Hey buddy

I'll answer as best I can, I'm sure others will too.

It has been said that for an army to be useful basically it needs a general. What does that actually mean? Does this mean that you can no longer transfer individual units from one army or settlement to another and instead have to waste money recruiting units you already have?

In Rome 2 you no longer can have an army without a General. CA have done this to stop the AI from roaming around with lots of small or 1-unit 'armies', and as a result they hope to make the battles larger in scale and more impactful on your campaigns. The recruitment is done 'at' the army, with the units appearing in it automatically after the required number of turns.

What happens to the army, if the general dies of old age, in battle, due to assassination? Does it get disbanded no matter what the size was? Does it have to wait for another general? Can it continue on fighting without the guy?

The army will need to hire another General. If an army is wiped out completely you can still 'recreate' it later along with any bonuses you'd already assigned to it, because you can customise them some in Rome 2.

Are flexibility and simplicity offered in previous games dead and gone?

This one is all down to personal opinion, but for me all of these changes are welcome. They don't necessarily complicate the game any more. For example, the army system changes - would you rather fight ten battles a turn with smaller forces where the outcome doesn't really matter, or a single large battle which will have consequences if you lose?

Also, why do you keep on praising that line of sight thing? Honestly, I hate it. It makes the game, which is already hard, even harder. I see no reason for implementing it into the game. Who actually considered seeing every enemy unit in a battle a problem? They see all of your units. It wasn't an unfair system at all.

The AI won't be able to see your units if they're out of line of sight, indicated by the 'eye' icon above them - just like in other Total War games the AI couldn't see your guys if they were hidden in a forest. Again, for me, I welcome the change, it adds a new challenge to the battlefield.

What difficulty do you play on? What in particular do you find hard during the battles?

CA have done this to stop the AI from roaming around with lots of small or 1-unit 'armies', and as a result they hope to make the battles larger in scale and more impactful on your campaigns.

I have never seen this as a problem because I haven't seen many such armies. I liked those, they harass and raid trade routes. It is, or rather was, realistic. That's how war is. Tiny armies harass, large armies conquer. CA fixed things that didn't need to be fixed and broke them. Genius!

The army will need to hire another General.

What does the army do in the mean time. Sit on the spot like idiots? I have heard that the number of generals available for recruitment depends on your so called power, which is another constraining BS feature. Does that mean that, even if I have sufficient funds, I can't go expand because armies have been made useless without generals? Shit...

The AI won't be able to see your units if they're out of line of sight, indicated by the 'eye' icon above them - just like in other Total War games the AI couldn't see your guys if they were hidden in a forest.

I wasn't talking about ambushes. I was talking about the enemy being in the open yet still unseen because They are apparently too far away to be seen or a small hill is blocking the view.

What difficulty do you play on? What in particular do you find hard during the battles?

I play on M/M. No bonuses or penalties on either side. My micromanagement is crap, meaning I have become intimately acquainted with the P key.

[This message has been edited by jurijb08 (edited 08-30-2013 @ 05:15 AM).]

I would imagine that the LOS would be intelligent, like in RTW, where you could still see armies but not their type or strength, unless they are behind a large hill etc.

Loads of 1-unit armies running around isn't all that realistic or fun. Generals will be hired on the spot, you'll need to nominate a replacement immediately after losing your General (once the battle ends) so there is no period where your army is just dead weight.

As for Generals and armies - the larger your empire is the more you can have. I think the starting limit is 3, so that is still plenty. The idea is to stop tiny nations having death stacks, and of course adding a dimension to the campaign map.

I'm under the impression line of sight literally means line of sight - you can see units on a level field, but if they're hidden behind buildings, cliffs, forests or hills you can't. Realistic really. If you're afraid it'll make the game too hard maybe knock it down to easy?

I use the pause button all the time (and slow motion even more)

[This message has been edited by Aftermath (edited 08-30-2013 @ 05:37 AM).]

I hated those one unit armies that would appear. And you'd see millions of them clustered in one place, in every total war game. Once you got past a certain point those armies would be an incredible annoyance, not because they're doing any damage (they really didn't), but because they were "there". Getting rid of them was a pointless waste of time, but you kind of had to because it would annoy you to leave them. Grr.

Afty's done an admirable job in addressing and answering your questions and concerns jurijb08, but I'd like to personally answer a few points raised by you if you don't mind.

I have never seen this as a problem because I haven't seen many such armies. I liked those, they harass and raid trade routes. It is, or rather was, realistic. That's how war is. Tiny armies harass, large armies conquer. CA fixed things that didn't need to be fixed and broke them. Genius!

It wasn't realistic in that they had no serious effect on the enemy's main force or their supply lines. If they did cause something like a food shortage that caused enemy units to suffer a morale penalty or cause unrest that eventually led to a local rebellion then I'd agree. I also hated having to hunt down and eradicate every little band of soldiers. Not because I had to, but because it looks ridiculous having them march around your territory with impunity.

I wasn't talking about ambushes. I was talking about the enemy being in the open yet still unseen because They are apparently too far away to be seen or a small hill is blocking the view.

The new LOS system is meant to add a bit more realism to battles, as well as give more creative players an opportunity to set up ambushes on the battlemap instead of solely on the campaign map. The Romans, Greeks, Parthians, Carthaginians and other ancient peoples didn't have satellites to tell them how many soldiers the enemy had and where they were. Instead, they used light cavalry and infantry to scout ahead of the main army so that they could discover the enemy's whereabouts and watch out for any attempted ambushes.

I'm actually very happy that CA has added this feature in because it gives you chance to keep the enemy guessing as to what units you have at your disposal and how many you actually have. I have a feeling this will make multiplayer battles much more interesting and surprising.

Quoted from DominicusUltimus:

It wasn't realistic in that they had no serious effect on the enemy's main force or their supply lines.

Are you sure? I am positive they cause devastation, which affects public order in a settlement. Don't they also disrupt trade, if they stand on a road? I think I read that somewhere.

To the tune of about 100 golds worth of damage I seem to remember.

Tis cool you liked it, mind, I just an really glad I don't have to deal with it any more

I used to have a cavalry detachment of three in most cities, to deal with those peons. Sometimes I even got a Man of the Hour through their exploits. I guess that went the way of the longship now too.

Might have helped if marching an army in to a mine, town, or port did more damage to it. The AI often isn't smart enough to march a unit in and out of the place 10 times over, which is how you cause more damage and make it cost much more to repair. Also tedious micro-management for a player to have to resort to. Why no quick and easy "Damage building 100% at the cost of some\all movement points" option?

Marching in once only does a pitiful amount of damage which costs few, but annoying at times, coins to repair. Wreck something fully and then you start making players pay large chunks of money to repair their stuff. Nothing like making a 2,000+ gold sinkhole that needs repairing.

To the OP. If you want to do raids have a smaller army with a General. This means you are down to 1 general that would be more useful and powerful with a full stack.

I usually play H or VH in all total war series. In Shogun when play VH or H I see stack loads of smaller armies or navies going around all over the map. This makes the turns to complete take longer. Very annoying! Try VH on Fall of the Samurai playing Aizu and you'll see the Imperial armies and navies soaking up game time moving single units back and fourth.
------------------

Not sure if this is asked/answered already. If your general dies in battle. Can you still control the remaining men without a general on the campaign map? or will there be an auto next in line general amongst the survivors?

Very annoying! Try VH on Fall of the Samurai playing Aizu and you'll see the Imperial armies and navies soaking up game time moving single units back and fourth.

Absolutely! Single fleet gunboats or frigates could ruin your economy by themselves if left unchecked.

As for your question, I imagine as soon as the battle is over, you'll need to promote a new General to replace the one you lost. Or perhaps at the start of your next turn if you lose him during an AI turn.