New idea! Orders...

[Mikeus Caesar]

No, no, no, no, no!!! This would make the game even more unbalanced for the barbarian factions!!

[Count Belisarius]

No, no, no, no, no!!! This would make the game even more unbalanced for the barbarian factions!!

Yes, it would, but that was the way of the world in the time in which the game is set. It would make the game that much more realistic. Barbarian hordes had a much less sophisticated command hierarchy than civilized armies, especially the Romans. Therefore, civilized command and control is going to be better. Not that the barbarians didn't enjoy successes, and not that they didn't produce some great generals. I am referring to generalities. I think it's a great idea to adapt this concept into the game, or, if it is already present, to make it more pronounced.

[The Stranger]

i don't klnow if i would like it

[Productivity]

Add another factor that you can only see where your general is, and suddenly your general becomes far more important than just a heavy cav. unit.

Ie. you may have skirmishers out the front and suddenly they come under fire. But you don't have a clue from what. Are they under fire from other skirmishers, archers, ballistae, what? So you have to make a choice as to how you are going to get information.

[Lochar]

You know this could be a toggle like the camera on general only, each general has a Zone of control, as units stray past this they can have a tendancy to chase routing armies, run back to the zoc, or stand around picking their collective noses. Other than morale effects, I hadnt really noticed any difference to better generals, maybe a discipline type effect could be added. After all its easy to buy a unit of merceny and throw them away as cannon fodder here, but with a poor general they actually refuse to charge than line of pikes, it would add some spice.

I am not even sure how large scale battles were handled in this time period, were there bugles? flags? loud mouthed sargeants? But I think orders is a nice idea.

I was even thinking to go beyond this, and have messengers for ungoverned cities, so that nothing could be built unless the messenger got thru, or that un generalled units could be given a order, and until another general sent a messenger to them they would follow it out and not be able to be diverted. Even towns with governors would do their own thing depending on the type of governor there unless the heir or leader gives them a different directive. Sure we can turn on auto manage and sort of do the same thing, but if orders were all carried out by messengers, maybe sending assasns or a unit along a road to waylay one could cause some havoc, or maybe even not be able to deliver the message that your city is about to be sacked!

To be honest with diplomats, spys and whatnot, most players have ample time to see a enemy force approaching, it would make a little difference to have your 2 unit milita city now facing a full army that came out of nowhere.


I am sorry for diverting your idea somewhat but I got caught up too much one thing and it sorta branched into the other..:)

[Browning]

This would add just another tactical feature the AI would be unable to cope with. AI is helpless in battles even without it.

[Aetius the Last Roman]

Sounds like a good idea at first but there are too many issues with it:
1. How will the AI cope?
2. How are the barbarians affected?
3. Are the battles big enough to require such macro-organisation between the commanders and his units?
4. How annoying will this be for the player?
5. How would units meant to act cohesively (i.e. the phanlanx) act if some parts of the line refuses to move?

[Red Harvest]

Yes, it would, but that was the way of the world in the time in which the game is set. It would make the game that much more realistic. Barbarian hordes had a much less sophisticated command hierarchy than civilized armies, especially the Romans. Therefore, civilized command and control is going to be better. Not that the barbarians didn't enjoy successes, and not that they didn't produce some great generals. I am referring to generalities. I think it's a great idea to adapt this concept into the game, or, if it is already present, to make it more pronounced.

The barbarian armies were probably not as unsophisticated as some suggest. The "barbarians" used a war trumpet called the carnyx for issuing commands. They also tended to have standards. And they most certainly had tribal leaders and were fighting beside their relations and closely associated tribesmen. These weren't just large mobs. They formed up rather well at Telamon facing both ways to face two armies simultaneously--just the sort of situation in which many armies would instead falter, flee, or melt away. That's not a horde in action. Unfortunately the Celts/Gauls were not preserving their history in written form at the time, so we are forced to rely on cultures that did for our information about them.

And horse archer armies and light skirmisher types (some Iberians, Numidians, etc) might paradoxically prove to have some advantage since they tended to act as independent entities that would strike and withdraw without needing detailed control. It was a different fighting style. Where they would lack would be in full force coordination once their initial group orders were given.