Shouldn't armies die out like Generals?

[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

Use Your Forts Properly!!!!

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.