Simple but really cool support system

[Trifna]

Well weren't the soldiers in their own houses two?... My personal idea is to put the more coherence possible with the less complexity possible. So I guess it could make soem sense if it really is representing something.

[lord of the mark]

re:medieval armies

Thinking back to Marc Bloch (Feudal Society) et al.

IIUC in the Dark Ages, rulers tended to keep their vassals living WITH the lord, and rewarded them with upkeep and occasional gifts (I was about to say 'booty" but realized that might be taken the wrong way) I doubt there was anything unusual or technologically advanced about their living accommodations, though.

in the classic feudal system, roughly 900 to 1200, vassals were normally rewarded with fiefs of land, and did NOT live with their lord - while the situation varied from time to time, and place to place, this process extened down to knights. Thus the basic element of the feudal army WAS a professional soldier, and yet did NOT live in a "Barracks". The foot soldiers generally were peasant levies, were NOT trained, and of course lived at home when not called up.

In the late middle ages - 1200 to 1500 or so - vassals generally paid money in lieu of service, and the kings then hired professional armies. The increasingly important foot soldiers were also often mercenaries.

Basically means of recruitment, training, military support etc have varied too much over time and space to realistically and playably model them in a game with Civish scope.

[The diplomat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Basically means of recruitment, training, military support etc have varied too much over time and space to realistically and playably model them in a game with Civish scope.

Would it be possible to have a SE type system where the player could choose in-game between different support systems? In other words, the player could choose to support units with gold, or shields, or pop etc.... For example, you could start off using pop to support units, then switch to shields, then switch to gold.

[Sandman]

I don't like this system. Firstly, it places too much emphasis on population. There is no point in making any other improvement than population boosters. Secondly, it is inflexible. I should be able to build units until my economy is destroyed if I want to (indeed, at times it is necessary). It's not realistic, since cities which have not grown in the last hundred years have still got more improvements. It could also lead to players having to disband buildings in order to wage war. Additionally, it would force the player to keep track of a whole new economy of 'support units', when gold and shields are quite enough. It also penalises successful play by preventing good players from capitalising on their lead.

Finally, it seems needlessly contrived in order to produce 'hard choices'. There are already plenty of those; adding unnatural ones like this will not improve the game.