Limit cap on armies ?

[Dicer]

I had just read from a not so reliable sourse that atmied are limited and you must complete Senate missions to get mote army points I hope this is not true can anyone confirm this ?

[Heinz Guderian]

It is true. You have to build your reputation and power before you can field larger armies. problem?

[terryn]

Like I said, the TW roleplaying revolution begins.

Shall we label this period the "Mainstream Monstrosity"?

[Dan113112]

Like I said, the TW roleplaying revolution begins.

Shall we label this period the "Mainstream Monstrosity"?

Again, how is this mainstream? The endless tiny battles were unrealistic and annoying. This new system is actually more realistic. It's an abstraction of the manpower/arms available to a nation.

Yes, I don't want all the little skirmishes either, but the issue is being handle wrongly. Fixing how the AI handles its armies would be the correct way to handle this issue. Not capping everyone.

They sort of fixed it in ETW even. Enemy armies were often larger than in RTW. I imagine that CA has actually tried to fix the issue but unsuccessfully. So, this is their solution. Not to mention it's more accurate. I won't go as far as some and claim it's completely accurate, though. Like you I wish they would fix the issue but they might not be able to. I would have like a system similar to EU where you're limited to unit numbers. Not army numbers.

[Ringir]

I had just read from a not so reliable sourse that atmied are limited and you must complete Senate missions to get mote army points I hope this is not true can anyone confirm this ?

The Senate mission are only in the tutorial (for the "imperial points") but the cap is in the main game too. :/

[nomercysniper]

Its a good idea, fits historically as well.

- off topic\personal reference removed -

[Smiling Hetairoi]

Its a good idea, fits historically as well.

- off topic\personal reference removed -

Let's not overreact.

[Legion_IX]

Actually I like the cap. Less, but larger and more important battles, is the right decision in my opinion. I hated this kind of small ambushes especially against small rebel armies. If you have every turn 3 or 4 battles it's getting annoying very fast. People who want to have battles as many as possible can just use the battle-mod in the game, there is no reason to hyperinflate the strategic part.

[Arrow2daknee]

Unneeded troll pic removed. , but why?

[DogSoldierSPQR]

I also liked how CA implemented it that units cannot be recruited until a general is present in an army. That stops the little spammers being everywhere.

Less but far more bigger battles is the right direction to go. That senate stuff is in the tutorial thingy. Once you start the campaign for yourself, you are free to do what you want and your army cap is dependant on how many regions and client-states you have.

[Emperordh]

Its alot better to have cap, decisive battles that seal outcome of war and not endless worthless battles like prev. TW games.

[terryn]

Its alot better to have cap, decisive battles that seal outcome of war and not endless worthless battles like prev. TW games.

Yes, I don't want all the little skirmishes either, but the issue is being handle wrongly. Fixing how the AI handles its armies would be the correct way to handle this issue. Not capping everyone.

[DogSoldierSPQR]

Yes, I don't want all the little skirmishes either, but the issue is being handle wrongly. Fixing how the AI handles its armies would be the correct way to handle this issue. Not capping everyone.

Nah, the way CA did it is better. Capping armies just makes each individual army feel more special. One thing I hated was having so many armies that I actually never gave a crap about any of them except one main one.
Besides, this army cap is actually a very realistic feature. Wars back then weren't won with 10 battles. It was usually just one or two massive ones that sealed the deal. This is as close to realism as you can get in regards to the way the armies are done this time around.

[Emperordh]

Yes, I don't want all the little skirmishes either, but the issue is being handle wrongly. Fixing how the AI handles its armies would be the correct way to handle this issue. Not capping everyone.

Its seems to complicate to create perfect AI, so cap will seal the deal

[Onion Head]

The cap is a good thing IMO. An abstraction of the manpower available, depending faction size and apparently power.

[Heinz Guderian]

one of the reasons for Marius' reforms was they were running out of landed men so manpower was definately a factor early/mid republic.

[ashbery76]

Ancient armies where not divisional spearheads so realism and more important CA has the stats that most battles were auto resolved so less battles but more decisive ones.Seems logical good design in theory.

[Coleus]

When I first played RTW I was 19 years old, at uni and had loads of time on my hands to play all the niggly wee battles. Even then they were annoying.

Now that I'm older, with a family and a busy professional life, I welcome more infrequent but much more epic battles. I want to enjoy the time I have for gaming, not spend it sending four Hastati against rebel peasants in the corner of a map!

Good work with the army cap, CA. I'm sure other slightly older players will agree with my sentiments and experience.

[August]

I was under the impression limit is on the new "legions" not the actual number of figures on the map.

Besides, there always was a cap on number of armies you can have - it's called "upkeep"

[Tim_Ward]

It is not correct to say that the *only* way you can lift the army cap is by doing senate missions. The system will be similar to the prestige system in Shogun 2, so probably the primary way you'll increase the cap is by conquering land.