The Armies of Small Nations & Huge Garrisons

[Wilbo]

I've noticed in a couple of recent campaigns that one-settlement nations are able to put up a frustrating level of resistance. At an early stage of a game as Macedon, I'm seeing many nations with two full stack armies, sometimes with an additional two appearing when I move to lay siege to the town.

These giant armies are then proceeding to kick my much smaller full-stack force in the face. I must admit that I find this pairing of dynamics extremely frustrating, as it makes the game both unrealistic and so slow.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Myth]

That's business as usual for me on Legendary and has been so since day 1. 2.5 fullstacks per 1 settlement minor faction. More for the African ones since for some reason they get more free gold per turn.

[Sp4]

I've noticed in a couple of recent campaigns that one-settlement nations are able to put up a frustrating level of resistance. At an early stage of a game as Macedon, I'm seeing many nations with two full stack armies, sometimes with an additional two appearing when I move to lay siege to the town.

These giant armies are then proceeding to kick my much smaller full-stack force in the face. I must admit that I find this pairing of dynamics extremely frustrating, as it makes the game both unrealistic and so slow.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

That's CA's limiting the amount of armies a faction can field.. or rather setting the amount of armies a faction has to field.. or whatever. Basically blargh.

[Wilbo]

Something related to this I find annoying is that I only ever seem to have full-stack battles - the beginning of Shogun / Shogun 2 was always marked by minor skirmishes with about five units. It's very all or nothing.

[easytarget]

That's business as usual for me on Legendary and has been so since day 1. 2.5 fullstacks per 1 settlement minor faction. More for the African ones since for some reason they get more free gold per turn.

Have you considered this isn't really even a response? It's just a statement of what you've encountered.

[Myth]

Have you considered this isn't really even a response? It's just a statement of what you've encountered.

That is the nature of my response. That's how small factions work in Rome 2, at least on the higher difficulties. Which part exactly is inappropriate as an answer to his OP? FYI he is not asking how to deal with them, he asked for thoughts. My thoughts are that this works as intended.

[easytarget]

No one said inappropriate, well, technically I guess you just did of course. I found it amusing his request for input on what he's encountered was met by a statement of fact rather than opinion in response.

I ask you how's the weather, and in response you say it's 82 degrees outside. That also would make me laugh as a response.

Here, I'll show you how it's done: OP, my thoughts on this are it feels a bit cheesy to me and I agree it's absurd from a game design point of view (as in it ruins immersion into the campaign when completely unrealistic things happen like this regardless the difficulty setting). Further, if the designers really did want to make this harder they could program factions to grab more territory that would realistically be viewed by the player as a legitimate basis for having this many armies. Additionally it did feel more scaled properly in Shogun 2 than it does in Rome 2.

[Zarobien]

I'm not that much against full 1+ stack fights. I use two armies to take on the minor nations, to counter the extra "home defence" they have. In my point of view this is realistic as a tribe/nation is most likely to have extra support when fighting home and invasion army should always be bigger than normal defence force. (As Sun Tsu counted; You need force 6 times stronger to take out city.) And futher more historical side of it is that the armies have one general to represent the whole staff. Roman legion alone had 6 higher officers. Having two generals per invasion balances that bit more. And the battles for cities should be big; there should be massive tactical play, reserves, lost flanks, won flanks, specialized units and moves... So it brings more to game.

But I do have noticed that theres imbalance between major and minor nations. As the minor nations are keeping their army home and major nations have army per 4 provinces. So it is easyer to take on major nation; I have actually taken 1 nation with 4 provinces in one turn just with autoresolve. The AI also fails to use two army tactic and because of that it is bound to fail if it plays aggressively. For example; Many people have reported that Rome and Carthage get beaten by minor nations in their campaings. In my campaing with the egyptians, I was aware of this so I planned to attack Seleutics, Carthage and then Rome. (Instead of the smaller african/arabian around me.) But Libyans took out Carthage before I managed to sail there. Rome was tied with Etrucians so I took out Italian/Roman provinces. And the fight vs. Seleucids was not decided in Antioch but on the way there; So Seleutics lost their home defence advance because they rushed to save Petra.

To be honest; The hardest fights I had was vs. Galatians. (Celtic Minor Nation in Turkey.) They Raided 2-3 of my provices and succesfully defended against two 1 stack attacks from me. I was forced to negotiate peace in eastern fronts so I free up armies to take them. But thinking it again from historical perspective; I actually repeated history and I, the farao, now have deep respect for galatian swordsmen.

I think one thing that lacks in the game is the sheer advantages big nations have; Like; Why am I restricted to hire stone age slinger in turkey when I own 1/4 of the known world. There is no concept of what is supply line and how armies assemple. Futher more; Who is the god like figure that says I can only have 20 units in my army and each unit has certain number of men? I think the decider for that should be the king and his money. Just because I want to darken my skies with cheap archers and have full line of spearmen in front of them; It shouldnt mean that I cant put cav that makes the ground shake in same army; So that needs to fixed. At this point when army of egypt sails to carthage; The garthagenians laugh. It should be more like "who put that island there and why is it full of catapults and soldiers." and "This aint a dust storm; It is just that the enemy cav is moving towards us and the wind is behind them". I dont know how to futher describe what is epic battle. But I feel that we are now conquerign rome by winning few skrismishes.

I'd also add availability of special units (Like Karian axemen, Galatian Swordsmen, Spartan hoplites, Scynthian cavarly...) to be available to factions only if the faction holds their home provice. But I'd losen it up so you can assemple those units all around your empire. (The soldiers move where they are called to; The generals dont come to their homes and ask them.)

It's also very restricted of what kind of units I can have as King; Why cant I say that my armies vield chainmail, round-shields, axes and javelins. Why cant my light cav carry bow? why cant my Nubians wear armor? I think there should be a way to implement military reforms; mayby trought science or smt.

[Sp4]

I'm not that much against full 1+ stack fights. I use two armies to take on the minor nations, to counter the extra "home defence" they have. In my point of view this is realistic as a tribe/nation is most likely to have extra support when fighting home and invasion army should always be bigger than normal defence force. (As Sun Tsu counted; You need force 6 times stronger to take out city.) And futher more historical side of it is that the armies have one general to represent the whole staff. Roman legion alone had 6 higher officers. Having two generals per invasion balances that bit more. And the battles for cities should be big; there should be massive tactical play, reserves, lost flanks, won flanks, specialized units and moves... So it brings more to game.

But I do have noticed that theres imbalance between major and minor nations. As the minor nations are keeping their army home and major nations have army per 4 provinces. So it is easyer to take on major nation; I have actually taken 1 nation with 4 provinces in one turn just with autoresolve. The AI also fails to use two army tactic and because of that it is bound to fail if it plays aggressively. For example; Many people have reported that Rome and Carthage get beaten by minor nations in their campaings. In my campaing with the egyptians, I was aware of this so I planned to attack Seleutics, Carthage and then Rome. (Instead of the smaller african/arabian around me.) But Libyans took out Carthage before I managed to sail there. Rome was tied with Etrucians so I took out Italian/Roman provinces. And the fight vs. Seleucids was not decided in Antioch but on the way there; So Seleutics lost their home defence advance because they rushed to save Petra.

To be honest; The hardest fights I had was vs. Galatians. (Celtic Minor Nation in Turkey.) They Raided 2-3 of my provices and succesfully defended against two 1 stack attacks from me. I was forced to negotiate peace in eastern fronts so I free up armies to take them. But thinking it again from historical perspective; I actually repeated history and I, the farao, now have deep respect for galatian swordsmen.

I think one thing that lacks in the game is the sheer advantages big nations have; Like; Why am I restricted to hire stone age slinger in turkey when I own 1/4 of the known world. There is no concept of what is supply line and how armies assemple. Futher more; Who is the god like figure that says I can only have 20 units in my army and each unit has certain number of men? I think the decider for that should be the king and his money. Just because I want to darken my skies with cheap archers and have full line of spearmen in front of them; It shouldnt mean that I cant put cav that makes the ground shake in same army; So that needs to fixed. At this point when army of egypt sails to carthage; The garthagenians laugh. It should be more like "who put that island there and why is it full of catapults and soldiers." and "This aint a dust storm; It is just that the enemy cav is moving towards us and the wind is behind them". I dont know how to futher describe what is epic battle. But I feel that we are now conquerign rome by winning few skrismishes.

I'd also add availability of special units (Like Karian axemen, Galatian Swordsmen, Spartan hoplites, Scynthian cavarly...) to be available to factions only if the faction holds their home provice. But I'd losen it up so you can assemple those units all around your empire. (The soldiers move where they are called to; The generals dont come to their homes and ask them.)

It's also very restricted of what kind of units I can have as King; Why cant I say that my armies vield chainmail, round-shields, axes and javelins. Why cant my light cav carry bow? why cant my Nubians wear armor? I think there should be a way to implement military reforms; mayby trought science or smt.

So basically, make the game bigger.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Being able to customize an army would be an exploitable feature for a player. I seriously doubt the AI is capable of figuring out what innovations to incorporate into its armies to defeat a particular foe. Besides, that's what mercs are for....you want longbow archers---visit Crete; you want horse archers---visit the Steppes; you want hoplites---visit Laconia.....etc, etc, etc.....