Yes it is artificial even if you don't want to see it, read some history books about medieval times and what knighthood meant. A hard cap is really easy to imagine given than knighthood was plain impossible to attain for most of the population (peasants), so what is totally weird is been able to field as many knights as you can "pay" (paying them is pretty weird too). And yes, I know there were mercenaries (Venice used them a lot for example), but that was just a small part on how armies were formed, not the common rule.

The process of forming an army in medieval times (call to arms) was in general totally different from the process of forming armies in medieval strategy games (hiring units). There's already a suggestion about this in another thread.

First of all I'd like to point out that medieval Europe is not the only time or place in the history of the world. Sure, the world of Elemental is loosely based off of medieval Europe, but not entirely. There wasn't magic in the Medieval ages, despite some people's belief. Also, whether or not something was prominent is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not it's believable and fun. Training troops is believable. 

Additionally, even in the medieval ages there were more than just knights and peasants and the occasional mercenary. They didn't just take hordes of peasants off the streets and give them bows, or crossbows, and say "point it that way." They were trained and drilled, at least to an extent. And that training was paid for by someone. If you can't imagine a world in which soldiers are paid (despite that it happened both then and now), you can always consider the upkeep cost as a representation of feeding your soldiers and maintaining their equipment and training. After all, they would not be responsible for providing their own food and such - especially if they aren't even paid. If they've been conscripted by the military then they are not able to support themselves via some craft or trade, which means either they are taken care of or they are paid so that they can take care of themselves.

Even more relevant is the fact that training troops and maintaining an army is a fairly constant theme within the fantasy genre, and not just in games. If anything that does not abide by 'the common rule' of Europe during the Medieval ages is unacceptable to you, then perhaps Elemental is not the game you are looking for.

A hard cap is not easy to imagine. Knighthood was impossible to obtain for most of the population to attain, but the ratio of knights to total population supportable by each and every kingdom everywhere needn't be identical. Then there's the point Elemental is not a Medieval ages simulator, but a fantasy game. In which knights might not even exist in my particular kingdom. Perhaps my Sovereign hand-picks people to serve in his Royal Guard, forming the elite core of his army, irrespective of their social status. There is no reason why we should be limited to the status quo of Medieval Europe, and it is possible to deviate significantly from that - especially in the context of a fantasy world - without requiring suspension of disbelief.

This is a bit beside the point, but one thing that we know definately isn't historical is the way in which almost every strategy game recruits soldiers: you train them one by one, and then they stand at the ready indefinately, never returning home to work the fields or see their families. 

Even in mordern nation states, we have a certain level of reserves that live in the general populace, prepared to take up arms should a dire war arise.

Yes, that is true. And I even suggested a mechanic dealing with just that. Not as detailed or realistic, perhaps, as a Call to Arms, followed by all those people melting back into the population never to be heard from again. My suggestion was to allow us to demobilize squads stationed in cities; their upkeep costs would be waived, perhaps they'd eat food like regular population or produce gold like regular people - perhaps not (that is a matter for play-testing and finding out what works best). In order to use those troops, though, you'd have to mobilize them, and that could take several turns. The result is a system that allows you to have a large army, a larger army than you'd be able to support indefinitely, so that when you need it you can call upon it; and when you no longer need it you can send them back and demobilize them, ready to be remobilized again the next time they're needed. 

Agreed not the whole world worked around these premises (although a lot of places did). And again, training troops is as believable as a hard cap on some types of troops.

This was an obligation from the knight to the king. It would make more sense if when you "trained" a unit of knights it appeared with 2 units of infantry, 1 of archers and so on. Hiring the knight would continue to be weird but the overall process would be far more similar to how things happened.

I'm just suggesting alternatives to problems, and so far I like this idea and you haven't voiced any real problems against it (except that it's hard to imagine for you). So sorry, I want to like Elemental as much as you, and I think so far this idea is good to solve the monolitic armies problem.

And btw, I never said either that anything except Europe Medieval ages was unacceptable to me, long time ago I posted that given magic use, buildings should be pretty different (for example, probably japanese castles would make more sense than european castles as they are roofed).

It could be a trait of the civilization, problem solved (although pretty useless to add it for this minor detail from my PoV).

Again, this is not only limited in Medieval Europe, Warhammer is a game that has this sort of hard cap to avoid a pretty similar problem (abusing of some units). I prefer having a somewhat limited choice in armies composition (as pure elite armies could continue to be produced, but they would be a smaller part in the overall nation army) than having a false illusion of choice but then everyone fielding the same ubber army once and again.

Then you haven't read carefully enough. My major issue with it to begin with was that it stymies player choice unnecessarily. Like I keep saying, if troops are implemented well then there will be no such thing as 'the best strategy.' Whether you decide to build an all-elite army, an all-rabble army, or some mix in between would be a matter of contextual strategy and personal preference. All-rabble armies should be better than all-elite armies for certain tasks, and vice versa. Then there how you choose to compose your army in terms of unit types, which again should be dealt with the same way.

Saying "I'm sorry, you cannot train 6% of your population into elite troops, 5% is the limit" limits player freedom. If I could afford to field 10% of my population as elite troops, I'd be able to afford a proportionally large %age of my population as lesser troops. But a 5% cap tells me "Nope - you can do the latter, but you aren't allowed to do the former." The whole point is to make all the different options viable for different reassons. If an army of peasant rabble is equivalent to an equal-cost army of elite troops (assuming similar unit types) in all scenarios, well then that's just boring. In that case just get rid of one of the options because there's no difference. They should each be better at certain things, in certain situations. So long as elite soldiers are expensive enough that you cannot field an equally large army (or nearly as large of one, really) of elites as you could rabble, then a hard cap is harmful and simultaneously achieves nothing. What this boils down to is: the economy should not be effectively unbounded, like it is in many games come late-game. Fielding a large army should always remain a challenge, regardless of how late in the game you are. 

Customizable units + magic = pretty hard to balance units even if they are implemented well. That's why I think another mechanic is needed, even if it will limit a little the player choices.

And again, even if only 5% of your armies can be elite units, that doesn't mean you can't have a pure elite army, it means that not all your nation armies are elite. You can have an elite strike force while having more modest defenses and things like that. Of course, probably you won't have enough elites to just mount a nation wide invasion, but they continue to have their role. I would even prefer personally limiting the number of elites in a single army, but well, that's more extreme.

It's desirable to pick apart suggestions to look for loopholes.  It's another thing altogether to make incorrect assumptions then argue against them.

If you have questions then ask instead of assuming or making things up as you've done here.  You'd have saved us all a lot of wasted time.

I'd prefer to take a wait and see stance on that. We don't even know how magic will work out, and we've only touched the tip of the iceberg regarding customizable troops. Assuming that the only way to prevent all-elite armies from being the inherently superior strategy based on things we know little to nothing about is premature.

If it turns out that Stardock cannot figure out how to naturally prevent all-elite armies from being inherently and universally superior to anything else, then I would settle for more drastic measures like hard-caps. Until then, I'd rather aim for the mechanic that would result in better gameplay than handicap it from the start without ever giving it a chance.

I have no idea what you are talking about. The fact that that collection of words doesn't form a coherent sentence doesn't help.

This is basic game balance.

Note to the argumentative (not you VC) -- I haven't mentioned how the 'restrictions' should be done here, or any other specifics (as we're in very early beta and much is not yet determined, and I'm looking at this from the 'big picture' view for now).  Please to not assume, and ask if curious (general rules include: soft caps > hard caps; more choices > fewer; choices should be equally viable; etc.).

And why it's better to ask than assume when unsure.

I went back and reread your post that I quoted, and my response to it. My conclusion is that you didn't understand my point. So there is clearly miscommunication going on - one of us, or both, has failed to get our point across to the other.

Here is what you said:

[quote]Because hopefully the game would be balanced such that other options are as viable, and folks have different ideas of how they wish to proceed (as we're demonstrating here).  If done right it'd be an option, not a requirement.[quote]

My response:

You have been arguing for an 'exceptional people' system, where some X% of your people are 'exceptional,' capable of being trained into elite units. My point is that if "the game [is] balanced such that other options are as viable" then there is no need for something like this. The point of a limited number of exceptional people, based on the arguments for it, is that it prevents people from building all-elite armies that rival armies composed of lesser troops in number (and thus inhibits it as an 'uber strat'). But if it's balanced so that someone trying to field an all-elite army will never begin to approach the numbers of a roughly equal player who focuses on lesser quality troops, and if different types of armies and army compositions are superior in different circumstances, then a hard cap is unnecessary, and needlessly limiting.

If I have misunderstood what you're saying, correct me. Don't go on some wild accusatory rampage, and then not even tell me what false assumptions you think I made and what I claimed 'ownership' over.

You argued against points I didn't make -- for example you argue against hard caps ("then a hard cap is unnecessary, and needlessly limiting.") which I never proposed.

You argue "...if "the game [is] balanced such that other options are as viable..."" -- well duh... Who here is suggesting things should be unbalanced so that other options are 'unviable'?  Do we really have to specify the obvious?

You make assumptions, then argue against them.

You want to go back to what I did say?  Here:

"Two points:

1- Frogboy(? - or someone) mentioned that troops don't just appear out of thin air -- if you want a large army you need a large population.

2- I'd like to see recruits have differing potentials -- anyone could become  a 'peasant' troop, many could become 'normal' troops, some could become 'skilled' troops, but few could become 'exceptional' troops. Training would bring out these inherent skill levels, not increase someone from one skill category up into the next -- ie no matter how much I train or what resources I have access to I'll never be a Michael Jordan or Muhammad Ali.

Combining these 2 ideas, I'd like to think that large armies of exceptional troops would not be possible, as they require exceptional people who, being exceptional, are in relatively short supply.  No amount of training time, resources, technology, etc. could enable this.

Thus we'd have armies comprised of a lot of average folks (levies/peasants/etc.), a number of skilled troops (swordsmen/crossbowmen/etc.), and a relatively small number of exceptional units (knights/etc.).  What type of exceptional units would vary depending upon resources, technologies, etc. (ie -- knights or samuri or ninjas or ???), but their numbers would be limited.

We could decide to not field large numbers of average troops of course, and just go with exceptional troops, but could not decide to field large numbers of exceptional troops by 'training' regulars to become exceptional."

==============

Picking apart suggestions is valuable to find loopholes, bad logic, etc.  Making things up that weren't proposed then arguing against that isn't helpful.

Now you're just being silly. Have you not been reading the blurbs I have quoted? Many, perhaps most, were not you. Maybe you never proposed a hard cap, but someone did (looking back, it looks like the first was Tasunke) and others strongly supported the idea (notably VicenteC). I am not having a private discussion with you, this is an open discussion and I am damn well allowed to respond to who I like.

I see now that you were never arguing for a hard cap, but it was not so obvious (and honestly it still isn't ** see note below). You are generally in agreement with the people who have advocated it and you never explicitly distanced yourself from that particular point. If you had just pointed out that I was confusing other people's ideas with yours in my response to you, we wouldn't have had to fill several posts up trying to resolve this little spat. That you're being all accusatory, blaming me of making things up, etc, is just childish and immature. 

**You keep saying that 'exceptional' people would be in limited supply; what would determine exactly how limited? If not a hard-cap, where would the limit come from? What factors would go into it? All I can think is to have a base cap with factional modifiers, and perhaps some sort of civilization 'tech' or something... My personal preference is to forego the entire notion of exceptional people and simply make it very expensive to produce elite soldiers, and very expensive to maintain them. It would have a very similar end result - simulating the difficulty of building up a large army of exceptional people. I see no reason to add in an entire new thing to keep track of and worry about when something already in the game (economy) can probably accomplish the same end result in a straightforward and intuitive manner.

And I'm the one being silly?

I've had my say, it's obvious you won't let up or change, so I'm bowing out.  Last word to you...

Nick out.

well, the presence of an elite or proffessional soldier (especially a hero or royal family member) could inspire the Militia and Peasant forces to higher (morale? hp? attack power?) ... im sure it would depend, and the most you could get for attack modifier would be +1 ... but it would only apply to militia and peasants. I think this would enable such lowly troops to be some-what cost effective regardless of your ability to wield an all elite army (although wielding an all elite army would be better, just not as "cost effective" ... so it would be a much more expensive battle, with less absolute gains.

I would love if those type of things were encouraged.

Jesus christ in a handbasket, man, take that pole out of your ass. I never said you have to do anything at all - I couldn't care less how you live your life. All I am saying is that you really need to learn to forgive people for confusing who has been arguing for what when there have been pages of discussion about it. Especially when one person appears to agree with other people on most things but disagrees on some particulars here and there without it being immediately apparent.

I never made it up - other people suggested it, and I was mistakenly under the impression that you supported it.

Based on your reaction and your attitude, I'd guess that you're either a fledgeling teenager going through a distressing period of your life, or you're an adult who is mentally indistinguishable from one; either way I don't know why I've wasted my time in responding to your last several posts.

To not get lost in emotional discussion, I would like to again state that certain leader figures/proffesional soldiers should be able to give leadership bonuses to lesser units. I think for sake of argument we can use Amount of HP/Training as a prime example.

If a unit has 10x or more the HP/Strength then it is considered a "leader" or an "elite" to lesser units. In this fashion, a Sovereign (if significantly levelled) will almost always be considered "elite" to anyone else, and will grant a leadership bonus (in addition to his own significant magical powers)

It added a lot to the game.

Yep, here it could be also flag bearers and so on, no need for them to be much better than a normal soldier (so it's intereting trying to take them out asap).

Hmm, I suppose. Maybe flag-bearers could be some sort of military/diplomacy cross-over, or simply a mid tier diplomacy tech. Would be interesting I think

How much control will we have over our armies?  Absolute (like civ4) or partial (like many civil war games where units/generals are given orders but don't always follow them)?  If partial thenr flag bearers could affect that too, increasing the chance orders are followed.