Shouldn't armies die out like Generals?

**Colovion** · 06-27-2005, 21:53

Originally Posted by Centurion Officer

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** · 06-27-2005, 22:50

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.

**pezhetairoi** · 06-28-2005, 05:44

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** · 06-28-2005, 20:05

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.

**Virtute71** · 06-27-2005, 23:11

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** · 06-28-2005, 01:49

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** · 06-28-2005, 01:59

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 :)

**Colovion** · 06-28-2005, 22:42

Originally Posted by oaty

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.