Army upkeep. And other inaccuracies

[General Sultan V]

now, time to defeat the old popular myth

why did armies cost upkeeps in most previous Total war games/mods?

its one of the most blasphemous inaccuracies outrageously spread in RTW and its mods, that every single nation, Levying Armies and holding them costs money and upkeep

however. at those times. almost every Civilization in the world (save for The Kingdom of Macedon and some of its "successors") And the Roman Empire, Did not have a professional army system. I.E soldiers were not paid regular upkeeps, and were not standardized/provided their own equipment. war was a "Tradition" at those times. everyone bought his own equipment/robbed it. in greece armies were composed of armed citizenry, The warriors would buy their equipment and arms based on their wealth (the wealthier citizens bought more fancy and expensive equipment, Such as Linothrax armor) while the Poorer citizens bought the "Lower end" Equipment (no fancy stuff, zero-to-no armor, etc), in gaul the barbarian savages Fought in tribal style, every soldier bought/forged his Equipment, and travelled on groups (with the whole tribe). most the paesants came naked, with poor equipment, while the Richer Warrior class wore capes and armor, Wielded greater swords and helmets, since RTW2 will be semi-ETW/NTW/S2TW style (no clone armies most importantly) It would be vital to merge those units, in the previous RTW games/mods These units had to be seperated (because of the clone armies). in RSII for example, you could recruit a whole unit of "celtic light swordsmen" And "Celtic heavy swordsmen" And "celtic light spearmen" etc. whereas in real life this is inaccurate, they did not have a decimal system/cohesion. The rich class/poor fought together based on tribe, in RTW the rich class was depicted as "Chosen swordsmen". right now, We want to see what they really fought like, in a tribal warrior fighting "Group" you would see the warriors wielding spears and swords, mixed amongst the fewer rich who afforded great equipment. this whole thing is an example of most other militaries at the time, the greeks like I mentioned above, the numerous poor could'n afford the quality stuff unlike the rich ones, but they fought together. Therefor in RTW2. it would be accurate to actually see for example a unit of "Hoplites of Rhodes", You would see a herd of men with spears and shields, equipment varying amongst every soldier (Rich/poor/middle).

what do you think about this?

[Zimmy]

Yeah, my soldiers should be paying ME. -!!SARCASM!!

[General Sultan V]

no man.. you get it wrong. re-read post. i'm saying that no Professional systems were Introduced at those times save for the Roman Army, Others pretty much went to war willingly, buying their own equipment, and going out on a "big hunt". They did'n do official enlisting with their citizenships like the Romans did. and in process, you should'n pay to raise an army or even upkeep it. in greece it was a tradition to just pick up arms for a battle/war. then go back home after its over, training? they did their own training, equipment? they bought it. I don't know why the hell would there be an upkeep. The Achaemenids were the earliest empire in history to introduce some-what professional systems (logistics, decimals, cohesion, etc). other then that, The greeks under Phillip II And the Roman Republic/empire, the rest were just rag-tags and levies.

[Ichon]

Alot of what you say is true but I think you might be missing some of the larger points- levies were often only deployed for a single season which even on a monthly time scale is quite hard to show in TW as it takes 1 turn to form such a force, 1 turn to march and the next turn after a battle or siege all those levies would be dispersed.

Maybe TW could show such an effect by having half the xp gained carried over into the next year when levies are recalled but with such a rigid system what happens when an attack comes during planting or harvest seasons and the men are away fighting? There is a loss of income which upkeep represents. Personally I think alot of initial unit recruitment should be free and units recruited instantly if the timescale is any more than 2 turns per year but upkeep should certainly remain as it represent the loss income for the state and cost of supplying men who aren't living at their farm. The taxes those men already paid or city granaries might be tapped but however the food is sent and obtained has some cost. So far TW is just that- total war where the entire society is mobilized to war. Levies don't disperse or mutiny when away from their home region for decades.

It would be an interesting system to try and represent the nature of levies as non-permanent forces but I think most players would not like having to continually be raising armies. Militias are not that different from levies only that they usually represent a higher class of society and have more organized training so are a higher quality force. TW treats any raised forces as a professional army that can travel anywhere and be asked to do anything. So in that sense recruitment cost and upkeep are justified most of the time.

I would prefer a system where levies do actually begin suffering high attrition when outside of their home regions so within 2-3 turns they are basically useless and should be disbanded. However levies should be free to raise and have low upkeep. Militia should have a recruitment cost as the state did provide some things even if most of the militia brought their own equipment and slightly higher upkeep due to inspecting the equipment, regular training, and the loss of tax revenues when the citizens are away at war. Being victorious in war could see a small increase in tax revenue for a short time as the loot won far away enters the victors economy. That would be more realistic than sudden +1,000 or something after a close victory compared to +2,000 after a decisive victory. Militias could be sent further away from their home regions and serve longer than levies but eventually there would begin to be some problems keeping them in a war. I'd be satisfied if CA made militias begin to have higher attrition or morale problems after 8 turns out of their home region. That should be long enough for a short campaign but a long overseas war would requite constant reinforcements and basically simulate supply lines as new forces would have to be shipped to the war. Of course with low recruitment costs and relatively lower upkeep compared to professionals militias are still much cheaper for a war closer to home.

Professional armies arise when a state has to impose force far away for a lengthy period of time. High recruitment cost and relatively high upkeep but retain xp at a higher rate than militia or levies and can go on unlimited extended campaigns.

Mercenaries should have very high upfront recruitment costs most of the time but slightly lower upkeep than professionals to represent the mercenaries demanding more money upfront but also provide their own equipment and maintain it compared to a professional force and often the state doesn't have to pay anything if a mercenary dies where some professional armies did provide and at the very least had to pay for a dead soldiers replacement. Mercenaries should start with at minimum 1 xp but replenish more slowly than professional soldiers so if used badly it might be better to dismiss them and recruit a new group missing out on gained xp and potentially costing more if forced to recruit a new group very often due to the high upfront cost.

[ray243]

Alot of what you say is true but I think you might be missing some of the larger points- levies were often only deployed for a single season which even on a monthly time scale is quite hard to show in TW as it takes 1 turn to form such a force, 1 turn to march and the next turn after a battle or siege all those levies would be dispersed.

Maybe TW could show such an effect by having half the xp gained carried over into the next year when levies are recalled but with such a rigid system what happens when an attack comes during planting or harvest seasons and the men are away fighting? There is a loss of income which upkeep represents. Personally I think alot of initial unit recruitment should be free and units recruited instantly if the timescale is any more than 2 turns per year but upkeep should certainly remain as it represent the loss income for the state and cost of supplying men who aren't living at their farm. The taxes those men already paid or city granaries might be tapped but however the food is sent and obtained has some cost. So far TW is just that- total war where the entire society is mobilized to war. Levies don't disperse or mutiny when away from their home region for decades.

It would be an interesting system to try and represent the nature of levies as non-permanent forces but I think most players would not like having to continually be raising armies. Militias are not that different from levies only that they usually represent a higher class of society and have more organized training so are a higher quality force. TW treats any raised forces as a professional army that can travel anywhere and be asked to do anything. So in that sense recruitment cost and upkeep are justified most of the time.

I would prefer a system where levies do actually begin suffering high attrition when outside of their home regions so within 2-3 turns they are basically useless and should be disbanded. However levies should be free to raise and have low upkeep. Militia should have a recruitment cost as the state did provide some things even if most of the militia brought their own equipment and slightly higher upkeep due to inspecting the equipment, regular training, and the loss of tax revenues when the citizens are away at war. Being victorious in war could see a small increase in tax revenue for a short time as the loot won far away enters the victors economy. That would be more realistic than sudden +1,000 or something after a close victory compared to +2,000 after a decisive victory. Militias could be sent further away from their home regions and serve longer than levies but eventually there would begin to be some problems keeping them in a war. I'd be satisfied if CA made militias begin to have higher attrition or morale problems after 8 turns out of their home region. That should be long enough for a short campaign but a long overseas war would requite constant reinforcements and basically simulate supply lines as new forces would have to be shipped to the war. Of course with low recruitment costs and relatively lower upkeep compared to professionals militias are still much cheaper for a war closer to home.

Professional armies arise when a state has to impose force far away for a lengthy period of time. High recruitment cost and relatively high upkeep but retain xp at a higher rate than militia or levies and can go on unlimited extended campaigns.

Mercenaries should have very high upfront recruitment costs most of the time but slightly lower upkeep than professionals to represent the mercenaries demanding more money upfront but also provide their own equipment and maintain it compared to a professional force and often the state doesn't have to pay anything if a mercenary dies where some professional armies did provide and at the very least had to pay for a dead soldiers replacement. Mercenaries should start with at minimum 1 xp but replenish more slowly than professional soldiers so if used badly it might be better to dismiss them and recruit a new group missing out on gained xp and potentially costing more if forced to recruit a new group very often due to the high upfront cost.

Have you look at the problems the Romans faced when they first started to deploy their levy legions overseas during the Punic wars?

Most of the Roman veterans returning home lost their lands as a result of their long stay overseas. This eventually resulted in mass "unemployment". The Marian reforms was a direct result of all those landless but skilled veterans.

You can probably simulate this by having some sort of income penalty if you use deploy a levy based army to fight wars that are far away from the soldiers home.

[Ichon]

Have you look at the problems the Romans faced when they first started to deploy their levy legions overseas during the Punic wars?

Most of the Roman veterans returning home lost their lands as a result of their long stay overseas. This eventually resulted in mass "unemployment". The Marian reforms was a direct result of all those landless but skilled veterans.

You can probably simulate this by having some sort of income penalty if you use deploy a levy based army to fight wars that are far away from the soldiers home.

Romans had mandatory service for citizens and the socii but I am not sure those should be considered levies. More like militia as the service was known and regularly required. It would be a militia which has some training and better equipment compared to a levy which is always available but called upon less regularly than a militia.

That was partially what I was aiming at as not only Rome had that problem of levies/militias on long service but many states did and sought to use mercenaries or constituted small standing armies to get around it.

[ray243]

Romans had mandatory service for citizens and the socii but I am not sure those should be considered levies. More like militia as the service was known and regularly required. It would be a militia which has some training and better equipment compared to a levy which is always available but called upon less regularly than a militia.

That was partially what I was aiming at as not only Rome had that problem of levies/militias on long service but many states did and sought to use mercenaries or constituted small standing armies to get around it.

Exactly. While planning to build a defensive army won't be much of a problem for most players, they should experience a difficult challenge when they want to build an army meant for conquering the world.

Players cannot just go around conquering the whole without some planning first.

[HanSomPa]

It's obvious why Sultan... they add upkeep so the units would have a burden on the economy. In this sense, the economy limits your army. it's a gameplay thing.

[Anna_Gein]

I'm for all the accuracy possible but sometimes you must think about the gameplay.

Unless changes occur like what proposed Ichon upkeep is needed.

[apecallum]

Or it's a game and not a reflection of reality.

[Sir. Cunningham]

Raising or lowering the "upkeep" of troops depending on wether they are on campaign or not would simulate the high costs of waging a prolonged offensive war. This in turn will ensure that players have to think twice before attacking someone, having to make sure first that they have the economy to support a war lasting a certain period of time, and wether or not the economy is sufficiently strong to outlast that of your opponent during a prolonged war of attrition

I don't have a problem with this being ingame as it's a very real problem that all countries face in conflicts, and always has been.

[maximusdecimusm]

The way I see iit, the upkeep represents the drain on your economy of not having the 200 or so people that make up the unit making goods, trading or farming.

[daelin4]

Some portrayals in Total War games are not meant to be taken literally. I mean seeing one guy on a campaign map holding a flag also counts as another "outrageous inaccuracy", even though most of us know the real reason why CA did that.

As for army upkeep, I'd rather have less money spent for more units I retain, rather than training units and all of a sudden they disappear because it's no longer campaign season. I mean THAT's realistic.

[Lord Baal]

The upkeep is fine. But is basic and lame after a while. It works, but it could be better if besides the money you pay those guys you need to keep them supplied. See how the fact that the Battle of the Aegates Islands cut off Hamilcar of its supplies, thus ending the first Punic War and starting the decline of Carthage shaped the entire power balance of the Mediterranean. And I'm not even taking into account the fact that the battle was lost in part thanks to the Carthaginians ships being full loaded with supplies and replenishments for Hamilcar.

That, in current Total War games is impossible to reflect. Your forces, on a isolated island will keep receiving it's upkeep via teleporter perhaps? I don't know...

[Paragon]

Even if you don't give a soldier salary, every soldier (and his horses if he's a member of a cavalry unit) needs to be at the very least fed. Not to mention the part of the sackings that they keep for themselves and equipment maintenance, and the loss for your state at losing thousand of workers, be it peasants, minemen or whatever.

If the field was called "Unit salary" then it would be only a game breaking, instantly rejected idea, but if you forget about all the other costs an army demands, it also completely misses the cost armies and war meant for your faction.

As the Medieval II quotes put it, for war you need three things: money, money, and even more money.

[Lord Baal]

But having tons of money around means nothing if your troops don't get supplies, be it by a supply line, buying them locally or pillaging. Up to this day that hasn't been reflected in Total War, which is funny because those things are part of a Total War. The fact that they had food values for the units in the data files on Rome and Medieval 2 accounts that they had the intention to implement it at some length, but perhaps didn't have the time.

[Hoki]

If you want to stay historically accurate then also allow the levying of troops, and then desertion, destruction, and rebellion when you fail to provision them / pay them / deployed for too long.

[TR00PER7]

well this is very much the same thing with shogun 2.

Someone told me that the samurai didnt really fight in hole units of 100 samurai like in shogun 2, they were mixed with the ashigaura and fought alongside them and were armed with what ever weapon they could afford such as a yari, naginata, katana or No daichi.

I would prefer to see a more mixed armed types of units rather than having hundreds of identically armed soldiers all wielding the same sword, shield and armour.

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

You forget that you have to feed them and I guess of you want them to stay with you beyond the terms of their services they require some kind of compensation, so yes perhaps levies should have no upkeep if stationed in a home province, but for sure they need pay if campaigning. Would be a nice actually as it let's you have a standing army without having to go to war all the time.

[Ichon]

You forget that you have to feed them and I guess of you want them to stay with you beyond the terms of their services they require some kind of compensation, so yes perhaps levies should have no upkeep if stationed in a home province, but for sure they need pay if campaigning. Would be a nice actually as it let's you have a standing army without having to go to war all the time.

Depending on the time scale I could actually see 3 levels of pay. Free in city/regional structure, very small cost when patrolling regions as they need food, larger cost when on campaign outside home territories and greater chance of desertion/low morale the longer outside region they are raised from. So just successfully conquering a region doesn't calm them as they are still away from their families and already owned land.

Levies could be applied to many different state types.

Militias would be a step above and require more organization at the state level and cost a bit more but also patrol regions with no higher costs and last longer on foreign campaigns but still eventually have same problems as levies with their 3rd cost option being the choice to pay them a lump sum on campaign when their morale/attrition begins to grow basically raising their cost equivalent to a professional military.