Should soldiers age and disband?

[visser300]

Becuase S2TW was in a short time-span (50 years) so I didnt raise this problem. But some fellow here says that the time frame of R2TW is 200 years so I believe that your armies should have some kind of mechanic that they would age and disband/die in late years and you have to recruit the new ones.

For example, each Roman must serve the army for 25 years. After 25 years, the whole units must disband and you must pay a lump sum for theit service. With this mechanic, players would not in a situation that they became a billionaire in late game and have no idea how to spend their money. Moreover, it would satisfy many history major here who want to play a game as real as possible.

[Jezza93]

WHAT?!?!?!

Im sorry mate but this is the worst idea I've ever read!
People like some micro-management,but down to the individual soldier level? Thats moronic. It would add nothing to the game but simply detract from it.

It also makes no sense. The Emperor or Consul paid very little attention to the individual soldier,that was done by the paymasters of each legion or auxiliary cohort and as we essentially play the national leader we shouldn't either.

[Adufka]

WHAT?!?!?!

Im sorry mate but this is the worst idea I've ever read!
People like some micro-management,but down to the individual soldier level? Thats moronic. It would add nothing to the game but simply detract from it.

It also makes no sense. The Emperor or Consul paid very little attention to the individual soldier,that was done by the paymasters of each legion or auxiliary cohort and as we essentially play the national leader we shouldn't either.

Maybe you didn't understand him...it's not bad idea..it will make game more difficult etc...basically Rome 2 should be for hardcore gamers...and by the way it's a strategy...but I don't think so CA will do that

[AngryTitusPullo]

Maybe you didn't understand him...it's not bad idea..it will make game more difficult etc...basically Rome 2 should be for hardcore gamers...and by the way it's a strategy...but I don't think so CA will do that

Game companies will not cater solely for hardcore gamers so Rome II should not be for them only. Ideas like this don't have to be in the game mechanic since player can simply by choice use it as a house rule themselves.

[Kuhndog]

Becuase S2TW was in a short time-span (50 years) so I didnt raise this problem. But some fellow here says that the time frame of R2TW is 200 years so I believe that your armies should have some kind of mechanic that they would age and disband/die in late years and you have to recruit the new ones.

For example, each Roman must serve the army for 25 years. After 25 years, the whole units must disband and you must pay a lump sum for theit service. With this mechanic, players would not in a situation that they became a billionaire in late game and have no idea how to spend their money. Moreover, it would satisfy many history major here who want to play a game as real as possible.

I'm guessing there were replacements as there is in any modern day army, so we could just add that to upkeep maybe?

[IGdood]

We assumed that this was all in the upkeep.

[AngryTitusPullo]

Soldiers may come and die. Some of old ages, some died gloriously in battles. Some retired to far away province. But the legions lives on!

Worst idea I have ever heard though if someone wants to make some own household rule then so be it. As part of the game mechanics strictly a no. A BIG no.

[Redcoat69]

Lol, well im a history major, and i find this proposition to be too much on the micro-management side. Sure, implementing historical accuracy in gameplay really provides a "cool" feeling into playing as a Roman Faction and it's unique managements of their armies; The basis of drowning this game with micro-management really would scare a bunch of casual players off.

[Surgeon]

I think the best way to really simulate such "aging" is to have experienced units slowly lose their promotions if they're left out of action for too long (though perhaps this feature has already made it into other TW games, don't remember). Other than that, just pretend that retired or dead soldiers are being replaced by new recruits without having to disband the entire unit.

[Jezza93]

I think the best way to really simulate such "aging" is to have experienced units slowly lose their promotions if they're left out of action for too long (though perhaps this feature has already made it into other TW games, don't remember). Other than that, just pretend that retired or dead soldiers are being replaced by new recruits without having to disband the entire unit.

I think you lose unit experience as they're replenished.

[Linnara]

Replacing each soldier after 20 to 30 years (turns) sounds tedious, impractical and like an overkill of realism. That would take out most of the fun of building armies from the game.

[Redcoat69]

What I think CA should add to the game is desertion in the ranks. Lets be honest, not everyone was happy to be guarding the frontier from "barbarians". It really didn't feel like a damn vacation to some of the men. (well, striking out those who were blood thirsty and loved to pillage and rape)

[AngryTitusPullo]

Not desertion but what can probably be done is that legions/units will loose their experience if have been stationary for a certain period of time (25 game years for example if we want to take the idea of roman military service.

This could be interpret either maybe the army lost much of fighting edges by staying inaction for some times or old legionaries retired and be replace by new recruits. From 25 years being stationary and without any military encounter the units will start loosing their experience back to 0 if this goes on for another 25 years for example.

[Ichon]

Not desertion but what can probably be done is that legions/units will loose their experience if have been stationary for a certain period of time (25 game years for example if we want to take the idea of roman military service.

This could be interpret either maybe the army lost much of fighting edges by staying inaction for some times or old legionaries retired and be replace by new recruits. From 25 years being stationary and without any military encounter the units will start loosing their experience back to 0 if this goes on for another 25 years for example.

It would be nice if the skill of the commander when units are replenish were reflected in the experience lost. Good commanders with the right skills might maintain veteran troops at high experience levels even while taking 50% replenishment. The noncoms/centurions are often the core of an army and even up to 80% replenishment might not destroy that structure though only if re-organized and motivated by a competent leader. Plenty of examples of great commanders taking wasted and demoralized soldiers and combining them with reinforcements to create elite units. Scipio taking the remnants of the 5th and 6th legions who survived Cannae and local Sicilian recruits to Africa and defeating Carthage or Caesar during the Gallic campaigns managed several retirements and replenishment's of his legions and by a combination of enticing some veterans to stay, organization, and training kept the quality high.

Similarly good commanders can keep veteran units at a peak of fitness for battle even over long periods of inaction but poor commanders can quickly ruin even good units.

It would be interesting conflict to put a good commander over fresh recruits and a lesser commander over veterans with additional potential that if the veterans require replenishment the lesser commander might weaken them more than otherwise.

As it stands in Shogun 2 a good commander over fresh troops and a lesser commander over veterans was almost always the best choice in terms of maximum efficiency.

[AngryTitusPullo]

It would be nice if the skill of the commander when units are replenish were reflected in the experience lost. Good commanders with the right skills might maintain veteran troops at high experience levels even while taking 50% replenishment. The noncoms/centurions are often the core of an army and even up to 80% replenishment might not destroy that structure though only if re-organized and motivated by a competent leader. Plenty of examples of great commanders taking wasted and demoralized soldiers and combining them with reinforcements to create elite units. Scipio taking the remnants of the 5th and 6th legions who survived Cannae and local Sicilian recruits to Africa and defeating Carthage or Caesar during the Gallic campaigns managed several retirements and replenishment's of his legions and by a combination of enticing some veterans to stay, organization, and training kept the quality high.

Similarly good commanders can keep veteran units at a peak of fitness for battle even over long periods of inaction but poor commanders can quickly ruin even good units.

It would be interesting conflict to put a good commander over fresh recruits and a lesser commander over veterans with additional potential that if the veterans require replenishment the lesser commander might weaken them more than otherwise.

As it stands in Shogun 2 a good commander over fresh troops and a lesser commander over veterans was almost always the best choice in terms of maximum efficiency.

Yes. They could be too but current TW only the name general attached to any army have actual effects via traits etc. I think legion legates usually take comment between 3-5 years if I'm not mistaken. But many TW games especially latest ones in Shogun/FOTS usually gives bad traits to generals who stay too long incity for some time so even the commander is a high star with good traits, staying idle too long will trigger bad traits which will be passed on the the army too.

[Ballacraine]

It would be nice if the skill of the commander when units are replenish were reflected in the experience lost. Good commanders with the right skills might maintain veteran troops at high experience levels even while taking 50% replenishment. The noncoms/centurions are often the core of an army and even up to 80% replenishment might not destroy that structure though only if re-organized and motivated by a competent leader. Plenty of examples of great commanders taking wasted and demoralized soldiers and combining them with reinforcements to create elite units. Scipio taking the remnants of the 5th and 6th legions who survived Cannae and local Sicilian recruits to Africa and defeating Carthage or Caesar during the Gallic campaigns managed several retirements and replenishment's of his legions and by a combination of enticing some veterans to stay, organization, and training kept the quality high.

Similarly good commanders can keep veteran units at a peak of fitness for battle even over long periods of inaction but poor commanders can quickly ruin even good units.

It would be interesting conflict to put a good commander over fresh recruits and a lesser commander over veterans with additional potential that if the veterans require replenishment the lesser commander might weaken them more than otherwise.

As it stands in Shogun 2 a good commander over fresh troops and a lesser commander over veterans was almost always the best choice in terms of maximum efficiency.

This would be more realistic & would add something to the game.

+ rep!

Balla.

[SinerAthin]

How fast is time going to move in Rome?

Are we going to have generals dying from old age as they just travel across the world?


I personally prefered Shogun 2, where my people didn't die left and right after just a few turns.


Also, it would be pointless. The upkeep you pay for your soldiers includes retraining, reqruitment, equipment & everything.

Leave the boring management specifics to the guy sitting at the desk.
Your job is throwing money at them, and their job is keeping your armies up and in fighting shape.

You don't want annoying beaurocrats pestering you with their troubles while you are busy conquering the world!

[The Unknown General]

How fast is time going to move in Rome?

Are we going to have generals dying from old age as they just travel across the world?


I personally prefered Shogun 2, where my people didn't die left and right after just a few turns.


Also, it would be pointless. The upkeep you pay for your soldiers includes retraining, reqruitment, equipment & everything.

Leave the boring management specifics to the guy sitting at the desk.
Your job is throwing money at them, and their job is keeping your armies up and in fighting shape.

You don't want annoying beaurocrats pestering you with their troubles while you are busy conquering the world!

[Futski]

I don't see why this should be implemented. If a soldier retires, then there's a replacement ready, in the same way as when you lose one due to combat

[saber]

Units shouldn't disband but their experience should slowly drop over time to reflect veteran soldiers retiring and to reflect deaths. You can even factor in how fast this experience drops as a function of how many turns it has been since a unit has been engaged in battle. A unit that is garrisoning a city for 15 years and hasn't seen combat will be less experienced than a unit having recently fought in a war.