Demiansky

Unit Recruitment and a Call to Arms!

Unit Recruitment and a Call to Arms!

If anything has been used to exhaustion in strategy games it’s the way in which you recruit units.  In games like Total War, Civ, and pretty much any other of their kind, building units involves setting a “build project” in a city followed by a period of time that must elapse.  When the unit is complete, it then stands around indefinitely demanding maintenance whether a war is on or not.  In essence, an army is always standing.

 

I think a lot of us would agree that this method has gotten a bit stale, so I’ve come up with a different way (and as a minor plus, more historical way) to create and maintain an army.  Rather than having the bulk of your army standing at all times, you declare a “Call to Arms” when you need your citizens to go attack another nation, defend their own, or pursue some other such crusade. 

 

Now before I begin, let me just say that there will still be a role for the previous method of designing and training soldiers, but these “professional” soldiers wouldn’t generally be the bulk of your army in an all out war.  You will still train full time soldiers who will be your “professionals” and demand maintenance full time.  They are the guys that go adventuring with your sovereign and such.

 

However, most of your soldiers in dire circumstances like war will come from a Call to Arms.  When a war is declared, either by you against a foe, a foe against you, or a foe against your ally, a box would open with some details and an option to declare a call to arms.  When a call is made, your citizens will grab what weapons are available and appear outside your city as units, at which point they can be sent to the front to join ranks with your professionals.  A Call to Arms can be called at any time, but certain circumstances will increase the number of your citizens willing arm themselves and fight for you. 

 

For instance, if you declare war against a sovereign who you have been at peace with for decades, have robust trade with, and who’s name is “Cromwell the Generous,” your modifier toward your Call to Arms will be severely negative, and a smaller army will be called to fight the war (you have declared an unjust war and your lesser nobles resist fighting it for you.)  On the other hand, if you declare war, or are attacked, by your arch villain “Golgoth, Eater of Souls and Slayer of Peasants,” everyone from your highest nobles to lowest of plebeians will be willing to rush to your cause.  You can declare a Call to Arms cold turkey without any war declaration, but you won’t get too much out of it.  Your most successful calls would come the moment that a war has been declared. 

 

If you’ve encouraged other civilizations to like you, it is literally more difficult for them to call up an army against you, rather they would have to primarily use their professionals at the sovereign’s personal command.  This makes a genuine “peaceful” approach to playing the game much, much more plausible and meaningful.  Rather than being insulated by a mere “score” that you’ve been cultivating to discourage enemies from attacking you, your diplomatic exploits would have an effect on a successful campaign against you.

 

This also brings up some interesting spell ideas to artificially increase your Call to Arms score if you want to go to war without a very compelling reason.  For instance you might have a spell called “Just Cause” by which you gain a higher Call to Arms score when declaring war on an evil civilization.  Another might be “Causes Bellum” which raises your score less than Just Cause, but it works on anyone.

 

When the war is over, your citizen soldiers go home and tend to their shops or fields once again.  While they are at war, your economy and happiness take a hit depending on how many have gone to the front, and the penalty deepens as time goes on.  If your army is utterly defeated while away, then that segment of your population is gone until it can re-grow.

 

I’ll be posting some greater detail as to how a Call to Arms system might work.

146,176 views 73 replies
Reply #51 Top

essentially this means that such measures are only for defensive purposes, and Im not sure exactly how any "Offensive" or "experience" mechanics would work ... I kinda assume the peasants help fight against the enemy, to defend the city, and are either routed into the countryside, or defeat the big-bad and the survivors go about their every-day lives.

Oh, I'd be all for something like a Call to Arms for defensive purposes. There was a discussion a while back about how such a thing could function. However, I'd like it to be on a city-by-city basis, rather than an empire-wide thing. It'd basically amount to raising a city's militia and perhaps anyone else able and willing to contribute to their city's defense, in addition to whatever regular troops are stationed there. In that case, though, I don't think any fancy 'caliber' or equipment scores would be necessary; the quality of the resulting militia should be linked to the city's prestige. Not sure how quantity should be determined, though.

This would basically be like American minutemen - volunteers to be available at a moment's notice, particular for defensive purposes. These people would typically not go on offensive forays, but they would be raised in the event that a town/city needed to defend itself from a threat.

Reply #52 Top

exactly Pigeon, this is the exact type of system I like to see being gleaned from this discussion. Militia quality dependent on prestige, numbers depending on population, and activating based on relative "Justification score" once enemy army marches within city Influence range ... for that city.

Why do I say Justification score? If you had only conquered the city 10 turns ago, the peasantry would not be willing to fight for you :p

Reply #53 Top

u lol'd at my detailed explanation?

/sarcasm

Sorry, bounced in briefly then sprinted to work :-)

Reply #54 Top

In terms of affecting my equipment score by, say, building an additional lumber mill... So if I want to affect my equipment score, I can't just shuffle around what I have now? Let's say for some reason I decided to train most of my professional troops as pikemen; as such, I'd rather my peasantry not all show up wielding spears. But if I happen to have lots and lots of lumber mills lying around, I'm screwed? I either have to destroy lumber mills, use it up, or obtain an equally large quantity of other resources? If I manage to tie up all that lumber so that my equipment score is no longer being dominated by spears... what about bows and arrows? Can I not have one without the other?

Once more, carriage before the horse.  You seem to be under the impression that Elemental will be an army customization sim.  If that were the case, I'd agree with you, but there are so many other aspects of the game that are influenced by a Call to Arms beyond carving out an army that I am excited about.  In this schema, economic considerations are supposed be linked heavily with the kind of citizen soldiers you end up with, with your people arming themselves with the weapons and resources that are most abundant and economical for them.  In this scheme, you play to your resource strengths--- you don't decide that you want to build exclusively a certain kind of soldier and then twist your economy in knots trying to do it.  You build an economy and if you find you want to tweak the gear that your citizens have, then you can, to eek out an extra 20-30 percent of a certain kind of weapon to adjust.  Just because you can't spam a citizen army of nothing but horsemen or spearmen doesn't mean that you have no control over customization.  I hope you aren't working on any NASA rover missions, Pidgeon :-)  20 percent is not the same as 40 percent and I really, really hope that an army that is composed of more than 60 percent of anything isn't rewarding to the player in game.  Not only do I despise clone armies, I hate having to go back to the drawing board and refit my entire military when I'm about to go to war against a newly met opponent who coincidentally has an army composed of 70-100 percent counter units to my own.  With my schema, armies will tend to hover closer to the center rather than extremes.

Now, you mentioned that professionals take maintenance, and of course this is true.  However, in times of war, citizen soldiers also incur a round-about maintenance cost incurred by their sudden departure and shock to industries in which they were laborers.  But there are a few other critical differences between professionals and CtA soldiers.  First, professionals can plumb dungeons and adventure during times of war, so they are technically producing value even though they are not committed to a war--- CtA soldiers cannot.  Second, professionals have vastly more tactical purpose than CtA soldiers when there is in fact a war.  How you arrange your citizen soldiers on the battlefield will still be tactically significant, but your professionals are applied force when and where you need it (heavy cavalry shattering a critical line, or elite swordsmen who cut their way toward a wizard who is dominating the battlefield.)   

Ideally, an wartime army of nothing but professionals or nothing but citizens should almost never be rewarding for the player. 

And one last point, Pidgeon.  If you want to focus very heavily on professionals, you don't have to even declare a Call to Arms if your peasants are poorly armed, or you could always declare a call to arms with less urgency.

And Pidgeon, I'd like to put an end to this lengthy back-and-forth between us.  It seems that it's boiling down to 2 things.  The first is that you disagree with specific mechanics on how the larger idea operates.  Are these mechanics the best way to execute the larger idea?  Of course not.  I came up with it in 30 minutes of brainstorming, and there is always a more elegant way to make things operate.  There are a million other routes that one could take, but the perception of one flaw doesn't mean you have to throw out the rest of an idea.  Now number 2, we both think that we would enjoy different types of variations on a specific game.  That's just something we have to accept.  I'm not going to expect you to change your tastes because I think one way of enjoying yourself is better than another. 

Reply #55 Top

Quoting Tasunke, reply 48
For call to arms to work, there will first be an absolute value of militia based upon population (maybe modified by relative/absolute prestige) ... at any time when an enemy or monster enters the influence range of a city, a Muster can be called, or rather a "Call-to-Arms". This will be the basic militia which is determined by only economic factors, and will be a relatively small force (1 out of 10) ... so 100 militia for 1000 citizens. Now, if you are at war with a country, various civic, religious, and diplomatic factors will grant you a "justification score". Your base score is 10 (1/10), and cannot be lowered.

Once war is declared, your score naturally rises by 10. At this point your relative justification score is also added ... basically if you have been opposed by nation X for 100 years, and they are opposite your alignment, and have invaded you several times, and they are different religion ... then you can probably get maximum Justification score. Im thinking 60-70 might be max justification score (or lower) just because using 90% of your population as soldiers seems somewhere in the realm of disbelief ... although if there were women models and children models (old people models) it could be alot more believable. Im pretty sure "everyone" fought to defend Berlin.

Normally a Justification Score should be anywhere from 30-40, although truly unjustified wars could have negative modifiers that drag it down to 20, 15, or even 10. But it can not go lower than the natural 10 (militia).

Call-to-Arms, when at war with multiple nations, and only nation A enters into the influence range of a city, but the nation really hates Nation X (who is also at war with you), you can either use Justification score of Nation A, or 3/4 (or half?) justification score of Nation X, whichever one is higher. So in any battle situation, even if its a wild troll, justification is always its max possible. If Nation X enters your influence zone, you will have justification score of say 40, and if a wild ogre enters, you will have a justification of 30, because the people are mostly rallied already (and some-what mobilized) ... essentially this means that such measures are only for defensive purposes, and Im not sure exactly how any "Offensive" or "experience" mechanics would work ... I kinda assume the peasants help fight against the enemy, to defend the city, and are either routed into the countryside, or defeat the big-bad and the survivors go about their every-day lives.

Perhaps there could be a "flag" system for how "tough" a citizenry is, 1-5 system. And the higher the flag number, the increase in HP and morale of each Peasant/Militia soldier, and the Militia (10% of population) will probably get better weapons. In my mind its just an organic way for a city to protect itself (and its farmland) ... not necessarily a way to wage the next era of "peasant wars" or to make each battle feel like the "peasant rebellion" ... if you want that, then recruit a giant army of peasants .... this is only a defense mechanism (in my mind).

Actually, I like it--- this is a very good prototype, and would fit in well with the current elemental build without having to change much or take front and center in the game.  It gives defenders a nice advantage, as well as adds fatigue to an attacker's momentum. 

Reply #56 Top

I hope you aren't working on any NASA rover missions, Pidgeon :)   20 percent is not the same as 40 percent and I really, really hope that an army that is composed of more than 60 percent of anything isn't rewarding to the player in game.

In many fields of physics, 20% really is the same as 40% :P Admittedly, planning out trajectories or engineering some complex piece of machinery with that kind of (non-)precision would be disastrous, haha.

 In this scheme, you play to your resource strengths--- you don't decide that you want to build exclusively a certain kind of soldier and then twist your economy in knots trying to do it.

I would like to be able to twist my economy in knots trying to accomplish something if I think it's worthwhile. Having to twist my economy in knots is all the incentive that is needed not to do it - you would only try if it was really necessary. 

Not only do I despise clone armies, I hate having to go back to the drawing board and refit my entire military when I'm about to go to war against a newly met opponent who coincidentally has an army composed of 70-100 percent counter units to my own.

Well we can agree on the clone army part. The easy solution to the latter problem is to maintain a balanced military so that it's not possible for someone to have the perfect counter army. Just because you hate it, however, doesn't mean that people shouldn't be able to do it if it happens to fit their strategy.

And one last point, Pidgeon.  If you want to focus very heavily on professionals, you don't have to even declare a Call to Arms if your peasants are poorly armed, or you could always declare a call to arms with less urgency.

Of course - but then you put yourself at a disadvantage economically and/or militarily. Either you're spending much more on your military than someone who relies more on CtA or what is essentially an equivalent force, or if you balance out the economic costs then your military will be relatively weak.

And Pidgeon, I'd like to put an end to this lengthy back-and-forth between us.  It seems that it's boiling down to 2 things.  The first is that you disagree with specific mechanics on how the larger idea operates.  Are these mechanics the best way to execute the larger idea?  Of course not.  I came up with it in 30 minutes of brainstorming, and there is always a more elegant way to make things operate.  There are a million other routes that one could take, but the perception of one flaw doesn't mean you have to throw out the rest of an idea.  Now number 2, we both think that we would enjoy different types of variations on a specific game.  That's just something we have to accept.  I'm not going to expect you to change your tastes because I think one way of enjoying yourself is better than another.

Yeah I suppose that is really what it comes down to. I think a CtA mechanic would rob me of fun, and even strategy in some cases, and be unintuitive at the same time, and that's just a bad combination. Of course, you're entitled to the opposite opinion :P

I'd like to restate, though, that I do like a more localized city-based Call to Arms for sieges - if someone is attacking your city, I'd love to be able to mobilize its population to fight in its defense. It shouldn't be anything huge, although if it's a massive city then expect a pretty large turnout. Lots of advantages to that, including not having to keep troops stationed in every city to prevent the odd wandering enemy archer or whatever single-handedly conquering your cities. I always hated that. It would force people to send actual military forces to conquer cities, and also give defenders a little boost in power if they need it (but of course, if you think you can win anyways it might not be worthwhile if your population would take heavy losses during combat).

Reply #57 Top

I'd like to restate, though, that I do like a more localized city-based Call to Arms for sieges - if someone is attacking your city, I'd love to be able to mobilize its population to fight in its defense. It shouldn't be anything huge, although if it's a massive city then expect a pretty large turnout. Lots of advantages to that, including not having to keep troops stationed in every city to prevent the odd wandering enemy archer or whatever single-handedly conquering your cities. I always hated that. It would force people to send actual military forces to conquer cities, and also give defenders a little boost in power if they need it (but of course, if you think you can win anyways it might not be worthwhile if your population would take heavy losses during combat).

On this point, there can always be modifiers depending on who attacks the city.  "Garreth the Liberator" may not inspire as many cityfolk to defend the city as "Sinn, the Enslaver."  That may be one of the advantages of pursuing a "good aligned" strategy.

As for what game mechanics produce more or less strategic options in a game, that's an immensely complex topic.  What I'm sure we can agree on, though, is that features which reward a specific strategy marginalize others.  Us debating about whether a CtA would create more strategy or less strategy is dependant primarily on how it would be ultimately executed and balanced in the multitude of fine details that we haven't even gotten close to scratching the surface of. 

Our actual debate it would seem is over whether there should be fuzzy values or entirely known values; intuitive or transparently mathematical, both of which inspire strategies of different kinds.  How broad those options are exist in the details and savy of whoever programs the game.  It seems like we keep trying to poke holes in each other's arguments by saying, "Well, if your feature was programmed and balanced improperly, THIS will happen!"  Of course.  This accusation can be thrown at any and all logical arguments.  For instance, you could argue that having anything more than only swordsmen is a bad idea, because you'll always pick archers, archers being better than swordsmen.  And it's right... if you assume that the game designers were inept.

If a big CtA feature made it into the game and it were programmed properly, for instance, citizen soldiers wouldn't be vastly superior soldiery to pursue than professionals.  If the game designers decided to stack all the advantages of a unit type into one genre of unit, that's not the fault of the idea.  Giving attention to one will be better or worse given the circumstances, and strategy revolves around identifying which is better when and executing it at the right time.  Creating such an atsmophere is contingent on good balancing during development. 

Reply #58 Top

Yes, yes, I think this is a good point to end on. While Call-to-arms is probably best used as a good defensive mechanic, the best strategy is to lean away from initial over-exaggerations, and state that Drafted Armies will not be superior to trained and maintained proffesional armies ... but it WILL add extra defense to a nation that is willing to sacrifice its population in that defense.

To manage that properly is best left to the dev team, and while we can talk about relevant balancing measures (on a game we know little about, warfare-wise) its best to not assume another person's idea will be introduced at an extreme and imbalanced angle.

Reply #59 Top

Quoting Tasunke, reply 58
Yes, yes, I think this is a good point to end on. While Call-to-arms is probably best used as a good defensive mechanic, the best strategy is to lean away from initial over-exaggerations, and state that Drafted Armies will not be superior to trained and maintained proffesional armies ... but it WILL add extra defense to a nation that is willing to sacrifice its population in that defense.

To manage that properly is best left to the dev team, and while we can talk about relevant balancing measures (on a game we know little about, warfare-wise) its best to not assume another person's idea will be introduced at an extreme and imbalanced angle.

Works for me :-)

Reply #60 Top

I just now read this whole post.  I'm glad to see this last part.  Hopefully that will appease Pidgeon's objections.  I think this is a pretty good thing to add the the game.  I see this as simply a more fleshed out version of the Civ IV draft abilty, but one that everyone has throughout the game.  I think your last point is key:  the militia units should never be better than a basic professional.  So pidgeon can have his 'professional peasant' army by building mass amounts of cheap spearmem.  These guys would be better than the CtA militia as professionals, but he's going to have to pay mainenance on them.

Really it all comes down to balancing.  I don't see any real argument against doing this, just get the balancing right.  Maybe even a small cost per militia unit to raise the call to arms, to help offset the potential of an exploit of using massive population over professionals.  I also like the idea of doing it per city, which is more useful and realistic.  You should also be able to disband any unit at any time: so you could call up the city militia and then disband the militia units you don't need.  This would help customise the militia a little and keep you from crippling the economy of that city if you don't need all the citizens for your effort.

Reply #61 Top

I just now read this whole post.  I'm glad to see this last part.  Hopefully that will appease Pidgeon's objections.  I think this is a pretty good thing to add the the game.  I see this as simply a more fleshed out version of the Civ IV draft abilty, but one that everyone has throughout the game.  I think your last point is key:  the militia units should never be better than a basic professional.  So pidgeon can have his 'professional peasant' army by building mass amounts of cheap spearmem.  These guys would be better than the CtA militia as professionals, but he's going to have to pay mainenance on them.

Haha, well you're out of luck then! Personally I absolutely do not want to see anything like a Call to Arms anywhere in the game except for city defense.

Reply #62 Top

Ah, the Feathery Crusade continues. Curse you PigeonPigeon!! :p

Reply #63 Top

Quoting pigeonpigeon, reply 61

I just now read this whole post.  I'm glad to see this last part.  Hopefully that will appease Pidgeon's objections.  I think this is a pretty good thing to add the the game.  I see this as simply a more fleshed out version of the Civ IV draft abilty, but one that everyone has throughout the game.  I think your last point is key:  the militia units should never be better than a basic professional.  So pidgeon can have his 'professional peasant' army by building mass amounts of cheap spearmem.  These guys would be better than the CtA militia as professionals, but he's going to have to pay mainenance on them.


Haha, well you're out of luck then! Personally I absolutely do not want to see anything like a Call to Arms anywhere in the game except for city defense.

Oh well, you can't please all the people, all the time.  It seems to me your objections were all addressed.

And I don't see anyone else objecting?  Bueler? Bueler?   While this isn't a super popular thread, I've seen plenty of votes for and only yours against.

Reply #64 Top

Quoting Ragnar1, reply 63



Quoting pigeonpigeon,
reply 61

I just now read this whole post.  I'm glad to see this last part.  Hopefully that will appease Pidgeon's objections.  I think this is a pretty good thing to add the the game.  I see this as simply a more fleshed out version of the Civ IV draft abilty, but one that everyone has throughout the game.  I think your last point is key:  the militia units should never be better than a basic professional.  So pidgeon can have his 'professional peasant' army by building mass amounts of cheap spearmem.  These guys would be better than the CtA militia as professionals, but he's going to have to pay mainenance on them.


Haha, well you're out of luck then! Personally I absolutely do not want to see anything like a Call to Arms anywhere in the game except for city defense.



Oh well, you can't please all the people, all the time.  It seems to me your objections were all addressed.

And I don't see anyone else objecting?  Bueler? Bueler?   While this isn't a super popular thread, I've seen plenty of votes for and only yours against.

Although I do have to admit that democracies don't necessarily make good games, thanks for the vote, Ragnar :-) 

Reply #65 Top

Well, once a peasant army is mobilized by a defensive Call-to-Arms, whats to stop *most* of them from being riled up enough to continue on to the nearest enemy city?

Reply #66 Top

Quoting Tasunke, reply 65
Well, once a peasant army is mobilized by a defensive Call-to-Arms, whats to stop *most* of them from being riled up enough to continue on to the nearest enemy city?

Well, once they cross into the border of the enemy kingdom, they might start disbanding when they figure out what you are trying to do :-)

Reply #67 Top

yea ... but to disband at a steady or slightly randomized rate? or to involve the justification score as well? (or all 3)

Also, a question remains should be even let a call to arms army leave a nations borders, assuming the feature is implemented.

I pheer there is a thought that once an enemy army reaches city X, cities A-G will be able to Call-to-Arms as well. This is not the case, only City X can Call-to-Arms if thats the only location where the enemy has entered influence zone.

Reply #68 Top

Hmmm...if we are talking about Call to Arms ONLY for defensive purposes then honestly, Empire Total War already has done a similar system. They are called militias.

Militia's only take to the field if enemies attack the main city. Beyond that you cannot direct militias in any manner. And they do not cost any upkeep at all. They are just there. And if i am not mistaken the amount of militias you get are determined by population or happiness.

My point is, TW has already done it and as far as i can tell, it works just great. Why not just use the way its done in TW? Cause i don't see any obvious flaws in the TW manner of handling it.

 

Reply #69 Top

Hmm, did not see such a system in Medieval 2, and have not bought Empire .... so I have no idea what you are talking about. Could you elaborate how militias are handled in Empire? cause in Medieval, the only real difference is that they were trained at a city (as opposed to a castle) and generally had less morale n endurance.

Reply #70 Top

I support the ideas in the OP. Fun stuff.

Reply #71 Top

hurrah! onward to glorious victory!

 

In any case ... this Empire "militia" ... do you say the militia pops up in all remaining cities once the capital is attacked? Or do they all pop up in the capital when the capital is attacked? (I suppose the militia only showing up once you knock at the gates of the "main city", while feeling rather gamey, would support the Sun Tzu method of divide and conquer rather than the Clausewitz "rush" theory (which rules most games))

While I would rather City A's militia only arrive in City A, and only when City A is attacked, and for it to work the same way for cities B-G, I wouldn't mind an "all or nothing" militia that arrives in your capital (from all across the land) when your capital is attacked. It would help the AI in any case. I only wonder if an all or nothing miltia would just feel silly in MP games though :/

Personally a City-by-City based militia sounds more intuitive, thematic, and realistic to me. anyways, I think the militia should stay "at arms" as long as the enemy is near their city, at no maintanence cost, and also for 5 turns afterwards (at no maintanence) ... after that you would have to start paying maintanence for these meager rabble (some of which might be good enough to be considered "militia") and immediately become anti-cost effective. Ergo, the peasants are practically restrained to only protect their city and homeland, without getting too "gamey" about restrictions.

Reply #72 Top

The militia in Empire:TW acts more like a defense bonus. You get extra troops when you defend that city. It's ok for that game, but not really what you are asking for here.

Forgive me not reading the whole thread, but what is the cost of conscription? We have this super cool troop designer in Elemental and it would be a shame if we couldn't use it for conscripts, but since you don't maintain them, there has to be a cost to designing conscripts with advanced gear vs. your typical peasant with a pitchfork. How would that work?

Reply #73 Top

actually it was the relative lack over control over conscripted units that seemed to be a detail of note ... and the extent to which you could make your peasantry armies "better" or "worse" was a point of conjecture. Initial ideas had to do with the "quality" of the citizenry, combined with relative resource availability.