Okay there's been a lot of EUR bashing lately. I'd like to move onto something more constructive and stimulating. Here's some of my thoughts the warfare/military in EUR.
In my games, I usually have numerous small/mid-sized armies taking different routes, supported by mobile cav-only armies, attempting to converge simultaneously upon the enemy, idealy crushing the enemy outright with a 10:1 ratio. This isn't so much of a classical hammer-and-anvil type of strategy, but simply a strategy to maximize local numeric superiority and minimize attrition loss.
While this is strategically reasonable, I can't help but feel that this is incredibly gamey. This kind of napoleonic force concentration shouldn't have been possible in the antiquity. Historically, most campaigns were conducted by a single army that, for the most part, stayed together, only spliting off detachments on a relatively local level. Even the most organizationally advanced Roman legions rarely had more than a few legions engaged at a time.
Just to toss around a few ideas to fix this, I suggest:
-Reducing overall army size and army cap, reduce attrition loss
-Use the "brigade" system in other EU games, so as to make combined arms possible with a much smaller army
-Some kind of popularity and loyalty penalty for multiple generals engaging the same front.
-Have some kind of command penalty on excessively large number of armies
-Better yet, a pseudo-theatre command scheme:
Allows an army to be attached to another army. The "child" army would share the same general with the parent army. The size and number of armies that can be attached without penalty to be determined by the general's ability.
Aside from the abovementioned issue, there's also been discussion of introducing the AGEOD-esque "stance" system in this thread.
And lastly, there is the whole question of getting rid of EUR's standing armies and replacing it with the more historically accurate levy model.
Ideas?
In my games, I usually have numerous small/mid-sized armies taking different routes, supported by mobile cav-only armies, attempting to converge simultaneously upon the enemy, idealy crushing the enemy outright with a 10:1 ratio. This isn't so much of a classical hammer-and-anvil type of strategy, but simply a strategy to maximize local numeric superiority and minimize attrition loss.
While this is strategically reasonable, I can't help but feel that this is incredibly gamey. This kind of napoleonic force concentration shouldn't have been possible in the antiquity. Historically, most campaigns were conducted by a single army that, for the most part, stayed together, only spliting off detachments on a relatively local level. Even the most organizationally advanced Roman legions rarely had more than a few legions engaged at a time.
Just to toss around a few ideas to fix this, I suggest:
-Reducing overall army size and army cap, reduce attrition loss
-Use the "brigade" system in other EU games, so as to make combined arms possible with a much smaller army
-Some kind of popularity and loyalty penalty for multiple generals engaging the same front.
-Have some kind of command penalty on excessively large number of armies
-Better yet, a pseudo-theatre command scheme:
Allows an army to be attached to another army. The "child" army would share the same general with the parent army. The size and number of armies that can be attached without penalty to be determined by the general's ability.
Aside from the abovementioned issue, there's also been discussion of introducing the AGEOD-esque "stance" system in this thread.
And lastly, there is the whole question of getting rid of EUR's standing armies and replacing it with the more historically accurate levy model.
Ideas?
