Unit Construction Ideas

Well, some of what you are mentioning will already be in the game: units will be produced from citizens, and won't be very standardized. However, the main probem with adding in too much backstory for each unit is that some poor dev somewhere has to write all that backstory. A few prefabricated stories or story "blocks" wouldn't be abig deal, but remember that we're talking about battles involving hundreds, if not thousands of units. Making each one unique would probably be much more trouble than it's worth.

BARAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't believe that writing actual backstories would be necessary. The point of games like this is that the player creates his own stories from the circumstances that arise in-game. It would probably suffice to give units randomised traits, which could give some minor stat modifications or even be completely "cosmetic". Regular units probably shouldn't have more than one or two of these, but powerfull creatures or veteran squads could acquire more. 

Since these traits would be allocated randomly, and would have a tiny impact on balance, creating a great variety shouldn't be a problem. The only difficulty is to make them actually interesting and colourful. Personally, I believe that minor flaws add a sharp stroke of character to game units, more so than actual advantages; it might be frustrating to have your arachnophobic commander flee from giant spiders, but it adds such dimension to your troops that it may be worth it (not to mention how hilarious it might be).

In fact, it may also be interesting to have some or all of these traits hidden, which would make the system feel more organic, instead of being a simple set of variables. However, that might prove too frustrating for those who like controlling every aspect of their units.

While this idea might be historically accurate it presents a number of problems. As Scoutdog mentioned backstory for units would be to time consuming, from a development standpoint, to be in the game. While Krouv makes a good point that you could create your own backstory, honestly would you? I mean you have 1000 plus units per game and who knows how many games your going to be playing it a week / month / year. It seems impractical for the majority of players.

From a game play stand point what is to stop a person from saving and reloading until they get the unit type they want?

I think it will be enough for me to name and create backstory for my own hero units. And if the Devs put in several hundred pre-created heros with great backstory who may or may not appear in any given game I would be even more excited.

Well the game is going to have customizable units much like galciv, but i suppose that's not what you mean... To tell you the truth, when you said "a range of stats" it reminded me of x-com, and how none of your soldiers had a "back story", but you got attached to them just because of their unique differences in their stats and how they performed in the field (at least i did) and I think that's a very important thing in these kinds of games: Personalized over standardized. We want to feel that we are actually in a living and breathing world. I think that's what MoM also was good at with having heroes with unique stats, and that you relied on them to finish important battles. The backstory doesn't have to be written for you (via programming etc.), bc especially with the games i mentioned above, it basically wrote itself. That's what I hope elemental will do. Provide a world that we can get attached to our heroes, and our units, and be able to feel that they play a significant role and aren't "just another unit adding to my military score"

I think this is a very good idea.

Perhaps the stats could start hidden, but the owner finds them out after the unit is engaged in battle.  The adversary might also find them out after several engagements.  If the unit breaks and runs, stats go down.  If they win, they improve.

The backstory could be optional, written by the player if desired.

It would be nice if the unit could be named, and renamed.  This allows the player to award decorationis to units who deserve them.  Back in PanzerGeneral days, and in HoI, I would award a '*' after the unit name for a hard fought battle or a '+' if they won a critical fight I really expected them to lose.  If a unit took an enemy city I would rename the unit after that city or make them a 'Guards' unit.  Each player could customize as they wish.

Regarding the variable stats, if the unit comes from a town with a long history of raising units in the local barracks then we would expect higher stats.  If it is raised in a mountain city then it will probably perform better in rough terrain.  If raised in a swampy fishing area then it will be more adept at crossing rivers and building bridges.  If it is raised in a city next to a magic node then it may have some magic defense inherent.  Again, there are limitless possibilities.

Very good idea, OP!

Good idea with the terrain effects. I would also like to see units change in a  realistic fashion as they age. In Civ 4, I one went a whole game with the same group of explorers isolated on one continent! As the years go by, units should gain magic and wsidom skills at the expoense of strength.

Just to answer a few points, I did not intend to suggest that the developers write the story for each of these units. That's dull in the extreme, and generally ignored by most folks. X-Com's style of generating units is a little closer to what I mean than, say, the prewritten histories of heroes in Romance of the Three Kingdoms (by Konami).

I also want to emphasize the importance of traits as seen in the Total War games, where an idle unit might pick up the drunkard trait, and a unit that executes prisoners might gain the bloody trait. In essence, procedurally generated story, sans the crappy writing of the computer. This adds personality to units, as well as benefits and penalties, without materially affecting the utility of the base unit itself. 

An important element of this sort of story is the where, who, and how. A log of where the unit was created and the major battles it fought in would be key to keeping track of how it performed over time. An easily identified commander would add to that, especially if that commander had other units attached to him, or, even better, developed friendships and enmities, a family, and grew old and died. Nothing too significant, just basic family tracking along the lines of Crusader Kings or EU:Rome. Awardable titles would also be kind of neat. In essence, make it so that each wee unit is a mini-character with mild rpg elements.

I will say that I conceive of this game as played with between four and six cities -- any more than that would remove a great deal of the flavor and reduce it to the unit spam so prevalent in Civclones, where a big stack of the strongest units is sufficient to overrun any old place.

I really do want to reiterate that fantasy style games and stories are at their best when they focus on the interaction of interesting characters, and at their worst when they attempt to create a complex political drama. It's the difference between something like Firefly and Serenity, or A New Hope and The Phantom Menace. Fantasy, whether with laser guns or fireballs, is character driven. Lose that, and you may as well be playing a Tom Clancy game in terms of emotional appeal.

Yea, what he said lol

I like this idea (although I don't think traits like 'drunkard' are a good fit for, say, a unit of 150 longbowmen). Terrain-based bonuses (eg 'forester', 'desert combat', for time spent in those two types of areas) and situation-specific bonuses (eg 'ambusher', 'defender') seem especially appropriate.

To me it doesn't really make sense for a unit of swordsmen to gain 'magic' and 'wisdom', because swordsmen (presumably) can't cast spells anyways. Also, in 'real life', the most likely course of response to a unit growing old was to swap out the individual members of that unit who were becoming old, hence preserving the overall state of the unit and so affecting a negative net change in terms of age-related effects. You could probably simulate this and other things with experience decay, but some people (myself included) would find that frustrating.

Ah, see, swwu, you misunderstand me. I'm talking about the commander of the unit, not the unit itself. The unit could be promoted in whatever way is implemented.

Although I would definitely argue that there are plenty of marine platoons out there that have earned the drunkard trait.