The persians lost over 6000 men.

I have toned down this aspect in BM, because otherwise one decisive battle would decide a war. But the fact is that the losers very often had losses far higher than the winners, exactly because routing pretty much equalled slaughter.

[Indirik]

I thought most battles in medieval times where not won by the number of kills but by the number of soldiers routing.

Which is modeled in the game by units breaking and retreating. And even deserters are modeled, after a fashion, by men who just aren't there when you try and rally them.

As to the original idea, this would give a bonus to those realms that continually fight wars, and penalize those that don't. But I hardly see it as a motivator for realms to be at war. I just can't see someone sitting there  and saying to themselves: "Hey, the training levels in our RCs are dropping, we better go fight someone so that our RCs are top notch ... in case we ever need to ... fight someone?" A good invitation to game the system, I think.

[Ramiel]

I like the idea but now how it would be 'implemented' if that is the right word...

[egamma]

This idea is simply "turn half the TMP functionality back on".

After all, if my 20% training RC *can* be a 35% training RC, but isn't because my realm never fights, isn't that the same as a penalty? Soon enough people will complain about that.

[fodder]

if your realm is at peace.. why would you want to pay extra to recruit highly trained men? you pay ill-trained men then train them up yourself  whilst upping cohesion!

[Indirik]

... which costs money. Maybe more than it would have cost to just hire recruit with higher training to begin with.

But you do have a point about cohesion.

[Silverhawk]

Which were then slaughtered.

I'm not aware of any actual numbers for medieval battles, but for the famous ancient greek Battle of Marathon, we do have a precise number of losses for one side: 192 athenian soldiers lost their lives. The persians lost over 6000 men.

I have toned down this aspect in BM, because otherwise one decisive battle would decide a war. But the fact is that the losers very often had losses far higher than the winners, exactly because routing pretty much equalled slaughter.

O.o I was under the impression BM was set in medieval times....but then again, I could be wrong. Your right on the part that most where killed, but a few deserted and escaped. One veteran can train 100 new recruits.

As to the original idea, this would give a bonus to those realms that continually fight wars, and penalize those that don't. But I hardly see it as a motivator for realms to be at war. I just can't see someone sitting there  and saying to themselves: "Hey, the training levels in our RCs are dropping, we better go fight someone so that our RCs are top notch ... in case we ever need to ... fight someone?" A good invitation to game the system, I think.

Well, you certainly win points for originality.  I can't see a single thing in the actual game that could remotely suggest such an interpretation.

It is a game after all :P, but on the other hand. There are a lot of mechanics now that can be played in a role or be played as a game. If you want to model everything perfectly you will end up with a majro crisis on most continents due to the fact of the pure annihilation of the male population, due to the fact they all go to war and end up dying.

This idea is simply "turn half the TMP functionality back on".

And my question is, where in tmp was the part that it affected RC's? This suggestion is not tmp.

if your realm is at peace.. why would you want to pay extra to recruit highly trained men? you pay ill-trained men then train them up yourself  whilst upping cohesion!

Yes, it might even be a bonus for realms at peace who have the time to train. Yet when you suddenly come to war your RC's are weaker and your first refit will notice it. It won't be drastic, but the effect would be present.

[Chenier]

It is a game after all :P, but on the other hand. There are a lot of mechanics now that can be played in a role or be played as a game. If you want to model everything perfectly you will end up with a majro crisis on most continents due to the fact of the pure annihilation of the male population, due to the fact they all go to war and end up dying.

That's fine, because 95% of all newborns are male anyways.

[Marlboro]

It is a game after all :P, but on the other hand. There are a lot of mechanics now that can be played in a role or be played as a game. If you want to model everything perfectly you will end up with a majro crisis on most continents due to the fact of the pure annihilation of the male population, due to the fact they all go to war and end up dying.

But then the men that are left all have high training, so their kids are even more awesome. That's called evolution!

Anyways I thought BM was pretty equal-opportunity compared to most medieval-type settings. Who's to say all those troops are male?