Quoting Lord Xia, reply 9
Quoting econundrum1, reply 6
Sun Tzu says commanding a large force is the same as commanding a small force. But, that being said, the current game mechanic is fine, doesn't matter really either way. I rarely have a need for an army of more than 6 any way.
He's wrong. Read Sherman's autobiography (which is where the idea came from to limit army sizes).
There is a BIG difference between commanding 3 units and 6 units (pretend that the units in FE have 500 people each if you'd like). The point is, feeding, supplying, and maintaining an army changes dramatically as the army size grows. Luckily it's a medieval army so it's not as bad.
There's a reason why the German barbarians weren't able to run around with 100,000 soldiers at once. The size of an army is ultimately dependent on the logistical knowledge of the civilization in question.
You're absolutely right, it's only a shame that the mechanisms you are referring to are not taken into account in the game (or not yet).
The usefulness of a force depends from 2 main points :
- the chain of command, the orders of the chief are given to the smallest unit without dissonance and disturbance,
- the logistic chain that links the force to its stocks of weapons, food and manpower is in place and functional.
In FE, neither of this 2 concepts is implemented. The champions have no personal ambitions to settle or carve a kingdom for themselves, to become king in the place of the king, to create a challenging dynasty for the future generation of sovereigns, they don't want to profit from their plunder because they have no money to spend. The units when they are paid go where the player wants them to go and if the player has no money to pay them don't become bandits and cutthroats. The orders are given instantly without error or interference by a subordinate. The stacks are well fed and in condition to fight even even they are in the middle of enemy territory and cut of any allied bases to pay them, give them food and clothes and heal them. With this level of omitted details it must not be a surprise if sending a stack of champions at the other side of the world to destroy enemy cities is such easy and the way to win.
Relecture of Xenophon (Anabasis), the campaigns of Alexander and Hanibal or the memories of Cortes and Pizarro should be inspirations to take into account. Even in a magical world, everything should not be possible without a good preparation.
Friendly cities and outposts (own or with diplomatically negociated passage and supply rights) should generate supply areas to pay, feed and heal the stacks (could be different areas depending the effect you research) and no a recently captured city should not be a 'friendly city' or you have magical means to give you a limited supply for a limited time (remember the Hebrews and Moses in the desert). Even the use of friendly allied sources should have an increased cost: during the 80 years war the chain of supply (gold mainly) of the Spanish Tercios fighting in the Lowlands was coming from Spain through Northern Italy, Alps, Lorraine and then arrived in the Lowlands. During the 30 years war, the armies fighting in Germany were followed by bands of suppliers, pimps and whores, smiths, horsetraders, professional gamblers that followed the armies and participated to the destruction of the country.
