SF RC cap

[fodder]

well... it depends doesn't it...

you could make sf / cav stronger for more gold cost and lower max unit limit.  thus a tiny group... say 20 sf would be equivalent to 100 infantry. (or whatever)

they'll end up being a bit like glass cannon..

you could also make it so... you can't mix sf... so you have to recruit from the same centre..... though it would really be helpful if we know what's so special about each unit. aside from rock hard evil bastards....

----
i mean.. you want lots of normal units with tiny sf units dotted around occasionally?

[JPierreD]

Seeing a few battles against Daimons with small SF units and many of the rest I kind of like the new concept. I suppose it's a matter of balancing now.

[Charles]

Actually I think that halving it for SF can work, that would give a lvl 1 ~13, lvl 2 ~25, lvl 3 ~50 and lvl 4 ~100 (if anyone can afford a lvl 4).  That actually seems reasonable to me, I think what we had was 25%. Dropping cavalry by less than the SF would make sense as well, 75-80% maybe? 
I like the idea of knowing the different specialties, especially between MI and Archers.  Are there Cavalry SF units?  Not mixing the different types makes sense, although if you have two of the same type you should be able to mix those.  Not sure if that is too complex.

[Dante Silverfire]

Sounds good and once we get used to the new percentages, an even lower percentage won't be as big a deal later on, if you still think they should be made smaller.

I second this view of things. The percentage you've laid out will be a change, and we'll adjust to it. If it is still necessary to reduce in the future we can make that change then.

[Anaris]

Sounds good and once we get used to the new percentages, an even lower percentage won't be as big a deal later on, if you still think they should be made smaller.

I'm still not convinced we need a reduction in max size. 

Keeping RC sizes consistent across the board makes it much easier to maintain a mental map of the game.  I maintain that the appropriate way to ensure SF and cavalry cannot be used in the same profusion that infantry and archers are is to keep their recruitment rates low.

I would not oppose a soft cap, with gradually reducing rates above it, even potentially reaching 0 natural recruitment before the hard cap, thus requiring drafts to reach full capacity.

[Indirik]

I feel that the different capacities on centers for different ypes will be confusing. I think I agree with Anaris that controling the training rate is a better option.

[egamma]

Or, perhaps increase the honor/prestige requirements to 3x normal, instead of 2x?

[Charles]

I would agree with the honour/prestige requirements being raised rather than the training rate being decreased.  I could see training being dependant on the space available in the RC so that it slows as the RC fills. 

[egamma]

I could see training being dependant on the space available in the RC so that it slows as the RC fills.

Why? it's not like it's going to be easier to find SF amongst the general population simply because there are more in the RC.

[Charles]

You want an RP reason?
My reason for suggesting it is because of the concern about having 100 available troops.  Others were concerned that they would be waiting for weeks just to refit their unit.  This method would give faster training when the RC was empty, but take a very long time to fill.
For a realistic explanation, consider that the RC does not just Give people weapons and call them SF units.  They are trained.  As there are more and more people training, they train slower.  This requires the trained troops to still be stationed at the RC, training to keep their skills sharp. 
Or, perhaps as the RC fills up, less people are interested in joining the RC because it gets too crowded and the living conditions deteriorate.  Causing recruiting to slow. 
Take your pick, or come up with another suggestion.

[Tom]

I'm trying to have things simple, which is one of the regions the original caps were 50% and 25% - halving is a mathematical operation most of us can do without thinking too much. And halving it for cavalry had some IC logic - you need to store two creatures: The soldier and his horse.

I still shudder at the thought of someone having 200 (in a level 4 RC) SF available at once. That's a massive amount of something that should be somewhat rare. 100 is still lots, 150 (my 75% proposal) is massive.

I agree that it slightly complicates the mental map, though I'm not sure how many people really keep the max recruitment sizes in mind, especially now that the game explicitly tells you when they have been reached.

[fodder]

different max capacity between rc types isn't really a problem to be dead honest. just need documentation and getting used to.

the other thing you could do is... not have lvl 4 rc store more than lvl 3 rc. or you could just max the max capacity of rc to 25 (lvl 1-2) /50 (3-4 or more?) or some such and just adjust rates for higher lvls.

[LilWolf]

Keep in mind that level 4 RCs are pretty rare since you can only have them in cities(maybe strongholds too?). Even then they usually cost something like 1000+ gold due to other buildings so not a lot of realms are going to make that investment. So nerfing everything based on what a level 4 RC does is a bit misguided in my opinion.

[vonGenf]

I still shudder at the thought of someone having 200 (in a level 4 RC) SF available at once. That's a massive amount of something that should be somewhat rare.

How long does it take to reach that level? At 3 recruits per day, it takes 67 RL days. If a soft cap is implemented, it could be raised to 150 RL days, or 2 in-game years.

If it does happen, it is because the realm has made a serious effort never to recruit from this RC specifically to save it in case of need. That is indeed rare, but rare things should not be things that pop up randomly but rarely; rare things should be things that require dedication to achieve.

[fodder]

draft bypasses all that. though drafting sf in lvl 2/3 in my townsland usually was crap.. single digits..

probably not true for cities though..