Well, I've played the FE beta long enough to believe that I have some decent feedback to give. Almost everything that I'm going to say already has a thread (sometimes three), but I'm hoping I can bring a little bit of my own touch to the discussion. There are some things I want to touch on only briefly, either because they've been talked about so much already or because the devs have indicated that they're in the works:
More important, in my mind, are the basic rules of the game, the foundational elements that make the game Fallen Enchantress rather than, say, GalCiv. The basic rules can be split into two categories: strategic and tactical. Of these two categories, the tactical has the greater number of errors and overlooked details, most of which have been addressed in other threads, while the strategic has the larger individual flaws. I'm going to hit some of the major gameplay issues and propose solutions for each one. Hopefully I'll say something worth hearing. Strategic level:There are several elements of the strategic gameplay that are schizophrenically dualistic, among them
These elements tend to tie into one another, but for the purposes of analytical clarity, I'll do my best to separate them out. TL;DR: by trying to treat the RPG mechanics on a high-gildar scale and the civilization mechanics on a low-gildar scale, we end up with an unpalatable result.
Gildar: The key problem here is the vast disparity between taxation and item sales. A single lucky goodie hut can provide the income for hundreds of game turns, especially early in the game. Compare taxation income at, say, turn 25 against the 700 gildar sale of a very expensive, as-yet-unusable weapon. There is no incentive to raise taxes when we stand to gain such incredible wealth as a matter of course just from wandering around the map. If we do not have to manage our gildar, then why have it at all? Alternatively, if we don't abuse item sales, every single gildar is precious; +1 maintenance per turn on a building is an enormous penalty.
Proposal: Merged with the proposal for "Item purchases and sales", below.
Item purchases and sales: In addition to the problems I've listed above, there are issues of verisimilitude and consistency with the item shops. In a post-apocalyptic world where humanity's an endangered species and I can't scrape together 4 gildar per turn in taxation without inducing 16% of my population to quit their jobs in protest (despite the dangers of inaction), I somehow have access to a merchant with a bottomless purse, a venture capitalist with a vault so vast that he's willing to fund the experiment that is my entire kingdom for decades on the basis of a sale of a single poison-dripping dagger. Moreover, while my people may have just spent a decade researching the secrets of blacksmithing/horsemanship, he's already got a limitless supply of metal/horses to provide to my champions. It doesn't matter that I haven't managed to build a mine or a pasture yet; it doesn't matter that I can't outfit my rank and file; the merchant will meet the needs of my champions no matter what materials would go into this effort, and best of all, he does it in zero time, with zero production loss. To all of this, I say: who is this handsome stranger who is richer than all of the nations of the world combined, and why can't I just seize his limitless purse, his magical mine/pasture/crystal cavern, and his blessed forge where I may smith what I want, when I want, as fast as I want, at no cost? Proposal: Kill the merchant. Entirely. Eliminate it from the game with the most extreme of prejudices. Gildar is gathered painstakingly from your cities or your mines and is used to pay your soldiers' wages and upkeep, not to buy limitless magic items as if this were a post-scarcity universe. There are no more endless pockets of wealth just out of your sovereign's reach. You outfit your champions the same way you outfit your rank and file: with production from the cities, costing materials and time but no gold. Monster drops are folded into production: a wolf pelt allows you, say, 20 production worth of leather in zero time, for a champion or for a unit. Demon horns might produce magic staves or some such. This way, we really get that post-cataclysmic sense, we actually have to raise taxes above "none", and we get rid of the equipment dissonance between units and champions. If I have the crystal, I can make the magic sword for my hero; I don't have to dump 250 years' worth of taxation into some merchant's hand while I'm simultaneously outfitting an entire division of rank-and-file soldiers with the same mass-produced magic sword at no cost beyond a division's worth of crystal. City growth: The game doesn't seem to know whether it wants few cities or many cities. There's a prestige mechanic that increases growth across your entire civilization, but there's also an easy-to-research Inn that allows you to quickly derive a much greater benefit from multiple cities. Add in extremely cheap settlers, subtract any penalties for city founding, and we get the impression that sprawl is the way the game is supposed to be played. The eight-tile hard founding limit and the six-tile soft expansion limit are the only restraining factors. Proposal: Incentivize whichever one is desired, and penalize the others. Having my prestige growth of 1 spread across two cities is not much of a penalty if by having two Inns I can get double the growth. Cities should be harder to found; it should require an influx of gildar and a chunk of time, and/or low population should hemorrhage gildar. Perhaps Normal-level city taxation should only break even upon reaching city level 2. Naturally, this would require bumping up starting gildar; either that, or eliminate the penalty for the capital only. This would also force us to manage taxation while providing an incentive to expand only when our economies can support doing so. You should potentially consider increasing growth slightly, perhaps in a way related to "Food", below. Food: Cities have two immutable stats upon founding, Grain and Production. Grain, however, feels like a throwaway stat. In the real world, food is the main practical driver and limiter of population growth. Where food is abundant, populations expand; where it is scarce, they contract. In FE, for any given city, food acts as a binary check: do I have sufficient food to support the next population point? If so, grow; if not, don't. In the current city-sprawl, low-pop-growth-in-dozens-of-cities based system, food is almost entirely irrelevant for hundreds of seasons. And especially in the late game, where techs provide big food bonuses per grain and I'm only going to be growing a city by .5 to 1 population a turn (due to the number of cities I have), why should I consider the food level of a city location if it's not going to affect my city for another 300 seasons? Food needs to provide immediate feedback; otherwise, it feels like a static and mostly-irrelevant consideration.
Proposal: There are a lot of potential ways to go here.
Strategy wrap-up: Cities or scenery?:
Tactical level:The problems I'm going to talk about on the tactical level are
Initiative: The initiative system, depending so heavily as it does on your units' weapons, results in bizarre and undesirable loadouts, such as sending a spellcasting champion into battle with a dagger. This might work if you're into virgin sacrifice, but what if you just want to carry the traditional staff? In that case, you'll probably end up punished by going from +6 to -6 initiative. Furthermore, there's already an encumbrance system in the game, yet some armor types provide additional penalties to initiative beyond whatever encumbrance applies. A dagger should be able to swing quickly, but it doesn't make me move faster. (I'm pretty sure my parents taught me not to run with knives, actually.) In the real world, there's no difference between wearing fifty pounds of plate and fifty pounds of maille, and neither of them will affect the speed at which I chant a mystical sutra.
Proposal: Start thinking about initiative in a holistic way.
Lethality: The devs are working on equalizing weapons and armor, but there's one matter I haven't seen addressed yet, which is ping damage. To my understanding-- and correct me if I'm wrong-- it doesn't matter how well I've kitted out my squad of 3 heavy knights; they're still green troops, which means that they have 6 hit points between them, for a total of 18, and a unit of 9 clubmen will ping them for 9 damage per action. Two such units-- eighteen hunchbacked, grunting, proto-sapient cavemen-- will club my 3 technologically advanced Glorious Get of the Celestial Axe to death in one turn. Am I understanding this mechanic correctly? If so... Proposal: Apply ping at the end of a unit's attack, not once per member of the unit. In other words, if the entire unit would have its attack reduced to 0 because every member's blow glanced off the opposition's armor, then raise the total damage to 1. Don't raise each single member's minimum damage to 1. Other matters:There are other details that need work: access to the Hiergamenon, tooltips that are useful (I need to be able to see what tactical spell effects on my units mean!), explanation of the Wildlands (I found the Imperium, I believe it's called; I thought I was supposed to be able to claim it, but if so, I'm not seeing a way to do it), but most important to me are the systems that make up the core of the game. Everything else can be tweaked, but you can't change the foundation once it's set. Houses built on sand, and all that. I hope my feedback has been helpful.
In consideration of the shop:
Currently the shop is the only gold sink for massively economically successful kingdoms. I have a feeling that this is why prices are so inflated. In either the case of cheaper prices or no shop, sometime else would have to take the shop's place, or else we would want to get rid of Capitar as a faction entirely, since their benefit provides little to no actual benefit.
I'm not sure that the shop is the best idea for a money sink, since it should be an option for both rich kingdoms and ones with more moderate income.
Maybe the shop could have reduced prices but special one-time-buy super expensive, over powerful relative to their level, items that are unlocked through Civics research? That would have the double benefit of improving Civics.
I can't imagine the shop going away.
However, I can imagine that the amount of money you get from selling your stuff being dramatically reduced.
I agree with the rationale of being able to simply buy some of this stuff in the shop but I find the shop pretty fun. Plus, if you're relying on the shop for your champion equipment, you're probably having a rough time.
Ah, I gotcha. In that case, it isn't worth it to continue discussing until we see what they've got in the works for the next build, as they've announced they're aware of the general lethality issue. Regardless, my original point, as described, is moot. Thanks for the heads up.
It's true that initiative functions as an action-ordering mechanic, but since combat time only progresses to discrete moments when an action is possible, a lower initiative is functionally the same as a turn delay. I will submit in agreement that I have seen the predicted turns reorder themselves, often undesirably, when using Haste or Slow (a powerful enemy may jump from 5 turns away to next turn just because my monarch hasted an army, for example). I mentally noted this fact but chose to forgo its mention in the post, reasoning that since there was no way they were going to remove the initiative-modifying spells, there would be a potential fix for it. Since you've brought up the mathematical contortions involved in recalculating turn order, I'll agree that it is a consideration.
As for the multiple-turns-to-cast vs. delayed turn by way of initiative issue (I assume this is what your last sentence is referring to), my proposal operated on the assumption that when there are two different mechanics that perform the same function in different circumstances, it's always better to fold the less common mechanic into the more common mechanic. When defining data types and methods, "As many as necessary, but no more" is a good rule. As of right now, I haven't seen a reason to believe that "takes 2 turns to cast" is any different from "divides initiative to next action by 3 and casts at the start of next action"-- it's just phrased differently. Indeed, under the hood, they may be exactly the same, but I'd have no way of knowing.
The rest of your post is well taken. Cheers, and thanks!
I think it would help to reduce the selling price to 25 % of the new buying price and the buying price should be reduced to 50 %, because otherwise buying eqipment will take too long. Example:
Current buying price: 1200 gildar > new buying price: 600 gildar
Current selling price: 600 gildar > new selling price 150 gildar
Does anyone else hear an angelic chorus? No? Just me?
Speaking of which, you made a recent post suggesting that the enemy AI wasn't properly taking advantage of monster lairs and so forth. If and when corrected won't this settle some of the balance? If there are fewer things to sell because the enemy AI has gobbled up the loot, then part of the above problem may take care of itself, right?
Possibly true but it wouldn't change the fact that finding items and selling them was by far the best way to fund your economy for the first 200+ turns... it would just make it more of a gamble whether you would manage it.
I quite like the shop in concept but the current collateral damage to the economic balance and realism of the game is way too high so something needs to be done. I personally would be happy to lose the ability to sell to the shop or be limited in how much gold the shop had to spend (the shops coffers could increase by a certain amount per turn based on development level of the world plus of course any money spent to buy things). Of course the city economy would then need to be rebalanced to make up for the fact you needed to mostly fund your own economy early game instead of just selling items.
I think a reduction of all shop prices to 10% would be the perfect balance.
Regarding the shop issue, I have two suggestions off the top of my head.
1. Lower the price at which you can sell magic trinkets you find early in the game, and have it scale up later. Early on, when people are more concerned with surviving, super magical weapons won't have as high of a demand (since it isn't something essential, like food).
2. At the risk of adding more numbers being thrown at players, I simple solution would be to have a personal coin purse for the sovereign. He could earn for himself some amount based on what he's earning from the city (or anything he finds adventuring). This would allow you the flexibility to have a large-scale 'strategic' economy for civilization management, and a smaller-scale 'tactical' economy for shop transactions.
Did I write that first or did you come up with that?
That's the number I'm playing around today.
I'm having the AI vs. AI stuff to see how things balance out.
On my end, and mind you, these are just things I'm working on on my own machine, they may not end up in the game for very good reason if it turns out it breaks balance:
Once they pass this test, IF they pass the test, then I'll submit to Kael for his approval/rejection.
Funny, we must think alike because that is pretty much how I set up my game this morning:
I just want to be able to back my ideas up with some testing. So far the game is just epiccally more fun. There are so many more moments when strategy and tactics are combined on an enemy to cause me to have to play very different in every battle. Of course I have made 50+ unit designs for every faction, so the AI is 100% better than last week's Maidens aplenty spamfest. It should be noted that the AI is alot smarter than many of us realize. It just doesn't have the options it needs to play the game well.
I would post a video about it, but showing people my modded version would cause unrest in the forums.
All the discussions in the thread sound good. Actually what is good is that everyone (but most especially Stardock) are thinking about how to solve these problems.
Note that if the ability to sell items to the shop is nerfed (which seems necessary and inevitable) then the early 'normal' economy from cities needs to be beefed up. By coincidence there is currently a major lack of worthwhile buildings to build early game so there is room for some useful economy buildings in there and that would perhaps also give players that focus a bit more heavily on economy a slight economic advantage over players that focus on building troops.
The main area I still have concerns about is growth and building cities. I've seen some talk about making Inns produce growth off prestige (I'm guessing it would need to be at least 50%) and some opposing the idea that surplus food produces growth. Both of these seem to be on the basis that city spamming should be nerfed into oblivion.
I strongly disagree. I'm not going to be interested in the game if there is no point in spreading out and settling the world with real settlements (not just outposts).
Having said that there needs to be an opportunity cost in building settlements. Civilization 4 (yes I keep harping on about Civ 4 but it really is beautifully balanced) does this by having an empire maintenance figure (lets call it bureaucracy) which increases as you build more cities. It starts out fairly benign (so you can build your first few cities without tanking, particularly with early exploration gold to help support you) but over time if you continue to expand it really begins adding up.
What this means is that each new mid game city is an investment. It starts out costing you money and hence research (since research is basically what is left after you pay your bills in Civ 4) but once the new city reaches a middling size and has a few decent buildings it will produe sufficient gold, research and production that you're making increasingly more than the bureaucracy hit.
The result is that you only expand if one of the following applies:
1. It is early game since the first few settlements don't cost that much and increase your empire power by a large multiple (ie two settlements is 100% more than 1 settlement but going from 5 to 6 is only a 20% increase).
2. You really want the resources in the settlement area
3. You want to increase your production AND have sufficient gold reserves that you can handle the bureaucracy hit.
4. You're focusing on mid-long term economic growth, going to run a low military (so you can afford to pay for the bureaucracy) and are prepared to gamble that you can keep the AI off your back until your new cities produce a positive return on investment.
I'm not saying FE necessarily needs a Civ 4 style bureaucracy fee but I think it needs some mechanic or set of mechanics to sensibly produce a similar end result.
I much prefer an approach like that which produces interesting choices than an unrealistic blanket rule that growth is always fixed regardless of cities and regardless of how much spare food there is (historically population growth was primarily driven by surplus food).
In terms of early types of buildings and such, I'd like to see it quick and easy to get ahold of resources right away (no tech pre-reqs) and then have buildings that require those resources.
As the AI / lead developer guy, I play this game over...and over...and over...and over...
So I'm acutely aware with anything that weakens replayability.
I talked to Derek today about this and explained my rationale for wanting to do away with the tech requirements for mining metal and crystal. The idea is that what direction I go in terms of growing my city, researching techs, etc. should change from game to game. That means having more types of improvements but have them require the special resources (like units do).
Now one thing I have that may not survive is the idea that there's a 50% chance that your armor will indeed block the hit entirely rather than the -1 (clink).
There are a number of reasons why this might go away. First, remember, late game, there are a LOTTTTT of battles going on in the world. It could much end turns take vastly longer. Secondly, it could get really frustrating if you go up against something really powerful and can't even make a dent in it.
Yup. This, a thousand times this. That whole post, actually.
People build barracks? why?
I agree that from game to game the direction you go in growing your cities and choosing techs should change, I even have a post about it here. However I don't see how removing the mining techs would accomplish this. Aren't you just removing a choice? Having to choose between research techs increases the game to game variation it doesn't reduce it. I heartily approve of having more uses for special resources and requiring them for improvements, however unless you are choosing between two types of resources it's not really a choice. Scarcity is what drives choice, not abundance.
If you simply require a few crystals to build an improvement that not going to really prevent anyone from getting it every game. All you have to do is build a mine. The only way I can see this working is if you make the improvements very expensive and require players to invest in techs and other improvements that boost crystal production so they can afford it. Having to choose between metal and crystal production is a choice, having to choose between spending 1 metal or 1 crystal is not.
The Cleric is interesting but doesn't really seem like a choice at 1 crystal, it's really easy to get and has no downside. I would get it every single game. If this cost like 10 crystal and required a dedicated tech then it would be a choice.
I agree with DsRaider that buildings with material costs (Iron or Crystal) really ought to have a significant cost, if we are talking about a one-time expenditure. Early level buildings with special requirements should have a cost of no fewer than 10 (10 turns of production from one mine), and mid-tech buildings should be more like 50. Considering that without the efficiency buildings, many of the defender units with plate cost over 100 metal each, this is nowhere near a stretch, and in a lot of ways makes more sense.
You guys seem to be missing that he is talking about a 1 metal or crystal cost per turn. That could work, but the problem I see is that I usually have an equal amount of both in every game. There would need to be some tweaking to the resource generator to make sure my starting area has either one type of these two resources, in addition to the current situation where they are spawned near each other.
If I have 5 metal and 5 Crystal per turn, I would have to use some of those to get the buildings I desire. So that specialization gives me say 3 Metal and 5 Crystal per turn, even though my intention is to specialize in metal production. The best course of action is to allow the resources to be free of techs. Then keep the techs and add a an improvement to them that can increase the yields of these resources. So getting Mining gives me more Metal after I invest in construction. Otherwise I am reducing the specialized material to the point of scarcity, while the other one builds up huge stores.
The other thing you could do is to have many uses for the resources we aren't researching be taken up by buildings such as Cleric. These would provide bonuses to our production and research, while eliminating that nasty Crystal buildup in our vaults. For Magic minded nations, a Metallic Golem Defender could be an option. Alchemy would be something really cool. Just turn that metal into gold and mana. Then use the rest to forge enchanted items. Any way you do it, there needs to be a way to rid ourselves of useless resources for our particular strategy.
Really? It's been my experience that I rarely have enough iron to fuel my war machine, and the only times I seem to have "enough" crystal, I'm so Iron starved that I wind up restarting the game. My current game where I am the largest and most powerful faction, I'm pulling in 3 metal, 2 wargs, 7 crystal, 30 gold, and 54 mana a turn. Under no circumstances would I consider constructing a building in even one city that cost me one of those iron, unless it was a "free metal for units built here". That I might spend the 3 on. In order for the "per turn" of other resources to be functional on any more than a "every third game" or a "not until very late game" basis, either the node frequency would need upped, or the output altered.
Resource nodes are a lot more common, but it's still a crapshoot as to whether or not a starting location is viable at all. I'm averaging about one in four starts. And when I say 1 in 4 starts I mean that the location has more than 5 adjacent tiles which provide food/prod (pinched between desert, mtns, coast), has useful resources (starting with 2 warg nodes and a crystal node but no iron within 15 tiles), and has no more than 1 enemy faction within 20 tiles at game start.
In the current build I would be VERY hesitant to add yet another layer of "hope you get a good start" to the game.
This is why I advocate lowering initial yields from world resources and adding techs and improvements that increase those yields. So players are actually forced to make choices when building cities and doing research. Thus you should only have resources to throw away if you invested in the infrastructure necessary to produce them. You don't just find some iron build a basically free mine and sit back and collect.
Even at 1 crystal per turn, which I don't think he meant, whether you build a Cleric or not would solely depend on how many crystal mines you found, it wouldn't change your play style or specialize your cities it would merely be a nice boost to one city because you happened to find a crystal mine. When you get right down to it cities are for producing things not for consuming them, and improvements have to reflect that.
The basic problem I see when I play is that it takes around 60+ turns to get my first iron mine up OR my first crystal mine -- and that's assuming I start with one in my ZOC.
As a result, I tend to start every. single. game. the exact same way which gets very old.
Instead, i'd rather see Mining and Channeling provide an improvement that increases the amount of metal/crystal you get out of a mine and be able to start getting my resources soon so that I can get into the actual game as soon as possible.
..
Now, I saw someone say the Barracks is useless. It reduces the training time quite a bit. So my question is, what would make the Barracks more compelling?
I like the idea of some improvements requiring one of the special resources (besides production) to construct. This way, the player has to make more strategic map choices on what resources they want to take and when in order to proceed with a given strategy.
I don't know about you guys but my current pattern in 0.86 is Standing Army + Drills + Logistics = Crank out Spearmen Groups enmasse with my champions and go rampaging. That is the path of least resistance. I can do the above in the same time as it would take me to get shard harvesting + channeling + build a crystal foundry. And then once I do that, what do I have? Nothing.
Similarly, why bother getting mining early on until AFTER I've already got my groups of spearmen conquering AI players who foolishing didn't take this pattern perfect path?
Please do this.
Several different ideas. These are NOT intended to be applied together.
- In addition to 25% faster training time, when a city has Barracks, the City Militia free defense units get slightly better gear. Spears (after toning them down, of course) for example?
- Instead of training faster, units trained in this city start out at Lv2.
- Reduces cost of rushing units in its city by ~20% in addition to the faster build time.
- Required for building units with gear better than leather/weaponsmithing/archery in addition to the 25% reduced training time (probably my least favorite).
--
In terms of your Spear Spam. Yeah, that's about right. If it weren't for crushing gold shortage stymieing the rush, this strategy would be even MORE of a problem.
The reason the barracks is useless is that production time isn't really a limit on the number of troops I have. Gildar is pretty much the only real limit on troops numbers (perhaps population too if you really went crazy on troops). Production isn't even close to limiting my troops, as I've said in several posts my cities spend a good amount of their time building nothing at all (because no available buildings are worthwhile and I'm not going for an iminent military victory so why buy more troops than I need and can afford?).
That said I do have a barracks in my troop production city (you know, the one with all the troop buffing spells and special buildings, surely everyone has one?) but in every single other city there is no point in wasting the 1 gildar per turn on saving a resource (production time) which is already non constraining.
Fix the fact that production time doesn't constrain me and perhaps I will consider building barracks. But even then that 1 gold per turn will probably still deter me.
I'm working on the assumption that the effectiveness of early spears will be balanced by heavily nerfing them (as pointed out by many they are crazy good) and/or making the AI better at countering them like a player would. So I'm not sure how relevant it is that spearmen groups is currently the optimum strategy?
Presumably the goal is that higher tech units are noticeably better than lower tech units and THAT will be the reason to go the other path - if you manage to get there then you will stomp the player who is spending all their resources on lower tech stuff.
Related: I haven't quite worked out what determines how much troops cost to maintain. If troops with metal or crystal items cost more than troops without then the player is being double punished. First they have to invest in the necessary techs and have enough of the resource to build these special troops, then they get charged more anyway! Since gildar is THE limiting factor on army size this could mean that a more advanced player is so crippled by the cost of maintaining their more advanced army that they still get destroyed by the much larger low tech army. I would say that troops with metal or crystal items shouldn't cost more (at at most only a tiny bit more) than troops without them - availability of the metal or crystal resource should be the limit on them not gildar.
OK I can see where your going here. This makes perfect sense and I can see no problem with it except that you might not have a lot to spend it on. I probably wouldn't build a Cleric in the first 60 turns anyway. The game is kinda designed right now so that you don't need those resources early game. I would love to see this changed because you bring up a good point but it would require significant changes to the beginning of the game.
Well it certainly isn't a early game building. It takes while to build for very little benefit. I sometimes build one if I dedicate a city to troop production mid-late game but other then that... Ya early game it just takes to long to build and costs to much for such a meh ability. How many turns is this really going to save you? Troops build fast early game, gold is more of a limit then build time. Maybe make it reduce upkeep?
Seems like more of a balance issue. It would be hard to somehow make crystals a counter to this. The infrastructure needed to tech already exists without crystals so that's out. All you really use crystals for is mages. On second thought I think your problem reflects a lack of choices early game period, regardless of whether crystals are involved or not. First ask what should your other options early game be? Then make some of them cost crystals.
Here's me testing some of this stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDCSKEw5VYE
What about the Civic Tree? I think the spear spam strategy works for their early game as they will only get first tier techs from warfare and magic. Their biggest advantage is being able to outproduce and fund massive armies. But those armies will be weak. They will be fodder that can potentially levelup the enemy and strong monsters. Counter them with bows and good armor. Then in the midgame, they will be able to buy mot of their units, never needing a barracks for that. They will focus on great starting stats instead of great equipment. In the later parts of the game a merchant civic nation should be differentiated from a production based nation with wonders of the realm and the inability to get every tech in the tree. Merchants will buy units and use diplomacy. Producers will start making those strong stat units with medium quality armor and then comes the catapult waves. So that needs to fit into the discussion somehow.
I like the idea of each unit having a medium per soldier cost. Then gear would only add incremental increases. The scale would be mostly unit size based, as this is the main danger factor of a unit. Gear should be a benefit, not a detractor of my unit. When size matters, I might train a few light units that have special tactics in battle. Shield Wall, Mount Countering, Stun Attacks, and archer killing are all things that only take a party of units and would save the army some costs. The front line would all be squads and archers would be groups or squads, depending on economy. So too, a merchant could afford all squads, while a warfare general would rather use well seasoned groups and one massive company for the front line. Magic could probably get away with armies of parties and groups, because they have so many special counters to larger units.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account