Citizen soldiers

[Hiram]

I know that the staff has stated that there will not be a division betwen civilian and military units, and is Ok on most of the cases but what about the profesional armys?, will the homomoi go back after battle to work the land, and the anusiyas?, what about the hetairoi?

Yes most of the soldiers on ancient armies where mere peasants but there was some that where really profesional soldier, living just for battle.

Also in another question, if all the units are going to be civilians, then how will be able to choose what Kind of militar unit will they be?, and if they can turn into any kind of unit, will the experience learn has a peltast help whne the unit change into a hoplite?

Edited July 25, 2008 by Hiram

[Mythos_Ruler]

Standard units, like hoplites, toxotes, peltasts, and hyppikons are "citizen-soldiers" in that they have econ as well as military functions. Each faction will have 2 or more "Super Units" whose sole duty is to slaughter enemies. Those include Spartiates, Immortals, Hetairoi, etc.

[NOXAS1]

if a civilian becomes an archer will his hunting of animals give him better range and focus?

[feneur]

If we would have had civilians in that sense that could have been a possibility, but since we're using the concept of citizen soldiers that's not the case. In a way it's the opposite: as soldiers gain experience and advance in level they get better at fighting but they get less good with the economic tasks. The exact amount this goes down will have to be determined by playtesting as I'm sure it can make a difference. Keeping track of exactly what a unit does and letting that influence his fighting abilities seems a bit overdone to me personally but in any case I think it would be too much work for little gain. It would however add an RPG element to the game which some might like.

[NOXAS1]

cool hey guys want to join my forum game it doesnt have to be accurate just has to be realistic it is titled forum games

Thanks you for clearing that for me feneur

[dankl__]

If we would have had civilians in that sense that could have been a possibility, but since we're using the concept of citizen soldiers that's not the case. In a way it's the opposite: as soldiers gain experience and advance in level they get better at fighting but they get less good with the economic tasks. The exact amount this goes down will have to be determined by playtesting as I'm sure it can make a difference. Keeping track of exactly what a unit does and letting that influence his fighting abilities seems a bit overdone to me personally but in any case I think it would be too much work for little gain. It would however add an RPG element to the game which some might like.

i agree that the game should be kept simple however i dont think that soldiers should get worse at gathering the more they fight because it makes a division between military and economy. THe player would simply set aside some units and avoid making them fight because if they do theyll become less efficient gatherers

[feneur]

Well, there's already a division between military and economy in that the super units don't gather at all. And I'd not say that a player needs to keep some soldiers from fighting as it's just to create new units when the old ones upgrade if you want to keep the most efficient units gathering. Also I doubt that the units you use mostly to gather aren't the ones who'll see the most fighting in the first place. Especially since the units get better at fighting when they upgrade and thus are more useful for that (The biggest reason why we want to have it this way though is for balance reasons )

[Belisarivs]

What would be purpose of citisen soldiers then?

If some units will not see fighting, thay will be same as villagers in AoK except offering more resistance to rusher.

[feneur]

I didn't mean it as "don't see fighting at all", but rather as "since gathering they will not necessarily be in the center of the hardest fighting"

The difference from villagers is partly that they will be more resistant to rushers, but I'd also say that it will give you more flexibility as you can use your citizen soldiers to gather when you're "between battles" so to speak. And one thing that's easy to forget: as some of your soldiers (the citizen soldiers but not the super units) will be able to repair things you will have more flexibility there too. In a game like Age of Kings a villagers isn't exactly very useful on the battlefield except when repairing and hopefully you don't have the need for repairs all the time.

Also please remember that the exact rates will have to be decided upon after testing, there's gotta be a balance between fighting skill increase/gather rate decrease after all And just to be clear I want to add another thing, it will not be a continuous decrease but only when the unit gets enough experience (from fighting) to upgrade to the next level.

I think it will depend a lot on how much you want to micromanage your units. If you have a unit that's upgraded you can of course still let that unit gather, but there's more use in having that unit "go to the front" and create a new unit to gather as they are more effective that way.

[Belisarivs]

Got an idea.

What if units with high rank gathered at same rate as normal units, but when gathering, their rank would decrease?

There would be no need for balancing and it would be players choice to find balance between gathering army of noobs and high ranking army, but without resources.

Simple and effective IMHO.

[dankl__]

I actually understand the reasoning now that without it the game would be a booming war and neither player would take ment off gathering from fear of having an inferior economy and both players will boom until the super units are available.

[HistGamer]

What are the gaulish super units and heroes--- Any clues???xD

[dankl__]

umm kinda random but a guess would b vercingetorix and brennus

also i wonder why there hasnt been more showcases on celts