Suggestion - Soldier pool

[JaM]

One thing that i really missed in all Total War games, even though it was present there all the time, is introduction of soldier pools. Every country has limited amount of men capable serving in the army. Each time you recruit new unit, that pool decreases. What is missing though, is ability to keep the experience once disbanded - there should be certain level of military experience your populace has, each time you disband experienced unit, your average experience level should go up a bit, while it should automatically decrease over time (due to people dying naturally..)

It should be possible to increase that overall experience of men, by building certain buildings, also any ancient sports should benefit to that too (archery,horsemanship, javelin throwing etc..)

[boxleitnerb]

I don't think that the amount of troops you could recruit in previous TW games was excessive in relation to the (historically accurate) population. During the height of the Roman Empire, its population was about 50 million. Even if you had 50 full stacks with 4000 men each (in Rome 1 for instance) that would account for only 200,000 men - 1/250 of the population.

[complete noob:(]

I'm fine with it.

@boxleitnerb - One thing you are forgetting is that with Rome 1, it was impossible to get 50 million people in your empire. So everything was reduced. If anything, they need to raise the minimum number of population required to train troops (I believe it was 4 or 6 hundred in Rome 1)

[boxleitnerb]

Honestly I did ignore the amount of people in a settlement in Rome 1 as it was waaaay off. But the numbers should match in Rome 2, then.

[Princeps]

The armies in TW have never been as large as they were in reality. But their impact was even greater. Recruitment was never a simple matter of able bodied man = a soldier. Often recruitment was difficult and thus manpower was scarce.

So yes. Manpower limit is an absolute must have in a total war game. Period.

[JaM]

The armies in TW have never been as large as they were in reality. But their impact was even greater. Recruitment was never a simple matter of able bodied man = a soldier. Often recruitment was difficult and thus manpower was scarce.

So yes. Manpower limit is an absolute must have in a total war game. Period.

everything depends on system you choose. There must be some limitation to manpower, otherwise player can just spam units without ever worrying about consequences. Adding experience to that pool would just allow you to use similar strategies as those really used - disbanding troops after campaign, promote people to train with weapons (like English Kings did with archery for example...), or even have standardized training that every citizen have to pass.. it would just add more strategic depth to campaign mode, that would actually make sense..

[DaVinci]

everything depends on system you choose. There must be some limitation to manpower, otherwise player can just spam units without ever worrying about consequences. Adding experience to that pool would just allow you to use similar strategies as those really used - disbanding troops after campaign, promote people to train with weapons (like English Kings did with archery for example...), or even have standardized training that every citizen have to pass.. it would just add more strategic depth to campaign mode, that would actually make sense..

Good idea, and if the AI can handle that, too, the better. As for me, it makes less sense if the human player plays his game apart from AI capabilities, we need a game where AI and human player has the same options (and AI actually uses them for their advantage; plus here and there a little extra as AI help), this as basis balance for the campaign mode, that would be the real step upwards for a (historical) strategy game.

[Gaius Marius Maximus]

i'am for that beautiful proposal +1

[Ticklestick]

Eh it kinda depends really. If you are carthage, basically your entire army is mercenaries, where would they go if you "disbanded" them? Back to their tribes, not hanging around in carthage. Depending on the era? Roman soldiers were lifers, at some points signing up even meant your children had to join the army when they came of age. This isn't even including the fact that half of rome's armies would be mercenaries as well. The only example where your example fits would be levies/militias. So it may make sense for the greek cities' levy pikeman and the barbarian factions but not much else. Professional soldiers would not be disbanded and re-instated in large numbers, and mercenaries would be long gone by the time you wanted to bring them up again.

It was closer to the case in medieval because of the feudal system. You pulled your peasants off their land and handed them a spear for a few months, then sent them back to the fields. This isn't really the case for the rome era outside of a couple factions. Oddly enough, the armies were much more "modern" during the roman empire than they were during the middle ages in their professionalism.

[JaM]

depends on Era, Romans didn't had all professional force from the start... Mercenaries could have its own pool of men, they have even now in RTW (limited mercenary units per province) - its all about detail... more you get on the background more depth game has.. it doesnt need to be game defining feature that would cause everybody to count every men...

[Ticklestick]

'Tis true, pre marian legions (hastati/principes/velites; triarii were mostly career soldiers) were drafted for a year at a time, although many of them would rejoin every year. And I'm all for depth, I just don't think the feature really belongs in this era. The Romans/Armenians/Seleucids/Ptolemies/Macedonians/Spartans (if they are in anyway)/Pontus all relied heavily on a large core of professional soldiers, with carthage nearly entirely mercenary. It would pretty much only suit "barbarian" factions and some of the eastern ones like Parthia. I'm not entirely sure on scythia and sarmatia. This idea is much better suited to medieval, when at times your army was 80% levied peasants. Seasonal soldiers just weren't that popular in this time period for a lot of factions.

[DaVinci]

'Tis true, pre marian legions (hastati/principes/velites; triarii were mostly career soldiers) were drafted for a year at a time, although many of them would rejoin every year. And I'm all for depth, I just don't think the feature really belongs in this era. The Romans/Armenians/Seleucids/Ptolemies/Macedonians/Spartans (if they are in anyway)/Pontus all relied heavily on a large core of professional soldiers, with carthage nearly entirely mercenary. It would pretty much only suit "barbarian" factions and some of the eastern ones like Parthia. I'm not entirely sure on scythia and sarmatia. This idea is much better suited to medieval, when at times your army was 80% levied peasants. Seasonal soldiers just weren't that popular in this time period for a lot of factions.

Show us sources that back up your statement(s) of professional standing armies (in large number which instantly could commit a war-campaign, not skirmishes).

As to my knowledge, nearly no said faction had professional standing armies like you claim above, solely a few troops who guard (elites/bodyguards) leaders/nobles and garrison (few standing professional soldiers) some (important) settlements and especially border forts (but rare at the time, despite ie. the later limes), and else, real armies were always raised in that period as well for campaigns, thus they were militia soldiers.

Rome with its early legion system based on forced militia-time-service was rather an exception in that form, but other cultures had similar forms of (forced) militia-services (Greek cultures), besides that many cultures had just a warrior tradition and men trained anyway combat (outside of army organisation), more and/or less (ie. celtic and germanic tribes).

Romans first later had professional standing armies (standing legions), just as Rome began to be a real empire, and the need actually was amptly there (a standing army costs a lot of money, you know). And yes, the real rich cultures such as Carthage relied on mercenary-armies, which were then their standing armies.

[Ticklestick]

Get ready for a giant chunk of copy+paste, you asked for it.

"The Carthaginian army was a combination of warriors from numerous regions. Along with the core of 8,000 Libyans, 8,000 Iberians, 16,000 Gauls (8,000 were left at camp the day of battle) and around 5,500 Gaetulian infantry. Hannibal's cavalry also came from diverse backgrounds. He commanded 4,000 Numidian, 2,000 Iberian, 4,000 Gallic and 450 Liby-Phoenician cavalry. Finally, Hannibal had around 8,000 skirmishers consisting of Balearic slingers and mixed nationality spearmen, bringing Hannibal's army to a total of around 47,950."

So 8000 out of approximately 48000 soldiers were actually libyans (more or less carthaginians.)

There's more details on wikipedia about their military make-up, generally a very small well respected "native" army, as most of the citizens wealthy enough to afford high quality arms and armor were merchants, not soldiers.

Sparta speaks for itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom...iquity%29#Army For armenia, they were seriously professional and well equipped. Excellent metal workers and extremely well trained cavalry/archers/chariots you name it. A huge percent of the armenian military would be what we would consider "nobles" today.

The seleucids and ptolemies went to extreme lengths to import greek professional soldiers to man their phalanxes, as they felt the locals weren't up to the task. Eventually the ptolemies started including more natives in their core military, which led to revolts and their downfall.

" Despite this lack of manpower they would not allow native Egyptians to fight in the army proper. The natives would only serve in the navy or as police. This changed by the time of Raphia in 217 when the situation was dire for the Ptolemies."

-About the Seleucids

"There was a militia, at least in Syria. They were from the Greek cities who had no specific role within the regular army. We do not find the militias involved in the great campaigns before the general decline of the kingdom which occurred in the latter half of the second century BC."

Like the romans, they used tribal mercenaries for their auxiliaries:



"Due to the lack of Greeks in the lands of the Seleucid kingdom the use of allied, vassal and mercenary troops was great. They were often used as light and auxiliary troops, supplementing the phalanx and cavalry. Large amounts of native contingents fought at the Battle of Raphia in 217 BC. Among them were 10,000 Arab infantry, 5,000 Dahai, Carmanians and Cilicians."

Antigonid Macedon-

The king Phillip inherited nothing but a few bands of mercenaries, lost them to Pyrrhus, and for a short time was left with nothing but levies and his personal cavalry guard. By the time the infighting in greece was done, Perseus was able to finally recruit a professional army with ~10000 mercenaries to fight the romans. Keep in mind the main phalanx would always be a core of native macedonian professional soldiers if available. No successor state would trust the strength of a militia phalanx if he could avoid it. By the third macedonian war the main phalanx was ~29000 strong.

Pontus- I'm having a hard time really finding out too much about their military, but it was another successor state and we can assume it at least resembled the seleucid army. He was able to drive the romans all the way back into greece for a time, a campaign he would have been unable to launch with a levied army.

Did I leave anyone out?

[Condottiere 40K]

Small pool would encourage training of troops to elite level; large one for lots of cannon fodder.

[TheRomanRuler]

Small pool would encourage training of troops to elite level; large one for lots of cannon fodder.

Which is perfectly realistic. (think you meant to say so, but didn`t)

Very good idea, but it could decrease also becouse men are losing their fitness when not in hard duty.
Also it could be done in opposite way: Unit in army gain experience, at least Romans who constantly were training.

[Lord Dakier]

Unit pools would be a great addition should it be governed by state laws for every faction. Brings us a bit more realism and the player can't just spawn army after army that way.

[Markas]

I'm not too keen on a faction-wide pool but I liked the M:TW2 system on limited availability of troops per city/castle. It made sense and stopped you building stacks of knights over a few turns. Just one of the many features of M2 that has been disregarded.

[Ticklestick]

Figured I'd post a brief synopsis here: No military commander of sound mind would rely on levies during this time period. The seleucids and ptolemies only used them as a last resort around the time of raphia when they ran out of real soldiers, it caused the downfall of the ptolemies, and it was too late for the seleucids anyway. Macedon only raised the levies when it was down to literally the general's bodyguard left in the army. Rome didn't use them, the only members of the Spartan army's core were in it since they were 7 (with some exceptions for firstborn sons). Armenia had a longstanding, professional, and very well equipped military. Pontus was able to campaign across all of asia minor into greece, from what I can gather it would have been a professional force.

You have to realize how bad levies are. Most of them have never held a sword or worn armor, every levy you take out of a field hurts next year's harvest. Most of them aren't particularly motivated to stand and fight. They don't have time to train, they don't have good equipment, and in most situations could only be used for a short time before desertion or unrest started taking its toll. The "barbarians" didn't really have a choice, they didn't have the proper infrastructure to raise professional armies. Everyone who could field professional soldiers had to to compete with other nations' professional soldiers.

[DaVinci]

Ticklestick ... the problem is you're using the term 'professional' much too easy. The only professional soldiers in the period were mercenaries, and as i said the few (mainly elite) guards and garrisons. Professional means: Directly paid, all the time of their service (just as modern soldiers ... but this pay wasn't possible in the slightest, thus an army was paid with the permission to plunder, pillage and loot - but normally not in the own land where a standing/professional army would be positioned, thus i said: campaigns).
All other (non-fulltime) soldiers were raised for campaigns and not used as standing armies, they were farmers and citizens or whatever as per culture, even if they got military training and experience as per culture and its military organisation, which usually was built on a militia system (despite the said exceptions ie. Carthage with very few militias). And, a militia soldier was not automatically a so-called levy, if you see 'levy' equal to inexperienced coward who runs away in a battle.

Now, same theme from mere sociocultural aspects: You didn't show a single source that brings evidence for professional standing armies ... perhaps you don't understand what 'standing army' means? This is: Unlimited service in the army until the guy would die or gets his kind of pension due to age and time of service ... a member of a standing army is (and was) a fulltime-soldier. Despite the mercenary warrior and the few guards/garrisons, all other soldiers went home to their families after a campaign or were rewarded with a new home or simply took it from their enemies, and then worked for their usual life as farmers andwhatnot, until their leader would call them back to arms for a campaign, and they came if they were loyal enough (and usually it was traditional duty to serve as soldier, as militia soldier). Got it now, what is meant? Probably not. Just check out the societies of the periods, and you'll understand - these guys were peasants/farmers/fishers, some hunters, some other manual workers (buildings, metal etc.), few traders/merchants, few lesser nobles and still less rich nobles, and else many slaves, and then there were mercenaries (which were as well mainly complete normal guys who weren't able to afford a usual life and thus chose to be a mercenary/soldier, and few of them probably due to hunger for adventures) and few fulltime-soldiers. What do you think ie. Alexanders army was consisted of (from which the successor states generated)?

Back to topic: An according kind of soldier/recruitment pool is very fitting as well for the 'Rome' period. People who don't understand this just need some proper history lessons

[Rex Germanius]

Ticklestick ... the problem is you're using the term 'professional' much too easy. The only professional soldiers in the period were mercenaries, and as i said the few (mainly elite) guards and garrisons. Professional means: Directly paid, all the time of their service (just as modern soldiers ... but this pay wasn't possible in the slightest, thus an army was paid with the permission to plunder, pillage and loot - but normally not in the own land where a standing/professional army would be positioned, thus i said: campaigns).
All other (non-fulltime) soldiers were raised for campaigns and not used as standing armies, they were farmers and citizens or whatever as per culture, even if they got military training and experience as per culture and its military organisation, which usually was built on a militia system (despite the said exceptions ie. Carthage with very few militias). And, a militia soldier was not automatically a so-called levy, if you see 'levy' equal to inexperienced coward who runs away in a battle.

Now, same theme from mere sociocultural aspects: You didn't show a single source that brings evidence for professional standing armies ... perhaps you don't understand what 'standing army' means? This is: Unlimited service in the army until the guy would die or gets his kind of pension due to age and time of service ... a member of a standing army is (and was) a fulltime-soldier. Despite the mercenary warrior and the few guards/garrisons, all other soldiers went home to their families after a campaign or were rewarded with a new home or simply took it from their enemies, and then worked for their usual life as farmers andwhatnot, until their leader would call them back to arms for a campaign, and they came if they were loyal enough (and usually it was traditional duty to serve as soldier, as militia soldier). Got it now, what is meant? Probably not. Just check out the societies of the periods, and you'll understand - these guys were peasants/farmers/fishers, some hunters, some other manual workers (buildings, metal etc.), few traders/merchants, few lesser nobles and still less rich nobles, and else many slaves, and then there were mercenaries (which were as well mainly complete normal guys who weren't able to afford a usual life and thus chose to be a mercenary/soldier, and few of them probably due to hunger for adventures) and few fulltime-soldiers. What do you think ie. Alexanders army was consisted of (from which the successor states generated)?

Back to topic: An according kind of soldier/recruitment pool is very fitting as well for the 'Rome' period. People who don't understand this just need some proper history lessons

Correct. And the Diadochi heavily relied on mercenaries in the short period following Alexander's death. Hellenes and some natives were awarded land grants, klerochoi, in exchange for part-time military service, thus providing a "non-professional" core for successor armies.

A revision of the M2TW unit limits is in order for Rome II. Otherwise, some players will just spam Principes.