Should Civic Centres Train Military Units?

[Thorfinn the Shallow Minded]

Personally, Civic Centres seem to make the barracks a bit redundant.  Granted, CC's cost a lot more, are highly defensible, exert significant territorial control, and so forth, but should they actually train military units?  Frankly, the idea seems a strange (should a citizen be equipped with weapons at what could be considered an administrative building?).  What are your thoughts?

[Lion.Kanzen]

Train only females, slaves (males) and some militia soldier. In phase 2 have these soldiers.

that one reason is fast train units military units and have very fast combat early. In AoE  2 the combat are mostly time between Feudal and Castle Age. Barracks and stable are build common in Feudal, and the early soldier milityvand the scout arent enogh strong to kill many villager.

 

in AoM you can build any military  in the first Age.

[fatherbushido]

Quote

Civic Centres seem to make the barracks

The barracks has more units, has techs (perhaps will have more in future). You can build many of them (regarding cost and territory restriction).

(And at least the game is still alpha so the barracks could have some other futures).

I hope I help answering some of your questions.

EDIT: @Thorfinn the Shallow Minded else you can also check at least two mods where only female and spearmen are trained in the cc. It's also an interesting idea.

[niektb]

1 hour ago, fatherbushido said:

You can build many of them (regarding cost and territory restriction).

That's the main deal. In multiplayer games you can't get away with only 1 CC (or 1 barrack), you need many more in order to field a strong army quickly enough

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

7 hours ago, niektb said:

That's the main deal. In multiplayer games you can't get away with only 1 CC (or 1 barrack), you need many more in order to field a strong army quickly enough

Right, but I think Thor is saying that the CC and Barrack have a lot of overlap here in training so many military unit from the CC. I didn't like so much overlap --I prefer each building to be as unique as possible-- so that why DE took most of them out of the CC, just train spear infantry as the "male" half of the citizen selection in the CC.

[Servo]

On 1/28/2017 at 0:30 PM, niektb said:

That's the main deal. In multiplayer games you can't get away with only 1 CC (or 1 barrack), you need many more in order to field a strong army quickly enough

IMO Building so many barracks for me is just making the game less strategic and overtime become so messy. This is the one thing I dislike in AOE2, RoN, EE and many other strategy games. I know lots of players want to finish quickly but it's just too far from real. There should be a limit to one barracks for every CC or Fort so if you have 2CC and 2Forts you are allowed to make 4 only if you want more barracks in the frontline you can delete the one behind and build it there. The point is we should have maximum limit. 

Off topic: This should apply to merchants, markets, temple, smelter and any other buildings that produce units or upgrades.

Edited February 3, 2017 by Servo

[Lion.Kanzen]

23 minutes ago, Servo said:

IMO Building so many barracks for me is just making the game less strategic and overtime become so messy. This is the one thing I dislike in AOE2, RoN, EE and many other strategy games. I know lots of players want to finish quickly but it's just too far from real. There should be a limit to one barracks for every CC or Fort so if you have 2CC and 2Forts you are allowed to make 4 only if you want more barracks in the frontline you can delete the one behind and build it there. The point is we should have maximum limit. 

Off topic: This should apply to merchants, markets, temple, smelter and any other buildings that produce units or upgrades.

Another restriction, I don't like the game have this kind of restriction, we did this with tower and fortress but with barrack I don't see the point. Mostly player don't like the restrictions, even some players complains about territory restriction.

[Libervurto]

On 28/01/2017 at 3:46 PM, fatherbushido said:

The barracks has more units, has techs (perhaps will have more in future). You can build many of them (regarding cost and territory restriction).

(And at least the game is still alpha so the barracks could have some other futures).

Okay, but this does seem to be brushing aside Thorfinn's concern without good reason.  Would it be okay if farmsteads or any other non-military building trained spearmen as well because barracks have more troops and techs?  However, Thorfinn commits a similar fault…

On 28/01/2017 at 3:28 PM, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

…Frankly, the idea seems a strange (should a citizen be equipped with weapons at what could be considered an administrative building?).  What are your thoughts?

Is it not just as strange that women would be "produced" at an administrative building?

Perhaps we need to think of the civic centre with a new perspective before we can understand whether things need to change and how they could be changed.  What if we view the cc not as "producing" units but organising the populace?  Whenever we build a house we can assume that people are living in it but only once we "build a unit" do they appear to us because they have been "recruited" to our cause.

In this way we can view the cc producing basic troops as the "council" deciding to organise the men.

Perhaps troops should not gain combat experience if there is no barracks?

On 03/02/2017 at 6:37 PM, Servo said:

IMO Building so many barracks for me is just making the game less strategic… There should be a limit to one barracks for every CC or Fort…

General tip: if you want to change something in the game, first, before introducing new ideas, see if you can achieve the same effect by using existing mechanics.  This is not only helpful for programmers but for the player as well, since they have less to learn and reused mechanics will become intuitive and instantly understood.  Also, introducing a new mechanic might have unforeseen effects that are undesirable.

By tying the number of barracks to the number of cc's, you'd have to keep a tally of how many cc's you have, would that need another counter on the HUD like for citizen count?  What happens if a cc gets destroyed?  What if I have an island colony and can't build a barracks on it because I'm already at max; do I need to destroy another barracks first?  What if I have an island colony and a cc is destroyed!  Do I then have to destroy two or three barracks before I can build one on the island?…  It starts to sound a bit messy.

To limit the number of barracks a player can build, IMO it makes more sense to impose a minimum distance between barracks, just like for towers. 

[Servo]

On 2/14/2017 at 1:52 AM, Libervurto said:

 

General tip: if you want to change something in the game, first, before introducing new ideas, see if you can achieve the same effect by using existing mechanics.  This is not only helpful for programmers but for the player as well, since they have less to learn and reused mechanics will become intuitive and instantly understood.  Also, introducing a new mechanic might have unforeseen effects that are undesirable.

By tying the number of barracks to the number of cc's, you'd have to keep a tally of how many cc's you have, would that need another counter on the HUD like for citizen count?  What happens if a cc gets destroyed?  What if I have an island colony and can't build a barracks on it because I'm already at max; do I need to destroy another barracks first?  What if I have an island colony and a cc is destroyed!  Do I then have to destroy two or three barracks before I can build one on the island?…  It starts to sound a bit messy.

To limit the number of barracks a player can build, IMO it makes more sense to impose a minimum distance between barracks, just like for towers. 

I think there is a contradiction on this. Most of the RTS games allow you to build infinite buildings one specific is barracks or stable or siege factory. Players get used to it so there not much additional learning. Spamming more combat units easily to win or lose war. Same patterns of most RTS games no extra learning. In 0AD or AOE the buildings or units don't even increase in cost and you can build similar militarily buildings side by side. 

I wish I knew these games will be developed when I was young so I could take up programming or video game development and I can make my ultimate RTS game. All mechanics of my dreamed RTS game are already in place but are scattered throughout The games I like.  The question of this might create difficulty among developers is not really an issue if you want to be the best. In fact in 0AD you have limit on building number of forts! I like the idea of having defensive buildings be created distant appart too.  

I sorted through some water maps and found out some islands are too small to hold onto rather than a strategic naval base after gathering all resources. Yes barracks troops gives you some additional units but if you notice ships can carry more additional troops. A CC and a dock may just be enough for any other purposes. 

Is it really hard to win the game with limited military buildings/units or the game becomes boring beacause it takes longer time to finish the game? For me I play for fun and play with AI mostly because i found the game becomes messy in the later stages when I play multi. So I don't care if I spend infinite hours on one game as long as I enjoy it. 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

Quote

On 14/2/2017 at 0:52 AM, Libervurto said:

 

General tip: if you want to change something in the game, first, before introducing new ideas, see if you can achieve the same effect by using existing mechanics.  This is not only helpful for programmers but for the player as well, since they have less to learn and reused mechanics will become intuitive and instantly understood.  Also, introducing a new mechanic might have unforeseen effects that are undesirable.

By tying the number of barracks to the number of cc's, you'd have to keep a tally of how many cc's you have, would that need another counter on the HUD like for citizen count?  What happens if a cc gets destroyed?  What if I have an island colony and can't build a barracks on it because I'm already at max; do I need to destroy another barracks first?  What if I have an island colony and a cc is destroyed!  Do I then have to destroy two or three barracks before I can build one on the island?…  It starts to sound a bit messy.

To limit the number of barracks a player can build, IMO it makes more sense to impose a minimum distance between barracks, just like for towers. 

I think there is a contradiction on this. Most of the RTS games allow you to build infinite buildings one specific is barracks or stable or siege factory. Players get used to it so there not much additional learning. Spamming more combat units easily to win or lose war. Same patterns of most RTS games no extra learning. In 0AD or AOE the buildings or units don't even increase in cost and you can build similar militarily buildings side by side

 

Mostly of player here aren't looking for a RoN clon or inspired. 

You can't compare barrack with towers. They haven't the same size or nature.  The defensive haven the same hitpoints even have bonu.

if you read about embassies topic some players aren't happy with limit buildings. 

About unit cost my opinion of that mechanic from RoN was the worst.IMHO.

RoN don't portraits ancient and classic times so well. I don't see why a unit their cost will be increased each time you train a new, in RoN the units were trained in set of 3. Triplets.

 

you can create your own mod and start that beloved RTS.

Spoiler

only few thing I love from RoN. But main core of that game don't like. No walls, unit cost increased even in ages were this was real. Limit buildings was very bad idea. Specially farms. Inaccurate time frames for special units. EE2 did better.

generic buildings.

basicly RoN is a game with restrictions. AoE 3  follows of these mistakes. Limit buildings isn't good idea.

In 0 A.D I have longest matches than RoN.

[wraitii]

I feel like CCs should only be able to make a basic spearman or swordsman, and everything else should be in the barracks, with the barracks possibly producing a level-2 version of the basic unit by default (or treat the CC version as a level 0 weaker unit or something).

[sphyrth]

Women + Spearmen
Basic spearmen are slow-moving, making resource-gathering a little bit slower, and also prevents early cavalry rushes.

Edit: Rome defaults to the Swordsman however. His veteran spearmen can only be trained in the barracks.

Edited March 2, 2017 by sphyrth

[av93]

1 hour ago, wraitii said:

I feel like CCs should only be able to make a basic spearman or swordsman, and everything else should be in the barracks, with the barracks possibly producing a level-2 version of the basic unit by default (or treat the CC version as a level 0 weaker unit or something).

Also, my proposal would be that only the CC spearman are citizien worker, and those can't level up.

[wowgetoffyourcellphone]

For Rome, this militia spearman is the Rorarius -- see DE (I'm sure you guys are sick of reading this).

[Lion.Kanzen]

1 hour ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

For Rome, this militia spearman is the Rorarius -- see DE (I'm sure you guys are sick of reading this).

nope, if isnt implement you never stop (if is a good idea of course.)

[Lion.Kanzen]

my feeling if we are changing the gameplay is change the early I commented this when Wraitii suggest changing the meta.

in 0 A.D the players aren't defenseless (Early phase ) because the initial units. and the units available to train in the CC.

 

 

[Lion.Kanzen]

On 2/3/2017 at 4:25 AM, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

For Rome, this militia spearman is the Rorarius -- see DE (I'm sure you guys are sick of reading this).

I tested, now can be nice create male worker and his second level a citizen soldiers?

and startingbunits should be 3 women may be an slave and the scout?

i where search a similar for other civs.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Quote

The Roman Empire turned the role of a watchman into a profession by creating two organizations:

• the Praetorian Guard thus establishing a rank and file system with a Captain of the Guard.
• Vigiles, literally the watch.

Vigiles for Romans (Imperial)??

 

city Watch and militia are related.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia

Edited March 15, 2017 by Lion.Kanzen

[Lion.Kanzen]

The most weaker between Greeks and common in their battles is the Psiloi.

 

In Ancient Greek warfare, psiloi (Ancient Greek ψιλοί, plural of ψιλός, psilos, literally “bare, stripped”),^[1] were extremely light infantry who acted as skirmishers and missile troops.

Psiloi, often used as a broad term to describe types of unarmored or lightly armored infantry, have often been more explicitly referred to by other names, such as gymnetes (lit. naked)^[2] or euzonoi (light armored; after whom the modern Evzones are named),^[3] grosphomachoi and akontistai (javelineers),^[4][5]sphendonetai (slingers),^[6] toxotai (bowmen or archers) or lithoboloi (stone throwers).^[7] The peltastai (bearers of light shields, targeteers)^[8] are often categorized as an intermediary infantry type, later grouped either with the psiloi or the heavy infantry, according to their main tactical role.

 

 

EB gives another idea.

http://www.europabarbarorum.com/factions_koinon-hellenon_units.html

Hoplitai Haploi (Greek Levy Hoplites)

The poorest citizens of the Hellenic and Makedonian poleis fought as a militia roughly organized along the lines of other, more professional hoplite soldiers. They are organized in the phalanx and are quite high quality for militia, due to the dogged Hellenic spirit and fighting tradition. They can be expected to hold a line against most light and medium infantry, though they will be devastated by missile troops, as they have virtually no protection from missiles aside from their shields and the bodies of their compatriots. They are still useful against cavalry as no horse will willingly charge a bristling wall of spear points. Hoplitai Haploi, if used properly, can be an inexpensive and very valuable unit, though they will be outclassed against heavier and more professional troops, they can, if well supported, hold the line far better than one would expect of a militia.

Historically, the poorest citizens of any polis and the peasants on the estates of Makedonia were called up in defense of their homeland to fight as militia. They had been used to devastating effect in many ancient battles while forming the second line of battle. They were good and courageous soldiers that fought with a degree of discipline and courage that would not be thought possible of an unprofessional milita. They were not cowards and did not break quickly, but were often annihilated if facing good missile troops or heavier, more professional infantry. Peltastai and other units armed with javelins were particularly devastating to the militia hoplites, due to their lack of protection on the battlefield.

the celtics

 Militia in Celtic societies, called Lugoae (Lug-oo-ay; "Levy Troops"), are farmers, craftsmen, fishermen, and so on, called to brief military service in periods of crisis. They may train a few times a year to fight, and games and sports encourage a decent level of physicality, but they're still only militia, and can only be trusted to do so much.

 

Association LEUKI. Celtic Spear Levy (Lugoae). He is only able to afford a spear and a shield. Since he is a youth, his only equipment that could be considered armour is his cloak.

Pantodapoi (Hellenic Native Spearmen) for Sucessors.

Pantodapoi were native auxiliary soldiers used in the armies of the Diadochi, the successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great's empire. Because the Diadochi were reluctant to allow native troops serve mainstream Hellenic units for fear of revolt, they formed their own corps and were used in a support role, for flanking enemy troops and skirmishing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantodapoi

 

 

---

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=251406.45

 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Lion.Kanzen

[drsingh]

On 02/03/2017 at 2:08 PM, wraitii said:

 

I feel like CCs should only be able to make a basic spearman or swordsman, and everything else should be in the barracks, with the barracks possibly producing a level-2 version of the basic unit by default (or treat the CC version as a level 0 weaker unit or something).

 

I support this. It is similar to my design proposal in the gameplay thread.

 

Answer to the topic.

No. CC shouldnt train Military. Actually no building should give access to both eco and military units. A player needs to decide between investing in eco and military.

Currently lvl1 soldiers are both the military and the eco(best gather rate for wood, stone, metal). An addition of a Male Citizen (lvl 0) which is poor in combat but good for eco. And a subsequent nerf to gathering rates of lvl1 soldiers will help in rectifying to some extent.

 

The important thing is to ensure that Citizen soldiers prove more profitable in combat rather than while gathering. So changes to promote attack and raiding are also beneficial.

-Promoting eco to be spread out away from CC.

-higher loot and new xp bonuses against weak eco units.

-limiting the training possibilties of your best eco units(previously was every other building with any possible batch size. limit to cc and a few houses). limited units means, losing them means something.

-changed ratio of eco to military units. previously eco unit (female) would be well protected behind base or around cc, and the units encountered in front were all military units of same calibre as the attackers. After changes- CC eco units train time10 sec. Barracks units- 20 sec. with batches of 5. 15sec per unit. And military unit production will start later, after building a barracks. So eventually there would be more eco units than military units on map. So more possibility of attacking forces to find easy victims rather than equal lvl fighters.

[DarcReaver]

Actually, something regarding CC training should be considered:

If the CC features combat units buildable, I'd suggest moving Barracks to City phase. This way early game is revolving around the simple militia combat-raiding, while having "real" military requires advancing the city.

This provides a player choice between defensive style - eco spreading and offensive, militia warfare. Similar to Drush strategies in AoE II.

[Lion.Kanzen]

Quote

No. CC shouldnt train Military. Actually no building should give access to both eco and military units. A player needs to decide between investing in eco and military.

More or less. The units I'm trying to found are: basically "the poorest citizen or  peasants"

a citizen more than  a soldier more bonus eco than soldier, basically the clubman or militia from first AoE series.

I like how Justus explore the concept, I tested this in Flood random map. ( I never put much mind in the price) but indeed in the combat skill, can be more resistant than a villager women.

Quote

The Militia is an infantry unit in Age of Empires II that can be trained at the Barracks. It is the first trainable military unit and the only one available in the Dark Age. The Militia is ineffective after the Dark Age.

Quote

Hit Points 40

Attack 4 melee

Rate of Fire 2.03

Melee Armor 0

Pierce Armor1

Armor ClassesInfantry

Speed0.9

Line of Sight 4

 

The stats must be proportional, the concept a villager that can fight.

for example the Rorarii can't be match for a Hastatii or Triarii, because they are less than basic. 

[drsingh]

On 3/16/2017 at 4:08 AM, Lion.Kanzen said:

The stats must be proportional, the concept a villager that can fight.

Did you try the mod? The male citizens in it have stats similar to what you have provided

[Lion.Kanzen]

No time to do mods for now, so min trying to help someone else , like Justus and his mod Delenda Est.

im not sure if Niektb wants experiment with Council of Mods projects.