Disbanding units for manpower

[Folkie]

I've played dozens if not hundreds of games in EUIII and EUIV and I've alway been surprised that when you disband units, they don't get added to your manpower pool.

Is there a reason why this happens?

If I disband a surplus of units, this means they just.... disappear?

To me it would make more sense if they are added to the manpower pool so they can be retrained.

Idea? Or something thoroughly discussed already?

 

[joelzhl]

I guess it's there to prevent exploits. If disbanding returns manpower, you can disband armies that will be engaged on by a more powerful enemy force, recoup the manpower and rebuild your army somewhere else. All you pay is gold, which comes fairly easily.

 

[Schmoekoeksklok]

I think the reason for this is to stop you from just disbanding every unit that is out of position and about to get caught out.

You can still do this ofcourse, but it'll just save you warscore.

 

[TheSavage01]

Yes, to prevent you from disbanding a stack that you know is about to get destroyed.

That said, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to recoup manpower IF (1) you are at peace, and (2) the units are disbanded on your own territory.

During this time period it was normal NOT to have a standing army, but it's not possible to play that way b/c of the manpower issue.

 

[AliceK86]

Why couldn't there just be a big malus to manpower recoup when in foreign territories, like in CK2?

 

[Schmoekoeksklok]

Yes, to prevent you from disbanding a stack that you know is about to get destroyed.

That said, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to recoup manpower IF (1) you are at peace, and (2) the units are disbanded on your own territory.

During this time period it was normal NOT to have a standing army, but it's not possible to play that way b/c of the manpower issue.

Yeah, but that's kind of what mercenaries are for. The upkeep costs of normal armies would have to be adjusted up if you were to make this type of change. Which would also make everyone more vulnerable to surprise attacks, which probably hurt the AI a lot more then the player generally

Why couldn't there just be a big malus to manpower recoup when in foreign territories, like in CK2?

Because you can't only get caught out in enemy territory?

 

[AJ2009]

You have to imagine that the armies are not proper standing ones - the soldiers go off back to their families, get drunk or go on holiday to Ulm.

 

[Red John]

You have to imagine that the armies are not proper standing ones - the soldiers go off back to their families, get drunk or go on holiday to Ulm.

What part of Ulm? The Caribbean Ulmish islands? The Ulmited Kingdom? The Ulmberian Penisula? Details man, details!

 

[mangalore]

...

During this time period it was normal NOT to have a standing army, but it's not possible to play that way b/c of the manpower issue.

From the high middle ages onwards it actually was quite normal to have a dedicated core of professional soldiers. France built the first European standing army around the start point of the game and other nations followed suit or adapted their own feudal systems. E.g. hungary was known to have a pretty big standing army for its time. Streltsy are also a Russian version of standing forces. Tercios were also around the corner (16th century). Burgundy under Charles the Bold was known for a well equipped standing force.

The game essentially begins in the transitional period when military forces became professionalized as standing national forces or mercenaries and were the norm for the entire second half of the game.

That said the game lacks the usage of militia which would normally add numbers or were the necessary choice of small states.

 

[Teije]

What part of Ulm? The Caribbean Ulmish islands? The Ulmited Kingdom? The Ulmberian Penisula? Details man, details!

To Ulmenera to enjoy the tides.