| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
alphaBeta |
Possible Bug: Replenish Units |
Lead | ||
|
When you don't have enough funds to replenish a unit the rolling popups (during a mouseover) say that you must be able to recruit the unit locally
and have enough funds in order to use the replenish feature. It's possible, however, to replenish my units anywhere including in enemy territory. Is this
correct? Seems rather unrealistic that simply spending some money allow magical soldiers to show up deep in enemy territory. Per the mouseover, I would have
expected healing anything more than basic units would require the army to be in the home region where the more specialized units can be created.
|
||||
|
|
||||
bicepboy888 |
#1 | |||
|
dont go there. Remember the other TW where you had to do that? it was just a pain in the butt, thats all. Plus, i never used elite units because of the
difficulty in replenishing hard to build units. Plus, they dont 'magically' appear. it takes two turns, A YEAR for them to march there to aid you.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Lord Trogdor |
#2 | |||
|
The problem is that it take 2 turns to replenish a depleted army, regardless of how many soldiers need to be replaced. If only 3 soldiers died, it'll take
2 turns. If only a couple hundred guys remain out of a starting 1000+ stack, it'll still take 2 turns to replenish the stack. This is pretty unrealistic.
I personally prefer the solution in M2TW, where troops can only be replenished in towns/castles that can train them, and only a few units can be retrained in a turn depending on population. |
||||
|
|
||||
Flavius Silvanus |
#3 | |||
Lord Trogdor wrote: In MTW2 the retraining was terrible. If I lost just a few men from each unit in a full stack army, it would take me 1.5 to 2 years to retrain everyone depending on the level of the castle. |
||||
|
|
||||
Leatherneck918 |
#4 | |||
|
Well I dont see any thing wrong with both ways, but I do see alphaBeta point, I think it would be more realistic if you had to be in your own territory for
troop replacement. Not having to go into the regions capital, but just in the region it self before you could heal the troops. It might help solve part of the
problem with bad AI. Lets say you go into an enemy territory and they have 4 to 6 full stacks of troops. You might win up to 3 full stacks of enemy, but lost
some good amount of troops. Now you have to go back into your territory and heal or possibly loose the army to AI when they attack you again the next turn.
People have been complaining about bad AI and the game is to easy to beat. This might make it a little more harder to win.
|
||||
|
|
||||
drgoodspeak |
#5 | |||
|
Posts: 205 04/22/09 00:42:43 |
I agree with the OP, the concept of a column of 100 guys from different units marching through enemy territory to link up with your main force as
reinforcements, even if they have 2 years to work with, darting from bush to bush, is stretching it a bit. I can see this debate linking into the "Supply
Lines" can of worms.
However, I also agree with another poster about how boring it gets when you're just rotating armies to keep your advance going. This was easily the main reason that I got bored with the MTW2 campaigns. As soon as it became an almost admin experience of building / fighting / retiring / replenishing / moving forward again across multiple fronts, I'd start a new campaign with a different faction. On balance, I think it should be left as is. Although an option might be that you can replenish men if your army is on a coast and that an enemy fleet is not covering that bit of coast with it's ZOC. Cue the marvellous invisible transports again! |
|||
|
|
||||
Lord Trogdor |
#6 | |||
Flavius Silvanus wrote:You know that there's a really easy way to workaround this, right? Just merge your units in that stack and you'll have all full units except one, and you can just retrain that one unit in one turn.... |
||||
|
|
||||
Schepel |
#7 | |||
|
This is actually one of the more brilliant concepts of ETW. The new units are recruited locally, but instead of you having to pick them up they go to you. It
does take more than two turns as well if you're far away. In fact, it takes the exact same amount of time it would to recruit a new unit in the field.
(With the exception of units that take multiple turns to train. For replenishing it does take just one turn plus travel time.)
People, don't cry bug! before you actually understand what's going on. edit: If there's no way for new recruits to come to you, you may order replacements, but they'll never arrive.
Last Edited By: Schepel 04/22/09 01:08:40.
Edited 1 time.
|
||||
|
|
||||
drgoodspeak |
#8 | |||
|
Posts: 205 04/22/09 01:00:39 |
I understand perfectly how it works, the question is about the realism aspect.
|
|||
|
|
||||
Schepel |
#9 | |||
|
It's also realistic, up to a degree. Moving a regiment about was costly, so it made perfect sense to have a recruiting officer, or NCO, go back home and
pick up the new guys.
|
||||
|
|
||||
normandymaster |
#10 | |||
|
Posts: 1682 04/22/09 01:23:29 |
Actually officers were recruiting troops everywhere in inn... So it's not unrealistic I agree it would add to the gameplay to be obliged to respelnish
troops only in our territories. Most of the people were recruited this way so...
|
|||
|
|
||||
optimate |
#11 | |||
|
Neither of the methods discussed are 100% satisfactory, falling back to a friendly city is timewasting though plausible, magic soldiers are convenient but not
so realistic. My thoughts are that tweaking the Empire system is the best way to go since I don't want to revert back to a map filled with 2 or 3 unit
armies crisscrossing the map on their way to retrain or reinforce. It's perfectly plausible for reinforcements to reach an army in situ, by the 18th
century army management was getting sophisticated enough to organise this and taking a year or so to do it seems reasonable. So I'd amend it so that:
1) You can always reinforce if the army is parked in a friendly city or town - you can assume the army itself is capable of pressing/recruiting more men and training them up whatever the recruiting ability of the city itself. A recently conquered city wouldn't count as friendly until resentment of foreign occupation had died down. 2) To reinforce an army in the field that army needs to in range (say 2 turns worth of infantry movement) of a friendly city which has some basic military recruiting capability, i.e. it may not be able to recruit grenadiers but it can recruit and equip line infantry who'll be sent off to the army who in turn will train them up for specialist roles. N.B. If the army is overseas then modify this so that colonial units can reinforce as above but regular army units need a route via a nearby port (not necessarily a friendly port, one seized from the enemy would do) and then through an open trade route back to the homeland to get reinforcements - this would give blockades and trade route interdiction some teeth. The player would of course be warned when an army is out of contact. And for a more hardcore tweak: 3) Assume that apart from their zone of interdiction armies also enforce a larger zone in which they maintain patrols capable of interdicting the movement of small enemy units like these invisible reinforcements. So if you park an army deep in enemy territory and the enemy mask it off from friendly territory with their own armies then you won't be able to get reinforcements to it. Manoeuvring to force an enemy to retreat was a big component of 18th century warfare. And for further hardcore tweak bring in some basic logistics, i.e. an army that was in a position where it couldn't reinforce would start to lose men even if it wasn't being attacked and if parked in inimicable terrain (snow/desert/jungle) that rate loss would be increased. I wouldn't want to bog the game down with too much logistical baggage but I think something on these lines could increase the challenge of the game without making it overly complex. For instance dumping an army on an enemy coast will still be fine but unless the army or its supporting fleet takes control of a port as well then it will find itself in trouble a after a couple of turns. Which would seem quite realistic. |
||||
|
|
||||
typhoon101 |
#12 | |||
|
Posts: 163 04/22/09 02:32:14 |
in all these reviews it said empire lets generals recruit directly to his army. it doesnt really. it still has to arrive from the nearest city and march over.
thats just exactly like the shift-rightclick-onunit as in medieval 2, just saving 1 or 2 seconds.
|
|||
|
|
||||
alphaBeta |
#13 | |||
|
Let's not confuse this with generals recruiting units. I understand that concept, but personally find it rather useless since the unit gets recruited at
the closed city and then is automatically given move commands to navigate them to the general. It's merely a convenience.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Munkeh111 |
#14 | |||
|
Well it is soooo much better than MII, I just stopped playing after I had had a simultaneous invasion of 2 territories, with bloody consequences, but they had
1 territory left, and it was going to take me 6 years to retrain the army!!!!
I think the new system is great, but timings need to be changed In your own provinces with large cities: Everything can be retrained in 1 turn In your own provinces with small cities: Line infantry and other basic units can be retrained in 1 turn, the rest takes 2 turns In enemies provinces: Basic units 2 turns, everything else 3 turns However, I think there should be max number of troops that you can retrain in one turn, I won't put a figure on it because I am currently playing with enlarged units, but 40% is the max that can be retrained in the times allocated above, but it will be gradual replenishment, so in the case of retraining Guards in Elite territory, you will get 1/3 of your required troops first turn, another 1/3 next turn then the rest in the final turn, but if you are attacked during that, it will automatically react and cause more troops to be raised (for an additional fee) |
||||
|
|
||||
legaldanish |
#15 | |||
|
Honesty I don't care about realism in this, it would just slow the game down wayyy to much to have it any other way. Right now I am playing as Martha
Confederacy (Spelling??) and while crossing and conquering Persia it has taken long enough. To have to hold my invading armies back would simply be an
irritation I think the current system is fine, one thing I wouldn't mind seeing, is if your army that you are trying to replenish is cut off by an enemy
army thus the reinforcements could not reach your own army.
|
||||
|
|
||||
Leatherneck918 |
#16 | |||
|
Well as a Veteran TW gamer since SHOGUN, The name of the game is Total War not Total Easy War. I want to be challenged, because with out a challenge the game
gets boring to quickly. Legaldanish I hate to tell you this, I have played as that faction and had all of India, Persia, and most of Russia by the year 1732 on
VH/VH so don't tell me that it would take too long. You just probley don't know real tactics or you take chances you should not. I think if you could
only heal in your territories only or take a enemy port and hold it would make the game more challenging and more realistic. If you don't want a realistic
game go play AOE 3.
Last Edited By: Leatherneck918 04/23/09 05:04:59.
Edited 1 time.
|
||||
|
|
||||
bicepboy888 |
#17 | |||
|
I think Munkeh hit the nail on the head, a good balance between realism and challenge. Besides, it IS pretty irritating to wait 2 turns to reinforce EVEN if
your in your capital. Hell, that would be a great addition to monkeh's Idea, in the capital, units can be retrained FULLY AND IN ONE turn. Make anyone
think twice about attacking a superior enemy force while in their capital, eh?
|
||||
|
|
||||
normandymaster |
#18 | |||
|
Posts: 1682 04/23/09 02:15:12 |
Munkeh ideas are the best so far easy to implement and esay to understand. It's quite normal to resplenish faster basic units and to resplenish faster in
your own territory depending on the size of it. His systtem is the good evoultion of the existing one....
|
|||
|
|
||||
impar |
#19 | |||
|
Problem for me is that it is faster to recruit a new unit (available the next turn) than it is to replenish an already existent unit (takes two turns).
Unrealistic and counter-intuitive. |
||||
|
|
||||
normandymaster |
#20 | |||
|
Posts: 1682 04/23/09 02:46:32 |
impar wrote: Actually it's not, to train a soldier took as much time wether it's to resplenish or build a regiment. It's easier to resplenish as you don't have to move troops around. Resplenishing as a big impact on the xp of your troops so it's a matter of deciding what's best for your army.... |
|||
|
|
||||