Is there a way to disable the AOR system?

[Damocles]

There's two reasons I'd like to disable the AOR:

1) It makes conquest more difficult without having immediate access to 'Foreigner' troops that can be recruited from a recently conquered region. There's also the historical precedent that say, Rome, didn't recruit a bunch of Greek phalangites or hoplites into their field armies. Without the AOR system, you need to build a barracks, and then wait for the region to be assimilated before building troops in it.

2) The AOR units often don't make sense. For example, I'd rather fight a Seleucid Empire that was using the phalanx, or a Parthian Empire using horse archers, rather than hordes of Cilician pirates, Sogdian axemen and entirely made-up units like Akkadian hoplites.

I get there's a difference of opinion over this stuff. But I am not a Rome 2 modder. Would it be possible to turn off the whole AOR system (which is basically different towns in different regions giving recruitment options without needing a barracks) without breaking the whole mod?

[Dresden]

Didn't you already post about this same topic in the Auxiliaries thread and in the rosters opinion thread? I think we get it - you don't like AOR/Aux units. But, its one of the more popular features of the mod and I don't see it in any way as ahistorical. Armies used allied units and other recruitment tools all the time. Sometimes we only hear about the "core" units but they often made up a smaller percentage than you would expect.

If you want to remove it, you can simply delete all the entries in the AOR units military permissions table.

[Damocles]

Didn't you already post about this same topic in the Auxiliaries thread a few days ago? I get you don't like AOR/Aux units, but its one of the more popular features of the mod and I don't see it in any way as ahistorical. Armies used allied units and other recruitment tools all the time. Sometimes we only hear about the "core" units but they actually made up a smaller percentage than you would expect.

If you want to remove it, you can simply delete all the entries in the AOR units military permissions table.

The auxiliaries was posted about almost a month ago, and it was a different, albeit vaguely related, Rome-specific issue. The AOR system affects every faction. I'm just not sure what the AOR system is supposed to represent, that the mercenary system doesn't already.

It surprises me that you would create one amazingly great mechanic (the population system) and then insert another which fundamentally undermines it. A pragmatic player, who isn't self-handicapping themselves, will quickly have armies that are mostly comprised of AOR troops, since they tend to be similar cost, but more readily available in conquered regions, and of higher quality than their own faction levies.

It's not my intent to rag on you about what is 'historical' or not. It's doubly difficult because I'm not always sure what's mistakenly believed to be historical, or is set up for purely gameplay purposes (i.e, Roman reforms). But please don't take it as hostility, to note that some are way more ahistorical than others. Akkadian hoplites, for example. And it...kinda ruins your own carefully crafted factional narratives to have units like that. You expect to fight Phalanxes when fighting Successors, and horse archers when fighting Parthians, etc.

It's possible, playing as Rome, to have Sicily within the first 15 turns of the game. The Bruttian infantry you can get there (which while one of the only really historically accurate Italic units, besides the Tarentine Cavalry) are far superior to more expensive early Principes and Hastati. That's just one example of many.

95% of the factional army rosters are great and well balanced...Except the AOR units tend to make them samey. It doesn't matter what faction you have, if you're conquering in a certain part of the map, you'll soon be using truck-loads of those AOR units, unless you self handicap.

I play on V-Hard (even with the stupid, invisible CA AI bonuses), and I've never had to worry about the supply system. Because campaigns don't last long enough. I can always blitz through, picking up AOR units as I go.

Please don't take this as mindless criticism. There's simply a real dichotomy between the AOR system, and how the other fundamental mechanics of the mod have been designed.

Whether it's popular or not, I think any kind of reasoned and fair analysis will confirm that A) To the extent that an AOR-like system functioned in real life, mercenaries and allied factions/client state recruitment cover it, and B) it does not harmonize with the population assimilation or supply mechanics.

The population and supply mechanics seem clearly designed to encourage methodical, strategic wars of conquest, with building supply depots and assimilating new peoples, and the many ways to encourage different types of population. It must concern you, at least a tiny bit, that every new region has a nearly limitless pool of foreigner population to bulk out new armies with.

* Perhaps a possible fix is to limit the amount of units that can be recruited. From something like 9-10 as it is now, to 2-3.

* Another possible fix is to increase the quality of town garrisons, so that a stack of 20 levies won't overwhelm them.

* Another fix might be to make it without siege weapons, you are forced to spend a turn building equipment.

This might make it so at least the supply system is more of a factor.

I don't think I'm being entirely unfair to you, to point some of this stuff out. Especially when it's predicated on other design decisions being so great, that I wish they actually counted more.

[JCB206]

The auxiliaries was posted about almost a month ago, and it was a different, albeit vaguely related, Rome-specific issue. The AOR system affects every faction. I'm just not sure what the AOR system is supposed to represent, that the mercenary system doesn't already.

Did you finish reading that thread? The AOR represents allied troops that are not part of the merc system. They have lower upkeep and much lower morale.

It surprises me that you would create one amazingly great mechanic (the population system) and then insert another which fundamentally undermines it. A pragmatic player, who isn't self-handicapping themselves, will quickly have armies that are mostly comprised of AOR troops, since they tend to be similar cost, but more readily available in conquered regions, and of higher quality than their own faction levies.

Factions almost always kept equal numbers of allies with them. You can go read the Aux thread you may have not finished. I'll give another example: Alexander the Great crossed into Asia with men composed of Thracians, Peloponnese, Odyrsians, Triballians, Illyrians, Thessalians, Paeonian, Greek hoplites from the major cities, and of course his Macedonians. I can tell you now that they were not all mercenaries. Of the roughly 35,000 troops that made the crossing into Asia Minor, of which his Macedonians numbered about 15,000. About 25% of total force were pike phalanxs.

It's not my intent to rag on you about what is 'historical' or not.

Yeah, please don't.

It's doubly difficult because I'm not always sure what's mistakenly believed to be historical, or is set up for purely gameplay purposes (i.e, Roman reforms).

Its early for me, are you saying that the Roman reforms are not historical? While they didn't happen on a specific date, they did happen.

But please don't take it as hostility, to note that some are way more ahistorical than others. Akkadian hoplites, for example. And it...kinda ruins your own carefully crafted factional narratives to have units like that.

Akkadian? Maybe you misspelled it. The Akkadian Empire was way before our time frame. Arcadian maybe? As in the Arcadian league?

You expect to fight Phalanxes when fighting Successors, and horse archers when fighting Parthians, etc.

Successors? Battle of Magnesia: The Seleucid had 16,000 pikemen in an army of 50,000-70,000 men. I would hardly say a majority. Again half the troops in the Seleucid army were AOR allied units. (Don't much about the Parthians, except that they had mainly horse armies but they were much smaller in number than the infantry based armies they fought. Don't know how that would be portrayed.)

It's possible, playing as Rome, to have Sicily within the first 15 turns of the game. The Bruttian infantry you can get there (which while one of the only really historically accurate Italic units, besides the Tarentine Cavalry) are far superior to more expensive early Principes and Hastati. That's just one example of many.

So use them. The Romans did, but they are limited. Hannibal sent Hanno? to recruit among the Bruttians as allies (AOR). Roughly 20,000 of them were destroyed by the Romans before they reached Hannibal.

95% of the factional army rosters are great and well balanced...Except the AOR units tend to make them samey. It doesn't matter what faction you have, if you're conquering in a certain part of the map, you'll soon be using truck-loads of those AOR units, unless you self handicap.

IRL the only way to replace battlefield and attritional losses were by AOR troops. You didn't just build a barracks in a German province and recruit legionarries within a year or two.

I play on V-Hard (even with the stupid, invisible CA AI bonuses), and I've never had to worry about the supply system. Because campaigns don't last long enough. I can always blitz through, picking up AOR units as I go.

You are out smarting the AI. It happens. Use a movement reduction mod. if you are blitzing to fast and a 12-24 turns per year mod. Don't get caught in the long winter. Having city defenses SO strong that you are forced to siege would bring more out with the supply system.

[Damocles]

Did you finish reading that thread? The AOR represents allied troops that are not part of the merc system. They have lower upkeep and much lower morale.



Factions almost always kept equal numbers of allies with them. You can go read the Aux thread you may have not finished. I'll give another example: Alexander the Great crossed into Asia with men composed of Thracians, Peloponnese, Odyrsians, Triballians, Illyrians, Thessalians, Paeonian, Greek hoplites from the major cities, and of course his Macedonians. I can tell you now that they were not all mercenaries. Of the roughly 35,000 troops that made the crossing into Asia Minor, of which his Macedonians numbered about 15,000. About 25% of total force were pike phalanxs.



Yeah, please don't.



Its early for me, are you saying that the Roman reforms are not historical? While they didn't happen on a specific date, they did happen.



Akkadian? Maybe you misspelled it. The Akkadian Empire was way before our time frame. Arcadian maybe? As in the Arcadian league?



Successors? Battle of Magnesia: The Seleucid had 16,000 pikemen in an army of 50,000-70,000 men. I would hardly say a majority. Again half the troops in the Seleucid army were AOR allied units. (Don't much about the Parthians, except that they had mainly horse armies but they were much smaller in number than the infantry based armies they fought. Don't know how that would be portrayed.)



So use them. The Romans did, but they are limited. Hannibal sent Hanno? to recruit among the Bruttians as allies (AOR). Roughly 20,000 of them were destroyed by the Romans before they reached Hannibal.



IRL the only way to replace battlefield and attritional losses were by AOR troops. You didn't just build a barracks in a German province and recruit legionarries within a year or two.



You are out smarting the AI. It happens. Use a movement reduction mod. if you are blitzing to fast and a 12-24 turns per year mod. Don't get caught in the long winter. Having city defenses SO strong that you are forced to siege would bring more out with the supply system.

There are genuine Akkadian hoplites available for recruitment in Babylon. I was also surprised, since they're almost two thousand years late to the party.

I will allow you that if any faction in the game has a right to an AOR-like recruitment system, it would be the Seleucid Empire. But then, I believe the satrap system, which forces Seleucid satraps to go to war on your behalf, and lets you recruit from their territory, already perfectly represents the Seleucid Empire. The overwhelming core of their 'real' army (the one used to keep the satraps in line) were phalangites. Antiochus could theoretically call on huge numbers of troops, but his core military was only about ~20,000 strong at its peak, which is why the Romans defeated him as easily as they did.

After Magnesia, the Seleucids were no longer able to scare their satraps into line, whereupon their armies become very tiny.

To everything else you said: Mercenaries, recruiting from clients/satraps and co-factions in a war are more than sufficient to account for every example in history you could come up with. The Romans of course, relied on auxilla for their cavalry, skirmisher and archer needs. Their Italian heavy infantry socii fought exactly as their own units did. (Rome probably learned it from them, after being initially more influenced by the Etruscans, who were more influenced by the Greeks).

This definitely includes Alexander by the way. Some of those you named were in fact notoriously mercenary. His Thessalians took their pay and ditched him in what was probably the wisest course of action ever taken by a mercenary troop. They missed out on all the worst stuff Alexander put his army through.

But what alarms me the most is...are you under the impression that the Roman roster/reforms are in any way approximate to reality?

The OP used terms such as “historical precedent”, mentioned that Roman reforms are for gameplay reasons, mentions that Bruttian infantry and Taratine cavalry are the “only really historically accurate Italiac units” and so forth. Just posting what I have read to why these historical inaccuracies are not inaccurate at all. .

Oh wait. You are serious.

Well. I hate to burst your bubble, but the game designers have made it abundantly clear, in several debates on this subject, that they have made huge gameplay concessions. Namely, the Roman army starts about 40-100 years too late (its represented as it would've been prior to the Second Samnite Wars), and has units that didn't actually exist in the battle line (like rorarii). There's also the fact that Marian reforms happen about...oh, 100-150 years too early. Did that not give it away?

I understand their reasons and am not really bothered by it anymore, except when people like you insist on believing that hastati actually fought with hastae after the 4th Century BC. But that's just a character flaw of mine.

You keep coming back to this one unit. The Romans recruited many troops from many different nations and allies. The Romans used greeks in the army but mainly Thureos and peltast type, because they were used in support roles. They had no reason for recruiting the same phalanx units that they didn't find as useful as the Successors.

AOR units are vital to armies in history and should not be reduced in numbers. Peoples perception of how Hollywood portrays ancient armies (Rome, Greek, etc.) doesn't give due credit for the thousands upon thousands of AOR troops (forced or not) that allowed the great armies in antiquity to win the great battles of history. Protecting supply lines, garrisoning cities, guarding the camp, forming the second line to defend against envelopment, guarding the hills on the sides of the battlefield, providing specialty units, bringing fresh numbers to battle, etc allowing the best troops to be available to fight on the battle line at the decisive moment.

1) I mention Roman phalangites, because it's the most entertaining example. If you don't believe me, play the Macedonian Wars scenario. It's all Roman phalangites all the time.

2) What I find even more alarming than a 'Hollywood' interpretation of history, (though really, Hollywood would seem to support your contention far more than mine when it comes to 'diversity for the sake of diversity') are those who get their history from Total War mods.

My entire objection to the AOR system is just that it's too easy to abuse, gameplay wise. The dubious historicity is more of an amusement. I think that the AOR system ironically leads to samey armies too across factions and playthroughs. But with strategos and dresden's help, I was able to mod my game, and I'm quite happy with it now.

[JCB206]

There are genuine Akkadian hoplites available for recruitment in Babylon. I was also surprised, since they're almost two thousand years late to the party.

I don't get over there often, but they seem a long time out of place. But it just seems odd, as hoplite warfare in general was well after this time frame.

I will allow you that if any faction in the game has a right to an AOR-like recruitment system, it would be the Seleucid Empire. But then, I believe the satrap system, which forces Seleucid satraps to go to war on your behalf, and lets you recruit from their territory, already perfectly represents the Seleucid Empire. The overwhelming core of their 'real' army (the one used to keep the satraps in line) were phalangites. Antiochus could theoretically call on huge numbers of troops, but his core military was only about ~20,000 strong at its peak, which is why the Romans defeated him as easily as they did.

After Magnesia, the Seleucids were no longer able to scare their satraps into line, whereupon their armies become very tiny.

I like the client state levy system, though I have suggested in the past that you should get access to higher level troops. Seleucid kings and Alexander extensively used heavy cavalry and cataphracts from the eastern satraps. Of course many of these troops are available in the AOR system, which makes it more beneficial to conquer a province than create a satrapy. There is some room for improvement in this area, but gameplay wise, I'm not sure what it is. The AOR system, mercenary system, nor client state system cover all the bases that need be. I wouldn't mind the client states levy to be AOR troops.

The Seleucid power is an interesting one. They definitely had a small and limited amount of "greek or macedonian" manpower (or anyone that wasn't from there and didn't mind keeping the locals in line) and that would be a cause of their downfall. I read a paper recently about how the Seleucid dominance in the east did not end after Magnesia. And they may have actually regained that authority and their fall was attributed to dynastic struggle. But that would be a fun thread for a different day, for everyone to read the paper. But we can agree it wasn't the most effective model for the occupying authorities.

The Romans of course, relied on auxilla for their cavalry, skirmisher and archer needs. Their Italian heavy infantry socii fought exactly as their own units did. (Rome probably learned it from them, after being initially more influenced by the Etruscans, who were more influenced by the Greeks).

This definitely includes Alexander by the way. Some of those you named were in fact notoriously mercenary.

There can always be a fine line between allied (forced or not) and mercenary troops. The socii were allied troops that were actually paid by the allied cities, which was great. Most allies for Carthage were paid by Carthage, whether it was Numidian, Iberian, or Libyan. Allies that served with Alexander were paid by him. Alexander employed over 60,000 mercenary troops by the time of his death, though from what I have read, only a few of his best troops were mercenaries in the true sense. But they were paid by him, so the lines get blurred.

His Thessalians took their pay and ditched him in what was probably the wisest course of action ever taken by a mercenary troop. They missed out on all the worst stuff Alexander put his army through.

Alexander III, like Philip II before him was Archon of the Thessalian League. These troops served when called upon for the war with Persia. They were released with the rest of the Greek allies after Gaugamela and Megalopolis in Greece. Some Thessalian cavalry then signed on as mercenaries but the bulk of them went home. Which was smart.

But what alarms me the most is...are you under the impression that the Roman roster/reforms are in any way approximate to reality?

Oh wait. You are serious.

Well. I hate to burst your bubble, but the game designers have made it abundantly clear, in several debates on this subject, that they have made huge gameplay concessions. Namely, the Roman army starts about 40-100 years too late (its represented as it would've been prior to the Second Samnite Wars), and has units that didn't actually exist in the battle line (like rorarii). There's also the fact that Marian reforms happen about...oh, 100-150 years too early. Did that not give it away?

I understand their reasons and am not really bothered by it anymore, except when people like you insist on believing that hastati actually fought with hastae after the 4th Century BC. But that's just a character flaw of mine.

No I get what you mean. The time frames are changed for gameplay reasons. Personally was surprised to Camillian troops at all in the mod but the team wanted to show the full progression from Camillian, Polybian, Marian and Imperial. Thank you for clarifying...i didn't know you meant the ahistorical time of the reforms.

1) I mention Roman phalangites, because it's the most entertaining example. If you don't believe me, play the Macedonian Wars scenario. It's all Roman phalangites all the time.

Yes it is, but the team has also stated that they haven't balanced the Macedonian Wars DLC. I think that one can be attributed to the AOR of Epirus and the fact that the Romans can't train their factional troops right away. Adding a Roman barracks on the island to start I believe would fix that. I just think of it as they are using their allies. I love that campaign but the team does not spend much time on that map due to time constraints. I haven't seen it in GC, have you? That Macedonian wars map is great.

2) What I find even more alarming than a 'Hollywood' interpretation of history, (though really, Hollywood would seem to support your contention far more than mine when it comes to 'diversity for the sake of diversity') are those who get their history from Total War mods.

As a soon to be teacher, I get what you mean. Though to get a person to be interested in history can start here, as long as that interest sends them to find the texts that can teach them the truth. I love that DEI is the best out there in historical accuracy, but it is impossible in a game. Agreed.

My entire objection to the AOR system is just that it's too easy to abuse, gameplay wise. The dubious historicity is more of an amusement. I think that the AOR system ironically leads to samey armies too across factions and playthroughs. But with strategos and dresden's help, I was able to mod my game, and I'm quite happy with it now.

I can agree with that. It can be abused and with so many units, they are very similar. The types of units are and were meant to be similar, for better or worse. The great armies of antiquity were special cases. Such as the goat farmers of Upper Macedon formed to fight by Philip II and spent 20 years of warfare to become the unbeatable men that marched with Alexander. Or the hodgepodge of mercenaries, conscripted, allied, homegrown officer corp forged over 20 years by Hamilcar Brace and then the tactical brilliance of Hannibal that brought Rome to its knees but couldn't beat the odds. Just me rambling again.

Very well thought out thread. We are on the same page. I would like to see your submod for testing. Good day Sir.

[Vladdy Daddy]

Damocles, this game is about creating an empire, conquering, trying to adapt and that means recruiting different types of armies according to the regions you're trying to conquer, you know, the way Alexander the Great and many other great generals did. The AOR system is one of the best mechanics DeI has, which gives the regions special benefits. If we didn't have it, then what why would you conquer another region? Do you want them to also nix the resource specific regions and bonuses, thus making the game more bland, more tedious and also unrealistic, just because you have a problem with what the AI is recruiting? They can't mod the AI, it's hardcoded and it already has all the benefits it can have, recruiting full stacks out of thin air without understanding basic economy and food supplies. Yeah, I know the romans didn't recruit phalangites or relied heavily on bruttians, but you can't code a region to offer faction specific troops. They already layered this by getting certain AOR units on the level 2 and some other units at level 3 upgrade of a village/ province capital. Plus, you are already restricted to recruit some units if you pass or didn't pass certain military reforms. And you also don't need barracks everywhere, Damocles - that's the beauty of the AoR system: it gives you the freedom to build almost whatever you want in a region you've conquered, demolishing and rebuilding according to your needs to balance food, population happiness, income and supply lines. That's the beauty of crafting your own empire and that's the beauty of DeI.
If you're that obsessed with the army composition and you can't understand the concept of the constant change and adapt part of building an empire, then I suggest you try playing Fields of Glory 2 instead.

[Falco]

Damocles, this game is about creating an empire, conquering, trying to adapt and that means recruiting different types of armies according to the regions you're trying to conquer, you know, the way Alexander the Great and many other great generals did. The AOR system is one of the best mechanics DeI has, which gives the regions special benefits. If we didn't have it, then what why would you conquer another region? Do you want them to also nix the resource specific regions and bonuses, thus making the game more bland, more tedious and also unrealistic, just because you have a problem with what the AI is recruiting? They can't mod the AI, it's hardcoded and it already has all the benefits it can have, recruiting full stacks out of thin air without understanding basic economy and food supplies. Yeah, I know the romans didn't recruit phalangites or relied heavily on bruttians, but you can't code a region to offer faction specific troops. They already layered this by getting certain AOR units on the level 2 and some other units at level 3 upgrade of a village/ province capital. Plus, you are already restricted to recruit some units if you pass or didn't pass certain military reforms. And you also don't need barracks everywhere, Damocles - that's the beauty of the AoR system: it gives you the freedom to build almost whatever you want in a region you've conquered, demolishing and rebuilding according to your needs to balance food, population happiness, income and supply lines. That's the beauty of crafting your own empire and that's the beauty of DeI.
If you're that obsessed with the army composition and you can't understand the concept of the constant change and adapt part of building an empire, then I suggest you try playing Fields of Glory 2 instead.

Agreed.

[Damocles]

Damocles, this game is about creating an empire, conquering, trying to adapt and that means recruiting different types of armies according to the regions you're trying to conquer, you know, the way Alexander the Great and many other great generals did. The AOR system is one of the best mechanics DeI has, which gives the regions special benefits. If we didn't have it, then what why would you conquer another region? Do you want them to also nix the resource specific regions and bonuses, thus making the game more bland, more tedious and also unrealistic, just because you have a problem with what the AI is recruiting? They can't mod the AI, it's hardcoded and it already has all the benefits it can have, recruiting full stacks out of thin air without understanding basic economy and food supplies. Yeah, I know the romans didn't recruit phalangites or relied heavily on bruttians, but you can't code a region to offer faction specific troops. They already layered this by getting certain AOR units on the level 2 and some other units at level 3 upgrade of a village/ province capital. Plus, you are already restricted to recruit some units if you pass or didn't pass certain military reforms. And you also don't need barracks everywhere, Damocles - that's the beauty of the AoR system: it gives you the freedom to build almost whatever you want in a region you've conquered, demolishing and rebuilding according to your needs to balance food, population happiness, income and supply lines. That's the beauty of crafting your own empire and that's the beauty of DeI.
If you're that obsessed with the army composition and you can't understand the concept of the constant change and adapt part of building an empire, then I suggest you try playing Fields of Glory 2 instead.

1) I think that all incidents of such historical recruitment is either perfectly portrayed by the mercenary system (which is also AOR, but sensibly), recruiting from client state/satraps or co-belligerent factions in a war.

2) There are many different reasons for conquering territory. You have to pull some serious logical jujitso to go from not liking the AOR to removing trade resources.

3) I'm okay with some examples. Like Punic/Greek/Successor factions who control Taras getting to recruit Tarantine Cavalry, or Samnite Swordsmen. But I don't think every faction deserves access to unique AOR troops in every province. I think when you try to force it, to have every region have its 'Tarantine cavalry', then things get weird. So many of them are medium/heavy infantry too. It would be less noticeable if it were cavalry with lower caps, archers and skirms mainly.

4) The latter part of your comment is ludicrous. I outlined all of the reasons why I had a problem with the AOR system. None of them included 'I can't understand the concept of constant change and adapt part of building an empire'. The Romans were as adaptable about empire building as it gets, and I don't see anywhere in history where they recruited field armies of Greek phalangites or what have you. When they did recruit Rhodian slingers, Cretan archers, etc, it was clearly in the guise of mercenaries, that the game already represents.

But really, that's such a silly statement and it completely ignores what I was really discussing. Which is that cheap and easily available, sturdy AOR units remove the need for you to methodically plan conquests or assimilate subjugated populations before moving onto new territories.

None of this has to do with me disliking the mod. I just want to focus on the population/supply aspect of it, and in every campaign I find myself using AOR units to circumvent it. Despite secretly, deep down, wishing to have to deal with it.

The easiest way to remove it is to make a submod with the units to groupings military permissions table (AOR_ tables) and remove all the entries. The tables should then be blue colored, which means they will load as empty. Or you can change their campaign total cap in the main units table.

I understand your point about it affecting the population system, but I actually think in some ways AOR/Mercs highlight it rather than detract from it. Units that you can recruit from foreign populations have restrictions. Mercenaries are much more expensive to maintain and AOR troops are worse than core units and have total campaign caps. I feel like that makes you appreciate your core population more, because you have tangible differences. Sure, for veterans playing on very hard who prefer very slow expansion being able to win with inferior troops and spamming levy tier armies may be a problem. But for the majority of players AOR units are a supplement not a replacement. Core units will always be more desirable on the whole, at least thats how they are designed.

As I said in another post, there may be outliers here and there with AOR units that are overpowered and also provide some units that are not intended for various factions to get too early. I don't think the fact that these outliers exist is a reason to abandon the entire system, though. For a lot of factions that is sort of the point - they fill in some roster gaps that are missing for a lot of the smaller factions. But, you still have to work around the total cap numbers and the inferior stats.

I appreciate the modding guidance.

@Damocles If I were you I would just limit the availability of the units. It would be better than deleting the whole system.

That does sound much easier.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

That does sound much easier.

You could also use PFM and delete or just edit the units you don't like.
For example you could easily mod the Samnite unit to be identical to the Roman ones.

[JCB206]

The Romans were as adaptable about empire building as it gets, and I don't see anywhere in history where they recruited field armies of Greek phalangites or what have you.

You keep coming back to this one unit. The Romans recruited many troops from many different nations and allies. The Romans used greeks in the army but mainly Thureos and peltast type, because they were used in support roles. They had no reason for recruiting the same phalanx units that they didn't find as useful as the Successors.

Their largest AOR contingents were the Allied Italian legions, but that is mainly due to their location before the Marian reforms. That's what the AOR represents. IF Rome had started in Britian, then they would not be recruiting large numbers of Italian legions but instead some AOR allies from Britain and probably wouldn't have fought as hoplites (greek) or maniples (saminites) as IRL.

There are some factional units based on where your faction started in history but the AOR gives you access to troops from where you are NOW. If you start as Roma and conquer Germania and lose Italy to Carthage, you can still recruit Roman Polybian legions but also Germanic troops. In reality, you would be greatly reduced in how many Roman troops you can train and have to rely on mainly AOR troops. The AOR troops are more realistic than factional troops.

IMO, your faction should start with a barracks (not in a building slot) and this barracks can train factional units. Lose it and lose them. Maybe a way to get more late game in the tech tree.

AOR units are vital to armies in history and should not be reduced in numbers. Peoples perception of how Hollywood portrays ancient armies (Rome, Greek, etc.) doesn't give due credit for the thousands upon thousands of AOR troops (forced or not) that allowed the great armies in antiquity to win the great battles of history. Protecting supply lines, garrisoning cities, guarding the camp, forming the second line to defend against envelopment, guarding the hills on the sides of the battlefield, providing specialty units, bringing fresh numbers to battle, etc allowing the best troops to be available to fight on the battle line at the decisive moment.

[pawelrut]

There is a very simple solution to you problem Damocles.

I suggest you start by watching Magnar's Modding Video Tutorials:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...les-(11-08-17)

Once you gain the necessary knowledge make a submod that disable the AOR system, it's not that hard to mod out, only time consuming.

[Falco]

There is a very simple solution to you problem Damocles.

I suggest you start by watching Magnar's Modding Video Tutorials:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...les-(11-08-17)

Once you gain the necessary knowledge make a submod that disable the AOR system, it's not that hard to mod out, only time consuming.

Seriously though, I mostly self taught myself to mod units (if I can do it I'm sure you can too). You should have a look at the vids and give it a go Damocles.

[Dresden]

The easiest way to remove it is to make a submod with the units to groupings military permissions table (AOR_ tables) and remove all the entries. The tables should then be blue colored, which means they will load as empty. Or you can change their campaign total cap in the main units table.

I understand your point about it affecting the population system, but I actually think in some ways AOR/Mercs highlight it rather than detract from it. Units that you can recruit from foreign populations have restrictions. Mercenaries are much more expensive to maintain and AOR troops are worse than core units and have total campaign caps. I feel like that makes you appreciate your core population more, because you have tangible differences. Sure, for veterans playing on very hard who prefer very slow expansion being able to win with inferior troops and spamming levy tier armies may be a problem. But for the majority of players AOR units are a supplement not a replacement. Core units will always be more desirable on the whole, at least thats how they are designed.

As I said in another post, there may be outliers here and there with AOR units that are overpowered and also provide some units that are not intended for various factions to get too early. I don't think the fact that these outliers exist is a reason to abandon the entire system, though. For a lot of factions that is sort of the point - they fill in some roster gaps that are missing for a lot of the smaller factions. But, you still have to work around the total cap numbers and the inferior stats.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

@Damocles If I were you I would just limit the availability of the units. It would be better than deleting the whole system.

[Furgon]

The line of reasoning "I hate it, but can't help using it" always makes me smirk. This usually is a feature of some power players, who ultimately seek more challenge, but then resort to exploit game mechanics to overcome it.

Although I sort of agree with the point that AOR units are little too much accessible and this results in that most of the time AI ignores barrack chains altogether. I think in earlier versions of the mod core troops were restricted until your culture becomes dominant, right? Is it possible to tie aor troops to public order instead? Like, restrict those until po is positive or smth.

On a side note: do you guys plan to revisit population costs sometime in near future? What troubles me is that many low armored units draw from second class and that makes them almost unusable.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

The line of reasoning "I hate it, but can't help using it" always makes me smirk. This usually is a feature of some power players, who ultimately seek more challenge, but then resort to exploit game mechanics to overcome it.

Although I sort of agree with the point that AOR units are little too much accessible and this results in that most of the time AI ignores barrack chains altogether. I think in earlier versions of the mod core troops were restricted until your culture becomes dominant, right? Is it possible to tie aor troops to public order instead? Like, restrict those until po is positive or smth.

On a side note: do you guys plan to revisit population costs sometime in near future? What troubles me is that many low armored units draw from second class and that makes them almost unusable.

I like the idea of connecting the AOR units to public order. Not sure if it's possible though, so I'll have to ask @Dresden for more info.

[JCB206]

I like the idea of connecting the AOR units to public order. Not sure if it's possible though, so I'll have to ask @Dresden for more info.

Or having AOR units higher up the building chain? (ONLY AOR, not factional units) I want all the AOR units but all but simple levies should take a while to get at. Alot like the RTR idea of transforming your province.

[magitsu]

AOR "elites" tend to be very good because they use barbaroi instead of your nobles, which your only slightly better elites hinge on.

[Vulpes.Inculta]

The OP has a point. I think I'll limit that for myself too.

Realistic or not, historical or not, it's more fun to fight thematical national armies than just no-name bands of all kinds of AoR stuff/