Army Decimation

**fnpdestroyer** · February 10, 2015, 07:38 AM

Wondering how do people feel about the decimation ability?

While historically it did happen was quite rare and I haven't heard of any cases in the late Roman empire. Also while non roman armies may have been punished by their commanders there was no set tradition of killing 1 in 10, at least that I am aware of. Regardless for what faction it really should be a rare ability not something the player is forced into using every other turn.

Something that would make a lot more sense would be a pay troops option, where you pay money for increased integrity. Paying out bonuses is a very common way in which generals/Emperors would buy loyalty and keep high morale among their soldiers, especially wile campaigning. This option would be easy to implement in game and I think would make a lot more sense. Obviously it can be done in loot, but it would be a nice option while on the defensive, or planning to occupy rather than sack cities. It just seems like this would be a far more historically authentic option and less extreme.

I know its only I game but some how I don't really think I would enjoy executing the men of my best armies. Paying them would be less dickish.

**Son of Horus** · February 10, 2015, 08:04 AM

Maybe rename it to "retire veterans" or something? If you can make it cost money (or perhaps a 1 turn increase to upkeep to represent giving the retirees a bit of money with which to set up shop - as well as a small growth boost), then armies which didn't historically decimate wouldn't need to - the effect would be the same, but . Hopefully there are trigger which are based on low integrity (i.e Integrity <75% means that you sugger -10% to looting and morale etc.)

**fnpdestroyer** · February 10, 2015, 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by Son of Horus

Maybe rename it to "retire veterans" or something? If you can make it cost money (or perhaps a 1 turn increase to upkeep to represent giving the retirees a bit of money with which to set up shop - as well as a small growth boost), then armies which didn't historically decimate wouldn't need to - the effect would be the same, but . Hopefully there are trigger which are based on low integrity (i.e Integrity <75% means that you sugger -10% to looting and morale etc.)

I suppose there is several ways in which you could do it. Maybe you could have 2 or 3 options, 1 costing money or short term increased upkeep, and maybe a punish army option like decimate. The only thing about retiring veterans, is how does that increase the rest of the army morale now that they have lost some of their more experienced soldiers? I suppose long term it may with the knowledge you will be released from the army at some point, although maybe a "give leave option" could work just as well, where leave is being rotated so your army isn't at full strength for a couple turns but have higher morale.

**Ecthelion** · February 11, 2015, 12:15 AM

I made a thread about this very topic in the official forums.

I proposed to replace the "Decimation" option with "Give Donative” and tweak the effects a little to reflect the change. Basically it would have the same positive effects, but the cost will be a lump sum of gold dependent on army size rather than the loss of 10% of your men.

Decimation is laughably anachronistic to the point of being insulting to the educated player-base.

The distribution of donatives (bonuses for the troops) was the standard “morale/loyalty reinforcement method of the period. Marcus Aurelius started the tradition upon his ascension and it was continued for the rest of the history of the Empire, even into the Byzantine era.

But as you might expect, CA completely ignore the suggestion.
They’re far more concerned with dumbing down their game and producing the “300” version of the period.

**sleepyx732** · February 11, 2015, 12:23 AM

I don't even know why people take these "historically accurate" threads seriously anymore, it should of been made quite obvious by now CA doesn't care for historical accuracy.

All I know is, if said ability was renamed to 'retire veterans', not nearly as many people would have a problem with it. Even if it was the same mechanic.

**Thesban The Great** · February 11, 2015, 01:15 AM

Originally Posted by sleepyx732

I don't even know why people take these "historically accurate" threads seriously anymore, it should of been made quite obvious by now CA doesn't care for historical accuracy.

All I know is, if said ability was renamed to 'retire veterans', not nearly as many people would have a problem with it. Even if it was the same mechanic.

Total war games aren't supposed to be 100% Historically accurate tho, so all the "historically accurate" threads that fine comb all the wrongs of the game are really silly. They make the game accurate to a degree so that it is playable and somewhat recognizable as a history based game.

**fnpdestroyer** · February 11, 2015, 02:08 AM

There's a difference between historical accuracy and being historically authentic. The game can't be accurate because your making new versions of history but it should be Authentic, where possible in combination with fun game play.

**Thesban The Great** · February 11, 2015, 02:24 AM

I understand that, i fully agree with that point. But to get back to the op, i think the Army decimation is a great feature as opposed to paying out the troops for a number of reasons:

it was a tactic used by the roman army to stop mutiny's and/or desertion which was a much more stern way of dealing with these kind of problems.
Paying out soldiers could work but it isn't as confronting as decimating 1 out of every 10th man so that in it's self makes a good mechanic and it gives the player more of a decision and some tactical depth

Now, the idea of "retiring veterans" is not very practical at all, why retire a certain number of veteran soldiers to boost morale? how is that boosting morale in anyway? if anything that would be more of a morale decline.

**fnpdestroyer** · February 11, 2015, 04:43 AM

Originally Posted by Thesban The Great

I understand that, i fully agree with that point. But to get back to the op, i think the Army decimation is a great feature as opposed to paying out the troops for a number of reasons:

it a tactic used by the roman army to stop mutiny's and/or desertion which was a much more stern way of dealing with these kind of problems.
Paying out soldiers could work but it isn't as confronting as decimating 1 out of every 10th man so that in it's self makes a good mechanic and it gives the player more of a decision and some tactical depth

Now, the idea of "retiring veterans" is not very practical at all, why retire a certain number of veteran soldiers to boost morale? how is that boosting morale in anyway? if anything that would be more of a morale decline.

Can you give any examples of it being used in the late Roman Empire, like during this time period 395- 470 ACE? Even when it was used its a pretty rare occurrence, I mean we are talking a handful of times over 700 years. Maybe it could be an option for the Roman factions, but for every faction in the game? I mean come on.

I also don't really find it confronting as in most cases your losses are replenished in 1 or 2 turns. It actually doesn't really hurt you. Having to pay 3k or something like that on the other hand could make it a tough decision.

**Thesban The Great** · February 11, 2015, 05:34 AM

It would seem that the last time it was used was in the early 1st century, now that's not at all to say that later roman legions didn't follow this disciplinary method into the late empire but that's up for speculation.
could i get a source for the information on ALL factions obtaining this?
Sure you could get men back but if you've got yourself an extremely experienced army and it needs to be decimated that is more than handing over sums of cash as you would lose experience in order to replenish soldiers .

**Nelfe** · February 11, 2015, 05:44 AM

The last recorded decimation was the decimation of a cohort of the III Augusta in 20 A.D, after a defeat against Tacfarinas. After, this punishment was no more mentionned, until the VIIth century where the emperor Maurice forbade it in his Strategikon. In between, there is no record of a decimation (but it does not mean that it was unemployed).

**Yayattasa** · February 11, 2015, 06:33 AM

Armies don't try to depose or elect leaders in Total War. Any such ideas lose some of their point thanks to that.
Retiring veterans was a way of actually making sure the legio wasn't THAT good, a way to make sure, in case of revolt, your legions could counter them.

**August** · February 11, 2015, 11:55 PM

Decimation was rare, so there's an option to use it rarely. Or a lot, if you want to be ahistorical? Seems like a solution.

**Tillo** · February 12, 2015, 04:25 AM

While the decimation option may not be historically accurate for this timeperiod or for all factions, i think it is a better option then 'give donative' or 'retire veterans'. The decimation option is independent from the players food or gold income and can therefore be used at any time, if the option would be to give a lump of money those factions and players with a lot of money wouldbe a big advantage as the donative could be used as a pre-battle boost to integrity. And if you need to wait 1-2 turns before the army is back at full strength it forces you to think about when to use it. If your army has low integrity and will have to face an enemy army soon you can increase the integrity (and therefore the morale of the army) but it may put you at a numerical disadvantage.
So while donatives may be more historically accurate (and i think CA knows this) the decimation mechanic is better for gameplay reasons.

**juancasilva** · May 16, 2017, 11:17 AM

Hi. I'm reading Maurice's Strategikon but I can't find the page where the emperor forbids the decimatio as a punishment (https://books.google.com.co/books?id...page&q&f=false). Even, in the chapter I, he writes that the decimation must be done. Could you tell me where in the book the emperor Maurice forbids the decimatio punishment? Thanks