Army Legions (or equivalent)

[Paghalay]

I'd like the make a suggestion for a QOL change to the army in game.
In EU4 there is an army designer tab, which if I remember correctly (I admit I seldom used this) you can design an army, for example 4 infantry, 2 cavalry and 1 cannon. You can then use that template to recruit all those units with the single click of a button. I'd personally quite enjoy to see that feature added to the game but in the following form.

Legions:
I'd love to see the option to catergorise your army into Legions, sizes of the Legions to be decided by the player. For example you may want to make your army up of 4 legions, each of 5 cohorts in size. The Legions can be made of any mix of the available cohorts in game. The army designer I mentioned earlier would therefore function as a Legion designer here and not a whole army designer.
I feel this would make micro slightly easier allowing the player to change out large chunks of an army a lot easier to suit the required role of that army.
I think it would also make the role play aspect more engaging too, allowing the player to easier role-play giving certain governorship a certain number of Legions as was the case under the Roman empire. This breaking down into Legions could also allow for more options for the player to assign minor characters as leaders of those Legions which may help create greater attachment to characters that otherwise go unnoticed and an attachment to certain armies or parts of that army.

If there are any (probably much needed) improvements to this suggestion please feel free to add them to the comments

 

[Amlet]

Stellaris have a fleet manager tab. It's good too, probably not for Imperator (if not implementing some tweaks) because in this game easily we can have hundred of armies in late game.

 

[Todie]

Some thoughts!

QOL for army management is something many players ask for. Its ever-more relevant after the release of CK3. (although it lacks any automation of armies). CK3 has an extremely streamlined system for "army organization" as it just allows you to raise and disband the army anywhere on very short notice.

make micro slightly easier allowing the player to change out large chunks of an army a lot easier to suit the required role of that army

This is a point.

Currently its a bit cumbersome to reorganize the size and compositions of armies, not least to do so with respect to current cohort experience, its retention, xp of new cohorts as well as the personal loyalty of individual cohorts to particular characters. There is strategic rationale for considering all of these things when (re)organizing an army, but there is such a large disconnect between these strategic rationales and the UI-elements available to do this, that even players who go out of their way to pay attention to detail will not consistently do all of this.

Any new system has to do with "army chunks" could hopefully use the existing systems for cohort personal loyalty, (including "veterancy" for disbanded loyals), to streamline the process of re-assembling veterans under their favoured commander. presumably, there would be tradeoffs involved with this, and maybe a player choice in whether or not to let a general re-assemble their loyal men or not -- doing so makes their army fight with higher discipline but makes the general more prone to disloyalty and selfish /ambitious behaviour. (this is already the case, its just a fact that when armies move around, split and merge & when generals are assigned and unassigned, they end up commanding "their own" cohorts to a lesser and less consistent extent - and it's very difficult to micromanage this)

allow for more options for the player to assign minor characters as leaders of those Legions which may help create greater attachment to characters that otherwise go unnoticed and an attachment to certain armies or parts of that army.

This is another one.

As I've noted in reference to other suggestions involving jobs, I think it's worth keeping in mind the current "job economy" , or at least the purposes its meant to serve. Thus I think various added jobs might be better to label accordingly and have no impact or less impact on the expected jobs, as compared to the kinds of character jobs that currently exist.

... any introduction of hierarchy between general jobs would need to consider matters of relationships and loyalty among the generals though, and that's a whole rabbit hole of its own. worth thinking on

 

[Paghalay]

Some thoughts!

QOL for army management is something many players ask for. Its ever-more relevant after the release of CK3. (although it lacks any automation of armies). CK3 has an extremely streamlined system for "army organization" as it just allows you to raise and disband the army anywhere on very short notice.




This is a point.

Currently its a bit cumbersome to reorganize the size and compositions of armies, not least to do so with respect to current cohort experience, its retention, xp of new cohorts as well as the personal loyalty of individual cohorts to particular characters. There is strategic rationale for considering all of these things when (re)organizing an army, but there is such a large disconnect between these strategic rationales and the UI-elements available to do this, that even players who go out of their way to pay attention to detail will not consistently do all of this.

Any new system has to do with "army chunks" could hopefully use the existing systems for cohort personal loyalty, (including "veterancy" for disbanded loyals), to streamline the process of re-assembling veterans under their favoured commander. presumably, there would be tradeoffs involved with this, and maybe a player choice in whether or not to let a general re-assemble their loyal men or not -- doing so makes their army fight with higher discipline but makes the general more prone to disloyalty and selfish /ambitious behaviour. (this is already the case, its just a fact that when armies move around, split and merge & when generals are assigned and unassigned, they end up commanding "their own" cohorts to a lesser and less consistent extent - and it's very difficult to micromanage this)



This is another one.

As I've noted in reference to other suggestions involving jobs, I think it's worth keeping in mind the current "job economy" , or at least the purposes its meant to serve. Thus I think various added jobs might be better to label accordingly and have no impact or less impact on the expected jobs, as compared to the kinds of character jobs that currently exist.

... any introduction of hierarchy between general jobs would need to consider matters of relationships and loyalty among the generals though, and that's a whole rabbit hole of its own. worth thinking on

Thanks for the feedback. I personally think loyalty would work better under the proposed "army chunks" system rather than each individual cohort, if that is what you are also saying there?