Old and fat armies.

[Hendricus]

We all like to upgrade our armies to become battle hardened veterans. The downside should be present too, soldiers that become old and fat. Losing effectiviness over time. Killer stacks keeping their sharp punching power for more than a decade should be rare. So I suggest armies get an age and that it becomes harder to keep them top notch over time. Losing more and more power after 20, 40, and 60 years of service.

[uneducated]

We all like to upgrade our armies to become battle hardened veterans. The downside should be present too, soldiers that become old and fat. Losing effectiviness over time. Killer stacks keeping their sharp punching power for more than a decade should be rare. So I suggest armies get an age and that it becomes harder to keep them top notch over time. Losing more and more power after 20, 40, and 60 years of service.

That is a great insight and suggestion. Now that I consider it, I see it as the older soldiers become promoted and become fatter giving rather than carrying out orders. Fresher, younger troops now fill their sandals. This is somewhat represented already when unit strength is temporarily reduced after casualties in combat. Maybe the fat die first!

[Morbio]

It makes sense, but I think it should be driven by the activity of the army over time. If an army does nothing but garrison for years on end then it should lose a significant amount of experience/skill. If an army does nothing but march for years on end it should lose some experience/skill. If an army is frequently in battles it should maintain its edge and even improve.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

Yes, I agree.

It's easier to model the game the way it is but a more, dare I say it, realistic model would have unit experience degrading over time and battle casualties.

From what I know and have experienced I have the impression that veterans/higher ranks quite often take heavy casualties if the fighting is difficult or heavy.

The problem is that professional units would have new recruits getting added as and when while others would recruit from a selection of the population with or without militia experience or commitments.

Complicated eh

[Pocus]

This is what manpower upkeep is supposed to be, the abstract rotation of soldiers when they have finished their terms.

At least, if you play on Experienced difficulty or higher, veterans troops cost more to upkeep.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

Ah right, that manpower explanation makes sense from recruiting point of view.

Although, that doesnt deal with the eternal elite units that the thread creator mentioned.

[13obo]

Pocus did say that the more experienced units require more gold to maintain, which in my view is a reasonable extrapolation for requiring to enlist veterans instead of rookies. This is done in many other strategy games where units can level such as Fantasy General 2, Order of Battle or Panzer Corps. It is important to note that if an existing gameplay mechanic can reasonably model some feature, there's no need to introduce a new one, which can complicate unnecessarily the game.

[Hendricus]

This is what manpower upkeep is supposed to be, the abstract rotation of soldiers when they have finished their terms.

At least, if you play on Experienced difficulty or higher, veterans troops cost more to upkeep.

Pocus, you name it yourself. It's abstract, if the rotation of a 20 unit strong army means they get replacements each year building fresh units and bringing them to the army takes away the abstract element, you need to keep the supply lines open. If those fresh units arrive, merging an old and fat unit of the same type into it gives the fresh unit half the difference in stars rounded up. As the old unit loses strenght ( not stars ) over time, this would make for natural lines of communication.