First of all I'd like to point out that medieval Europe is not the only time or place in the history of the world. Sure, the world of Elemental is loosely based off of medieval Europe, but not entirely. There wasn't magic in the Medieval ages, despite some people's belief. Also, whether or not something was prominent is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not it's believable and fun. Training troops is believable. 

Additionally, even in the medieval ages there were more than just knights and peasants and the occasional mercenary. They didn't just take hordes of peasants off the streets and give them bows, or crossbows, and say "point it that way." They were trained and drilled, at least to an extent. And that training was paid for by someone. If you can't imagine a world in which soldiers are paid (despite that it happened both then and now), you can always consider the upkeep cost as a representation of feeding your soldiers and maintaining their equipment and training. After all, they would not be responsible for providing their own food and such - especially if they aren't even paid. If they've been conscripted by the military then they are not able to support themselves via some craft or trade, which means either they are taken care of or they are paid so that they can take care of themselves.

Even more relevant is the fact that training troops and maintaining an army is a fairly constant theme within the fantasy genre, and not just in games. If anything that does not abide by 'the common rule' of Europe during the Medieval ages is unacceptable to you, then perhaps Elemental is not the game you are looking for.

A hard cap is not easy to imagine. Knighthood was impossible to obtain for most of the population to attain, but the ratio of knights to total population supportable by each and every kingdom everywhere needn't be identical. Then there's the point Elemental is not a Medieval ages simulator, but a fantasy game. In which knights might not even exist in my particular kingdom. Perhaps my Sovereign hand-picks people to serve in his Royal Guard, forming the elite core of his army, irrespective of their social status. There is no reason why we should be limited to the status quo of Medieval Europe, and it is possible to deviate significantly from that - especially in the context of a fantasy world - without requiring suspension of disbelief.

Yes, that is true. And I even suggested a mechanic dealing with just that. Not as detailed or realistic, perhaps, as a Call to Arms, followed by all those people melting back into the population never to be heard from again. My suggestion was to allow us to demobilize squads stationed in cities; their upkeep costs would be waived, perhaps they'd eat food like regular population or produce gold like regular people - perhaps not (that is a matter for play-testing and finding out what works best). In order to use those troops, though, you'd have to mobilize them, and that could take several turns. The result is a system that allows you to have a large army, a larger army than you'd be able to support indefinitely, so that when you need it you can call upon it; and when you no longer need it you can send them back and demobilize them, ready to be remobilized again the next time they're needed. 

Then you haven't read carefully enough. My major issue with it to begin with was that it stymies player choice unnecessarily. Like I keep saying, if troops are implemented well then there will be no such thing as 'the best strategy.' Whether you decide to build an all-elite army, an all-rabble army, or some mix in between would be a matter of contextual strategy and personal preference. All-rabble armies should be better than all-elite armies for certain tasks, and vice versa. Then there how you choose to compose your army in terms of unit types, which again should be dealt with the same way.

Saying "I'm sorry, you cannot train 6% of your population into elite troops, 5% is the limit" limits player freedom. If I could afford to field 10% of my population as elite troops, I'd be able to afford a proportionally large %age of my population as lesser troops. But a 5% cap tells me "Nope - you can do the latter, but you aren't allowed to do the former." The whole point is to make all the different options viable for different reassons. If an army of peasant rabble is equivalent to an equal-cost army of elite troops (assuming similar unit types) in all scenarios, well then that's just boring. In that case just get rid of one of the options because there's no difference. They should each be better at certain things, in certain situations. So long as elite soldiers are expensive enough that you cannot field an equally large army (or nearly as large of one, really) of elites as you could rabble, then a hard cap is harmful and simultaneously achieves nothing. What this boils down to is: the economy should not be effectively unbounded, like it is in many games come late-game. Fielding a large army should always remain a challenge, regardless of how late in the game you are. 

It's desirable to pick apart suggestions to look for loopholes.  It's another thing altogether to make incorrect assumptions then argue against them.

If you have questions then ask instead of assuming or making things up as you've done here.  You'd have saved us all a lot of wasted time.

This is basic game balance.

Note to the argumentative (not you VC) -- I haven't mentioned how the 'restrictions' should be done here, or any other specifics (as we're in very early beta and much is not yet determined, and I'm looking at this from the 'big picture' view for now).  Please to not assume, and ask if curious (general rules include: soft caps > hard caps; more choices > fewer; choices should be equally viable; etc.).

I went back and reread your post that I quoted, and my response to it. My conclusion is that you didn't understand my point. So there is clearly miscommunication going on - one of us, or both, has failed to get our point across to the other.

Here is what you said:

[quote]Because hopefully the game would be balanced such that other options are as viable, and folks have different ideas of how they wish to proceed (as we're demonstrating here).  If done right it'd be an option, not a requirement.[quote]

My response:

You have been arguing for an 'exceptional people' system, where some X% of your people are 'exceptional,' capable of being trained into elite units. My point is that if "the game [is] balanced such that other options are as viable" then there is no need for something like this. The point of a limited number of exceptional people, based on the arguments for it, is that it prevents people from building all-elite armies that rival armies composed of lesser troops in number (and thus inhibits it as an 'uber strat'). But if it's balanced so that someone trying to field an all-elite army will never begin to approach the numbers of a roughly equal player who focuses on lesser quality troops, and if different types of armies and army compositions are superior in different circumstances, then a hard cap is unnecessary, and needlessly limiting.

If I have misunderstood what you're saying, correct me. Don't go on some wild accusatory rampage, and then not even tell me what false assumptions you think I made and what I claimed 'ownership' over.

Now you're just being silly. Have you not been reading the blurbs I have quoted? Many, perhaps most, were not you. Maybe you never proposed a hard cap, but someone did (looking back, it looks like the first was Tasunke) and others strongly supported the idea (notably VicenteC). I am not having a private discussion with you, this is an open discussion and I am damn well allowed to respond to who I like.

I see now that you were never arguing for a hard cap, but it was not so obvious (and honestly it still isn't ** see note below). You are generally in agreement with the people who have advocated it and you never explicitly distanced yourself from that particular point. If you had just pointed out that I was confusing other people's ideas with yours in my response to you, we wouldn't have had to fill several posts up trying to resolve this little spat. That you're being all accusatory, blaming me of making things up, etc, is just childish and immature. 

**You keep saying that 'exceptional' people would be in limited supply; what would determine exactly how limited? If not a hard-cap, where would the limit come from? What factors would go into it? All I can think is to have a base cap with factional modifiers, and perhaps some sort of civilization 'tech' or something... My personal preference is to forego the entire notion of exceptional people and simply make it very expensive to produce elite soldiers, and very expensive to maintain them. It would have a very similar end result - simulating the difficulty of building up a large army of exceptional people. I see no reason to add in an entire new thing to keep track of and worry about when something already in the game (economy) can probably accomplish the same end result in a straightforward and intuitive manner.

well, the presence of an elite or proffessional soldier (especially a hero or royal family member) could inspire the Militia and Peasant forces to higher (morale? hp? attack power?) ... im sure it would depend, and the most you could get for attack modifier would be +1 ... but it would only apply to militia and peasants. I think this would enable such lowly troops to be some-what cost effective regardless of your ability to wield an all elite army (although wielding an all elite army would be better, just not as "cost effective" ... so it would be a much more expensive battle, with less absolute gains.

Jesus christ in a handbasket, man, take that pole out of your ass. I never said you have to do anything at all - I couldn't care less how you live your life. All I am saying is that you really need to learn to forgive people for confusing who has been arguing for what when there have been pages of discussion about it. Especially when one person appears to agree with other people on most things but disagrees on some particulars here and there without it being immediately apparent.

I never made it up - other people suggested it, and I was mistakenly under the impression that you supported it.

Based on your reaction and your attitude, I'd guess that you're either a fledgeling teenager going through a distressing period of your life, or you're an adult who is mentally indistinguishable from one; either way I don't know why I've wasted my time in responding to your last several posts.

It added a lot to the game.

Hmm, I suppose. Maybe flag-bearers could be some sort of military/diplomacy cross-over, or simply a mid tier diplomacy tech. Would be interesting I think