Recruiting elites in EB2.

[The General]

HHHHMMMMM I seem to recall their being a lot of rich empires back then, I guess Rome was the only empire to armor their troops.

From 107BC onwards. Until that, the Roman troops paid for their own equipment, just as was the norm in those days - most realms of those days weren't organized states as we think of countries these days, but hierarchical systems of greater and lesser lords and the commonfolk.

So show up for battle but bring you own stuff, um ok.

Yes, that was the norm - using the Roman republic as an example, the requirement to bring certain armament with you on the campaigns was maintained by legislature

A professional army was not unheard of then, not all empires were composed of rabble, several empires could pay wages and for equipment.

A professional army was pretty unheard of, the prevalent system was the citizen militia/tribal warrior system, strenghtened by a warrior/noble class providing a well-armed/armoured/trained elite to the ruler. Sometimes rulers did maintain a mercenary-like, standing units, but these formed but a nucleus, and not the whole army.

Post-roman-empire standing armies started appearing in Western Europe in the 15th/16th Centuries as new systems started replacing the feudal armies of knights, men-at-arms and peasants, largely as an effort by rulers to strenghten the authority of the ruler/state over that of nobility/landowners.

If you can afford armor for a regular unit, then you can for your elites.

As said, most often rulers did not pay for the armament of their troops, and when they did, it was not for the massed citizen/farmer-militias recruited to bolster the ranks.

So I guess every time an elite is recruited from the normal rank and file, he had to keep his old gear? I think not, the government/empire issued it too him. No one would join the ranks of the elites if they had crappy gear.

Eh, what? We are still discussing militaries of the Antiquity, aren't we? A peasant would have had a really, really hard time trying to move up from his peasant-unit to the elite units of the nobility... Not only he most likely could not have afforded the equipment, he was of the wrong class (and that DID matter in the yesteryears!) - and I've my doubts as to whether there was even a possibility of climbing-the-ladder in the ancient armies... At least beyond your own unit.

If it was that way, then very few would come to fight, no one could afford armor. The leaders must have been oozing charisma to get poor people owning nothing to come and fight for them.

Ugh, wut?

The kings must've had an oozing charisma to get poorp people owning nothing to pay taxes. You do know rulers/states can force people? Also, sometimes people would want to join the armies, for example, if there was considerable loot to be gathered from the vanquished foe, or because they wanted to defend their homes and families from an invader...

Lots of soldiers took armor from the vanquished.

Gear does not equal status. The two do correlate (massed militias tended to have worse armament than rich nobles...duh), but a farmer clad in the best available armour of his day is still a farmer.

First off let me say I dont want to run around with all elites, if the recruitable number was limited I have no prob with it, but if I can afford 5 stacks of elites right now then I should be able to recruit them. Not recruit one stack, wait 3 seasons, recruit another, etc, etc. Sometimes it takes elites to beat the Romans. That way the Romans will overrun or weaken you to the extent of where you cant fight back. But if there is 300 elites available I should be able to recruit them.

... The system will be the same for everyone. No one is going to be spamming elitestacks if/when the system is implemented.

LOL ok. In ancient warfare yes, it was more so that way. But you cant apply that to todays armies, where its probably 80% soldier 20% equipment, armies of today are pretty much uniform worldwide.

I trust you haven't served in the military, hmh?

In modern warfare, most casualties are inflicted through indirect fire, artillery, bombers, missiles and suchlike, unless the other side is resorts to guerrilla warfare (say, because the opposing force is superior in numbers and/or equipment, as has been case in the US-versus-X conflicts) and hides in mountaneous or otherwise difficult terrain (Afghanistan?), or, worse still, within civilian residential areas (Iraq?).

And this does not include satellites and the information they provide, better optics, superior firepower, et cetera.

Of course, training does matter, but having served a year in the military, I can say within six months you can have effective infantry capable of cooperating with mechanised forces (I was a gunner in an infantry fighting vehicle) - hell, you could cut a month or two from that by more intensive training.

Bleh, a rather long rant, and probably filled with zounds of factual errors. Do correct them, people, please.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Post-roman-empire standing armies started appearing in Western Europe in the 15th/16th Centuries as new systems started replacing the feudal armies of knights, men-at-arms and peasants, largely as an effort by rulers to strenghten the authority of the ruler/state over that of nobility/landowners.

And that was mainly to quell the large numbers of disbanded mercenary bands (100 years war) who resorted to robbery, pillaging and ravaging the country side for a living. Only in the 17th century become such armies something much more than the military equivalent of a fire fighting corps; and even then it should be remembered that large portions of the various standing armies were still simply a bunch of enlisted mercenaries.

[Watchman]

True regular "national" armies as we have today didn't really start turning up before around... late 1600s, IIRC mah books. I recall reading the Brandenburgians (later better known as Prussians) were around the first to get the idea rolling for real. (We may also note that on the end of the Thirty Years' War several field armies - as per the norm of the day, mercenaries - went rogue and had to be destroyed by their former paymasters and/or the owners of the unlucky locales they were currently in; "now that it's peace, what are *we* going to do?")

[Constantius III]

True regular "national" armies as we have today didn't really start turning up before around... late 1600s, IIRC mah books. I recall reading the Brandenburgians (later better known as Prussians) were around the first to get the idea rolling for real. (We may also note that on the end of the Thirty Years' War several field armies - as per the norm of the day, mercenaries - went rogue and had to be destroyed by their former paymasters and/or the owners of the unlucky locales they were currently in; "now that it's peace, what are *we* going to do?")

Louisian state commission army probably fits in there too, and maybe the Swedish indelning system? Both were about roughly the same time as Friedrich Wilhelm...but yeah, second half of the 17th century.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am posting here because I agree with Cyclops that the guy sounds like a troll, a good one too. Also, if this is the next bartix I want to be in here so I can look back when this is linked in the distant future.

@future ACIN: Quick look behind you! Just kidding.

Also I want the EB team to reconsider the decision to have all Seleucid troops be on elephants, because now I can't afford being the Seleucid and I can't have full stacks of elite calvary anymore which is unrealistic because in the Seleucid empire there was a lot of land so 1 out of every 2.2 people had a horse out of necessity.

[Foot]

And what a lovely discussion this was. However, as it appears that we are heading down the road of needless insults, I think I'll just close this baby down.

Foot