AI, economy, unit size and missile attack questions

[Cortex]

Hey everyone, I used to play the original RTW back when it was a brand new game and I've been told about EB by a friend of mine a couple of weeks ago. Well, definitely a great mod, but I have a couple of questions, if you don't mind -

Does the AI actually care about finances? It seems to me that the economy is pretty harsh, I can hardly afford a bunch of the worst units and still have to wait incredibly long to be able to build something in the city, while the AI happily spams units and probably builds. So, does the AI "cheat"?

And something relating to it - is there any point in sacking cities? I tried to "sack" Antiocheia and Seleukeia (i.e. enslave the population and raze all building that can be razed) and it didn't seem to have any effect.

And in other words - am I doing something wrong or is the economy really a harsh mistress? I cannot imagine having a cataphract unit, I would have to disband everybody else.

Is there any reason why everybody in the AARs uses huge unit size? Does it affect the unrest? I mean, is the unrest penalty relative or absolute? Or any other reason or is it purely an aesthetic choice? Oh, and while I am at it, if you use the huge size, does the AI reflect to it and does it therefore use less units or does it plunder the population? I wouldn't like to a) fight unequal battles as I would recruit only as much as possible to have my cities grow and b) I wouldn't want to have every newly conquered city populated by 400 citizens or whatever the minimum is.

I vaguely remember from the original RTW that when attacked by a missile weapon, only the shield protection counted. Is still true? I also equally vaguely remember that being shot to back or to the side with a weapon (i.e. the other than with a shield) was much more devastating. It seems to me that in EB shooting the phalanx in the back works quite well, but it has no effect whatsoever to shoot them from (my) left.

And the last one (for now :-) ) : the description of the mines says 2000 and 5000 respectively while the income scroll in a settlement says it is only 600. A bug? A mistake? Which one of them is true? I had the mines in the beginning and can't destroy them to see the difference in the faction budget.

Thanks in advance for eventual answers and sorry for my poor English :-)

[Zett]

So, does the AI "cheat"?


FAQ says: The AI gets some assistance. The not perfect solution is that the AI factions are getting financial help via script, if their treasury is under a certain amount of mnai. "You have brain, and the AI has money."

So, yes the AI cheats



And in other words - am I doing something wrong or is the economy really a harsh mistress? I cannot imagine having a cataphract unit, I would have to disband everybody else.

Build up your economy, build ports and mines for example.
Cicero says: Endless money forms the sinews of war.



Oh, and while I am at it, if you use the huge size, does the AI reflect to it and does it therefore use less units or does it plunder the population? I wouldn't like to a) fight unequal battles as I would recruit only as much as possible to have my cities grow and b) I wouldn't want to have every newly conquered city populated by 400 citizens or whatever the minimum is.

IIRC the AI cities get via script +200 men if it recruits a unit. That means if they recruit elite troops which have a size of 120 men (on huge size) their cities grow faster then normal, if they recruit some skirmischers (240 men on huge size) the city loses only 40 men per unit.



And the last one (for now :-) ) : the description of the mines says 2000 and 5000 respectively while the income scroll in a settlement says it is only 600. A bug? A mistake? Which one of them is true? I had the mines in the beginning and can't destroy them to see the difference in the faction budget.


The amount of money you get from mines changes from region (city) to region (city), so check the income scroll of the city, that number is true.

And please read the FAQ (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=84854) first:yes:

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

[Cortex]

FAQ says: The AI gets some assistance. The not perfect solution is that the AI factions are getting financial help via script, if their treasury is under a certain amount of mnai. "You have brain, and the AI has money."

So, yes the AI cheats

And please read the FAQ (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=84854) first:yes:


Ehm, sorry, I read it a month or more ago and I though there were no answers to my questions, my mistake. But hey, at least I am not asking about the government system! :-))


Build up your economy, build ports and mines for example.
Cicero says: Endless money forms the sinews of war.
Heh, yeah, easy to say, bu to have some extra cash (at least as Armenia) in the beginning means to disband every single unit, which is....not exactly temtping, let's say.




IIRC the AI cities get via script +200 men if it recruits a unit. That means if they recruit elite troops which have a size of 120 men (on huge size) their cities grow faster then normal, if they recruit some skirmischers (240 men on huge size) the city loses only 40 men per unit. Ah, great. Well, not so great, because that means they will spam armies of thousands, but I guess that is the part where the "you have a brain, the Ai has money/numbers" comes in (again ;-) ).





The amount of money you get from mines changes from region (city) to region (city), so check the income scroll of the city, that number is true.

Ok, thanks a lot.

[Subotan]

What faction are you playing as?

[Primative1]

Heh, yeah, easy to say, bu to have some extra cash (at least as Armenia) in the beginning means to disband every single unit, which is....not exactly temtping, let's say.


Ah, great. Well, not so great, because that means they will spam armies of thousands, but I guess that is the part where the "you have a brain, the Ai has money/numbers" comes in (again ;-) ).





You have 2 choices when you start a campaign;

Blitz with your starting armies & use them to expand your tax base or disband and build up your economy in your starting cities.

[Cortex]

I am playing as Armenia, as in every game which includes Armenia. :-)

I would gladly disband it and build up my economy, but that would leave me vulnerable. I am really looking forward to EB II which I guess will include a) free upkeep for certain units if in a city b)recruiting more units at the same time. That seems pretty ideal to me. No with the one unit per round system, I can do hardly anything if the Seleukids besiege Armavir.

In any case, I don't want to be a whiner, I am not as much complaining about the balance as I am asking for suggestions or explanations. But yes, the income/upkeep balance is very different from other mods or Medieval II, but yes, I've been warned in the FAQ and should just suck it up. :-)

However, it really is frustrating to pay some cca 10k just for the MIC when I already pay outrageous sums for recruitment and upkeep.

But then again - eat it or beat it, I know :-)

[theoldbelgian]

if you want to play as hayasdan good luck with that, there are severall other threads wich give you advice on playing as the hai
as said by the faction description they are nigh-impossible and aren't recommended even for mid good players so very good luck with that
other answers of your questions
huge unit size gives you a more real fealing and generally for me more men is beter also they are better for your unrest indeed because they have the seem upkeep as normal but more men=> more garisson bonus
also indeed the defense skill bonus doesn't work on arrows and it onlu works from the front and the rightso yes if you hit them in the left side this should have more effect

ok that was it I think good luck with your campaign and hoping you succeed

[Zett]

Heh, yeah, easy to say, bu to have some extra cash (at least as Armenia) in the beginning means to disband every single unit, which is....not exactly temtping, let's say.


Good luck with the Hai, they have a very difficult start.:beam:

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

[Dayve]

You have 2 choices when you start a campaign;

Blitz with your starting armies & use them to expand your tax base or disband and build up your economy in your starting cities.

You don't have either option as Armenia. The army you start with is small and of poor quality, save for your generals guards. The only cities you can blitz with that are 2 or 3 rebel cities around you. Try blitzing Seleukid lands with it and, when they're done laughing in your face, they'll wipe the floor with you.

You can't disband and build up because the Seleukids are coming for you right from turn 1.

[Cortex]

Yeah, something like that, but there is more to it than a tough beginning.

According to the Recruitment Viewever (which is a little outdated, I guess, but should still provide roughly reliable information) Armenia or Hayasdan, as you like it, is openly discriminated against! :-)

Let's take a look at these guys

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/hayasdan/hay_mardig_swordsmen.gif

They have more or less the same statistics as Polybian Principes, but these poor, oppressed Armenians cost more than 100 mnai per round more than the Romans and available from the level 4, while Principes are available from the level 3.

Well, actually I can get over it quite easily - the Georgian infantry is only slightly weaker and available from the level 3 and you can argue that Armenian warfare was primarily based on cavalry, so this only copes with the facts. Fair enough, but why in that case do the Pahlava have Cataphracts from the level 4 (and something with even better statistics called Pahlava Noble Cataphracts available from even the level 3!) while its Armenian counterpart with identical statistics is available to me from the level 5, which I will probably never achieve :-) ?

I'm going to check this in-game...

Ah, I guess it is a deliberate attempt to make one faction "nigh-impossible", but why does it have to be my favourite faction? Why me, why me? :laugh4:

Oh and thanks for the wishes.

[Mediolanicus]

Just start with an easier faction to get to know EB.

EB is slower than RTW. By 240BC you'll be swimming in gold, just like you did in RTW though.

[Zett]

https://www.europabarbarorum.com/i/units/hayasdan/hay_mardig_swordsmen.gif

They have more or less the same statistics as Polybian Principes, but these poor, oppressed Armenians cost more than 100 mnai per round more than the Romans and available from the level 4, while Principes are available from the level 3.

The poor Romanoi need cheap units.



Fair enough, but why in that case do the Pahlava have Cataphracts from the level 4 (and something with even better statistics called Pahlava Noble Cataphracts available from even the level 3!) while its Armenian counterpart with identical statistics is available to me from the level 5, which I will probably never achieve :-) ?


Phalava is the cavalery faction. They have some of the best Cataphracts that are available in the whole game. So, how I said good luck, you will need it.

As Hayasdan you have a good mix out of heavy assault infantery, light spearmen, and cavalery. Learn how to use this combination. Then go and sack Rome, they deserve it, pay them back that they have cheaper units then you, show no mercy!

Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam

[Cortex]

The game leaves me hardly any other choice. Thanks for the support. :-)

[Primative1]

You don't have either option as Armenia. The army you start with is small and of poor quality, save for your generals guards. The only cities you can blitz with that are 2 or 3 rebel cities around you. Try blitzing Seleukid lands with it and, when they're done laughing in your face, they'll wipe the floor with you.

You can't disband and build up because the Seleukids are coming for you right from turn 1.

You have a third choice apparently.;

You get screwed.

[LordCurlyton]

You have a third choice apparently.;

You get screwed.

Option? More like opportunity!! Mmmmmmmmm.....huh? What are you looking at?


On a more serious note I would recommend that you play one of the established factions first, preferably one that is not swimming in enemies to start. That means heading west and playing as Romani or Carthage, most likely, or Ptolemaioi if you want some instant action. Rome especially is basically the easiest faction to play as the only enemy they have is a poorly-defended Epeirotic Taras, with strong rebels to the north to provide a buffer while the learning happens. Plus you'll generally be able to pick your time to start the Punic Wars with Carthage. But Rome happens to be one of the few factions that start in the black (roughly 5k per turn or so I believe) so it makes for a great learning faction. If you are just using them for learning don't actually try and achieve victory unless you like them enough to go and conquer the map, plus you have to raid (i.e. capture and release, if necessary) EVERY capital of note that lies outside of Rome's historical expansion (I believe only the nomads get left out).
After that you can feel free to return to the Hai, who along with Pontus have the worst starting positions in the game IMO, and enjoy the sight of silver stacks. Personally this is how I eased myself into EB back in the day:
Romani until Marians
Makedonia for roughly 100 years
Pahlava completed

This let me take on greater challenges and experience new aspects of EB at the same time. I have since at least attempted a campaign with every faction sans Saba and Casse. Incidentally, the three factions I started with still remain my favorites to this day.

[Primative1]

Option? More like opportunity!! Mmmmmmmmm.....huh? What are you looking at?

Screwed, but not in a good way.

But you knew that.

[theoldbelgian]

I would like you to make it but it's like they say in the first matrix: nobody makes it the first time

[LordCurlyton]

Screwed, but not in a good way.

But you knew that.

That I did, good sir, that I did. :titanic:

[Ludens]

According to the Recruitment Viewever (which is a little outdated, I guess, but should still provide roughly reliable information) Armenia or Hayasdan, as you like it, is openly discriminated against! :-)

EB tries to simulate history as much as it can within the constraints of the engine. As such, it makes sense that Rome can obtain heavy infantry cheaper and easier than Armenia. Rome has a tradition citizen heavy infantry while Armenia drew her main warriors from the nobility, who were horsemen. On the other hand, Rome's cavalry is generally bad and overpriced while the Armenians have access to some of the best cavalry units in the game.

That's not to say the mod is entirely realistic. Historically, the Seleucids would never focus on Armenia like they do in the game, because they would be distracted by other threads, but the A.I. is programmed to hate the player. As result, once the war starts it will be almost impossible to stop it, and the Seleucids can and will throw army after army at you. Hence Armenia is marked as nigh-impossible.

[Cortex]

I would like you to make it but it's like they say in the first matrix: nobody makes it the first time

Thank you, I have survived so far, although I don't play every day, so it has been only a couple of turns


EB tries to simulate history as much as it can within the constraints of the engine. As such, it makes sense that Rome can obtain heavy infantry cheaper and easier than Armenia. Rome has a tradition citizen heavy infantry while Armenia drew her main warriors from the nobility, who were horsemen. On the other hand, Rome's cavalry is generally bad and overpriced while the Armenians have access to some of the best cavalry units in the game.
I understand the motives, as I wrote earlier in this thread, I have no problem with Rome having cheaper infantry, what seems slightly unfair is that Rome's hastati/principes/triarii are available to her from MIC 3, I have to wait for my Cataphracht Horse Archers until level 4 and for Cataphracts until level 5. Sure I have Armenian Medium Cavalry available from level 3 and Armenian Skirmish Cavalry from level 2, if I am not mistaken, and yes I can win battles quite safely with them, but it would be nice to be able to add a unit of cataphracts, just for the feeling. I mean I certainly wouldn't spam them since they cost some 4000 mnai to recruit.

[heldelance]

Well, that's because the infantry that make the bulk of Rome's forces were recruitable from pretty much EVERY Roman city, Their infantry is made up of the people not just nobles. With the Hai, the cataphracts you're talking about were recruited from the nobility which would only really reside within the capital of the faction, I guess that the reason why you can only get them when you develop your city to a pretty high level is because it reflects the idea that unless your city becomes big enough and attractive enough to the nobility, they aren't going to be moving there. You can get skirmisher cavalry and lighter cavalry earlier on because they don't really depend on super rich noble families, they only need a person that can buy a horse and afford some light armor.

[LordCurlyton]

Thank you, I have survived so far, although I don't play every day, so it has been only a couple of turns


I understand the motives, as I wrote earlier in this thread, I have no problem with Rome having cheaper infantry, what seems slightly unfair is that Rome's hastati/principes/triarii are available to her from MIC 3, I have to wait for my Cataphracht Horse Archers until level 4 and for Cataphracts until level 5. Sure I have Armenian Medium Cavalry available from level 3 and Armenian Skirmish Cavalry from level 2, if I am not mistaken, and yes I can win battles quite safely with them, but it would be nice to be able to add a unit of cataphracts, just for the feeling. I mean I certainly wouldn't spam them since they cost some 4000 mnai to recruit.

And in what way is that unfair? Cataphracts are supposed to be rare. Even playing as Pahlava you aren't going to be fielding large amounts, unless you like crushing debt. Catas and the like are elite units and are priced such, and also are only made available from higher tiers. Conversely, the units that you say Rome "unfairly" gets at "only" MIC 3 are the backbone of EVERY SINGLE Republican army made. Besides, even in the Polybians you can only build Rome's Factional MIC in Italy proper (not even Sicily), which forces a Roman player to either continually ship troops from the mainland and/or make heavy use of regionals.
The issue is that catas are a true elite unit, something Rome truly lacks. Rome just has a very solid line of "very good" units to compensate. You want catas, then build your economy up. Remember, in the beginning Hayasdan does not start as a powerful independent kingdom; they are merely another rebellious satrapy to the AS (starting diplomacy reflects this). An under-developed backwoods primarily. Survive lone enough to get some of the Hayasdan government reforms and your situation improves dramatically. Notice how you don't have Homeland or Expansion provinces to start? That right there will keep you from ever seeing catas. First (and this is in the FAQ) you need to build up your starting province to trigger the Homeland resource, allowing you to make Type I Gov. then you need to conquer basically all the adjacent provinces (even the AS ones) and build a Type III in all to trigger the next step, allowing more Expansion and Homeland resources. And so on. As far as the number of provinces that can actually recruit the catas, EB generally tries to restrict them to historical locales. Armenian catas, being Armenian, will naturally be restricted only to locations that had both what would have constituted the ethnic Armenian nobility and been rich/productive enough to have made such units in a viable quantity. Roman Hastati/Principes/Triarii, on the other hand, were drawn from the citizenry, a far vaster body to draw from. Just look at the Punic Wars to see just how deep and how willing Rome was to draw up ever available man to fight (though the 2nd War basically bled a vast part of that generation away).
IMHO, the Hai unit roster is basically Pahlava's just not as diverse and widespread. Coupled with a MUCH more difficult starting position I'll play Pahlava any time I get the HA/Cata itch. If I ever try Hai again I'm just going to use Scythian HA regionals and play as a pseudo-HA faction until I can attrition the AS and have an actual economy. Hai infantry will get decimated once the AS and its AI money start churning out all-phalanx stacks.

[jhhowell]

What do you mean "pseudo" HA faction? ~:) Do people actually play Hayasdan without taking full advantage of the Scythians? Maybe that's why so many people have been calling it "near-impossible"...

Cortex, don't worry so much about the MIC 5 cataphracts, it's better to use Kinsmen (MIC 4, and very widespread). They're both powerful, extremely heavy cavalry, and the few extra points of armor on the cataphracts just aren't worth the significant cost increase and tiny recruitment area, IMHO.

[Cortex]

And in what way is that unfair? Cataphracts are supposed to be rare. Even playing as Pahlava you aren't going to be fielding large amounts, unless you like crushing debt. Catas and the like are elite units and are priced such, and also are only made available from higher tiers. Conversely, the units that you say Rome "unfairly" gets at "only" MIC 3 are the backbone of EVERY SINGLE Republican army made. Besides, even in the Polybians you can only build Rome's Factional MIC in Italy proper (not even Sicily), which forces a Roman player to either continually ship troops from the mainland and/or make heavy use of regionals.
The issue is that catas are a true elite unit, something Rome truly lacks. Rome just has a very solid line of "very good" units to compensate. You want catas, then build your economy up. Remember, in the beginning Hayasdan does not start as a powerful independent kingdom; they are merely another rebellious satrapy to the AS (starting diplomacy reflects this). An under-developed backwoods primarily. Survive lone enough to get some of the Hayasdan government reforms and your situation improves dramatically. Notice how you don't have Homeland or Expansion provinces to start? That right there will keep you from ever seeing catas. First (and this is in the FAQ) you need to build up your starting province to trigger the Homeland resource, allowing you to make Type I Gov. then you need to conquer basically all the adjacent provinces (even the AS ones) and build a Type III in all to trigger the next step, allowing more Expansion and Homeland resources. And so on. As far as the number of provinces that can actually recruit the catas, EB generally tries to restrict them to historical locales. Armenian catas, being Armenian, will naturally be restricted only to locations that had both what would have constituted the ethnic Armenian nobility and been rich/productive enough to have made such units in a viable quantity. Roman Hastati/Principes/Triarii, on the other hand, were drawn from the citizenry, a far vaster body to draw from. Just look at the Punic Wars to see just how deep and how willing Rome was to draw up ever available man to fight (though the 2nd War basically bled a vast part of that generation away).
IMHO, the Hai unit roster is basically Pahlava's just not as diverse and widespread. Coupled with a MUCH more difficult starting position I'll play Pahlava any time I get the HA/Cata itch. If I ever try Hai again I'm just going to use Scythian HA regionals and play as a pseudo-HA faction until I can attrition the AS and have an actual economy. Hai infantry will get decimated once the AS and its AI money start churning out all-phalanx stacks.

I don't challenge the fact that they should be rare. Of course they should, from both historical perspective and from the perspective that playing with a full stack of cataphracts would get boring in 10 turns, if not sooner.

But, just as Hastati and co. are available to Romans quite soon because they are recruited from citizens, the cataphracts or any other heavy cavalry are recruited from nobility, both of them are somewhat inherent to the country. It's not like it was some peasant commune, is it?

The rarity is secured by the exorbitant recruit/upkeep price, like you said yourself, even as Pahlava, one doesn't use them massively, that's how it should be, but he can use them if he wants

And I do know about the reforms, I am not that retarded ;-)

jhhowell: yeah, I have kind of found out already, but thanks :-)


And generally here's a thought: the whole barracks/stables/MIC/whatever idea seems somewhat weird to me. They didn't need a complexes as expensive as temples to recruit soldiers, did they? If I recall correctly the Romans for example just assemblied the recruits at the Campus Martius and trained them there.

And as with the recruit/upkeep prices: if I understand it well, the recruit price is always quadruple of the upkeep price now. Wouldn't it make more sense to express the price of gear - weapons, armour, shield in the recruit price and the costs of feeding and paying the unit in the upkeep price? Say that there would be a base upkeep price of 100 mnai to represent the food which would be the same for every unit and then some extra costs to represent the solider's pay which would vary according to the skills of a unit. So, it could (and should if you ask me) happen that e.g. Kazvkaza Sparabara would be cheaper to recruit than to upkeep, this would allow the player to wage a really defensive war, summoning militia for a turn or two to fight off the invading army and then disband them. No major impact on the popuation, relatively cheap. I think it would be especially worth considering in the M2TW engine, in which you can recruit more units at the same time.

What do you think?

[desert]

I read this some time ago, and I can't remember the exact figures, but I think you need half a mnai just to feed a single man for an EB turn.


And in Greece, say they get payed a drachma a day. A turn = about 90 drachmae. Now, there are 100 drachmae in a mnai. So just for a single man you need a mnai to pay him for a turn, and perhaps up to two mnai to include food, repairs, etc. And these are just for hoplites. Nobles, now were talking exorbitant sums!

That's quite a bit of money. Probably the EB units should cost much more, but the economy would have to be tweaked accordingly (factions got a lot more money than you see in-game), or else one would barely be able to afford a unit of pantodapoi. :laugh4:

[Cortex]

I read this some time ago, and I can't remember the exact figures, but I think you need half a mnai just to feed a single man for an EB turn.


And in Greece, say they get payed a drachma a day. A turn = about 90 drachmae. Now, there are 100 drachmae in a mnai. So just for a single man you need a mnai to pay him for a turn, and perhaps up to two mnai to include food, repairs, etc. And these are just for hoplites. Nobles, now were talking exorbitant sums!

That's quite a bit of money. Probably the EB units should cost much more, but the economy would have to be tweaked accordingly (factions got a lot more money than you see in-game), or else one would barely be able to afford a unit of pantodapoi. :laugh4:

I am not a historian, so I don't know the exact figures. However, I think that the prices are the same regardless of chosen unit size, so you can imagine it stands for the small size, or the income could be tweaked as you suggested.

Furthermore, I understand the desire to keep things as historical as possible, after all, that's what makes this mod so great, but there are certain limits. If I (again) recall correctly, if you wanted to be strictly historical, you should have the recruit price of Camillan and Polybian zero as it was a civic duty to serve ten campaigns in the army. Of course you cannot force the AI to disband the units after ten campaigns, thus the recruit price to compensate it.

So, leaving the exact figures aside for the moment, what do you think about the idea in general?

[Tolg]

is it even possible to change the relation between upkeep and recruitment costs?


If it is then I don't understand why an unit of artillery has a higher upkeep than a unit of elephants...

[desert]

Well, they're trying a lot of new stuff in EB 2, like 0 turn recruitment and free upkeep for some units. So some of your ideas might come to fruition in one form or another.

[Cortex]

is it even possible to change the relation between upkeep and recruitment costs?


If it is then I don't understand why an unit of artillery has a higher upkeep than a unit of elephants...

They are two independent numbers. From "export_descr_unit.txt"


stat_cost Number of turns to build,
; Cost of unit to construct
; Cost of upkeep
; Cost of upgrading weapons
; Cost of upgrading armour
; Cost for custom battles

and indeed some units don't follow the "rule"


type generic ship navas
dictionary generic_ship_navas ; Huge poliremes
category ship
class heavy
voice_type General_1
soldier hellenistic_infantry_pantodapoi_illyrian, 13, 0, 1
ship heavy warship
attributes sea_faring
formation 1.2, 1.8, 2.4, 2.4, 3, square
stat_health 1, 0
stat_pri 36, 0, no, 0, 0, melee, blade, slashing, none, 25 ,1
stat_pri_attr no
stat_sec 0, 0, no, 0, 0, no, no, no, none, 25 ,1
stat_sec_attr no
stat_pri_armour 25, 1, 0, flesh
stat_sec_armour 0, 0, flesh
stat_heat 0
stat_ground 0, 0, 0, 0
stat_mental 30, normal, untrained
stat_charge_dist 30
stat_fire_delay 0
stat_food 60, 300
stat_cost 4, 20000, 9000, 1000, 1000, 20000
ownership romans_brutii, numidia, macedon, romans_julii, thrace, greek_cities

Well, they're trying a lot of new stuff in EB 2, like 0 turn recruitment and free upkeep for some units. So some of your ideas might come to fruition in one form or another.
That would be nice. :-)