Skip navigation


Forum NavigationHome > Forum Index > Hegemony > Militia
Pages 1 2
Level 9 Human gamer
Alignment: Chaotic good
Posted on June 8, 2010 at 1:15 pm

I've found the troop limitations versus territory to be so finely balanced in this game I can't imagine why anyone would be calling for such extreme changes. If the game is too difficult, then play it on a lower difficulty setting for a while, but thinking the game would be improved by an influx of cheap/free defenders completely misses one of the best aspects of Hegemony, the balance of resources.

Longbow has a real gem here that rewards the player actually willing to learn how to play it, there's no need for radical redesigns. After playing drek like Total War for years I'm relieved to find a game that actually expects the player to plan their moves and think about what the hell they are doing. Giving them a bunch of low-cost defenders would negate that completely, you might has well turn raids off or make the player's cities unassailable -- where's the fun in that?

lol first of all it wouldnt be a "radical redesign" at all since this unit is already implemented an in reality Philip did rely heavily onto them as core to train his phalangites and to secure his own land so he can expand.
And if you would have read the posts entirely you would have seen that nobody "cries" for militia because they can't handle the game but because they think it would be a nice addition to the troops already available.

Also I said I would like to see the unit for both the AI and the player(basically more for the ai^^) since for some countries that doesn't have hoplites it often gets awfully cluttered with spearman regiments, whereas it would make mmore sense if he just sends bigger units instead of having to stack 5-6+spearman in a city plus ranged troops just to defend it.

Also I didn't said I want it for free, but they shouldn't really take from the macedonian pop either since they are not men that would be able to be recruited in the first place.
I don't have problems in the diff level (playing expert) but I think this troop would do at least as a fine addition for enemies like the osydrian empires i.e. and it wouldn't hurt if the player gets 2or3 more of them really ;)

Level 9 Human gamer
Alignment: True neutral
Posted on June 8, 2010 at 7:02 pm

Completely abandoning the unit balance in favor of a horde of cheap/free defenders that don't even fall under the population cap isn't a radical shift in gameplay?

Don't suggest to me that I was somehow not attentive enough to the above posts, I did read them. Some of the posters wanted militia (converting slaves into free troops!) essentially so they could play a different game than Hegemony as it is now -- an easier one. My suggestion is to learn to play the game as it is, as the present mix of troops, pop caps, and cash is not an arbitrary number (like you might find in a shoddy strategic design like the recent total war games) but something that has clearly been play tested. As far as a few extra militia units as quest rewards or something, sure, that's reasonable -- but for anyone that *did* read all the above posts that is hardly the only thing being discussed here.

Level 9 Human gamer
Alignment: Chaotic good
Posted on June 8, 2010 at 7:29 pm

You are right, but as you surely know the topic already kinda moved on from the idea of turning slaves into militia since it obviously would be to OP. (player could just hord slaves for free troops)

But as you may not know yourself the pella militia is n o t listed under "special units" which makes someone believe that this troop was indeed intended to probably popup at every major city that popup like pella or olynthus i.e. or in some other way. (would be interesting to know =] )
Don't you think that 1 militia as guardian for when you conquered a whole region (caldiche i.e.) as reward wouldn't hurt?
And what do you think about countries only having spearman as infantry getting them? I don't know maybe the troop would be too big for the terrain in the end, but if it wouldn't hurt balance wise then I think this would be reasonable since he really attacks with alot of units where they all will get clustered together thus reducing their damage thus they will flee most likely.

Level 9 Human gamer
Alignment: Lawful evil
Posted on June 8, 2010 at 9:50 pm

I agree with ZOD, I don't see what additional militia would add to the game.

Level 9 Human gamer
Alignment: Lawful good
Posted on June 9, 2010 at 5:15 pm

Early on it would help quite a bit. I found myself stationing The companions and Phillip up in Illyria to fend off the attacks from that direction, while the rest of my army was busy securing the areas around my starting areas.

However once you secure most of the macedonian cities the point is moot. You can start tearing down city walls in occupied cities and keep some mercenary hoplites as "mobile" reaction forces. Then plop a macedonian phalangite or two supported by some cavalry and peltasts at two or three key locations and the rest is easy as pie. Most sieges I can easily win with the Companions and Hypaphists, which leaves the rest of my army to tie down their brigades at other locations.

But, early on the Militia would most definitly help.

Level 9 Human Strategos
Alignment: Chaotic good
Location: Mt Olympos
Posted on June 10, 2010 at 5:08 am

It seems to me that the spearman unit pretty much represents militia already.

Pages 1 2