fate of armies over time (500 years) / and their attached general

[thierry2015]

1
They lose experience after a while if they do not fight? (I think of garrisons that have never fought for a long time)

2
is it possible to consider a loyalty of an army
--- to his state
AND
--- to his general?

the more the army would fight with his general, the more loyal it would be to him
--- 1st threshold
for example 10 fights = 51% general / 49 % state
army units can not leave their general
the player can only add but not remove
(so management unit by unit)

--- 2nd threshold
for example after 20 fights = 90 % général / 10 % state
this general overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship!

already planned in a future DLC?

if yes I buy

that would force the player just like the reality of a government not to ALWAYS call to fight the same general

Therfore if the gamer see that a general is too close to the second threshold (Caesar in front of the Rubicon)
then it would be necessary to keep his army in defense and not as Sylla send him to conquer again and again lands to return invincible
(and especially near to take the power)

[devoncop]

1
They lose experience after a while if they do not fight? (I think of garrisons that have never fought for a long time)

2
is it possible to consider a loyalty of an army
--- to his state
AND
--- to his general?

the more the army would fight with his general, the more loyal it would be to him
--- 1st threshold
for example 10 fights = 51% general / 49 % state
army units can not leave their general
the player can only add but not remove
(so management unit by unit)

--- 2nd threshold
for example after 20 fights = 90 % général / 10 % state
this general overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship!

already planned in a future DLC?

if yes I buy

that would force the player just like the reality of a government not to ALWAYS call to fight the same general

Therfore if the gamer see that a general is too close to the second threshold (Caesar in front of the Rubicon)
then it would be necessary to keep his army in defense and not as Sylla send him to conquer again and again lands to return invincible
(and especially near to take the power)

Personally I think this is moving too close to the Imperator Rome mode of pseudo character based play lwhich has led to all sorts of headaches in the game design.

For all the similar geography and time period Imperator and Empires are two very different games. Empires operates with a very different nation dynamic.

[thierry2015]

yes I understand

I did not think about that

(I do not have imperator Rome)

despite that Field of glory Empires promises to be the most interesting game I could play!

[devoncop]

yes I understand

I did not think about that

(I do not have imperator Rome)

despite that Field of glory Empires promises to be the most interesting game I could play!

Don't worry. Different opinions are good

Not getting Imperator was a wise move.

I agree about this game though. It ticks a lot of boxes

[thierry2015]

I agree

it's hundreds of hours of games coming up

[rs2excelsior]

1
They lose experience after a while if they do not fight? (I think of garrisons that have never fought for a long time)

2
is it possible to consider a loyalty of an army
--- to his state
AND
--- to his general?

the more the army would fight with his general, the more loyal it would be to him
--- 1st threshold
for example 10 fights = 51% general / 49 % state
army units can not leave their general
the player can only add but not remove
(so management unit by unit)

--- 2nd threshold
for example after 20 fights = 90 % général / 10 % state
this general overthrow the government and establish a dictatorship!

already planned in a future DLC?

if yes I buy

that would force the player just like the reality of a government not to ALWAYS call to fight the same general

Therfore if the gamer see that a general is too close to the second threshold (Caesar in front of the Rubicon)
then it would be necessary to keep his army in defense and not as Sylla send him to conquer again and again lands to return invincible
(and especially near to take the power)

Personally I think this is moving too close to the Imperator Rome mode of pseudo character based play lwhich has led to all sorts of headaches in the game design.

For all the similar geography and time period Imperator and Empires are two very different games. Empires operates with a very different nation dynamic.

For me, I'm torn on that question. On the one hand, I feel like having the effects of strong personalities given their own governerships and armies far away from Rome is pretty central to this time period--in many ways the upheaval that ended the republic and ushered in the empire was centered on armies loyal to their generals rather than the state, and much of the unrest later in the empire was from the same source. But on the other hand, in a game, it would be tough to strike a balance between something that wasn't too easy to game (oh, my general's just about to get his army loyal to him, better move him to the other side of the empire!). I suppose Rome's preponderance of civil wars kind of reflects this, but in some ways it would be nice to have a bit more focus on the characters and consequences of letting someone get too much power (or being too cautious, and slighting/angering wealthy families).

[devoncop]

I see your point which is well made.

You illustrate exactly the issue in trying to implement the loyalty issue of Generals in a game which is exactly the problem Imperator Rome has run into.

Players are generally pretty switched on. Loyalty of Generals needs to be expressed as a visible figure which is either fixed (so players never use one with low loyalty) or is variable (so players remove them from command once their loyalty nears danger levels) . All that happens is players are given extra micro tasks without any real choices.

The dangers and increased risks of revolt in the young Roman Republic are already modelled in this game through a different mechanic and loyalty is a problem for all civilisations as they become more decadent late game so I think those issues are dealt with to be honest.

I know a lot of folks are fans of Crusader Kings type play but that is a unique game focusing to a large degree on characters rather than nation management and Empires is the opposite. I am happy to have the choice rather than ending up with an Imperator style hybrid that fails to please fans of either approach.

[Pocus]

I'm not against in the future to add loyalty to generals. But probably 'hidden loyalty'. After all, Caesar took dictatorship and was on his way to become the first emperor (perhaps). That's not like the Senate did not understood that his raise of power was a threat, it is that somehow they failed to address the problem. So hidden loyalty would play nice with the very difficult possibility to root out a soon to be disloyal general.
Ideally, some subtle indirect hints on a general low loyalty would be a nice game trick. With added paranoia from the player if some of these subtle hints are not always caused by low loyalty. Do I trust this competent general or not, that should be the question. And not, Does he have a loyalty under 50? No, keep him, yes, send him with 2 velites guarding against the Garamantes.

[devoncop]

Yep, being in command of two units of Velites in the remotest scrub of the Empire will win him round

[Yaitz331]

Yep, being in command of two units of Velites in the remotest scrub of the Empire will win him round

And with your luck, he'll manage to beat them.

[rbodleyscott]

But on the other hand, in a game, it would be tough to strike a balance between something that wasn't too easy to game (oh, my general's just about to get his army loyal to him, better move him to the other side of the empire!).

At which point, he should have a high chance of rebelling rather than accepting the move order.

[Lysimachos]

I'm not against in the future to add loyalty to generals. But probably 'hidden loyalty'. After all, Caesar took dictatorship and was on his way to become the first emperor (perhaps). That's not like the Senate did not understood that his raise of power was a threat, it is that somehow they failed to address the problem. So hidden loyalty would play nice with the very difficult possibility to root out a soon to be disloyal general.
Ideally, some subtle indirect hints on a general low loyalty would be a nice game trick. With added paranoia from the player if some of these subtle hints are not always caused by low loyalty. Do I trust this competent general or not, that should be the question. And not, Does he have a loyalty under 50? No, keep him, yes, send him with 2 velites guarding against the Garamantes.

Modeled in this way it would be a really nice and intriguing addition!