Shouldn't armies die out like Generals?

[Garvanko]

Assuming they don't get killed in action of course..

It would make the game a whole lot more interesting...

[Oaty]

Well it would be realistic, but gameplay wise could possibly be the number 1 most annoying feature.


Especially when marching in parts of North Africa.

[scorillo]

true...just think about how often u have to retrain the armies within the city walls...not to mention the abroading armies

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Your not buying men. You are buying units. Consider the attrition through age or disease to be abstracted in such a way that recruiters keep the unit up to current strength.

[vale]

that will make the game more challenging since you will lose your men while marching to siege a city, this way the number of man in your army when arriving at the destination will be more of a variable than a full army with max strenght. To reduce the must retrain men behind the wall why not make fort a recruit station, or maybe that the unit auto recruit when you click end turn to fill in their rank but a portion of dinari will be subtract from your treasury.

[Byzantine Prince]

I think you should be able to start losing men once the unit reaches the age of 20. That way you don't have units that are 200 years old, because that's obsene. This of course provided that someone finds a way to increase the movement speeds of the board pieces.

[Colovion]

your thread inspired me to produce a thread (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=49712) :balloon2:

[HarunTaiwan]

How about desertion rates, especially if you are far from home and have lost battles. Or the General has bad traits.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Some units are hundreds of years old. For example the Black Watch. I think desertion and disease rates would be fun, but just plain old age is ridiculous IMO. Recruiters could easily keep up with that even with just a stop in a city every ten years.

[TheViciousChicken]

That would require even more micromanagement...hmm...I have enough as it is. Specially once you are winning the game and have some 30 regions the turns take forever just because of the need to move all those hundred stacks/units/spies/diplomats/ships/assasins/newborn generals/etc...Of course if retraining of that kind might be made automatic so that it would consume population but not require the player to decide about the fate of every unit it might make the resource management more realistic. Kind of like every unit requiring not just money but people as upkeep.

[Puzz3D]

The age of every man was tracked in MTW and the original intent was to have men die from old age and disease, but the feature was not implemented because CA felt that many players would not like having a unit who's valor they had built up over many battles die off.

[antisocialmunky]

Only generals were tracked in MTW.

[Colovion]

Only generals were tracked in MTW.

judging from Puzz3D's credentials - I'm going with him on this one.

[KSEG]

Wait, IIRC in MTW i don't think anyone died from old age apart from family members.

[Cheater]

Guys, Puzz3D said that this stuff of every man aging WAS to have been implemented. But they cut it out before release.

[Puzz3D]

Eat Cold Steel, who programmed it, did have the code in MTW which tracked the age of every man, but he was told to disable it. As I recall it was Activision that wanted this feature disabled. Even generals dying was disabled in MTW, but ECS brought back the generals dying in VI which accidentally caused the "all kings die at age 56 bug" which was fixed in the patch to VI. If you put the -green-generals switch in the shortcut which starts MTW/VI, a less experienced general will replace those who die otherwise you get a replacement who is the same as the general who died.

[IceTorque]

Eat Cold Steel, who programmed it, did have the code in MTW which tracked the age of every man, but he was told to disable it. As I recall it was Activision that wanted this feature disabled. Even generals dying was disabled in MTW, but ECS brought back the generals dying in VI which accidentally caused the "all kings die at age 56 bug" which was fixed in the patch to VI. If you put the -green-generals switch in the shortcut which starts MTW/VI, a less experienced general will replace those who die otherwise you get a replacement who is the same as the general who died.

I'm not so sure i would like my armies dying from old age but,
I wonder what other design decisions we can thank Activision for.
Small battlemaps.
Fast kill speed.
speedy gonzales infantry.

[pezhetairoi]

I would certainly like aging to be implemented--that way the whole campaign will slow down and katanking will not be completely possible since instead of one army sweeping through a continent in one breath, campaigns will have to stop and start because whole armies have to be replaced. Nice idea. But before anyone kills me, I go for the realism more than the gameplay, so.

[Muska Burnt]

if armies did die out this thread would be backwards everyone here would complain "why do armies have to die out?!"

[pezhetairoi]

Absolutely, because that's what the majority'd grouse about...

[Muska Burnt]

ya retraining every few turns would get old fast

[ToranagaSama]

Gentlemen, the feature would/should be made **Optionable**, so those who can't deal, won't have to...

:green armies: would be AWESOME!

Though, I'm sure such Code has been thrown our with the rest of the TW bath water, either literally and/or philosphically....

So, the likelihood of it being implemented is about nil, *THEY* ain't listening to *US*!~

[ToranagaSama]

Eat Cold Steel, who programmed it, did have the code in MTW which tracked the age of every man, but he was told to disable it. As I recall it was Activision that wanted this feature disabled. Even generals dying was disabled in MTW, but ECS brought back the generals dying in VI which accidentally caused the "all kings die at age 56 bug" which was fixed in the patch to VI. If you put the -green-generals switch in the shortcut which starts MTW/VI, a less experienced general will replace those who die otherwise you get a replacement who is the same as the general who died.


ToranagaSama bows down and raises a beer in TRUE and DEAR appreciation to EAT COLD STEEL!!!!


:green generals: [Just one, in a line of features, that makes MTW superior to RTW....]


Thank you.

:bow:

~:cheers:

ECS, a true Samurai....

[Kagemusha]

I would not like to see my armies dying off old age.Instead i would like that,if their numbers would start to diminish if they are too long in the enemy area away from their support area.Because ancient armies suffered much more casulties because of disease and lack of proper food and drinking water than actual casulties in battles. :bow:

[mfberg]

So we need to track in each individual
Age (for retirement purposes)
Home/homesickness
Loyalty to an officer
Loyalty to a ruler
Loyalty to a faction
Loyalty to a homeland
Resistance to illness
As units move around they would recruit from either natives, followers, or mercenaries, and lose men to retirement of soldiers (in their new homelands) and desertion/fatigue factors. Old style units would not recruit as well as new styles unless they have fame. This would take tons of tracking, and work a little better in the 3 ages style of MTW than in the 2 eras of RTW.
After that all we need are complete rosters of the camp followers and famine/food collection variables and we've got a great big mess. It would be fun, but a bit of a task to program.

mfberg

[Kagemusha]

I would settle to that if they would loose lets say 2% of their troops in turn in hostile territory. :bow:

[Armoryk]

I'd go for an attrition rate in hostile territory (as an option) and have it mitigated by building a fort. Essentially forts could serve as supply depots, with a supply range that could keep foreign units up to snuff in hostile territory. They could have a supply radius and only work optimally to mitigate erosion of armies if they are linked by connecting to the supply radii of controlled territories or other forts "in supply". In huge territories in the East (Arabia, Tribus Alanni) this would create an interesting strategic challenge to both invaders and defenders.

[Kagemusha]

Great idea! ~:cheers: That is exactly how they could create supply lines in the game. :bow:

[Colovion]

ya retraining every few turns would get old fast

You're exagerating.

Unless you feel the same way about Generals dying after their entire lifespan.

Personally I think that ~50 years (100 turns) is plenty for an army to be in service. Also, we could setup a "serve the nation for X years" and would give those soldiers battle experience which you could use to call on them in the future, but would also allow them to go back to farming their fields.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Just an FYI, it takes four months to train a Roman soldier for combat. Generally the Romans would only recruit when at their base, from the local population. If roughly the the same thing was implemented in MTW it would mean that armies would only lose strenght when mobile or in enemy territory.

[Virtute71]

All this is good as far as realistic. But it seems to be covered with a little roleplaying involved that soldiers retire and get replaced by new ones. You can say that's in the upkeep costs.

I'd like to see more dynamic features as far as overall morale of your armies when your denarii goes into the negative and you can't pay certain armies their upkeep. Say decrease pay or no pay, some legions muntineed because of this.

[Oaty]

I'd like to see more dynamic features as far as overall morale of your armies when your denarii goes into the negative and you can't pay certain armies their upkeep. Say decrease pay or no pay, some legions muntineed because of this.

That would kill the A.I. more than the human. Just like civil wars in MTW. You have to face a gargantuan empire only to watch it crumble into pieces after a few defeats.

Also if the troops were more expendable, such as having an army of 30-40 thousand on average then there's more room for attririon. Instead attrition in a 2000 man army woul be a potential pain in the butt. Especially if you have a mixed/blanced army and trying to merge.

I have no problem with attrition on besiegers just like in MTW. As of now only the besieged take casualties.

[sapi]

I have no problem with attrition on besiegers just like in MTW. As of now only the besieged take casualties.

Yes that does add another tactic to a siege - wait it out then assault half way through :)

[pezhetairoi]

and that only when an enemy steps onto their supply line leading back to their home provinces, or when they enter a province whose settlement has a plague, for example. They don't lose troops when they're in a province where there're no field armies (and hence no marauding scouts that threaten supply lines) and they don't lose troops when their supply lines are unthreatened. That means that fighting rebels will be that lil' bit more difficult, because the rebels always have a field army in addition to their garrison. Imagine trying to get to Dumatha. It'd be a major campaign in itself.

[Watchman]

Armies dropping off due to old age would be nothing sort of ridiculous. By what I know of it the Roman Legions were something of century-spanning institution unto themselves and stayed in the rosters and action for quite respectable periods. Just as a little reminder, the legionaires actually had a retirement age, a pension system and to boot were granted a small plot of land to settle (plus full Roman citizenship should they lack it) when their time was up. Just as new guys were brought in (sometimes through plain press gangs...) to replace campaign casualties they were also recruited to fill the gaps left by retiring vets.

As for the others, well, most of the nomads and barbarians were "citizen-warriors" anyway; for those peoples fighting was something of a way of life and every man above certain minimum age and status was supposed to join in when his cheftain demanded. And actual warrior aristocracies were flat out self-regenerating - war was both the priviledge and duty of such classes, and sons followed their fathers into the profession. Heck, they might well flat out inherit all the necessary bells and whistles to boot...

"Dying of age" for armies ? Poppycock.

Campaign attrition would certainly be a neat detail, but it'd also make the whole thing hideously complicated and frankly I don't think either the overall system or the operating logic of the TW series would be up to the snuff. I'd suggest turning to the Europea Imperialis series and its latest incarnation, Victoria, if you crave that level of strategic detail instead.

[Colovion]

That would kill the A.I. more than the human. Just like civil wars in MTW. You have to face a gargantuan empire only to watch it crumble into pieces after a few defeats.

that's why the Loyalty system would have to be setup in a much mroe robust fashion. I mean a populace holding true to the Roman ideals wouldn't decide "wow I think I would rather serve the Gauls" simply because of a few defeats - but if they'd been neglected by their administrators and feel snubbed in some way then that would make sense. Essentially many of these ideas need the core principles of the game to be enhanced to actually have them work.

[ToranagaSama]

I'd go for an attrition rate in hostile territory (as an option) and have it mitigated by building a fort. Essentially forts could serve as supply depots, with a supply range that could keep foreign units up to snuff in hostile territory. They could have a supply radius and only work optimally to mitigate erosion of armies if they are linked by connecting to the supply radii of controlled territories or other forts "in supply". In huge territories in the East (Arabia, Tribus Alanni) this would create an interesting strategic challenge to both invaders and defenders.

Nice.

I wrote something similar a good while back regarding Forts. I believe Forts, as they are, are under- and, to a degree, inappropriately utilized, as well as not *well* reflecting their historical usage and purpose.

To get down to it, why is needed within the game is an implementation of **Supply Lines**, with the accordant benefits and consequences.

As stated above, there s/b a radius from each city representitive of its supply support capabilities. Each city would have a supply radious dependant upon its inherent wealth and development.

One function of Forts would be as Supply Line *extenders*

Each Fort would have a Supply Line Radius dependant upon a paticular City's capability to *Provision* the Fort. Each Fort would be dependant upon and directly related to a particular City.

Cities would be capable of Provisioning a series of Forts, the number of which would be dependant upon each city's particular inherent wealth and development. Some cities would be able to support a greater number of Forts than others.

Supply Lines would be dependant upon a Series of Forts connected by Roads. Of course, the overall Supply Radius could be extended by Road development.

An Army's existence and capability to wage war would be dependant upon being supplied by a particular Supply Line(s).

In order to wage a Campaign upon a City and/or Enemey, a Player would need to ***Plan*** and **Establish** a Supply Route.

The GREAT part of this is that the Strategic and Tactical possibilities, in terms of GamePlay. Supply Lines could be interrupted and/or usurped.

Supply Lines/Routes could be attacked and would need to be defended.

A Supply Line could be interrupted by the taking of a Fort and/or the originating Provisional City.

Let's say a City has a series of three Forts leading to its Frontier bordering and Enemey's territory. Ideally, just beyond the Frontier would be an Enemey Fort representing the Enemey's Frontier *Limit*.

The Tactical possibilities are several fold. A player could attack and take the Frontier Fort, thus limiting the Enemey Army's capability, in other words reducing the Enemey Army's **Combat** Radius. An Army's capabilities to wage war beyond the Radius would be greatly reduced. How so? Well, that's the subject for further discussion.

Continuing to examine the above-described cirumstance. The Attacker would have great advantage upon meeting the Enemey Army outside it's Combat Radius.

For example, an Attacker using Subterfuge (sp?) to take the Frontier Fort, would then have a VERY good chance of success in defeating an Army twice its size **outside** the Defending Army's Combat Radius.

That just one tactical possibility that came to mind.

Another regards *feinting*, an Attacker could feint an attack upon the Fort, causing the Defender to commit an Army to the Fort's defense, while the Attack manuevered, stealthly, past the Defending Army onward toward, either a **consequently** Undefended Fort or City.

Of course, there are MANY more Tactical and Strategic possibilities.

One feature I believe would be conjunctive to all the above, would be the capability to grow Forts into actual Cities, originators of Supply Lines. Thus, upon reaching the limit of a City's capability to Provision it's Armies Supply Line, in order to extend an Armie's Supply Radius *further*, a NEW city would need to be founded.

Again, the game's Tactical and Strategic possiblities would be increased.

Now, great sounding as this may or may not be, there is a problem to all this. The game's AI would **NEED** to commensurately, appropriately, and sufficiently, capable to deal with the increased level of Tactical and Strategic possiblities.

First and immediately, the AI would need to have a sufficiently capable decision tree able to deal with the Strategic and Tactical possibilities accordant to defending it's Supply Lines against direct attacks and feinted attacks.

In other words, one smart AI is necessary.

I could see a circumstance where it would be ridiculously easy to feint out the AI.

So, someone at CA would have one helluva programming challenge.

Sorry, but if RTW is the example, unfortunately, CA's focus just doesn't seem to be in this regard.

For more ideas regarding Forts see the following threads:

CA: Forts, Forts, Forts, make em Cities, make em relevant (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=39144&highlight=Forts)

Use Your Forts Properly!!!! (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=38925&highlight=Forts)

The whole point is that Armies without Supply Lines should suffer SEVERE Attrition.

Armies with Suppy Lines should suffer greatly reduced Attrition. The level of reduction should be commensurate to the facility of its Supply Line(s). For example, the facility of a Supply Line could be rated at, Poor, Good, Very Good, Excellent. Obviously, the Attrition Reduction Level would be relative.

An additional aside, might be an effect opposite to Attrition, that is an Army with and Excellent Supply Line and Excellent General, etc., might have the capability to *Grow*. A successful army would naturally be attractive to certain locals, and so would be able to *recruit* from the local population (*prior* to an atttack).

This Growth type Recruitment might be tied, additionally, to the quality level of the opposing General or Govenor, a City's Corruption level, etc. Blah, Blah, you get it....

Simply put this might lead to a Great General at the head of a Great and Successful army being able to *take* a City without bloodshed by way of its reputation alone.

How many times have you read, an army marching upon a city, its ranks swelling, the General demanding the surrender of the City, and the city throws open its gates....

Might lead to shortened, but satisfying Campaigns.

Just a thought....

Lastly, the Supply Line idea, as I alluded, might not work in a SP Campaign, BUT would be MANGIFICENT in a MP Campaign!!!! Simply magnificient.