Desertion?

[metatron]

How is EB simulating desertion in their armies? If you haven't thought of it, maybe it could work similar to a plague?

[AlhazenAl-Rashid]

Any standing field army should have its numbers trickle away if kept out for more than one turn. Nothing drastic, 10s perhaps spread about different units but certainly not 100s. If a single turn represents half a year, there would be plenty of desertion realistically, not to mention that any unit is never at 100% combat strength in the first place, even in garrison. Sickness, tardiness, punishment or confinement of soldiers, all sap away unit fighting strength. This could perhaps be even more if the army had, say, just suffered a humiliating defeat the previous turn. It seems the engine could certainly simulate this through a plague-like effect and some flashly text.

[khelvan]

EB isn't.

[Epistolary Richard]

Unfortunately the game system simply doesn't allow us to include this kind of feature as there's no command we can use to reduce a unit's size. If we simply renamed 'plague' as 'desertion' then we couldn't stop settlements from catching 'desertion' and having citizens 'desert' and it would all get very silly. Sorry.

[metatron]

Unfortunately the game system simply doesn't allow us to include this kind of feature as there's no command we can use to reduce a unit's size. If we simply renamed 'plague' as 'desertion' then we couldn't stop settlements from catching 'desertion' and having citizens 'desert' and it would all get very silly. Sorry.

Urban decay?

Aren't there modifiers to the chances of contacting plague? You could make it extremely unlikely and call it "gold rush" or something.

[bodidley]

Another problem with simultating desertion with the RTW engine is that the movement speeds are relative low, so you might lose half your army to desertion when trying to get to the other side of Gaul! Also, there is no way to measure what the morale of the army is in the field, so an army might be winning battle after battle and sustaining few casualties, while another army is heavily outnumbered and far away from the nearest friendly base, and both armies would suffer the same levels of desertion.

[AlhazenAl-Rashid]

you might lose half your army to desertion when trying to get to the other side of Gaul!

What's wrong with that? It was quite a feat that Caesar's men followed him as long as they did.

[bodidley]

Think of it this way: where would they go? Any army with any kind of discipline at all can travel a few hundred miles and put up a fight without completely falling apart. It is many years long campaigns that wither away at the morale and "attendance" of an army.

[AlhazenAl-Rashid]

I disagree completely, especially before the institution of a standing professional army that Marius created, and even moreso with cultures that did not, perhaps, have the discipline of Roman soldiers. Most fighting men don't want to be there in the first place, and its easy to slip away.

[bodidley]

Caesar's campaign in Gaul took place after the Marian reforms, and there is more to desertion than just slipping away. If you are in a strange place, you don't speak the language at all, the local people may be hostile, you have little or no money, little means of feeding yourself, and a very slim chance of ever seeing home again, then desertion would be quite difficult. Temporary armies with less formal training would still take more time before desertion seriously sapped their ranks. There were many invasions of Italy by Celtic and Germanic peoples, for example, and those did not simply melt away to desertion. While desertion certainly was a problem, there would have to be a serious morale crisis for an army to lose half its ranks in a single campaign season.

[GoreBag]

It can be rationalised that the upkeep cost ties into the effort of maintaining a full-strength force, which would include small reinforcements due to desertion.

[Pyrros]

It can be rationalised that the upkeep cost ties into the effort of maintaining a full-strength force, which would include small reinforcements due to desertion.

It's not how the ancient (and even later) armies operated: no small reinforcements (few man), only the major ones - remember it requires lot of advanced management to do so: see some of reinforcements Alexander received etc. (exception - army in home, like the Roman one). But the troops were most likely dispersed among more experienced troops anyway.

And deserters were hunted for, but for army new large body of troops/mercenaries were enlisted (so no notification like "you are in the army now"). Same for later ages (great examples during 30 years war, where attrition was very high - desertion, diseases, underpayment, long sieges etc.)

[jerby]

EB is hard enough without your soldiers dieing automatically....

plus it wouldn't suit my neurotic compulsive behavior to attack with "perfect"(all men in them) units

[Steppe Merc]

I disagree completely, especially before the institution of a standing professional army that Marius created, and even moreso with cultures that did not, perhaps, have the discipline of Roman soldiers. Most fighting men don't want to be there in the first place, and its easy to slip away.

Wait, warriors didn't want to fight? Sure, some conscripts wouldn't want to, but it would be impossible to have only conscripts desert (if desertion was possible at all, which is isn't). Elites did not desert. Often they would just not show up, or rebel, but not desert.

[Ranika]

There were many invasions of Italy by Celtic and Germanic peoples, for example, and those did not simply melt away to desertion. While desertion certainly was a problem, there would have to be a serious morale crisis for an army to lose half its ranks in a single campaign season.

For Celts, in this case, it was mostly because they WANTED to be there. Celtic armies were dominated (during major conflicts) by a professional warrior class. Celtic society didn't have a 'caste' system though, one CHOSE to be a warrior; if a warrior didn't want to fight, there really isn't anything you can do to make him go. However, he'll miss out on pay, looting, and (more intensely cultural) benefits of his religion and society lauding on warriors.

Of course, the situation is wholely different in tribal wars or uprisings; these would largely be composed of a local warrior class (rather than an army of professional warriors from all over a confederacy or kingdom; so, that is, not enough to actually make an army) that would be mustering non-warriors ('warbands', essentially) to combat. Even then, those not genuinely in the warrior class could still not be forced to go and fight, though there was a great deal of prestige and the like associated with it. However, desertion in this case is a fair option; one isn't really far from home, and one understands the local culture enough to get back home or to a friendly place, if they really want to get away.

The other exception is Celtic mercenaries. These came in two stripes; dedicated professionals (like the Gaesatae, and some more high-profile Galatian mercenaries) who often took blood oaths and all manner of rituals symbolizing their devotion to the cause of their employer, and those warriors who were simply looking to make money, or had little concern for their former tribe or kingdom's cause(s), and were more interested in making themselves rich.

In the first case, desertion is almost out of the question. Such mercenaries tended to give remarkable account of themselves for both bravery and devotion. Such men were extremely moralistic and probably very religious (and Celtic religion, as we understand it, was not very foregiving of those who break oathes or agreements unprovoked; such people are often trampled underfoot and stamped into the ground until they are dead and body utterly broken, or strangled and beaten to death while simultaneously being disembowled).

In the second case, desertion is rampant. While Celtic mercenaries of this type were rightly famed for an amount of skill, ferocity, and readiness to fight, they were completely undevoted, and really didn't give a damn for anyone's 'cause' or purpose; they were present to make money. If they thought a situation was turned against them; that failure was imminent, they would abandon immediately. As said; they were present to make money. Money cannot be spent if one is dead.

The thing is, due to their scruples, the first type were not that openly available (and in EB, this will be represented; such 'mercenaries' will only be available to factions with whom they would concievably deal; that is, factions with goals or morals in line with what they believed {to the best of what we can preen from history}). As such, the second type were far more common. They were also probably a lot cheaper, and a hell of a lot more plentiful. Now, that type, will be like 'vanilla' mercenaries; open to anyone in the region.



Sorry, just saw this as a long set up to babble about some feature of the game that has already been extrapolated upon. Anyway, of desertion; I think it'd be needless even if we could do it. Such as it is already, whole armies get utterly wiped out, and countless more people die (percentage wise) than almost ever really happened; the sheer number that die in battle should easily make up for a lack of desertion (since prisoners and such can't be taken on this engine for some reason, and routers also die too easily). Also, desertion shouldn't really be that major of a factor for a campaigning army anyway; reinforcements could often accompany supply trains (which almost every faction used except perhaps the Germans; they had a great knack for foraging, but Britons foraged a great deal too, and they kept supply trains just in case, plus to keep bringing in more men to fight, so, I don't know if Germans did the same or not). Aside from catastraphobic desertion linked with a disasterous failure (which is simulated anyway, as mentioned, with huge numbers of routers killed and disappearing), it just doesn't seem like it should be a major factor in the game, especially considering the armies aren't too scale; a real army with maybe a handful of deserters wouldn't really show up translated into the game's scale.

[the_handsome_viking]

I suppose the more realistic you try to get the game the more layers of complexity you throw upon it.

This idea seems pretty cool, it would also be cool if less or no men deserted the army if the general you had incharge of the army was really charismatic and famous whereas a lazy and cowardly imbecile of a general who had a reputation for getting drunk and eating everyones rations, would make men desret him really quickly.

[jerby]

a general who had a reputation for getting drunk and eating everyones rations.

1 man...10.000-men-rations....I'm not in the mood for math, but luckily this is to obvious to calculate.

[Jebus]

10.00-men

Seems like a pretty pathetic army to me...

Polish?

[the_handsome_viking]

1 man...10.00-men-rations....I'm not in the mood for math, but luckily this is to obvious to calculate.

= 1 fat man

[jerby]

Seems like a pretty pathetic army to me...

Polish?

whoops

[Malrubius]

This idea seems pretty cool, it would also be cool if less or no men deserted the army if the general you had incharge of the army was really charismatic and famous whereas a lazy and cowardly imbecile of a general who had a reputation for getting drunk and eating everyones rations, would make men desret him really quickly.

The thing you can do here is change the morale of the men serving that general, depending on his ability/reputation, or make it more difficult/easier for him to recruit men to his cause (represented by the cost to train new units).

[Steppe Merc]

Seems like a pretty pathetic army to me...

Polish?

Ha.