Raising or Buying Armies?

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

I have posted that in other topic, and since it was OT, I repost it here;

I would like to have your thoughts on dropping alltogether the "money for army" or "buying" system in favor of a "raising army" system.

Here are my thought on that;

- armies are raised issuing orders to local leader /ally (diplomacy required) by faction leader.
- army raised quality and quantity depends on faction leader status (influence), local leader status (loyalty, V&V), province development (buildings), hapiness and possibly cash.
Can also imagine that some buildings will provide automatic units for defense (say Legion outpost?), etc...
An unwilling ally getting a raise army order from a low influence leader is not going to provide much support and a small low quality army...
A good ally or governor, with a good infrastructure, under a popular leader will be able to raise a large army.
- invasion of a province automatically triggers a local raise army order. Same but bigger for capital invasion.
- once an army is raised, support cost are to be paid, and happyness is going down (function of number of armies*lenght they have been raised).
- cash would pay for support, province improvement, and say one longstanding professional army (kind of Royal army without impact on happyness).

I think that the faction leaders will issue raise orders... But for Rome, with several faction leaders, some them able to issue orders.
A Rome leader will play for Rome glory, but also to top other Rome leader in terms of popularity (influence) and titles (consul).
Rome players will have to find a balance between Rome best interest (which might be to give resources to another Rome leader) and their own (which is likely to be detrimental to other Roman leader). A little bit like in the nice boardgame Res Publica.

Basically it would turn the game into a MTW with loyalist and rebellion armies one would be able to raise, more or less on purpose.

Your thought on that?

Do you think this is moddable?

Louis,

[Mr Durian]

Great Idea Now we can finally put the influence thing into good use and will make the game much more fun to play.

[Galestrum]

I wish that they would allow you to raise troops based upon population of the area and money, and NOT by the current system of 1 one per province per year.

If i have the money and the population, i should be able to raise 10 legions in Rome (province or city) in a year, not 1 legion every year for 10 years.

Armies were often raised spur of the moment or in response to invasion or a major defeat. As long as you have money and/or the poppulation as simulated in Lords of Glory i think it was called, you should be able to raise as many units as possible.

NO to 100 man units per province per year

YES to mobilization http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif

[lonewolf371]

Indeed, it would be nice if it worked that way, but then the game would also have to keep track of population and population growth. Perhaps there should be a specific building for this, such as training grounds? Or even have two buildings: Legion Fort and Conscription office. The conscription office allows you to train just-above-peasants peasant levies and the Legion Fort allow you to train less but better soldiers over a slightly longer period of time. So if you find a rebellion you can use your conscription office to train a large number of peasants to put it down in one turn. With a fort you can train an elite force that will be available in 4+ turns depending on the legion size. Of course, legions should have a fairly high support cost. This next part may be going over the edge, but to make the game even more realistic is to make legions get bonuses at the forts where they're created, have fairly high support costs, and have each fort only be able to train one legion. This would prevent a single player from just making masses of armies due to the short training system. Conscriptions should work fairly similarily, except with the support cost increasing each year so as to force you to disband the what would historically be a short-term army. Conscription forces should only last about 1 turn before they become too costly to maintain.

[Nowake]

Good idees, but I have to say that one of my topics http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif already raised the problem ... it's on this page: Recruitement system. I think you'll find a good long debate there other this.

[Hakonarson]

Certainly armies were raised in whole nubers rather than unit by unit - but anotehr consideratoin is that units will be very population specific - eg Roman Legions should only be able to be raised from the Roman citizens in a province - both citizens with and without the vote.

Non-citizens were simply not enrolled in legions - with hte exception of 2 slave legions raised after Cannae.

Some "client" kingdoms raised imitation legions - especially the Galatians who raised 2 - they were incorporated as Roman Legions when Galatia was annexed (I forget exactly when - round-about the time RTW will finish).

So if Rome captures a province with lots of buildigns that should not allow them to instantly raise lots of legions - because they won't have all that many citizens there.

There could be a lot of citizens outside Rome - Mithridates organised Asia Minor (Turkey) to rise in revolt and massacre all the Romans there on a given day - reputedly 80,000 were killed, while Sertorious, a Roman General in Spain who fought against Sulla and Pompey, raised some cohortes from Citizens there too, but it's not known how many.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Pr Fire,

Let's split our reply between historic consideration (recruitment system topic) and gameplay topic (here).

Hakonarson,

To clarify what I think on raising army, not buying them; raised armies would be somehow random, like rebel army in MTW, player would be able to issue a raise army order, but would not know the outcome until the next period.
Result of the order would depend on the location, presence of certain buildings (and I would like to see some colonies... to have citizen there, legion fort is a good idea), local governor stats, faction leader stats, hapiness, etc...

As we know, when a new province is captured, hapiness is usually bad, and as support cost would be paid in hapinness, I don't think they would be a lot of incentive going crazy invading a new province and immediatly raising armies from there.

Basically buildings would not granted that a certain type of unit would be present, but would increase the likelihood, along with other things already mentionned (location, governor, etc...).

Also, I think it would be convenient to have multiple 'raise orders' with different cost and happiness impact; they would result in different kind of army set up; for example;
- raise raiding hord (basically cav, skirmisher)
- raise local tribe / militia (4 non elite units)
- raise minor army (8 units)
- raise major army (1 stack)
- raise everything available (...)
- raise special (engineeer, ally merc...)

As support cost would be paid in money + happyness, I would like garnison to be 'invisible', being raised when a raid, or an army is entering the attacked province.
Here again buildings can gain a new fonction;
Watch tower; would raise some light inf when being attacked
Border fort; main inf light cav. Those two would counter raid.
Raid would not cause war.
Legion fort would raise a major army if something bigger than a raid is attacking the province.
Colony or town watch would raise militia kind of troops.

I think it is getting too tricky to be modded from the original game.

Louis,

[Barkhorn1x]

Quote[/b] (Galestrum @ April 19 2003,03:15)]I wish that they would allow you to raise troops based upon population of the area and money, and NOT by the current system of 1 one per province per year.

If i have the money and the population, i should be able to raise 10 legions in Rome (province or city) in a year, not 1 legion every year for 10 years.

Armies were often raised spur of the moment or in response to invasion or a major defeat. As long as you have money and/or the poppulation as simulated in Lords of Glory i think it was called, you should be able to raise as many units as possible.

NO to 100 man units per province per year

YES to mobilization http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wacko.gif
My thoughts exactly;

The unit sizes in M:TW are absurdly small - until about 50/75 years go by.

Barkhorn.

[lonewolf371]

There might not be any citizens in the province, but if I'm not mistaken orders to raise legions could through the Senate recruit soldiers from Italia itself, so a legion would still be raised. It might make it even more complicated, but they might for the idea of raising legions could interact with a 'citizen population'. Another idea might be to place a legion fort high enough on the tech tree that by the point you buy it normally under historical circumstances there would be adequate enough citizens for a legion.

Being historically correct is nice and all but the problem lies in the fact that it gets too complicated for common gamers. There is always that gray area that seperates fun from historically accurate but boring. Even as is, the simple concept of a 'legion fort' is unhistorical, as formalized legion forts were not truly put into action until the Imperial Age, until then the army was much more like Greece's system. Although there could simply be a time restriction. Say you build a tax building or something rather, and it's a requirement for the Legion Fort. But to keep in line with history say you aren't able to build a Legion Fort until 10 years after you've built the tax office, so as to supposedly 'supplement' in the time it would take a province to develop a citizen population. There are many ways to incorporate the citizen population thingey, it's only up to CA to decide.

PS-A legion should not be over-burdened with soldiers, the historical 4,500 to 6,000 would be too much for the game engine. So a 'raise legion' order would raise half of that, with the classical triarii, principes, and hastati until 100 BC.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Quote[/b] (lonewolf371 @ April 21 2003,15:39)]It might make it even more complicated, but they might for the idea of raising legions could interact with a 'citizen population'. Another idea might be to place a legion fort high enough on the tech tree that by the point you buy it normally under historical circumstances there would be adequate enough citizens for a legion.
What about having a colony building which would be a requirement to build a legion 'fort'?

Colony provides citizens, and maybe some agricultural or trade + improve happyness (or loyalty) but increase chance of local loyalist rebellion a lot at the beginning.

Louis,

[lonewolf371]

Can't argue too much with something that relates so heavily to my own idea http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif . HOWEVER, I would like it if it had a name other than 'colony building'. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

That is easy enough to mod
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

I am not sure I like tax office either
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

Louis,

[Hakonarson]

Actually while Legionary Forts would be anachronistic, Legionary camps would not be - Romans learned how to encamp in a regular manner from Phyruss 275BC.

So if a building is required to simulate a local Roman citizenry a Legion Camp would be a suitable title.

Legions in this period were raised in Rome - not in hte provinces - if a legion was to be sent to a province or a governor then it would be raised in Rome and sent complete.

This was not necessarily the case in the Civil Wars of the 1st Century BC, but even then it seems most if not all of the Legions that fought at Pharsala (34 total IIRC) had been raised at Rome when each faction controlled the city, and "local" Romans in the provinces were used as replacements into existing formations.

[lonewolf371]

If the legions were sent complete in Manipular form that was dumb, every source I've ever read has dismissed Roman cavalry as 'bad' cavalry. I believe that in my main source it describes only the 'Roman' part of the army, and does not describe auxillery troops, which I believe were recruited out of need and not part of the standard legion.

[Hakonarson]

Not so dumb - Rome was where the impoverished Romans were who were the basis of most of hte legions in hte Civil wars.

Before then most of hte small farmers were also at Rome - Romans in other places were merchants and administrators and not really the ppl who wanted to join up

What are your sources for Roman cavalry? I've seen many that deride Roman cavalry, but none of them point out some simple salient facts - like them always being outnumbered.

Now if you're outnumbered then it's probably a good idea not to fight a cavalry battle - to hide them behind the infantry and use them to counter attack, etc.

But the standard Roman deployment was infantry in hte middle and cavalry on the flanks, and when outnumbered the defeat of the cavalry exposed the infantry. It happened at Cannae and also at Lake Regulus in the 1st Punic War.

When there was sufficient Roman cavalry to fight they did as well as anyone else- defeating their opponents at Zama for example.

This is a pretty simple analysis to do, but one that a lot of tertiary sources don't bother with - they don't look beyond the fact that Roman cavalry was defeated therefore it must be bad, when in fact there's no evidence tat it was worse (or better) than anyone else's.

Reading derived sources is good, but you also need to understand how they come to conclusions, and in this case the ones you've read about Roman cavalry are what I call "lazy" sources - they haven't done their homework properly.

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Ooops.... We're going slightly OT here...

Whether Roman cavalry is good or not, the question is, do we want to buy those 1 unit at a time, provided some buildings are present and some money spent, ending with 'patchwork army' or do we want to be able to raise army as a whole, with many different conditions (building, happiness, governor stats...etc).

I concede that legion fort is not a great name. Call it a legion camp, a legion outpost, whatever. I am more interested in what you do with it; buy one 'legion unit' once a year, or being able to raise a legion once in a while on a temporary basis (if you don't want to hurt money and happinness too much), or having a legion raised in self defense to invasion.

To simulate roman citizenry outside of Rome, I suggest either colony or 'tax office' (lonewolf copyright).

Louis,

[Hakonarson]

Well Rome was always going to raise legions, regardless of what state the city was in - if it was burned to the ground they'd still be raising legions, because that's what they used - like Greeks raising Hoplites - there's just no other option.

Citizens outside Rome should only be allowed to bring legions up to strength IMO.

Certainly legions should be raised as a single unit - you're dead right with the initial premise - you raise "a legion" in a single day pretty much.

Moreover at the start of this period the Romans raised their legions annually - usually 4 at a time - and assigned them and their consuls to an area of operations for the rest of the year - at the end of the campaign season they came home and were disbanded.

Later on troops were kept under arms for longer, but the consuls were still elected annually and assigned areas of operation, and often would take new legions with them as reinforcements - again these legions were raised on the spot.

[lonewolf371]

Scipio managed to deter some units of Numidian cavalry to guard his flanks at Zama. Oh ****, where is that book? *Searches for book he's been using for argument against Hakonarson*.

Ah here it is, "The West Point Military History Series: Ancient and Medieval Warfare".:p

I quote directlyfrom Thomas E. Greiss, the Series Editor: "Scipio also held his third rank back somewhat and disposed the maniples of the hastati and principes in open order behind each other rather than echelon, thus leaving lanes between the maniples. The Italian cavalry was on his left, and the Numidian cavalry, now allied to Rome, was on the right."

Also...

"The Carthaginian cavlary was swept off the field, with the Italians and Numidians giving chase."

Also...

"In the early days of the Republic, the allies came from Italy; but but later, when citizenship was extended to peoples beyond Italy, "allied" no longer meant Italian."
So Italian cavalry does not refer directly to "Roman".

Either it's not in here or I'm too lazy to find it, I cannot find anything that 'directly' relates to Roman cavalry, and I also believe that during it's crusial testimony at Cannae and Trebia it was routed quickly which helped play a major part in routing the Roman infantry. The "Allied" or Italian cavalry that I found at Cannae was not routed until it was flanked by the Spanish and Gaulish cavalry that had already destroyed the Roman cavalry, although you might actually be right on this subject. I must succumb my pride, as I just found also that the Roman cavalry put up a hard fight. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif However citizen armies were still based entirely on infantry, especially after Marius. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/mecry.gif

[Nowake]

Quote[/b] (Hakonarson @ April 21 2003,20:41)]Actually while Legionary Forts would be anachronistic, Legionary camps would not be - Romans learned how to encamp in a regular manner from Phyruss 275BC.

So if a building is required to simulate a local Roman citizenry a Legion Camp would be a suitable title.

Legions in this period were raised in Rome - not in hte provinces - if a legion was to be sent to a province or a governor then it would be raised in Rome and sent complete.

This was not necessarily the case in the Civil Wars of the 1st Century BC, but even then it seems most if not all of the Legions that fought at Pharsala (34 total IIRC) had been raised at Rome when each faction controlled the city, and "local" Romans in the provinces were used as replacements into existing formations.
people, why not use the original term:


Quote[/b] ]CASTRUM ???

That's how it was called.


@Hakonarson: in the battle of Zamma, the romans had for the first time superiority in cavalry. Before the campaign against Carthage, Scipio forced the numidians to pled their allegiance to Rome. Hannibal had about 2000 numidian cavalrymen, and Scipio 6000 of them.

The italic cavalry was not so important during the battle, the numidians were recognised as the elite

[Krasturak]

It has always annoyed me to have a building thing in the province to raise troops.

The troops should come from recruiting without reference to the castles or dojos or whatever, but from the leader's funds and relationship to the people he rules.

[Nowake]

Very much agree ... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[rory_20_uk]

I think that the idea might suit an option of the game (sounds a lot like the Mongul invasion way of obtaining units), but I think that the existing system has its place.
I am sure that the others that have written here know a lot more about the disposition of the Roman populace, and who could be summoned to serve in a legion as occurred historically.
BUT historically the Roman Empire crumbled due to infighting, nepotism and a system built too far around Rome - too many troops were being paid off to keep the Emperor on the throne, with no thoughts to long term strategy.
Although other citizens were not summoned to serve in the Legion, if the right dictats were in place they could be (basically it would require a drop in snobbery of the Romans to other people) - I think that these games are based on history, but are not here to reinact it.
Similarly, having game mechanics that need to determine population ingress and egress to a stated province due to factors such as forced movement, birth rates of the indiginious and Roman population, rates of "Romanization" etc etc would mean that the level of strategic micromanagement would be horrific, nay impossible.
Having laid that down, I do agree with the idea (taken from MTW) that 40 Chivalric knights can be raised every year from a province with the same ease that 100 spearmen can be raised. Surely, from a state that has not been ravaged by war for years could supply many times the units of rank and file troops (albeit the populace would not be thrilled the higher the number), whereas knights from the highest order of society were not that numerous, and would not be replaced at the rate of 40 per year, every year.
To rationalise this, a population demography would be required - would this take into account the geographical location, trade, towns and farming that was available, as well as the proximity to recent outbreaks of wars... To achieve a system that is "accurate", the detail that would have to be uncluded would be immense; plus if such things were factors, this might influence whether hostilities should be starte or not, which would cause further problems to the AI http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Well, just my thoughts... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[lonewolf371]

Perhaps, but with my idea (Or CASTRUM http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif ) as it historically was your number of legions would directly relate to how many provinces you have and how productive they were. Regions ravaged by war would train units more slowly, however in times of peace it would be much different. Julius Caesar was able to raise two legions in a matter of months to stop a huge Helvetii migration from the area just west of Sweden.

I also believe your miscalculating how many knights there actually were. A knight could be regarded as almost the exact same as a mayor or so, owning a small village that would have been granted to him by a lord. He could not afford big shiny castles but instead perhaps a small wooden or stone fort that would have been about the size of a church or monastary. Knights such as this were quite common, and with the feudal system several thousand could be called into the service of a national or King's army and several hundred into a count/baron's army. So we can see that knights were not nearly quite so rare as many think.

[rory_20_uk]

Good point. But was this true of all knights - such as the ones late in the game (such as the gothic knights)? If so, fair enough, but I'd've thought that to purchase and maintain that level of equipment, a substancial pile would be required.

[Hakonarson]

Lone the Helvetii came from Switzerland, not Sweden, and Caesar was probably able to raise teh 2 legions in North Italy in a matter of weeks rather than months.