Originally Posted by jedi3112
Maintenance could work, but not in the current EAW system. It didn't even work right in Rome. You had to have a basic income for each unit, but there was no way to keep increasing your income. For example you couldn't keep upgrading your mines. You could conquer a city, but you couldn't create one yourself. So there was no way to actually get enough resources for an infinite army. Apart from that, the more cities you had, the more troops you could use. this just meant that the strong would keep getting stronger even faster than the weak. IMO the stronger you are, the more carefull you should be, just to give the weak a chance (not realistic but balanced).
Thus why you needed to move forward and conquer new territories which is
the basis of a Total War game. It was simply so you couldn't turtle up a big amount of cities in a small territory (which according to Civ is a pretty bad idea, but we're talking about Rome).
Of course there is no real way to get an infinite army. I was merely talking about the game mechanics allowing that to happen.
In Total War, you indeed have to be much more careful the bigger you get. With larger territory and riches, rival nations all want your head. You don,t have many friends. Protecting your very large border becomes a huge chore as troops do not "hyperspace" to the next city. Micro-managing also becomes much more tedious.
has a chance. I don't want the puny 2 cities faction to somehow repel forever the largest military in the world. That's not balance, that's just murdering realism.