If the number of armies are limited how i am gona defend?

[SamueleD]

so what your saying is sam, when you combine both your navy and your field units, it's possible to have 40 units per army without having reinforcements? we need some verification on that

You mean if you put your army on the navy, as opposed to just be near the battle? So you would get 20 transport ships from the army and 20 military ships? I don't know, in a naval battle I guess you wouldn't have the transport ships, but if you use this army/navy to attack a land based army or a city you would get the 20 transport ships that should disembark and 20 military ships (which can also disembark?). Another possibility is that, if you simply walk your army in water it will build transport ships, if instead you load them on a fleet the units will be on the ships and will participate to boarding, but then what do you do with artillery and cavalry, and what if you have less then 20 ships? I think you are right, we need more info on the matter, it's a bit confusing.

[I2ain_2_Battle]

what i meant was.. we still dont know if your navy army, ballastic ramming ships etc.. will count towards your 20 unit cap .. so i think i understand it. (your navy minus transport ships) will count towards your reinforcement (20 extra slots) army. so if you had a navy, and 2 seperate field armies. you could potentially only fight one of them on the map in conjunction with your navy, if u wanted your navy to take part of the battle. If you did not want your navy to take part of the battle, then you could use the other field army as reinforcement. so either option you choose the max # of units will be 40. and you can only have 1 reinforcing army.

Not sure if this has been talked about, but in rome 2 you could have as many reinforcing armies as you wanted. sometimes i see 3-4 full stacks going into an army. i guess that feature will no longer be available in rome 2. =/ oh well

[SamueleD]

what i meant was.. we still dont know if your navy army, ballastic ramming ships etc.. will count towards your 20 unit cap .. so i think i understand it. (your navy minus transport ships) will count towards your reinforcement (20 extra slots) army. so if you had a navy, and 2 seperate field armies. you could potentially only fight one of them on the map in conjunction with your navy, if u wanted your navy to take part of the battle. If you did not want your navy to take part of the battle, then you could use the other field army as reinforcement. so either option you choose the max # of units will be 40. and you can only have 1 reinforcing army.

Not sure if this has been talked about, but in rome 2 you could have as many reinforcing armies as you wanted. sometimes i see 3-4 full stacks going into an army. i guess that feature will no longer be available in rome 2. =/ oh well

No no, I'm sure you'll be able to have has many reinforcing armies as can fit on the campaign map, but you'll control only 40 units.
As for the ships thing I really have no clue man.
By looking at the unit info that appears in the Nile battle when he mouses over a ship I have developped a theory. There are ship types like "Assault quinquireme" or "Missile Penteres" or "Artillery Penteres" or "Flagship octeres". The ship type defines the model of the ship, it's abilities, like ramming and also what kind of crew it can have; as an example the "Artillery Penteres" can have onagres or ballistas and the "Assault quadreme" and "Flagship octeres" can carry a unit of infantry, like a legionary cohort or a unit of egyptian infantry. I have no idea of how you can decide what unit will make up the ship's crew, I suppose it will be managed in the new army/fleet recruitment system. So basically the ship can be used as a military ship for fighting a naval battle with other ships or as a transport ship and disembark its crew, while becoming effectively useless for naval fights as it's empty (maybe you'll also be able to re-embark the crew on board). This idea is consistent with the tooltips of the battle (my main evidence), with the possibility of using ship crew for amphibious assaults and with the shared army/navy 40 units limit. An army, instead, when prompted to go on water, would basically build generic transport ship, useless for naval combat and only intended to be used to land troops.
Essentially we could see a separation between ship type and ship crew, which would be a great innovation. If I am correct this new system would give a lot of flexibility on what your navy is like and what kind of armament it carries.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Flagship Octeres tooltip compared to Egyptian Infantry tooltip, notice the same melee stats

Missile Penteres tooltip compared to Egyptian Archers tooltip

Artillery Penteres

Artillery Quinquireme

Assault Quadrireme

Edit: I've opened a thread on the subject here http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...ork-on-Rome-II as I was getting off-topic, but the subject seemed worth discussing.

[BigHairyMelon]

Where have they said you can only have one reinforcing army? In every other total war games you could have as many armies as you could fit in the little red square, on the battle you get to control 40 units and then when they die the other reinforcements walk in. Surely this is still the case unless CA have said differently.

[Armageddonn]

Ive done some reading and it seems its what Jack said, to stop us from spreading too fast, and to answer some other people, yes garrisons may be better but do you think they will stand against a well equipped army that has siege weapons, better armor, weapons,advanced traits experienced generals and more experience lvl? Yeah i don't think so too, i think we might be forced to keep 1 army of 20 units or 2 armies of 10 units to defend our realms or at least to help defend the cities since the garrisons will no be able to do it vs the army i posted, well i guess that might not be a big deal but i just hate spending upkeep for nothing i mean who knows when i will get attacked...

[torongill]

Ive done some reading and it seems its what Jack said, to stop us from spreading too fast, and to answer some other people, yes garrisons may be better but do you think they will stand against a well equipped army that has siege weapons, better armor, weapons,advanced traits experienced generals and more experience lvl? Yeah i don't think so too, i think we might be forced to keep 1 army of 20 units or 2 armies of 10 units to defend our realms or at least to help defend the cities since the garrisons will no be able to do it vs the army i posted, well i guess that might not be a big deal but i just hate spending upkeep for nothing i mean who knows when i will get attacked...

How often do you think you will be able to attack a town with an enemy army being too far away? Not until you start fighting bigger factions I'd say.

[D E C]

Well you can always rely on the city walls in case of siege... oh, but you don't have that anymore.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

Well, I guess you're going to have to think twice before invading somebody now (which is a good thing).

[nameless]

If the number of armies are limited how i am gonna defend a city , settlement or anything at all while my real armies are away conquering enemy cities? And yes i know that cities will have a garrison station there but we all know those units suck, so i am guessing i will be forced to keep one army only for defending and wasting upkeep on them while they just sit and do nothing?

In real life factions never sent out their entire army out onto the field. Kings will pledge armies to causes but they'll always keep a certain number behind to protect the Kingdom.

And Germany faced that issue in WWI and they solved the problem by forcing the Russians to surrender which allowed them to redeploy all available Eastern Divisions to the Western front to fight the Allies.

So in other words you're going to have to use diplomacy to secure your borders before moving out. IE. Allies in the east means you conquer westwards.

[Virtanen]

intelligently

[Armageddonn]

intelligently

Lets say i am playing as rome i have 4 armies and 2 of those are in Britania and 2 of them are in Egypt how on earth am i gona defend italy for example if i get attack by some barbarian tribe close by that has 2 armies or at least 1 but good one? am i i gona magically transport those 2 from Britannia or Egypt back, the only intelligent way i see here is to have 1 good army to protect your cities or if you grow bigger than 2,3,4 and so on...

[nameless]

Lets say i am playing as rome i have 4 armies and 2 of those are in Britania and 2 of them are in Egypt how on earth am i gona defend italy for example if i get attack by some barbarian tribe close by that has 2 armies or at least 1 but good one? am i i gona magically transport those 2 from Britannia or Egypt back, the only intelligent way i see here is to have 1 good army to protect your cities or if you grow bigger than 2,3,4 and so on...

I think this is proof that you're just looking to complain.

If you have 4 armies in total and split in Egypt and Britannia what in the world is going on with the dozens of nations between Rome - Egypt/Britannia?

Caesar didn't invade Britannia until he at least got a foothold in Gaul. Anyone can see that in order to take on Britannia you're going to have to have control over Gaul which would provide a huge manpower reserve to provide the necessary armies to do so.

[Armageddonn]

People this topic is not about how many units are in one army there are different topics for that please stay on what this topic is for.

[Armageddonn]

I think this is proof that you're just looking to complain.

If you have 4 armies in total and split in Egypt and Britannia what in the world is going on with the dozens of nations between Rome - Egypt/Britannia?

Caesar didn't invade Britannia until he at least got a foothold in Gaul. Anyone can see that in order to take on Britannia you're going to have to have control over Gaul which would provide a huge manpower reserve to provide the necessary armies to do so.

You realize it is just an example? Think those 2 are in Galia than, still they are far from Italy and will take at least 2-3 turns for them to get back to the closes roman city, how about if i get invaded in south Italy?

And no i am not making this to complain, i am just asking a question wich is important for everyone.

[nameless]

You realize it is just an example? Think those 2 are in Galia than, still they are far from Italy and will take at least 2-3 turns for them to get back to the closes roman city, how about if i get invaded in south Italy?

You realize how silly your example is? It's the same as those that complained about how the AI back in the old days would sail half way across the map to launch a damn naval invasion.

Your original example simply stated that you only had Rome and for some strange reason you sent all of your armies to Britannia and Egypt despite the fact that there are dozens of factions in between. You're not even specifying the conditions. You're just bluntly stating one thing and the other without even thinking.

Your second example is less silly but assuming you have armies in Gaul that means either you just started your invasion which means you're at the edge and moving in or you've already conquered Gaul. If you just started the invasion your armies are still within Rome or if you're in Gaul then that means you should be able to field more armies since you just conquered a massive swath of land.

And no i am not making this to complain, i am just asking a question wich is important for everyone.

Then be more specific because it's really just complaining without even thinking.

You complain about the enemy invading south Italy...well then either you're an idiot(In game terms mind you) for allowing a hostile faction having land in the South of Italy and moving in on the North when you haven't even secured it or you failed to have a fleet to protect your southern areas.

What's even more ridiculous in your arguments is that you haven't even accounted for the economics.

In real life this is what factions and kings had to deal with. They had to make alliances or gamble or shuffle troops around before making their ventures so deal with it. When Caesar invaded Britain he had to leave a legion or two behind to keep an eye on things there. To make sure the Germans didn't invade or the Gauls rebelled. When Sparatcus rebelled, the Senate had to recall legions from Greece to fight him and it was fortunate that they were already on their way back. When Caesar crossed the rubicon Pompey had zero legions on his end to defend Rome and was forced to flee to Greece where they were stationed.

When the Visigoths joined the Romans to fight Attila they left thousands of soldiers behind to keep the peace in their own lands.

Why wouldn't you have to constantly be concerned about the defense of your nation. Do you really want to be able to send every field army off on a foreign invasion without possible consequences? If you are insecure about the safety of your homeland then you should definitely need to defend it with a large army. If that means you are not able to go tearing off into foreign adventures then so be it. This is why playing a minor faction like Sparta or Athens will be difficult.

Clearly people just want arcade games. I honestly don't see this doing much of a difference aside from stopping the spamming of armies (which is clearly the intent on CA's part) since economics will still be tied in anyways.

[jtfjtfjtf]

Do we know how many armies a single region faction gets? It seems like there's going to be a lot of trading non capital regions during the game. Their garrisons probably aren't good enough to beat a full army in a field battle and the 1tpy means a lot of potential quick "deep strikes."

[SamueleD]

Do we know how many armies a single region faction gets? It seems like there's going to be a lot of trading non capital regions during the game. Their garrisons probably aren't good enough to beat a full army in a field battle and the 1tpy means a lot of potential quick "deep strikes."

Maybe if the city/town is your capital it gets a garrison buff. I also think that they will allow moving the capital this time or at least make it so that when you conquer all the province that includes your home region the provincial capital becomes your capital, so you get a singable capital.

[Eofor]

If that happens it's your own damn fault for not keeping an army close to home in case something like that happens.

[Tim_Ward]

Until we know how many armies you can recruit and the start and how many you can recruit with a fairly large empire, we won't know much about how this dilemma will play out.

[DeadlyPhoenix]

And that is what makes it tactically more interesting.

You have to be aware of your surroundings, your relations to the factions around you. If you think it's safe to have your lands army-free for a while, go ahead and go on a conquest with your armies.. just beware, your allies might be scheming against you already and seize the opportunity to invade you whilst your armies are off plundering.

This will be interesting in a multiplayer campaign.

Waiting for the right moment to strike