Keeping experienced troops or focusing only on army traditions and general skills?

[icedude94]

In past total war games, I always focused on keeping units alive to raise their veterancy because as the campaign trudged along, other factions would be able to recruit units similar in stats to my own and it was the veterancy of my armies' units that played a crucial role in securing victory.

Attila has introduced a few things in army traditions and generals' skills that have given me a reason to rethink the way I wage war.

Now this is from the perspective of a large empire that is immediately under attack from all sides like the 2 Roman empires. I can't use the diplomatic game to turtle or limit my wars as well as I could in Rome 2.

Now many of the new army traditions and general skills provide bonuses to recruitment capabilities as well as the starting stats of new recruits. They also provide bonuses to armies under their command. For once you have a general skill that increases the number of recruitment slots you have per turn. There are skills that are available very early that directly raise the attack and defense values of every unit in the army. There's a provincial edit that raises the starting morale of all recruits by 10.

I started considering these because of the high maintenance costs of armies.

The maintenance cost of a few turns for a full stack is enough to pay for substantial upgrades in a province or for the recruitment of a whole new army.

I know people have immediately complained about maintenance costs without considering other factors like the ones I mentioned, but is a strategy of fielding temporary armies of well trained troops with strong leaders a viable strategy to maintaining an empire while freeing up funds for economic development?

The bonus the Eastern Roman Empire gets to earning interest on their treasury already motivates one to minimize expenditures on troop maintenance and to build up a substantial treasury for recruitment instead.

[icedude94]

bump

[Schizoid embolism]

yes, and mercs. I had a Rome II campaign as Carhage where I kept small armies and used loads of short term mercs.

[Nick Naughty]

Think your suppose to have different armies not just high tier elites.

Older existing armies could have lower tier troops keeping the upkeep lower, mercenaries could also be a cheaper option for a filler army also keeping the upkeep low because they are not upgraded, and there is the -30% upkeep costs tech later on.

Attila seems to be about survival and not just against the huns.

[Satrell]

My suggestion for the start of wre campaign is to keeep armies at minium usable strenght, meaning about 8-10 units garrisoned in a frontier city.

Its a direly needed economic boost, and the recruitment system especially for the wre is horridly skewed towards using mercs anyway.

Basically forego all but the most basic military research to start with and keep a standing small northern defensive army, defensive small belgian army, small garrison in africa, and a small garrison army in pannioa etc. Now get one or two elite full stacks, on the borders where you constatnly, and i mean every 2nd turn at least, to wage war.

Most efficient stragety i found for the early to mid game.

By the time you reach 410ish you should make ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of money anyway

The basic tenant is use small garrison armies to defend where needed and use your fullstacks contantly to make money through war