Bring over the standing armies mechanic from I:R

[ray243]

One of the few things I liked about Imperator Rome is the mechanics they have developed for standing armies. While western europe did not have standing armies like the Romans, various army units did exist outside of western Europe.

Standing armies and armies loyalties were one of the ways you can use to balance against big powerful empires. You can have big massive armies that might easily wipe your opponents off the map, but you might have a hard time finding loyal generals to command the troops.

 

[vyshan]

the thing is that in this era standing armies weren't quite a thing as they were in the Classical era.

 

[Will Steel]

As a replacement to the retinue system? Definitely. CK2's retinues were a mess. Imperator's standing army system would fit imperial civilizations of the east very well, since the professional armies never really disappeared in ERE, India and parts of Persia. Eventually as western/central/eastern Europe gains retinue building capacity in late game with economic development, standing national armies could reappear there as well (as happened with French Gendarmes in 15th century). This system works alongside levy system, so there is no issue with that.

But as a replacement for standard military gameplay? No, not really. Levy system represents the armies of a feudal state pretty well. And it also works pretty nicely for tribes and Iqta government types.

 

[vitorms123]

This would be historically wrong... Standing armies were rarely used in medieval period

 

[ray243]

This would be historically wrong... Standing armies were rarely used in medieval period

No, that statement would be historically wrong, because it ignores everything east of western Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagma_(military)

 

[Atalvyr]

No, that statement would be historically wrong, because it ignores everything east of western Europe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagma_(military)

"Everything east of western Europe" is perhaps a bit much. It ignores a few specific cases such as the Byzantines and a few other realms, but those were the exception rather than the norm. It is better to build the core system for the majority of realms and then handle the exceptions. Even the Byzantines used pronoia to sustain their "standing army", which would still see soldiers return to tend their fiefs and perform garrison duty when not actively deployed. So they would still need to be "raised" when called to arms, leaving their garrisons much like demesne levies do in CK2.

 

[ray243]

"Everything east of western Europe" is perhaps a bit much. It ignores a few specific cases such as the Byzantines and a few other realms, but those were the exception rather than the norm. It is better to build the core system for the majority of realms and then handle the exceptions. Even the Byzantines used pronoia to sustain their "standing army", which would still see soldiers return to tend their fiefs and perform garrison duty when not actively deployed. So they would still need to be "raised" when called to arms, leaving their garrisons much like demesne levies do in CK2.

I said it ignores everything east of western Europe, not that everything east of western europe had a standing army.

Even for levies in the Byzantine empire, it's something that happened much later. But very often the distinction between levies and standing armies is not as big as people are making it out to be. If an levy army was not disbanded after years on campaign, it's as good as a standing army because all the levies who aren't tending their farms have to be paid and fed somehow.

It's not historically accurate to have standing armies all over the place, but CK throws out history once you start playing the game and turn Devon into a world empire.

What I hope for is less about wanting a standing army to make it easier for players, but a set of mechanics that don't make it too easy for players that switched over to having a standing army.

Maintaining standing armies in the pre-modern world comes with their own baggage and issues. I just hope CK3 can give us some of the problems empires faced when they had a standing army.

 

[Atalvyr]

What I hope for is less about wanting a standing army to make it easier for players, but a set of mechanics that don't make it too easy for players that switched over to having a standing army.

Maintaining standing armies in the pre-modern world comes with their own baggage and issues. I just hope CK3 can give us some of the problems empires faced when they had a standing army.

This we can agree on. I think they were on to a potential solution in CK2 with making powerful standing armies like the Varangian Guard and the Mamluks of Eqypt into vassalized mercenaries. That way they become a political entity you can interact with and there is the potential for strife between these armies and their "owners", like happened throughout history. Unfortunately this potential was largely unrealized in CK2, with little to no interaction between vassal mercs and their owners, much less any risk of conflict.

 

[wielkicien]

Removing levy and adding only standing army would also result in drop of performance. Another reason to say no to this suggestion.

 

[Berkyx]

There were no standing armies in medieval world. Its dumb, i hope they stick to what ck2 has.

 

[ray243]

There were no standing armies in medieval world. Its dumb, i hope they stick to what ck2 has.

And you're wrong.

 

[Myrten]

I think system should be more dynamic and both levies and standing armies have their place depending upon a country. Feudal states should start with levies but they should be able to reform as realm is centralized and ruler gains more power.

 

[Will Steel]

There were no standing armies in medieval world. Its dumb, i hope they stick to what ck2 has.

Western Europe? Yes.

The entire medieval world? Lol no.

 

[elvain]

the thing is that in this era standing armies weren't quite a thing as they were in the Classical era.

In Western Europe yes, but outside it? Hell no.
Standing armies were a must for most of Islamic empires, from Abbasids through Seljuks, Fatimids etc. not to mention Byzantine army.

Removing levy and adding only standing army would also result in drop of performance. Another reason to say no to this suggestion.

Who says that introducing standing armies means removing levies?

 

[ray243]

It's better to think of western europe as the oddity in the middle ages rather than the norm regarding the lack of a standing armies.