Upkeep

[unmerged(964)]

In EU the millitary built up are made gradually and countries has very big standing armies because of the cheap upkeep of the troops , this also makes the wars longer and suprice/blixt war are comon.
A higher upkeep would better simulate the real history and give the AI better oportunities to counter human players.

 

[Derek Pullem]

100% agree on this - upkeep not cost of raising troops should be major limit on armies. Would pressure player into more economic development rather than the "conquer the world" approach.

 

[Mowers]

This is an excellent point.

The transistion from Feudal armies to Modern forces ought to be simulated. Whilst 1419 is very much the end of the feudal age in the West it is not in the East and although the West suffers for a long time for a lack of a supporting structure in the end it is fact that it drops this system that it gains such a military lead.

In the orginal board game the ottomans have an advantage because of the Timor system but this over time becomes a dead weight. This sort of factor ought to be written into the game.

 

[unmerged(2833)]

hmm, i wonder if that slider for centralisation/decentralisation have something to do with it?
Quantity/quality is for troops, yes?So we won't need to have low cost for Swedish army, but instead they will have better quality?

 

[unmerged(994)]

Excellent idea. Raising troops was not a significant cost, but upkeeping them was a trouble. I'm very interested to the "hire mercs" function, as it will be extremely significant in the early years. Similarly, the social model will influence a lot the upkeep cost (conscription as a result of centralisation, local militias for decentralisation), while the army raising should increase overtime (more sophisticated weapons, uniforms, training and logistic are quite a factor).

 

[unmerged(5061)]

Armies have always lived off the land of where they were stationed or marching through. Positoning an army in a province should lessen the revenue from that particular region for a period of time. Opinions?

Perhaps "Baggage Trains" should be an additional Land tech research whereby your troops could make use of supply dumps and a logistics corp rather than living off the fat of the land?

 

[Sir James]

There will hopefully be an interesting transition from feudal through professional to citizen armies.

Feudal: you WILL get yourself a longbow, you WILL learn how to use it, you WILL come and fight when I call (but only for 60 days).

Professional: it’s going to cost HOW MUCH for 20,000 muskets?? It’s going to take HOW LONG to train them to use them??

Citizen: come on lads, lets go kill the British / Austrians / British / Turks / British. Liberty or dea…aarrgghh!

 

[Carolus Rex]

Originally posted by Derek Pullem
100% agree on this - upkeep not cost of raising troops should be major limit on armies. Would pressure player into more economic development rather than the "conquer the world" approach.

Exactly what I want.
No more world conquest games. Not that easily at least.

It gets boring to try not to conquer everything and you parents dipers.

 

[Agelastus]

Originally posted by Carolus Rex


Exactly what I want.
No more world conquest games. Not that easily at least.

It gets boring to try not to conquer everything and you parents dipers.

Well if you will persist in placing TPs everywhere-I build as many colonies up to cities, with natives included, as possible-much more challenging!

 

[Carolus Rex]

Dont get me wrong, I dont always conquer, I play all typesof games.
In the beginning I always tried to conquer as much as possible and mow 'em down.
Now I usually play an economic game, avoid BB wars and try to max all techs ASAP.