DLC Reproposal: Standing Armies!

[atraphoenix]

Instead of this modding laws so they increase levy size as they increase retinues would be possible as well.
Many Islamic Sultanate had standing armies whose members were mostly former slaves or POWs. Ottomans even started Janissaries like that then made 1/5th of christian son of each family a janissary. In my opinion mamelukes, ghilmans, varangians etc. should not be represented as mercenaries but a new type of cultural retinue with lower cost in exact contrast to like cataphracts - although a cultural retinue quite expensive to build and consumes too much retinue points.

 

[Atlantians]

Instead of this modding laws so they increase levy size as they increase retinues would be possible as well.

I don't understand what you mean here.

Many Islamic Sultanate had standing armies whose members were mostly former slaves or POWs. Ottomans even started Janissaries like that then made 1/5th of christian son of each family a janissary. In my opinion mamelukes, ghilmans, varangians etc. should not be represented as mercenaries but a new type of cultural retinue with lower cost in exact contrast to like cataphracts - although a cultural retinue quite expensive to build and consumes too much retinue points.

I am not sure about how this would work. I rather like the way the Varangians are portrayed.

Personally, I modded the Cataphracts to be pure Heavy Cavalry.

 

[Finnway]

3) Loyalty and Generals:
It would be a great idea to implement a mechanic like the loyalty mechanic from EU:Rome.

Two major factors that are missing in CKII at the moment are insurrections and Coup d'états from within the Military, which was a common occurrence historically.

In this way, Standing Armies would be assigned commanders, as they exist already.
Except, more standing armies would unlock more Commander minor title slots.

However, you would not be able to change the commanders inside enemy territory, and as long as those commanders are assigned, they would gain unit loyalty.

If that commander joins a faction, the units in that Standing Army would be loyal to him and join in if he or his allies rebel. This unit would also increase the apparent strength of the Faction in order to increase the likelihood of the rebellion.

Therefore, in addition to good traits, you need to make sure your commanders are loyal to you and not backing factions.

This could be modeled with loyalties like the Council has.

3a) a 'Military Commanders' window could be activated to manage armies and their commanders.
Commanders that are fully loyal to the King would almost never even consider rebelling.

However, Commanders with other motivations like being a Zealot, Glory-Hound, etc. would be willing to join certain types of factions, especially ones that might put them on the Council, and/or give them a land title or even the Empire title.

I dislike the idea of standing armies for multiple reasons. Mainly because they didn't exist during this time period. But I LOVE the idea of having a "Loyalty factor" for generals! However, rather than tie it to the council's "loyalty" personality types, I think it should simply be tied to positive/negative opinion.

If generals rebel, they should take a portion of your levies with them -- just like appointing someone leader of a mercenary band. This makes having loyal commanders EXTREMELY important. Unlanded generals should still be able to rebel against you, but they become adventurers when they do so.

All these things wouldn't be hard to implement. It basically amounts to....

• Giving Commanders the ability to join factions.
• Giving landed Commanders event troops when they rebel.
• Turning Unlanded Commanders into adventurer's when they rebel.
• Possibly add unique faction types only available to Commanders.

The code for all these things already exists, so it should be easy to put in the game.

 

[Atlantians]

I dislike the idea of standing armies for multiple reasons. Mainly because they didn't exist during this time period.

Yes they did, in Byzantium they had the Tagmata (with the Themata as sort of a National Guard or Reserve); the Mongolians did (this is already well represented in game); the Ottomans did with the Janissaries. Etc.

The professional Tagmata is the sort of army I am trying to describe. The Janissaries are rather like the Varangian Guard; Elite Shock troops. I think they are represented well enough already:

except: I think you should be able to invest in the Varangians or Janissaries similar to how you can invest in and increase the size of your custom mercenary company. I think you should be able to select a Captain of the Varangians and similar Mercenary companies.

But I LOVE the idea of having a "Loyalty factor" for generals! However, rather than tie it to the council's "loyalty" personality types, I think it should simply be tied to positive/negative opinion.

If generals rebel, they should take a portion of your levies with them -- just like appointing someone leader of a mercenary band. This makes having loyal commanders EXTREMELY important. Unlanded generals should still be able to rebel against you, but they become adventurers when they do so.

All these things wouldn't be hard to implement. It basically amounts to....

• Giving Commanders the ability to join factions.
• Giving landed Commanders event troops when they rebel.
• Turning Unlanded Commanders into adventurer's when they rebel.
• Possibly add unique faction types only available to Commanders.

The code for all these things already exists, so it should be easy to put in the game.

I like this idea very much.

 

[shiro the bushi]

I dislike the idea of standing armies for multiple reasons. Mainly because they didn't exist during this time period. But I LOVE the idea of having a "Loyalty factor" for generals! However, rather than tie it to the council's "loyalty" personality types, I think it should simply be tied to positive/negative opinion.

If generals rebel, they should take a portion of your levies with them -- just like appointing someone leader of a mercenary band. This makes having loyal commanders EXTREMELY important. Unlanded generals should still be able to rebel against you, but they become adventurers when they do so.

All these things wouldn't be hard to implement. It basically amounts to....

• Giving Commanders the ability to join factions.
• Giving landed Commanders event troops when they rebel.
• Turning Unlanded Commanders into adventurer's when they rebel.
• Possibly add unique faction types only available to Commanders.

The code for all these things already exists, so it should be easy to put in the game.

i think in turn this should have a troop loyalty for the general, a greedy general is more likely to line his pockets first before letting his men loot, or a zealous one may not let his men pillage christian land. if the general treats his men well (light training every so often, looting, etc) they would feel more loyal to him and more likely to betray their king and side with the commander, this would balance out what would most likely be an influx of small revolts because only a general that has low standing with you and a high standing with his men would try a coup. The troop loyalty could also be reflected as a morale boost in combat or change in defense a soldier would be more likely to try defending a general he cares about compard to one he hates

 

[deezee]

Maybe there could be a way to permanently raise a portion of a levy without causing an opinion penalty, in exchange for paying for the maintenence cost of those troops, and maybe a bit extra to the commander of the standing army (to represent the influence of local commanders).

This would simulate how even true standing armies in the time period were usually heavily tied to specific localities. The cost of doing so may also cause most feudal rulers to refrain from doing so, reserving standing armies for regions that were historically very rich like the ERE.

 

[Atlantians]

Maybe there could be a way to permanently raise a portion of a levy without causing an opinion penalty, in exchange for paying for the maintenence cost of those troops, and maybe a bit extra to the commander of the standing army (to represent the influence of local commanders).

This would simulate how even true standing armies in the time period were usually heavily tied to specific localities. The cost of doing so may also cause most feudal rulers to refrain from doing so, reserving standing armies for regions that were historically very rich like the ERE.

That is basically what I have proposed with a set of conversion Laws that supports standing armies with manpower given through obligations laws instead of being able to raise as many levies.

Replacing larger forces of levies with standing armies that area ready to go but expensive to maintain, and limited by the manpower flow.

 

[deezee]

That is basically what I have proposed with a set of conversion Laws that supports standing armies with manpower given through obligations laws instead of being able to raise as many levies.

Replacing larger forces of levies with standing armies that area ready to go but expensive to maintain, and limited by the manpower flow.

Oh, my mistake. I thought you were suggesting it should be represented as a global reduction in levy manpower, which the lost manpower forming a pool for the standing army, as opposed to each unit of the standing army still being tied to a specific holding like levies.

 

[Finnway]

Yes they did, in Byzantium they had the Tagmata (with the Themata as sort of a National Guard or Reserve); the Mongolians did (this is already well represented in game); the Ottomans did with the Janissaries.

IIRC, didn't the Byzantines rely heavily on mercenaries to make up the bulk of their fighting forces? Like I said, it's my understanding that standing armies like you're suggesting didn't come into their own until a few centuries down the line, even if a they did exist in a primitive form during the CK2 time period.

i think in turn this should have a troop loyalty for the general, a greedy general is more likely to line his pockets first before letting his men loot, or a zealous one may not let his men pillage christian land. if the general treats his men well (light training every so often, looting, etc) they would feel more loyal to him and more likely to betray their king and side with the commander, this would balance out what would most likely be an influx of small revolts because only a general that has low standing with you and a high standing with his men would try a coup. The troop loyalty could also be reflected as a morale boost in combat or change in defense a soldier would be more likely to try defending a general he cares about compard to one he hates

Yeah... generals could have an "army loyalty" rating, where each commander demands loyalty from a certain percentage of the realm's troops. If commanders gain loyalty from enough of the troops they can rebel. Loyalty increases from traits, and, more importantly, from winning battles. Of course, rulers can also generate loyalty with the troops by fighting in battles themselves. All this would strongly penalize decadent rulers who sit back and let their commanders do the fighting for them.

 

[Atlantians]

IIRC, didn't the Byzantines rely heavily on mercenaries to make up the bulk of their fighting forces?

They did rely on Mercenaries, but these were in addition to large armies of Tagmata. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagma_(military)

Like I said, it's my understanding that standing armies like you're suggesting didn't come into their own until a few centuries down the line, even if a they did exist in a primitive form during the CK2 time period.

The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagma_(military) and the themata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(Byzantine_district)#Organization.

 

[gdj]

They did rely on Mercenaries, but these were in addition to large armies of Tagmata. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagma_(military)




The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagma_(military) and the themata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theme_(Byzantine_district)#Organization.

No offense, but only because the byzantines had a professional army (sort of) on paper it´s absolutely no reason to implement this for all tags. And implementing this for byz alone would mean giving a ludicrously overpowered tag who already got too much attention even more attention. It´s an idealistic portrayal here anyway, Manzikert was fought with 10000 regulars while the mercs numbered roughly 60000 according to most sources. Such a fraction is already decently portrayed with retinues.

 

[FifthMonarchy]

The book I've been reading suggests the Caliphate under the Ummayads and Abbasids had what was effectively a standing army, i.e. they got a wage from the state rather than rewarded in land etc.

 

[gdj]

The book I've been reading suggests the Caliphate under the Ummayads and Abbasids had what was effectively a standing army, i.e. they got a wage from the state rather than rewarded in land etc.

1) Even so, the vast majority of the playbale tags don´t have anything like that
2) The small contigent of regulars the byzantines and a few others had are already modelled with retinues

Sorry, the entire thread holds nothing convincing, and it would be sad if the devs spent any effort on this when there are many, many, many other issues in the "comprehensive issues"-thread that deserve much more attention.

 

[Atlantians]

No offense, but only because the byzantines had a professional army (sort of) on paper it´s absolutely no reason to implement this for all tags. And implementing this for byz alone would mean giving a ludicrously overpowered tag who already got too much attention even more attention. It´s an idealistic portrayal here anyway, Manzikert was fought with 10000 regulars while the mercs numbered roughly 60000 according to most sources. Such a fraction is already decently portrayed with retinues.

1) Even so, the vast majority of the playbale tags don´t have anything like that
2) The small contigent of regulars the byzantines and a few others had are already modelled with retinues

Sorry, the entire thread holds nothing convincing, and it would be sad if the devs spent any effort on this when there are many, many, many other issues in the "comprehensive issues"-thread that deserve much more attention.

Did you read my OP?

I specifically said this would only be for highly centralized Imperial realms, not every tag from the start.

 

[gdj]

Did you read my OP?

I specifically said this would only be for highly centralized Imperial realms, not every tag from the start.

Of course, that´s the very point. What you basically ask for is a fundamental, severe and anachronistic change of a core mechanic of which only a fraction of human-controlled realms will profit in the last few decades of the game (i doubt that AI empires would reach the required preconditions with cantralization and mil.org.), which are incidentally the ones who don´t need buffs to their realms.

Why is this needed, given the fact that these realms have retinues in a size where they become actually useful?

 

[Dr Gonzo]

The book I've been reading suggests the Caliphate under the Ummayads and Abbasids had what was effectively a standing army, i.e. they got a wage from the state rather than rewarded in land etc.

I was thinking exactly this. The Inheritance of Rome is a fantastic book. IIRC he argues that the Roman tax collecting administration remained largely intact in the Islamic east and allowed for the maintenance of what were essentially standing armies.

This is essentially what the Mamluks and Ghilman are supposed to represent in game I think.

 

[gdj]

I was thinking exactly this. The Inheritance of Rome is a fantastic book. IIRC he argues that the Roman tax collecting administration remained largely intact in the Islamic east and allowed for the maintenance of what were essentially standing armies.

This is essentially what the Mamluks and Ghilman are supposed to represent in game I think.

He has a largely economic view on the matter i would not share (at least not wholeheartedly). Professional armies are not a purely economic matter, it is more a sociological question. Does the society in question have a system of division of labor that makes professional armies reasonable? Feudal systems (the vast majority of the tags in the game) don´t have this by definiton, they wouldn´t be feudal otherwise. Wealth and administrative systems are indicators, but not causal factors for such an advanced system of social stratification and social mobility. Small but heavily populated and wealthy entitites like Venice and the Italian city-states would have been most capable to have professional armies, the fact that this did not materialize and that they came about to rely on ineffective condottieri later on was more a question of political convenience.

Regardless, it defeats the purpose of the game and feels intuitively wrong to have professional armies in a setup where administration (even when centralized) relies on vassals, and it certainly would be wasted effort by the devs to implement yet another pointless mechanic as a kneefall to byzantophile fantasies (viceroyalities are the worst addition to the game already).

 

[Dr Gonzo]

He has a largely economic view on the matter i would not share (at least not wholeheartedly). Professional armies are not a purely economic matter, it is more a sociological question. Does the society in question have a system of division of labor that makes professional armies reasonable? Feudal systems (the vast majority of the tags in the game) don´t have this by definiton, they wouldn´t be feudal otherwise. Wealth and administrative systems are indicators, but not causal factors for such an advanced system of social stratification and social mobility. Small but heavily populated and wealthy entitites like Venice and the Italian city-states would have been most capable to have professional armies, the fact that this did not materialize and that they came about to rely on ineffective condottieri later on was more a question of political convenience.

Regardless, it defeats the purpose of the game and feels intuitively wrong to have professional armies in a setup where administration (even when centralized) relies on vassals, and it certainly would be wasted effort by the devs to implement yet another pointless mechanic as a kneefall to byzantophile fantasies (viceroyalities are the worst addition to the game already).

Don't get me wrong. I wasn't arguing in favour of the OP. I don't want to have to deal with yet another bolted on system that's basically just added for the Byzantines and would probably come with a DLC thus making the game yet more difficult to balance. Would be great to see something like this, incorporating retinues, in CK3 though.

I really enjoyed the book, but then I have a bit of a yen for economic history so it tickled me the right way.

 

[JMensch]

Man I love all the people who say standing armies are ahistorical till the 100 Years War and I'm like what about Charles Martel?

Pretty sure the full-time, professional soldiers he created to fight the Umayyads were the foundation of Carolingian power for years to come.

 

[gdj]

Man I love all the people who say standing armies are ahistorical till the 100 Years War and I'm like what about Charles Martel?

Pretty sure the full-time, professional soldiers he created to fight the Umayyads were the foundation of Carolingian power for years to come.

You do know the difference between a standing professional army and personal retinues like housecarls, or the retainers of Charles Martel, do you?