BattleMaster Community
BattleMaster => Helpline => Newbie Board => Topic started by: Cren on June 25, 2012, 06:03:56 PM
-
Recently my character got appointed as a lord. His income is good, so he intends to build some new RC/s, but doesn't want get a good for nothing building. Is there a way to get to know what the equipment and training % would be, moreover what would come out of a normal RC ?
-
Nope.
Those values are generated by the random number generator. So you better be lucky with numbers ;)
-
Normally what you do is stockpile gold, then build 1, if it's bad, tear it down, and repeat until you get the best RC ever.
-
Normally what you do is stockpile gold, then build 1, if it's bad, tear it down, and repeat until you get the best RC ever.
This. Do not let some mediocre centers stop you. You never know what you will get.
Tear centers like these:
40 95/50
75 60/75
55 80/30
They are useless. You should always go for weapon+armour = over 160.
-
Normally what you do is stockpile gold, then build 1, if it's bad, tear it down, and repeat until you get the best RC ever.
Or, build two, tear down the weaker, one, and then repeat, so that you have one at least.
-
This. Do not let some mediocre centers stop you. You never know what you will get.
Tear centers like these:
40 95/50
75 60/75
55 80/30
They are useless. You should always go for weapon+armour = over 160.
What you should do is look at what sort of centers your realm has and needs. You don't need nor do you want all your recruits to be 90 90/90. You need to have cheaper troops available as well for those times when paying 45 gold instead of 30 isn't possible.
That 55 80/30 you listed would work just fine if your realm already has a 60 30/80 center. Mix those two and you end up with a decent unit.
-
This. Do not let some mediocre centers stop you. You never know what you will get.
Tear centers like these:
40 95/50
75 60/75
55 80/30
They are useless. You should always go for weapon+armour = over 160.
This attitude continues to bug me.
Less desirable for your particular purposes? Maybe. But the only useless center is the 0/0/0 center that you get when you try and fail.
Frankly, anything with 95% weapons should be considered pretty darn good. And I'm pretty sure that 80/30 isn't possible—the game tries to ensure that weapon and armour quality aren't wildly far apart from each other.
-
This. Do not let some mediocre centers stop you. You never know what you will get.
Tear centers like these:
40 95/50
75 60/75
55 80/30
They are useless. You should always go for weapon+armour = over 160.
If you get 20 men from the first center and 20 from the second, their stats will be: 57 77/62, which is a pretty decent unit.
-
This attitude continues to bug me.
Less desirable for your particular purposes? Maybe. But the only useless center is the 0/0/0 center that you get when you try and fail.
Frankly, anything with 95% weapons should be considered pretty darn good. And I'm pretty sure that 80/30 isn't possible—the game tries to ensure that weapon and armour quality aren't wildly far apart from each other.
You are wrong. You should check your program. Thalmarkin has 35 80/30 and Sirion has 40 75/30.
-
This attitude continues to bug me.
Less desirable for your particular purposes? Maybe. But the only useless center is the 0/0/0 center that you get when you try and fail.
Yeah, I must disagree with Zakilevo. Middling centers can be desirable, especially for militia.
... And I'm pretty sure that 80/30 isn't possible—the game tries to ensure that weapon and armour quality aren't wildly far apart from each other.
How sure is pretty sure? Observe this existing center:
Archers 60 90 / 35
If you would like to upgrade their armor so that your statement rings true...:P
-
rio has 30 20/70 inf
-
You are wrong. You should check your program. Thalmarkin has 35 80/30 and Sirion has 40 75/30.
Then it's probably right on the edge of the allowed range. I don't remember how big a gap it allows offhand. That's a gap of 50%, so it's probably the limit or close to it.
-
Then it's probably right on the edge of the allowed range. I don't remember how big a gap it allows offhand. That's a gap of 50%, so it's probably the limit or close to it.
From looking at others posting RC stats, 50% seems to be the limit.
-
Does the chances of getting a good RC depend on the no. of prevailing RCs in the region?
-
Does the chances of getting a good RC depend on the no. of prevailing RCs in the region?
Don't think so. I think it is just completely random.
-
Thanks guys, for all the info. It was really helpful.
-
It is not *completely* random. There are some factors that affect quality, but they are not readily apparent.
-
Or, build two, tear down the weaker, one, and then repeat, so that you have one at least.
Makes it much more expensive, though.
-
From looking at others posting RC stats, 50% seems to be the limit.
My prior posted one was 55%, and the one below is 60%. Guess again? ;D
Shadow Snipers Archers 20 70 / 10
Does the chances of getting a good RC depend on the no. of prevailing RCs in the region?
I was under the impression that the more barracks in the region, the worse the stats. I figured this was why cities tended to get a good recruiting center for their first one. All unsubstantiated, unfortunately.
-
I often heard that some regions have a tendency to produce certain types of units, or to produce good (or bad) RCs.
Sounded more like seeing patterns where there are none to me, but it's a pretty persistent rumor, if you will. Anyone know if there's any truth to regions having specific bias for good and/or bad and/or specific types of RCs?
-
Don't know about that but my region has been getting RCs of similar quality.
1. 95/50 - inf
2. 80-5/75 - SF
3. 95/50 - Cav
4. 85/55 - inf
5. 80/50 - inf
So maybe...
-
My prior posted one was 55%, and the one below is 60%. Guess again? ;D
Shadow Snipers Archers 20 70 / 10
Ah, you're right; it's the difference between the combined equipment stats and the training that's kept normalized. Sorry for the confusion.
-
To prevent 90/90 infantry with 10 training. 8)
-
dirt cheap to pay .. expensive to repair XD
i think built order in avengmil (10k town) went like
sf 90 55 / 55 r5
sf 55 85 / 70
arc 55 50 / 65 r3 (can't remember)
inf 45 80 / 55
obviously there were a few rubbish ones that were knocked down.
-
I don't get the fixation on extreme high quality centers.
There are many places in the game where number of soldiers is important, or more important than quality. Takeovers, looting, civil work and many others. Cheap units that you can mass-recruit have always had a place, and the best advise in my book was the one telling you to look for what the realm already has and try to cover out what it doesn't.
And never forget that the next try could get you something worse. So if you get a long-range archer unit with very low armour, you just might want to suck it up and keep it, because who knows how long you have to try to get one with the same range an better armour.
-
I don't get the fixation on extreme high quality centers.
There are many places in the game where number of soldiers is important, or more important than quality. Takeovers, looting, civil work and many others. Cheap units that you can mass-recruit have always had a place, and the best advise in my book was the one telling you to look for what the realm already has and try to cover out what it doesn't.
And never forget that the next try could get you something worse. So if you get a long-range archer unit with very low armour, you just might want to suck it up and keep it, because who knows how long you have to try to get one with the same range an better armour.
Well for me, I play in big realms. So usually my realms already got low or mediocre quality RCs. Just looking for amazing RCs now which we just got 2 in the past month :D
-
And never forget that the next try could get you something worse. So if you get a long-range archer unit with very low armour, you just might want to suck it up and keep it, because who knows how long you have to try to get one with the same range an better armour.
That's why I suggested that they build two, knock down they don't want, and then try again--so that they have at least one.
My prior posted one was 55%, and the one below is 60%. Guess again? ;D
Shadow Snipers Archers 20 70 / 10
I was under the impression that the more barracks in the region, the worse the stats. I figured this was why cities tended to get a good recruiting center for their first one. All unsubstantiated, unfortunately.
and 70/10 archers are pretty cool. Set them to skirmish, train them like crazy, and hope that the enemy doesn't get close.
-
There are many places in the game where number of soldiers is important, or more important than quality. Takeovers, looting, civil work and many others. Cheap units that you can mass-recruit have always had a place, and the best advise in my book was the one telling you to look for what the realm already has and try to cover out what it doesn't.
trouble is... for the big ass units, you might actually want really really crap ones. so you end up aiming for really good centres... and accepting really crap ones.
the rest that are not good enough and not crap enough you end up ditching.
range is probably not the determining factor. if you get a really good equipment one, you'll keep it even if it's r3 rather than r4. the r2 ones (is there r1 archer?!) would be a bit more iffy...
-
range is probably not the determining factor. if you get a really good equipment one, you'll keep it even if it's r3 rather than r4. the r2 ones (is there r1 archer?!) would be a bit more iffy...
Range 2 is minimum for archers, Range 1 for MI. But I would never use them.
-
I don't get the fixation on extreme high quality centers.
There are many places in the game where number of soldiers is important, or more important than quality. Takeovers, looting, civil work and many others. Cheap units that you can mass-recruit have always had a place, and the best advise in my book was the one telling you to look for what the realm already has and try to cover out what it doesn't.
And never forget that the next try could get you something worse. So if you get a long-range archer unit with very low armour, you just might want to suck it up and keep it, because who knows how long you have to try to get one with the same range an better armour.
Dirt cheap (calculated in gold/man) and top stats are the two things that realms should strive for.
Yes, as you said, many things only consider troop number. But in many wars, none of these things will be done. And if all you plan on doing is fighting, you are much better off with a small army of elite troops than a horde of cheap troops.
-
Dirt cheap (calculated in gold/man) and top stats are the two things that realms should strive for.
Yes, as you said, many things only consider troop number. But in many wars, none of these things will be done. And if all you plan on doing is fighting, you are much better off with a small army of elite troops than a horde of cheap troops.
Frankly, from my experience what you choose for your units has less of an effect than the # of units you have. If you have more nobles you're more likely to win, period. This is less of an effect when the # of nobles in realms are very high for everyone. But whwen the noble counts are low (as they have been getting lower recently) then the difference is much higher.
If the realms are 60 nobles and 80 nobles, then it doesn't make as big of a difference if the realms are 30 and 40 nobles, or 20 and 30 nobles.
For a realm like the one I play in on Atamara, we are only limited in our military capacity by the # of nobles we have. We have enough gold and funding to make sure every noble in the realm has their maximum possible unit size. Thus, it is better for us to have more elite troops because we can afford the loss.
Unfortunately this is exactly how things will continue to be long term without massive more players in the game.
------------------
Back on Topic:
I was under the impression that your likilihood of getting a good recruitment center was reduced the more recruitment centers that you had. (More troops already working elsewhere, etc...)
-
Frankly, from my experience what you choose for your units has less of an effect than the # of units you have. If you have more nobles you're more likely to win, period. This is less of an effect when the # of nobles in realms are very high for everyone. But whwen the noble counts are low (as they have been getting lower recently) then the difference is much higher.
If the realms are 60 nobles and 80 nobles, then it doesn't make as big of a difference if the realms are 30 and 40 nobles, or 20 and 30 nobles.
For a realm like the one I play in on Atamara, we are only limited in our military capacity by the # of nobles we have. We have enough gold and funding to make sure every noble in the realm has their maximum possible unit size. Thus, it is better for us to have more elite troops because we can afford the loss.
Unfortunately this is exactly how things will continue to be long term without massive more players in the game.
------------------
Back on Topic:
I was under the impression that your likilihood of getting a good recruitment center was reduced the more recruitment centers that you had. (More troops already working elsewhere, etc...)
Smaller units have more CS per man. You can improve your CS / man by splitting up the gold over a greater number of units (which is what happens when you have more nobles), or by splitting up the gold over a lower number of soldiers (which is what happens when you recruit from better RCs).
Ideally, if combat is all you care for, you want as many nobles as possible leading the best units as possible. This is how you optimize your CS/gold ratio.
-
I was under the impression that your likilihood of getting a good recruitment center was reduced the more recruitment centers that you had. (More troops already working elsewhere, etc...)
Well, since Tom already came straight out and said that was not the case...
-
So if you get a long-range archer unit with very low armour, you just might want to suck it up and keep it, because who knows how long you have to try to get one with the same range an better armour.
Usually long-range low-armored archers are preferable than better armored ones since they are cheaper and perform very similarly, unless the enemy melee-soldiers catch you.
-
they (low armor) don't get shot up easier? only thing longer range has over shorter range is that they might get an extra shot in.. but they should perform the same at the same range
-
Yes, as you said, many things only consider troop number. But in many wars, none of these things will be done. And if all you plan on doing is fighting, you are much better off with a small army of elite troops than a horde of cheap troops.
That is not necessarily true. I can think of several reasons why a middle ground could provide benefits. One of them being that training improves with battles, so a well-equipped unit with low training, for example, will become more valuable over time. More bang for your bucks. And since you will likely face both kinds of situations - ones in which numbers count and ones where CS count - an average unit could be a good compromise.
-
i think his "elite" would be referring to really good equipment (whatever training)
the "middle ground" tends to be.... it's not too bad and we are desperate right now.... type.
-
That is not necessarily true. I can think of several reasons why a middle ground could provide benefits. One of them being that training improves with battles, so a well-equipped unit with low training, for example, will become more valuable over time. More bang for your bucks. And since you will likely face both kinds of situations - ones in which numbers count and ones where CS count - an average unit could be a good compromise.
Indeed, I don't consider training much for determining an RC's worth. I actually preffer it to be low, for the troops to be cheaper.
What I was saying is that, training remaining the same, in most wars recruiting from 90/90 centers will yield more punch for your bucks than recruiting from 45/45 centers. Because most wars have few TOs, little looting, and focus mostly on battles. If the opposite is true, and you will loot much and perhaps do takeovers but few battles, then only recruiting from 10/30 centers, for example, can prove worth it despite a lower cs/man ratio.
-
My unsolicited advice:
If you have an RC with high weaponry and another with high armor, your General should exercise his or her last brain cell to update the General bulletin with suggested pairings of recruits to achieve a quality unit. There are many ways to honor the "battle" part of BattleMaster. In my experience, patient and deliberate planning is a pretty good way.
-
My unsolicited advice:
If you have an RC with high weaponry and another with high armor, your General should exercise his or her last brain cell to update the General bulletin with suggested pairings of recruits to achieve a quality unit. There are many ways to honor the "battle" part of BattleMaster. In my experience, patient and deliberate planning is a pretty good way.
I.e, merging two specialized units to form an average one?
-
Pretty much. It's a good way of stretching your recruits. Everyone can't recruit from the 90/90/90 RC. Some people have to take the 50/60/60 troops. So mix the 60/40/80 and the 40/80/40 ones.
Unless you've been successful in ridding your realm of all those wack RCs, and gotten some good middle of the road ones. Usually I find that no one really cares about fixing their RCs until they've had an army or two wiped out, and wonder why they have no good troops left.
-
Pretty much. It's a good way of stretching your recruits. Everyone can't recruit from the 90/90/90 RC. Some people have to take the 50/60/60 troops. So mix the 60/40/80 and the 40/80/40 ones.
Unless you've been successful in ridding your realm of all those wack RCs, and gotten some good middle of the road ones. Usually I find that no one really cares about fixing their RCs until they've had an army or two wiped out, and wonder why they have no good troops left.
I'm a big fan of adequate military infrastructure. Back when Nicolas was general of Enweil, I put great efforts into organizing the construction, enlargement, and elimination of recruitment centres. It truly became a realm-wide effort, with everyone pitching in to help fellow lords accomplish my objectives.
I never really saw that happen elsewhere. Or since. It was worth the effort.
Mind you, you need sufficient peace time and productive regions for it to work. It wouldn't really work well if your regions are unproductive (your lords poor) or if you expect a war is about to happen and you need to hoard gold just in case. Because a LOT of gold is going to be dumped on centers that are to be destroyed.
-
Darka did a *very* good job at it. Perdan did well with infantry, but poorly at most everything else. Eponllyn is trying, and getting a few good results.
You are right about the cost. It sucks up tons of gold.
-
...did you reply to a message of yours that Tom quoted from nearly six months ago?
-
My unsolicited advice:
If you have an RC with high weaponry and another with high armor, your General should exercise his or her last brain cell to update the General bulletin with suggested pairings of recruits to achieve a quality unit. There are many ways to honor the "battle" part of BattleMaster. In my experience, patient and deliberate planning is a pretty good way.
Standard practice in Abington. I believe I even remember my favorite RC combo. Shieldmaidens of Suville (45 45/75, I think), and Veteran Swordmaidens of Suville (65 75/45, or something like that). Averaged out nicely.
-
People keep talking about best value. I originally thought that bu buying troops with high equipment and low training, then training them myself would lead to a better unit for less money. I am not so sure anymore. I get the impression that the cost of a 90 80/80 unit would be the same if you purchase them at this level direct from the RC or if you purchase them at 40 80/80 and train them up to 90 80/80. Is this true, or am I missing something?
-
People keep talking about best value. I originally thought that bu buying troops with high equipment and low training, then training them myself would lead to a better unit for less money. I am not so sure anymore. I get the impression that the cost of a 90 80/80 unit would be the same if you purchase them at this level direct from the RC or if you purchase them at 40 80/80 and train them up to 90 80/80. Is this true, or am I missing something?
You are right. If you train your low training unit to 90, you will pretty much pay the same amount as 90 80/80.
-
I was hoping I was wrong, that there would be a benefit to the effort and expense of hand training your men yourself. Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions though. Are there any potential benefits to buying at low training and working the unit up? The first I could envision is having the unit's cost increase over time...
-
I was hoping I was wrong, that there would be a benefit to the effort and expense of hand training your men yourself. Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions though. Are there any potential benefits to buying at low training and working the unit up? The first I could envision is having the unit's cost increase over time...
If the highly trained units are always available in your RC's, you're not fighting enough wars. In the most important situations, this luxury is often not available.
-
High training makes a unit cost more, making them more difficult of access to people. They will also not improve much over the course of battles.
If you aren't going to fight any battles, than yea, training low-training men yourself will cost you a lot more than saving up and buying the fully trained unit later, in training costs and especially in pay. However, if you are going to have many battles, spending on high-equipment and low-training unit should grant you a pretty similar CS/gold ratio, but it'll improve for free over the course of the coming battles.
-
but it'll improve for free over the course of the coming battles.
...except that your untrained men are less effective and more likely to break and run, potentially causing the loss of the entire unit, when a smaller, more highly trained force for the same amount of money will be more effective.
-
...except that your untrained men are less effective and more likely to break and run, potentially causing the loss of the entire unit, when a smaller, more highly trained force for the same amount of money will be more effective.
If you are heading in to get massacred, sure.
-
If you are heading in to get massacred, sure.
And how often do massacres happen? I'd say one side gets massacred about 80% of the time.
I'm talking about a close battle, of say 500 men against 500 men. The extra training can make the difference between victory and defeat.
-
I was hoping I was wrong, that there would be a benefit to the effort and expense of hand training your men yourself. Perhaps I am jumping to conclusions though. Are there any potential benefits to buying at low training and working the unit up? The first I could envision is having the unit's cost increase over time...
You don't pay as much to recruit them, and you don't pay as much while training them up, and your training is more useful (you get more training increases as well as the usual cohesion increases). But yes, the benefits are all generally in gold efficiency, and take time to put into practice. So far as I know, anyway.
-
And how often do massacres happen? I'd say one side gets massacred about 80% of the time.
I'm talking about a close battle, of say 500 men against 500 men. The extra training can make the difference between victory and defeat.
Well, of course, if we are talking about cavalry, and you are recruiting to fight on your capital's doorstep, then no, you may not get much of a chance to improve your unit's strength.
It obviously depends on the context. But unless going into very lopsided battles, my units tend to remain mostly intact. Even if you lose some troops regularly, training tends to keep rising in my case. Along with cohesion. And though I usually hire archers are ranged SF, this was also the case whenever I recruited infantry.