View Poll Results: Is it a good idea?

Voters
27. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 55.56%
  • No

    12 44.44%
Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Utilize unassigned military units

  1. #1
    Original Serf
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    13
    World
    Newfoundland

    Lightbulb Utilize unassigned military units

    What if we could utilize the unassigned military units during peaceful days? A soldier can have a civilian profession, too.
    Like a couple of military units could be assigned to support any work-yard which would decrease the production time until the next battle. This would encourage people to build more residences, have wilder and deeper control on production which would enable different strategies on production.
    I would suggest to enable this function on level 3 buildings and up to encourage upgrades.
    As the primary occupation is to be professional soldier they would not be as efficient as a working settler however 2-4 units could easily produce the same amount (either increase the quantity or decrease the production time)

  2. #2
    Pathfinder
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    2
    World
    Newfoundland
    I like it, this would be more fun.

  3. #3
    Skilled Student Merxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    44
    World
    Northisle
    The idea is good but I doubt BB would want anything to speed up production, beside what we already got. It doesn't make sense.

  4. #4
    Forum Explorer
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    331
    World
    Sandycove
    Certainly this is a good idea, I think, like the total disarmament for a peacefull future on Planet Earth. Like that is not so easy to accomplish in real life, it shoud be a little complicated also in TSO. :-)
    I could imagine it in somewhat reverse Barrack, either in Tavern or in Provision House, or a must-be-building: School--where you could disarmament the soldiers and teach them some profession, of course not for free. As a result after a lot of wasting time should get back some weapons (but not the brew, naturally), and inhabitants, likewise Retired Bandits and so on...

  5. #5
    Original Serf
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    13
    World
    Newfoundland
    Well, I did not meant to loose the army, Brankovics. I have only proposed to use them in civil service until the next battle. Why would I waste resources to transform soldiers back to settlers? If I have unnecessary forces I just send them for a loosing battle...

  6. #6
    Forum Explorer
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    331
    World
    Sandycove
    Quote Originally Posted by VitoC View Post
    If I have unnecessary forces I just send them for a loosing battle...
    Oh yes, what an inuhumane solution! The last. That's why we should take them to civil life. And also, if they are die, we have to wast a lot of time and/or we are forced to bake tons of bread.

    Well, to be a civil means also disarmament. By large scale anyway it means demilitarization, to loose the army--but not all the weapons nor the strategic knowledge of discharged soldiers. They should became civil, and also reservists. On the other hand they must have some profession, at least find them place in civil society, and to acquire that knowledge, similarly to training in Baracks, needs time and sometimes hard work. Time also resource in this game, like in real life too. ;-) And, when time of a new battle has arrived the reservists should spend significantly less time in Barracks and drink less brew, because they don't need military training again, just enlistment, recruitment...

    The other possible meaning of what you said is don't disarmament that soldiers, just lets them take part in productions in uniform and heavily armed. That weapons limit them in moving and working, also threat to civil enviroment. What if an ordinary debate became coarsened? Not a good idea.

    But ok, don't be so rigid, that's a game. Then take a look what could be done nowadays. When a new battle coming and you should make an army beyond population limits, you can build a residence to increase the limit--if have a building licence and enough materials. If have not, then you supposed to demolish cheaper buildings like pinewood cutters, foresters, sawmills, wells, and/or let the mines depleted for a while. Btw the rebuilding also has expenses, at least wasting time, not to mention the loss of productivity during the not so short time of training and battle. It is understandable that you want to change this situation, but what happens, if a game get so easy?
    Last edited by Brankovics; 13.10.12 at 11:01. Reason: was a mistype

  7. #7
    Ruler of the Land peck_ed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    2,682
    World
    Newfoundland
    Why not have them take over certain places needing settlers but have them increase the production time (because they're not as good at their job!), then pull them off again when needed for battle. That way it doesn't make increasing population pointless when you can just swing them over without downsides.

  8. #8
    Forum Explorer
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    331
    World
    Sandycove
    No, a warrior don't increase population. Each counted into the population. That's the problem. You must build so much residence to increase population limit while most of the "society" doesn't do nothing, just wait a battle to die. Insted of take place in production. So yes, we want to lead them back to civilian life, even as reservists if possible.

  9. #9
    Original Serf
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    13
    World
    Newfoundland
    Brankovics - do not take it personal but your statement with inhuman behaviour is an anachronism regarding soldiers and wars - unless you do not produce soldiers - if this is the case than why do you debate?
    You are right about principles but I believe most players would rather keep the old habit of getting rid of the base level soldiers by sending them to loosing battles - and you need base level soldiers as you cannot win all your battles after the first attack wave.
    I have not proposed the disarmament due to I assume that the the developers would apply similar ratios as you can get by demolishing your buildings.
    I like your proposal on re-training with less costs but I would strongly argue with you regarding a soldier is a threat in the civil environment - they are more disciplined than usual civilians.
    I believe the game would not get easier by implementing my proposal but will be more interesting and upgrading the level of the strategy.
    Last edited by VitoC; 17.10.12 at 17:39.

  10. #10
    Forum Explorer
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    331
    World
    Sandycove
    Quote Originally Posted by VitoC View Post
    your statement with inhuman behaviour ...
    I hove not proposed ... the developers would apply similar ratios as you can get by demolishing your buildings. ...
    I would strongly argue ... a soldier is ... more disciplined than usual civilians. ...
    I believe the game ... will be more interesting and upgrading the level of the strategy.
    Tsuh! The rhetorical phrases should never be taken seriously ...

    Why not? So, I propose not exactly the same ratio, but anyway the victorious army obviously don't lose all of their weapons. That should be taken for preservation into warehouse back, just not to get into the wrong hands.

    Of course. But that extra knowledge not necessarily can be used in civilian life. So I think somewhat training is needed before back to production. Not for maping the real life, but that would be too easy if can change the production place of a settlers whimsy and free. Because being a warrior is paralel with a production place, what latter should be demolished to "free up" the settler in--there is not any other way. But that special state, not an exact place to producing and not a regular production cycle, does not mean they are usable freely anywhere, so anywhay this special state should be demolished too. Soldiers must be "cleaned" before back to "usable" population. Nevertheless taht is a little bit vague how to make reservants. The situation is still to demolish a production building to free up a settler, even if recruiting again.

    Absolutely! I quite agree. That is such simply, unnecessary warriors must die--while nobody else. Furthermore, what if the whole island is freed and conquered, all the adventures are done, even more times. So, we have to manage human resources too.

Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. Unable to create military units
    By Tombo_UK in forum Bugs & Technical Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 16.01.14, 21:12
  2. Military units training but not being available.
    By Xeix in forum Bugs & Technical Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 29.11.13, 11:35
  3. Add military units: * Recruit
    By peck_ed in forum Items
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19.05.13, 18:05
  4. Add military units: * Soldier
    By peck_ed in forum Items
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 19.05.13, 18:05
  5. Military Units Creation Queue
    By Mal-D in forum Game Suggestions
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11.06.12, 01:11

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Ubisoft uses cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our websites. By continuing to use this site you agree to accept these cookies. More info on our privacy.