Idea: Tying the amount of food supplies to the amount of armies available.

**Eien** · May 23, 2013, 12:21 AM

This just popped on while i was playing Shogun 2, remember that annoying food requirement for upgrading your castle?

I wonder if it's possible to tie the creation of an army/navy to the said food supply instead of using it as a requirement for upgrading castles.

Since from what we know only generals can move their armies independently atm (or i may be wrong), this could well help with realism (A stack holds 1 unit of food until disbanded/destroyed to stimulate army rations), and limits the single unit/ship spam by the AI

Well, since it's already so late into development, i don't think this would be added into, but anyone is free to add on if they are any ideas about improving this.

**Sun Jetzu** · May 23, 2013, 12:25 AM

First response! And idk, it sounds like it would add to micro managing alot, even though it would be historical accurate. I think they took that feature away in fots.

**DJPenguin** · May 23, 2013, 12:27 AM

+1. And to add on..

I've always felt that forts/castles should be tied to per-turn expenses instead of food. So theoretically you could build a massive fort/castle at a town with a population of 1000 people and little to no access to "food", but you won't break even because of the upkeep/tax ratio and will need to support the castle off the income of other settlements. So ultimately instead of +2 to town trade (or whatever the bonus generally is) the castle would be a huge money sink and as many as can be afforded through taxes can be built.

**Remwr** · May 23, 2013, 12:29 AM

hmm that might be interesting. Though I personally would like more of a paradox like strategy for any fans of the Hearts of Iron, Europa U, or Victoria series

**Eien** · May 23, 2013, 12:34 AM

Well, what I am thinking of is, the food production buildings (farm etc) provides the an amount of food like in Shogun 2 (may have a few special areas that are fertile farmland to produce extra food), and every founding of a army or a navy fleet, deducts from that food supply. Thus making securing your own farmlands from raids very important, and limits as to how many armies/navies can walk the map at any time.

**Lieutenant Sharpe** · May 23, 2013, 12:53 AM

This is a pretty good idea. Food and supply trains should be a part of Rome 2. What is an army without its baggage train? This would making ambushing and logistics even cooler. Your army would have to have supply trains or could forage off the land, but if you begin to run out the army disbands. This way the enemy can't stack spam all over the place and amagically feed all their troops. Campaigns would be more realistics because you would have to have campaigning seasons and have winter quarters to house and feed your troops. Troops left in the snow would starve quickly.

**Rhaegar1** · May 23, 2013, 01:42 AM

Good idea but only when it is possible to import food stocks via trade. Else Egypt would be able to use more armies then Rome for example.

I think there's quit a big chance that CA also thought about this idea, considering the way they implemented food in Shogun II

**Petroniu** · May 23, 2013, 02:59 AM

Food was a great matter for military campaigns in the ancient time and not only but for some reason CA has not found a good way to represent that in a game. The S2 representation was I believe the first but it was far from good I would say.

**~~scottkjz~~** · May 23, 2013, 03:13 AM

I think they took that feature away in fots.

**Rhaegar1** · May 23, 2013, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by scottkjz

I think they took that feature away in fots.

They did? (never played it) why? I really liked that feature and I see great possibilities of using it to expand trading possibilities with other nations. Adding the need for food when recruiting an army would only add to realism and forces you to use your forces wisely, or expand towards more fertile regions (or trade with them)