Please bring back the recruitment style of the old Total War games! :(

[Massivemike23]

^Title

what do you guys think ?

[Riekopo]

I agree. It doesn't make sense to me that a character can raise an army like magic wherever he is. Mercenaries maybe, but not regular troops. Raising armies in cities made more sense to me.

[Sommo James]

I agree. It doesn't make sense to me that a character can raise an army like magic wherever he is. Mercenaries maybe, but not regular troops. Raising armies in cities made more sense to me.

They are raised in a city and then moved to the general commanding them without you to having to micromanage it. I like this feature.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

They are raised in a city and then moved to the general commanding them without you to having to micromanage it. I like this feature.

I always saw it as; "the general creates a drafting ground and trains up units at the location", which for me makes even more sense now that they also fortify the area now.

[Sheridan]

Well, yes, that would be really nice. Being able to recruit from both cities and (if a general is present) armies would give the player a lot more freedom. Hopefully they scrap the need of having a general in order to move units though, because that's what gives flexibility when you need to reinforce multiple places at once.

[craziii]

nah, the new way is better. mod the army limit higher and you are good to go. vanilla army # limit is stupidly small.

[Fredrin]

I'd like to see a solution that is somewhere between the old system and the new.

One possibility would be to allocate each General a Captain, who has a command cap of three stars and a limit to the number of troops under his command. This might solve the problem of needing to shuttle reinforcements to armies far out from recruiting provinces and having small forces to bolster the defence of vulnerable/recently conquered cities.

Perhaps limiting the distance they can travel from their parent army and various other debuffs to distinguish a Captain's force from a General's would be a good way of balancing it.

[Lamias]

One possibility would be to allocate each General a Captain, who has a command cap of three stars and a limit to the number of troops under his command. This might solve the problem of needing to shuttle reinforcements to armies far out from recruiting provinces and having small forces to bolster the defence of vulnerable/recently conquered cities.

Perhaps limiting the distance they can travel from their parent army and various other debuffs to distinguish a Captain's force from a General's would be a good way of balancing it.

This is a good idea.

[Linke]

I disagree, the new one needs some tweaking but I prefer it.

[Massivemike23]

I personally like the new one aswell but I still prefer the old one with having to merge manually instead of summoning from nowhere. It makes it easier and kinda arcady. I liked the way shogun 2 did it with having lots of small units travelling to the general when he was in the field.

[GoTW Kubee]

I prefer the old army and recruitment systems by far.

[DeVrie]

So do I.

[Humble Warrior]

The whole system at present is counter intuitive. It won`t be changed for Atilla though, way too late now, unless they hold the game back and they will not do that.

[CheesyFreak]

I would like some sort of mix between the two, that a fullstack army can only move around with a general, without general you can only move 5 units in one stack, this would make great as a raiding army or attacking a minor settlemen, or as an extra garrison force.

[PointOfViewGun]

The current system is much more sensible than the old one. It doesn't make sense to move entire armies without generals or make any kind of recruitment out of thin air. Perhaps they could add a lieutenant system to move troops around or use the governors to recruit units (but not be able to move them) but they certainly shouldn't go back to the old system.

I would like some sort of mix between the two, that a fullstack army can only move around with a general, without general you can only move 5 units in one stack, this would make great as a raiding army or attacking a minor settlemen, or as an extra garrison force.

And what would stop you from moving 4 5-unit armies at the same time?

[Symphony]

The current system is much more sensible than the old one. It doesn't make sense to move entire armies without generals or make any kind of recruitment out of thin air. Perhaps they could add a lieutenant system to move troops around or use the governors to recruit units (but not be able to move them) but they certainly shouldn't go back to the old system.

In essence, governors recruiting units in settlements IS the old system. I'm confused as to why you'd refer to the old system as "recruiting out of thin air" (unless I'm misunderstanding you); a municipal barracks system is logical, intuitive, and historical.

I also disagree that the old system, where a notional Captain would step forward, didn't make sense. In reality, it doesn't take a General to maneuver to contact; a decent general can do it better in several ways, and that's pretty well represented by the fact that generals add bonuses to stacks, and captains don't. The whole notion that field logistics was entirely dependent on the presence of one man or it all broke down is silly on the face of it.

Does it make any kind of sense that a settlement wouldn't raise whatever troops it could when faced with an approaching enemy force, whether a properly-titled general was present or not? Does it make any sense that those troops couldn't then move to another settlement at need; can you really picture one local leader sayign to another "sorry, I've got the troops to help you, but we don't have a general to move them"?

And what would stop you from moving 4 5-unit armies at the same time?

Why would that be problematic? I can think of several historical examples of large forces that were split for both maneuver and engagement, either deliberately or out of necessity. Sure, it's rarely ideal, but why would we need to prevent a player from making that mistake via a hard-coded restriction?

Let's ground ourselves back to why the change was originally made; it was made to correct the AI mechanical issue where the AI would constantly spam 2-unit stacks, rather than grouping them into full stacks. It's functional, but as a workaround, it's inelegant, illogical, and ham-handed...it creates at least as many problems as it solves.

[PointOfViewGun]

In essence, governors recruiting units in settlements IS the old system. I'm confused as to why you'd refer to the old system as "recruiting out of thin air" (unless I'm misunderstanding you); a municipal barracks system is logical, intuitive, and historical.

I also disagree that the old system, where a notional Captain would step forward, didn't make sense. In reality, it doesn't take a General to maneuver to contact; a decent general can do it better in several ways, and that's pretty well represented by the fact that generals add bonuses to stacks, and captains don't. The whole notion that field logistics was entirely dependent on the presence of one man or it all broke down is silly on the face of it.

Does it make any kind of sense that a settlement wouldn't raise whatever troops it could when faced with an approaching enemy force, whether a properly-titled general was present or not? Does it make any sense that those troops couldn't then move to another settlement at need; can you really picture one local leader sayign to another "sorry, I've got the troops to help you, but we don't have a general to move them"?

As far as I remember, recruitment was not tied to governors in cities in Rome I. You could recruit units regardless of whether you had a governor or not. So, I don't see how requiring generals or governors to recruit units is the old system. My understanding of recruitment is that it's done through leaders. For gameplay purposes, these can be governors or generals. Portraying how real recruitment is done would be a hell to play with. So, leaders, governors or generals, call on soldiers to duty. I saw recruiting from a city with no governor or general, as you could do in Rome I, as recruiting out of thin air.

Well, I can't think of any case where an army advanced without a general. Who would lead them? A captain? Doesn't he become the general of the army automatically if he's ordered to lead the army? That would be akin to creating a whole new general. If you're settlement is expecting an attack, then a leader would be created to rally the troops around (creating a new army with a general). Then that new army with its new leader would move to a new settlement. The governor/chieftain of the settlement would either ride with the troops or appoint a general/warlord to command the soldiers.

Why would that be problematic? I can think of several historical examples of large forces that were split for both maneuver and engagement, either deliberately or out of necessity. Sure, it's rarely ideal, but why would we need to prevent a player from making that mistake via a hard-coded restriction?

Let's ground ourselves back to why the change was originally made; it was made to correct the AI mechanical issue where the AI would constantly spam 2-unit stacks, rather than grouping them into full stacks. It's functional, but as a workaround, it's inelegant, illogical, and ham-handed...it creates at least as many problems as it solves.

You seem to have missed the point. If you can easily have 4 5-unit armies you're effectively advocating for armies without generals. Why beat around the bush? That's the point, unless he wants to keep the same army limit.

[Abdülmecid I]

Well, I can't think of any case where an army advanced without a general. Who would lead them? A captain? Doesn't he become the general of the army automatically if he's ordered to lead the army?

Of course, not. Captains and generals are just words used as a reference for army commanders, nobody had the office of general or captain in the Medterranean world during the Hellenistic era. The terminology helps the player at recognizing the difference between a dynasty member leading his forces and an officer, whose exact rank is not specified, who doesn't belong to the royal family. Fact is that the armies in TW games always needed a commander.

[Symphony]

As far as I remember, recruitment was not tied to governors in cities in Rome I. You could recruit units regardless of whether

Assuming you meant to finish that with "regardless of whether a governor is present", you couldn't by default....you had to select the option that let you manage un-governed cities, no different than building new buildings.

My understanding of recruitment is that it's done through leaders.

It is, but understand that in the real world, "leader' was not restricted to "a family member of a ruling house" (more on that below). Appoint some joe with decent administrative and persuasive skills to manage recruitment....you now have a "leader" doing it.

Well, I can't think of any case where an army advanced without a general. Who would lead them? A captain? Doesn't he become the general of the army automatically if he's ordered to lead the army? That would be akin to creating a whole new general.

Hibernian already handled this pretty well; "general" and "captain" are just abstractions for "the person in charge of this force for this period of time". Of course every force had some sort of chain of command...but it's a purely R2 (fantasy) convention that it was impossible to be that person unless you were a duly-titled-and-authorized member of a ruling house for your "faction"; in reality, armies most certainly mustered, maneuvered, and engaged without one of those people always having to be present. Whether you call them "captain" or "general" or "that dude in charge" is irrelevant (outside of any personal talent or charisma that person may have....which, again, is accounted for in a "general"'s bonuses).

[Aenima]

Well, I can't think of any case where an army advanced without a general. Who would lead them? A captain? Doesn't he become the general of the army automatically if he's ordered to lead the army? That would be akin to creating a whole new general. If you're settlement is expecting an attack, then a leader would be created to rally the troops around (creating a new army with a general). Then that new army with its new leader would move to a new settlement. The governor/chieftain of the settlement would either ride with the troops or appoint a general/warlord to command the soldiers.

Ever read, or heard of, Xenophon's Anabasis​?