in which occasion will you raise taxes

[Pocus]

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
I don't think resources need to be factored into the upkeep system explicitly - that would be a bit confusing. Factoring it into cost, instead, and just using cost for upkeep, seems simpler.

the interest of changing the upkeep formula to take the average of gold+res value, is that you achieve the result of giving added value to LI, without having to browse one thousand units and reevaluate their cost.

PVK:

I don't quite see why better equipped men would necessarily be more expensive to maintain.

I strongly disagree with you. Think of two extremes, a foot knight and a peasant. In dominions it can translate to a Ulmish infantry (say 10-34 gold/res) compared to a milicia (7-2).
Now to think that you need only 30% more gold to maintain a foot knight compared to a milicia is ridiculous (no offence intended against you, I just feel I need to use a strong adjective).

A drafted slinger would get a food ration, and some copper coins each month. A foot knight will ask for at least 2 men to service him (keeping an armor and quality steel weapons fit for battle ask for much time and effort), and I'm not even speaking of his wage.

This would translate in dominions by taking into account the resource cost into the maintenance one. Believe me, it would be a boon to the lighter units, which are very often discarded.

In the pbems I saw (multiplayer environment being the epitome of optimisation), I never saw a single velite, peltast, light infantry, etc. used in war. I think this is quite the proof that something must be done.

Your concern about your Ulmish infantry is right on the other hand. We should not level all units to the same ground. But even if the upkeep would rise, you would still pay the upfront cost of 10 gp, same as a light infantry. But in the long run, you would pay more to maintain them. Seem quite balanced when you compare their armaments.

[Jasper]

Originally posted by st.patrik:
I'm not so bothered by the 'less useful light infantry' thing as I think the rest of you are. It makes sense to me that you're really only going to make poorly equipped troops if you don't have the resources to make well-equipped troops. This seems realistic to me. I guess it's possible that in general there are too many resources available... do people have this opinion?

What bothers me is that light troops aren't usefull in battle, while they clearly were usefull throughout history. Light troops were not "poorly equipped" troops, but troops used in a different manner -- a manner that simply doesn't exist in Dominions (or any similar computer game for that matter).

One simple way to address this would be to have a battle deployment area that was broader than deep, but with the flank areas marked so that only light/fast troops could be deployed there.

Another would be to allow lighter troops to deploy one man per "square" rather than 3, so that they would be an effective missile screen. Combine this with a slight increase in the accuracy and damage of missiles, and you'd have very good reason to screen with light troops.

Both of these would help allow light troops to be usefull for their traditional roles. I suspect you'd still need to tweak their gold cost down a point or two to make them viable however.

These changes are perhaps too dramatic to actually have a chance at implementation, but IMHO they would greatly improve the variety of viable troops, and the number of interesting battle tactics.

[Saber Cherry]

Traditionally, heavy troops, with their expensive armor and weapons, were also better trained. I mean, a lot better. So, in general, light units were cheaply levied, poorly paid, poorly trained, and used as cannon fodder. In Dominions II they are as expensive as HI...

I kind of think that milita should also have -1 HP and -1 strength, and maybe even drop to a price of 4gp, to reflect the fact that they're not really soldier-types, just unfit peasants forced into the army.

PvK - as it stands now, why would you ever buy slingers or militias? Even if they cost zero resources, I wouldn't buy them. I was playing Machaka, and realized that their primary infantry units are a waste of money... so I only bought archers and hoplites. And even with the archers, I would prefer to have an indy province with actual armored archers. There's just no use for 10gp light infantry, and their low resource cost does not make them viable, as gold is so limited in Dom II.

[Saber Cherry]

Originally posted by Jasper:

quote:

---

Originally posted by st.patrik:
I'm not so bothered by the 'less useful light infantry' thing as I think the rest of you are. It makes sense to me that you're really only going to make poorly equipped troops if you don't have the resources to make well-equipped troops. This seems realistic to me. I guess it's possible that in general there are too many resources available... do people have this opinion?

What bothers me is that light troops aren't usefull in battle, while they clearly were usefull throughout history. Light troops were not "poorly equipped" troops, but troops used in a different manner -- a manner that simply doesn't exist in Dominions (or any similar computer game for that matter).

One simple way to address this would be to have a battle deployment area that was broader than deep, but with the flank areas marked so that only light/fast troops could be deployed there.

Another would be to allow lighter troops to deploy one man per "square" rather than 3, so that they would be an effective missile screen. Combine this with a slight increase in the accuracy and damage of missiles, and you'd have very good reason to screen with light troops.

Both of these would help allow light troops to be usefull for their traditional roles. I suspect you'd still need to tweak their gold cost down a point or two to make them viable however.

These changes are perhaps too dramatic to actually have a chance at implementation, but IMHO they would greatly improve the variety of viable troops, and the number of interesting battle tactics.

---

Yeah, I suggested the "loose" and "wide" formation toggles a while back, but I'm keeping mum now because it will be lost in the clutter, what with all the demo-polishing I hope is going on=)

As for LI being historically useful, that's correct. But my impression is that is less due to their mobility, and more because they were so darn cheap compared to HI. Untrained, give'em a spear and point'em at the battle milita should never cost 70% of a well trained broadsword-shield-platemail HI unit in any respect (supply needs, wages, maintenance, initial deployment cost). For similar reasons, despite having more training and being better armed than militia, an LI shouldn't cost the same amount as an HI.

[PvK]

I just meant that having better equipment doesn't necessarily mean a unit should cost more gold to maintain.

Your "foot knight" example makes sense for knights versus peasants, but those seem like mainly social causes rather than physical causes. In Doms, there are knights as well, and they are more expensive than regular infantry.

It seems to me that an Ulm heavy infantry in plate armor isn't a knight demanding servants, he's just a very well-equipped infantryman. He might need more wagon space to transport his gear when on the march, but isn't necessarily signifigantly more expensive to maintain that a soldier in leather armor. I do think though that it would make sense if they cost more to raise (because if the armorers aren't making fancy equipment for them, they could be doing something useful for trade), though I wouldn't have them cost more to maintain (because once you have the equipment, it doesn't require much to maintain it).

For the knight example, staying with Ulm, they do have knights, commanders, and Guardians, who all have higher training than the common infantry, and higher social status, and therefore they cost more to raise and to maintain in Ulmish society, which follows you example and does make sense.

My point in the line you quoted was simply that some societies could maintain very well-equipped regular troops without more maintenance cost than lesser-equipped troops. The equipment doesn't determine the maintenance and wages of each type of troop - the culture does. In some cultures, the best paid men also have the best equipment, but not in all cultures.

So, if you hard-coded an increase in gold expense based on resource cost, I think you'd end up with a less interesting set of possible trade-offs, which wouldn't necessarily make any sense. Instead of reducing the variety in unit costs by linking maintenance to resource cost, I'd rather see more variety by allowing maintenance and purchase cost to be independent. That is, I'd increase the cost to raise heavy Ulm infantry (representing reduced trade goods) but keep their maintenance cost the same.

And again, I think light infantry could be made much more attractive if they simply had an even lower resource cost, and it were possible to release units (or maybe make that a special ability of militia and light infantry). If they could be raised very quickly and dismissed when not needed, that would also greatly reduce their total cost, because of the savings on maintenance.

PvK

[st.patrik]

Originally posted by Jasper:
What bothers me is that light troops aren't usefull in battle, while they clearly were usefull throughout history. Light troops were not "poorly equipped" troops, but troops used in a different manner -- a manner that simply doesn't exist in Dominions (or any similar computer game for that matter).

It seems to me that Hypasists (sp?) function in this way to an extent. They are cheaper than hoplites (resources at least), but they definitely have a role. On the other hand, Militia are poorly trained conscripts which I suppose were mainly used as cannon fodder in RL.

[PvK]

I have used tribal militia to very good effect because of their low cost and very low resource cost. I could buy a half-dozen HI, or dozens of militia. So I bought them when I needed to quickly raise a large force, and provide cannon fodder for attacking castles and Users of deadly non-physical weapons like poison gas and Soul Vortex, where armor is useless. Having some in the front ranks also keeps the better men alive longer.

I've had some good results from slingers in a few cases too, in areas where I had little else I could raise, and when the enemies had little or no armor.

If units, especially militia, could be disbanded, this would mean you could raise them quickly and disband them when not needed, lowering their cost to use.

I agree though that some of the costs could be tweaked anyway, making some of the lighter units cheaper, and especially reducing their maintenance cost so you could make many appear quickly.

PvK

Originally posted by Saber Cherry:
...
PvK - as it stands now, why would you ever buy slingers or militias? Even if they cost zero resources, I wouldn't buy them. I was playing Machaka, and realized that their primary infantry units are a waste of money... so I only bought archers and hoplites. And even with the archers, I would prefer to have an indy province with actual armored archers. There's just no use for 10gp light infantry, and their low resource cost does not make them viable, as gold is so limited in Dom II.