Thoughts on Campaign Difficulty Level

[Drewski]

Ok, I've always played on Hard or V hard Campaign. Today, I started a Ptol Campaign, and I'd never tried them before, so wasn't sure which direction to go. Quickly combined/Built a very basic 10 stack, and went and took Syria. Fine so far. Then suddenly out of nowhere a virtual full stack of Seluk appears, which I just about beat, by using some very cheesy tactics which I hate. Then a turn later another 12 stack appears, and I spy 15 units in Damascus, where last turn there was 3!! Now virtually all of these troops were mercs.

Call me what you want, but Im sick and tired of just because I the player border a warring ai, it will spend all of its scripted cash on mercs. It ruins the game/balance in the early days for me, and that's not the purpose of its scripted cash. I have absolutely no qualms about fighting stack after stack, once the ai has built up in MICS and actually recruited the troops, its just the early mercenary spam...How on earth are a stack of 10 base lvl troops supposed to hold of 45-50 decent mercs that early on, with no infastructure etc...it just annoys the heck out of me, even if I use every cheesy tactic to somehow just hold them off, I don't get any sense of accomplishment...

Anyways, so to the point of this thread:-

I restarted, but opted for medium campaign...and It was like a breath of fresh air. I did the same (took Syria), and this time the ai didn't recruit any mercs (I'd heard this was true on Medium lvl). Instead, it waited and then attacked further down the coast with a homegrown 15 stack, at a lesser guarded city. The Syria stack had to rally to save the city, and just arrived in time...they achieved a heroic victory, with no cheesy tactics...in short it was fun :) Since then, there have been sporadic attacks, but no inst-full merc stacks.

It also allows for much more roleplaying, and allows the player to just sit and grow for a while. Hard and Very Hard campaigns almost force you to super-blitz early on (with nearly every faction-Rome and Carthage excluded), just to survive the ais insane early advantage. Which to my mind, goes against just about everything EB stands for.

Any thoughts?

[Apázlinemjó]

When I started to play EB, I chose a VH Pontos campaign, I guess I don't need to tell, I was obliterated by the Robocop merc armies of AS. Then I restarted it, with blitzing I was successful, but it became boring when I had to face the Silvershieldyeyeyeyelite armies turn after turn. Since then I play mostly medium campaigns. Call me a coward, but I like the fairplay.

Edit: Anyway, I agree with you, the money script is just insane at hard and very hard level.

[HunGeneral]

I agree with both of you. I always prefered M/M campaigns - I heard the AI is more senseable on Medium dificulty. Hard can be tried with some factions but for others it can be a nightmare. Very Hard is everything that is crazy - the AI factions even get about 10000 money extra every turn BESIDES the money-script. In other words its a full Merc-Stack Horde spam all the way...:whip:

[Marcus Ulpius]

I always play M/M. may be the game not challenging enough for those who want super tough campaign, but for me that's the way to assure that AI will behave at least with some level of rationality without hiring the whole merc pool to drive you out, or attacking you immediately after you start sharing the common border.

[DaciaJC]

Strange, but my Getai VH campaign shares none of the qualities that any of you explained. I didn't need to blitz (well, I suppose that's explained through the Getai's starting position). I never saw any insta-merc stacks from other factions. I bordered Makedonia for quite a while and we managed to keep the peace. Right now I share a border with KH with the length of four territories, if I recall correctly, and we're neutral (and have been for 10+ years, ever since KH kicked Epeiros completely out of their homeland). And the factions don't get an insane amount of money; rather, some of them are in debt.

The blessings of Zalmoxis may account for my rather serene campaign. :drama1:

[d'Arthez]

I really prefer Very Hard. Medium makes it a lot easier, to the point of campaigns being boring. If I can win Hayasdan easily on VH/M, I see no reason to play campaigns on M/M.

The "excessive" amounts of mercs in the early part of campaigns stop excessive blitzing. Ptollies are powerful enough on their own, they do not even need to consider blitzing to stand a chance against the Arche.

The civil war in Gaul can be blitzed out of existence in two gameyears, if it were not for AI merc spamming. The two year period is hardly realistic, is it?

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Any thoughts?

I agree with you completely. I scrapped and deleted all my Hard campaigns, and restarted with Medium difficulty to stop the AI being so aggressive - and forcing me to use blitz tactics to stop them spamming me with stacks of mercs.

Medium campaign is best for slow-paced, historical expansion, with the emphasis on town-building.

[Nachtmeister]

In my ongoing AS campaign (VH/M) the difficulty is what keeps the game interesting - the Ptolemaioi starting garrisons in the Levant are far too low to put up any real resistance; I let them build up a couple of turns, only attacking Tarsos when my faction leader arrived to lead the army.
With M difficulty, they would likely not even build up any forces at all and they need what mercenary reinforcements they can get against the combined army the player can bring to bear on them there around summer 271BC -
2xShipri Tukul,
2xPeltastai
3xPantodapoi Phalangitai
1xPezhetairoi
2xSphendonetai
1-4xSomatophylakes Strategou, depending on long term strategy (school vs. battlefield experience for FMs).
Eleutheroi attacking settlements adds a further dimension to campaigns - you actually have to keep realistic area defense armies for every satrapy.
Without this, the AS campaign would not be a challenge but rather a walk-to-victory.

With the smaller factions, I see no problems apart from late-game constant full-stack sieges on border settlements that simply consume a lot of time and population when further expansion is not an option due to public order issues (After taking Mikra Asia with KH, AS and Ptolemaioi turn into nerve-consuming inept spam, sending stack after stack of phalanx armies, easily defeated but very repetitive instead of acknowledging the new Spartan/Athenian empire.
So VH vs M is, imo, equivalent to interesting, difficult start and potentially "repetitive" long term game vs impossibly easy conquering roll across the known world.
I'd always pick the first option because it is possible, albeit difficult, to dominate the AI even in the long run. Warmongering generals with the "understanding of logistics" trait deep in enemy territory are key... This would even almost justify careful use of force diplomacy after a while to give both the player and the AI a break.

To address the OP,
Remember that even mercenary pools are limited - eventually, the AI will run out of fodder... :skull:
Blitz Antiocheia and Damaskos or prepare for a realistic but long border war.

[Drewski]

I really prefer Very Hard. Medium makes it a lot easier, to the point of campaigns being boring. If I can win Hayasdan easily on VH/M, I see no reason to play campaigns on M/M.

The "excessive" amounts of mercs in the early part of campaigns stop excessive blitzing. Ptollies are powerful enough on their own, they do not even need to consider blitzing to stand a chance against the Arche.

The civil war in Gaul can be blitzed out of existence in two gameyears, if it were not for AI merc spamming. The two year period is hardly realistic, is it?

I actually find fighting battles just about every turn pretty boring...

In that Ptol campaign at M campaign, Syria is the only prov I've taken in the first 15 yrs. And that was mainly for sensible empire continuity. I seriously doubt I could have stopped there on Hard or Very Hard, its just not practical.

In my ongoing AS campaign (VH/M) the difficulty is what keeps the game interesting - the Ptolemaioi starting garrisons in the Levant are far too low to put up any real resistance; I let them build up a couple of turns, only attacking Tarsos when my faction leader arrived to lead the army.
With M difficulty, they would likely not even build up any forces at all and they need what mercenary reinforcements they can get against the combined army the player can bring to bear on them there around summer 271BC -
2xShipri Tukul,
2xPeltastai
3xPantodapoi Phalangitai
1xPezhetairoi
2xSphendonetai
1-4xSomatophylakes Strategou, depending on long term strategy (school vs. battlefield experience for FMs).
Eleutheroi attacking settlements adds a further dimension to campaigns - you actually have to keep realistic area defense armies for every satrapy.
Without this, the AS campaign would not be a challenge but rather a walk-to-victory.

With the smaller factions, I see no problems apart from late-game constant full-stack sieges on border settlements that simply consume a lot of time and population when further expansion is not an option due to public order issues (After taking Mikra Asia with KH, AS and Ptolemaioi turn into nerve-consuming inept spam, sending stack after stack of phalanx armies, easily defeated but very repetitive instead of acknowledging the new Spartan/Athenian empire.
So VH vs M is, imo, equivalent to interesting, difficult start and potentially "repetitive" long term game vs impossibly easy conquering roll across the known world.
I'd always pick the first option because it is possible, albeit difficult, to dominate the AI even in the long run. Warmongering generals with the "understanding of logistics" trait deep in enemy territory are key... This would even almost justify careful use of force diplomacy after a while to give both the player and the AI a break.

To address the OP,
Remember that even mercenary pools are limited - eventually, the AI will run out of fodder... :skull:
Blitz Antiocheia and Damaskos or prepare for a realistic but long border war.

Yes Merc pools are limited, but its really only in the very early game when they make such a huge difference. And there's the point of once you have a shared border, and are at war, then that's it. You know you're only option for peace is to wipe said faction out, or at very least take out their core recruitment cities in one form or another. So you might as well get it done asap, when they are weaker, in other words blitz.

What I'm trying to get at, is blitzing is dead easy, even with massive ai merc spam. On hard, or V hard, I'd just have blitzed Seluk right back to Babylon, burning all on the way. Because it works, and that way its you rolling in the early cash and hiring the mercs. But I just feel forced into that plan of action, and honestly don't enjoy it anymore. If I don't blitz, and for example just sit in Antioch with a midi stack on H or VH, then I know Im going to have to fight several sally battles, all winnable but tedious, timeconsuming, and just not any fun. (fighting essentially the same battle over and over again).

In a Carthage campaign earlier this week, I was fighting Ptol defensively out of Kyrene. Ptols were arriving every single turn with a half stack and sieging the city. Now when I sally out (with my irreplacable 3/4 stack), the game sets me up on a blank wall , so I have to mess around moving all troops to the right gate, then sallying out, setting up, and then they'd all run away. Just a complete waste of time, over and over again. (There were two seperate 1/2 stacks, kick one back, next turn the other appears). Eventually, I had Kyrene under enough control to dare take most of the stack out. I get attacked by Army no 1, but the general and a few get away. Army No 2 then attacks me and seriously, the ONLY man that somehow survived and must have been hit about 3 million times, was the general. So I chase him and .....before my very eyes, him and his horse grow to 19 merc units and 40 something Bodyguard.

I gave up in disgust..:wall:

Each to his own though, and everyone will of course have a different idea of fun :beam:

If I find Medium campaign just too limiting in gameplay, then I'll go back to Hard. But its quite refreshingly good at the moment ;)

Thanks for listening to a tired rant....

[Nachtmeister]

I gave up in disgust..:wall:

:tredmil: Yeah I know that feeling.
Sometimes campaigns just seem to get "bogged down".
The central problem here is that the AI does not know or care what sort of situation the player might be role-playing. It always just assumes that the player is rather engaged in a game of dexterity/speed-clicking with the mouse than a plausible alternative history.
But that's probably because outside of this haven (EB community) the majority of pc gamers seem to be rather composed of people with no imagination capacity for role-playing.
When this happens to me I usually try to get a temporary distance from role-playing, analyze what is causing the holdup and then devise a plan how to get rid of the problem. It frequently involves over-extended borders or too many high upkeep units away from the front.
In general, it is always good not to let those siege stacks reach your territory in the first place - offensive defence in the close vicinity of the enemy capital will psychologically help because you do not lose the initiative that way...

[Drewski]

:tredmil: Yeah I know that feeling.
Sometimes campaigns just seem to get "bogged down".
The central problem here is that the AI does not know or care what sort of situation the player might be role-playing. It always just assumes that the player is rather engaged in a game of dexterity/speed-clicking with the mouse than a plausible alternative history.
But that's probably because outside of this haven (EB community) the majority of pc gamers seem to be rather composed of people with no imagination capacity for role-playing.
When this happens to me I usually try to get a temporary distance from role-playing, analyze what is causing the holdup and then devise a plan how to get rid of the problem. It frequently involves over-extended borders or too many high upkeep units away from the front.
In general, it is always good not to let those siege stacks reach your territory in the first place - offensive defence in the close vicinity of the enemy capital will psychologically help because you do not lose the initiative that way...

Very true :)

It was all really caused by me rolplaying "not attacking The Romans until they break the treaty and cross into Sicily"...i.e. I waited, and waited, and eventually got bored waiting, and wandered down to Kyrene. Only when I approached the City was I told "This will made the Ptols quite annoyed". By then it was too late to go back home.

And a few yrs later, the Romans did invade Sicily, and so the Kyrene lot were left to the own devices....The 1/2 stack siege stuff went on turn after turn for about 6 hrs playing time...It was kinda heroic for a while , then monotonous, then just damn annoying..

If you don't at least a little Roleplay, then it just becomes an exercise in how quickly and efficiently you can destroy the ai...I don't see any real replay value in that, once you've done it once...

Each to their own again ;)

[Zing]

I know that EB is suppose to be played h/m or vh/m, but I find that when I play small powers even m/m is enough for me. In my current game of Baktria I am on constant assault from Pahlava, Saka and Selecs, and none of them want any peace. They actually ignore their own wars, sending stacks after stacks on Baktria. My capitol is beseiged almost every second turn. I have hard time expanding anywhere since I need to keep at least half a stack in my capitol, defending, and the money for Baktria do not come that easy.
Therefore if I play a small power I will go m/m, if I play as Rome - its vh/m or even vh/vh.

[Cute Wolf]

What... AS did spam mercs in early game? they usually sending hordes of pantodapoi..........

[seienchin]

Look...
If you want to Roleplay. play on M. If you want to fight every turn and if you like to be forced to exploit the Ki weaknesses play VH. I guess the EB team didnt create EB to be realistic in terms of the Power of the factions or for the Players to Roleplay. It wanted to have a Hardcore Total War, which you can only beat with patience and knowing of every single Rome TW trick.:book:

[Atraphoenix]

If you choose VH for campaign, you have no option other than blitzing sorry :wall:
If you want to role play hard or medium.

[DaciaJC]

If you choose VH for campaign, you have no option other than blitzing sorry :wall:


Not necessarily true: Getai and Casse don't have to blitz; looking at the starting provinces of the Sweboz, I would guess that they don't have to blitz. Romani and the Lusotannan don't need to blitz, either. And, yes, I have played all of these campaigns with the exception of the Sweboz.

[Drewski]

Not necessarily true: Getai and Casse don't have to blitz; looking at the starting provinces of the Sweboz, I would guess that they don't have to blitz. Romani and the Lusotannan don't need to blitz, either. And, yes, I have played all of these campaigns with the exception of the Sweboz.

I've played Getai on Vh quite a lot, and I agree that once you've got a few rebel cities in your empire, you can calm down. MOST of the time, The Greek lot will leave you alone for a while, I'm surmising this is because those rebel cities aren't particularly high on any Greek factions "to do" list. However, in some games Epiros or Macedon randomly get a massive gain on the others, which tends to snowball. In that case, you're in trouble.

Casse is unique in EB, in being able to play the first 150+ turns against nothing but the rebels. Difficulty lvl is totally immaterial when playing Casse, as the ai factions aren't actually playing you for a long while, and by the time your ready to invade Belgium, you should be in a decent position.

Its those early turns (and I mean the first 80 or so, until you get a decent economy going in most cases) where the ai having relatively unlimited funds, that make the game a pain for me, thats why I switched, and am still enjoying it :)

[DaciaJC]

Its those early turns (and I mean the first 80 or so, until you get a decent economy going in most cases) where the ai having relatively unlimited funds, that make the game a pain for me, thats why I switched, and am still enjoying it :)

I'm glad that's the case, mate. :yes:

Personally, I found a Getai campaign of M/M too easy, and so I'm currently playing on VH/M. I suppose I just had a lucky case where the Eleutheroi absorbed most of the strength of the Makedonians. Truly, the one strange feature of my campaign is that the KH have completely kicked Epeiros out of their homeland. Literally, they blitzed their way through, taking four settlements within 10-15 years. Strangely, they haven't made the slightest act of aggression against me for several years. :shrug:

Oh, and the Karthadastim decided the Italic Peninsula looked better with a white color. :skull:

224 B.C.
https://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p311/Frontline1944/VHGetai224.jpg

[Gabeed]

My main issue with M/M is that rebel armies don't attack cities, if I recall correctly. This goes very much against the idea that the rebels are not merely escaped slave armies but minor states and powers. I lean towards H/M for this reason.

[V.T. Marvin]

I think that there is another factor that may exercise some influence on the AI behaviour, like the obstinate assaults every turn every time you share a border (and even if yo dont on BI.exe).
It is the reputation of your faction. I know, I know, the AI diplomacy is screwed beyond repair in RTW, but my observation is that apparently the AI can somehow track your dealing with the rest of the world and respond in kind. Well, on HARD difficulty - VH is just insane, I agree on that.:yes:

For instance, I now have a slow, heavily role-played Roman campaign going on (H camp/M battles, BI.exe) and I am past the year 200 BC. Throughout the game I have never attacked an AI facion first (well, there was one exeption which will be discussed later), rather I tried to build a sound alliance system, giving my allies 500,- per turn as a standart token of Roman friendship and 1000,- if they are in serious trouble.

Getai, Arverni and Lusotana are all my allies now for more than 200 turns of shared border (Segestica and Dalminion, Massilia, Emporion, Arse, Mastia). They never betrayed me.

At one moment, the Getai were almost crushed by the Epirotes. As a good ally, I send a diplomat to Epeiros to demand a settlement they have just taken from the Getai (and 10 000 mnai as a compansation) or "We will attack". They refused. O.K. I send a diplomat to the Getai, promised them military assistance agaist Epeiros and dispatched two legions to Dalmatia. I took former Getic provinces from Epeiros and gave them to their former owner - my ally. To punish the offender I took Dalminion for myself. Afterwards the Epirotes were glad to accept cease-fire. Getic-Epirote war is still, going on with low intensity and the balance of power keeps both sides from gainig upon the other. Being absorbed by their conflict, the Epirotes do not dare and the Getai do not wish to attack me and I have more than 50 years of peace on that front.

I am in an endless war with Carthage, who attacked me by besieging Sysracusae (I have avoided Messana to post-pone our confrontation) and who keep on attacking me by well planned invasions (most time on Sardinia) and other mischiefs ever since. They sometimes exept cesefire (more often I use the FD script) to regain stregth after major defeats, but they soon attack again. That suits me well. Incidentally, Carthage is at war with Luso too. So I allied with Luso, promised military help with Carthage and fom Emporion I advanced to take Arse and Mastia from them. But I refrain from going into the Gader region, which I recognize as Luso sphere of interest - they are unsucessfuly keep on besieging Gader for more than a decade now, which is actually good for me as it prevents the Carthies to make trouble and keep Luso occupied and interested in the allianc with me.

Arverni are definitely my favourites. I have done nothing beyond monetary assistance for them (which helped them to unite the Transalpine Gaul), yet they keep on being trusted allies ever sice I annexed Massilia. Apparently they do not percive me as a threat as I do not assault others without being attacked first and recognize the value of my alliance.

Thus the house rule not to start wars with AI factions gave me a very nice campaign, pretty challenging when war is out, but with managable peace and long-lasting alliances as well. :2cents:

Sorry for the overly long post, but I just have to share my own amazement with my current campaign.:shame:

[Joszen1]

A little story:

I almost won a Lusotannan campaign on vh/vh, it was fun, but basically meant spamming Iovamann and fighting on steep slopes. (Iovomann because they are dirt cheap for the power/number of their javellins). Maybe it is historically accurate that small factions are doomed against big ones (Parthia and Sweboz aside). Either way, the save was corrupted and I am over it. So now I play on vh/m, at least I can win glory in battles. BUT:

Then I read a rumour (from a different mod-forum) that the R:TW engine gives more benefits for AI factions on h/, rather than on vh/. Can anyone confirm this? Could that be specific to that mod?

I would like to give the ai as much bonus as possible on the stratmap because that's where the real game is for me.

Thanks in advance (my searching for an answer thus far has yielded conflicting results)

[Drewski]

My main issue with M/M is that rebel armies don't attack cities, if I recall correctly. This goes very much against the idea that the rebels are not merely escaped slave armies but minor states and powers. I lean towards H/M for this reason.

Very true, and for that reason I "honor" their presence and in current (and first) Medium Ptol campaign, as soon as they are spotted, I go and fight them. Playing M also allowed me to RP/build a large series of watchtowers throughout Africa, which I wouldn't have dared spend valuable early mnai on in H/VH.

I am also now of the opinion that some of the starting "rebel" armies are slightly insane on EB. As the Ptols, there is a stack near Parmarion(?) the town immediately west of Alex, and one way down SE. Both are decent stacks, and are almost undefendable. They will attack on turn 3 or 4, you don't even start with walls in either of those cities. The west of Alex town, will take everything you start with in Alex to back up, and thus you risk losing more valuable Middle Eastern provinces. The one SE is utterly lost whatever you do (if the rebel stacks attacks on turn 5 or 6 even), unless you divert all your meagre funds to it.

I just don't like the idea of a rebel 13 stack army, where you have 2 units and no walls. It just smacks of "oh yes, you will lose that city, and it has been decided for you". Ok, you can game it, and raze all buildings in both those cities, and take them again later on, but again, gaming it is the important phrase. Hard and V hard just force you to do silly stuff too much...

Bah another mini rant, many apologies ;)

[Atraphoenix]

You are right mates but players looks like separated into two mainly : Blitzers and House rule followers....
I do not count new players.

Blitzers claim that AI is a human hater so with the advised difficulty they had no chance other than blitzing.

House rule followers defends slow expansion and micromanaging. But I am sure they know it is impossible with AI on VH/M.

For me I am an early Blitzer than a micro manager.

I capture around 25 -30 cities depend on the region as my core Empire than mostly one of AI always attacks me as I follow VH/M so I start a new campaign, loot their cities, and conquer their capital then make an insulting agreement for them mostly make them my vassal. If there is a plague/death like blue/grey/yellow I attack that faction than give my territory to my vassals.
Pontus and Getai are very suitable for this kind of campaign.

or If I play with Pahlava I claim myself as the true successor to Achaemenids so I attack every faction on my way than make them my vassal. After I recreated old persian glory I just roleplay police of the world. I punish expansioners. help weak factions but never exterminate a faction that is why I mod a lot:yes:

but You may agree with me we are either Blitzers or House rule followers mainly.

[d'Arthez]

Another bonus on medium is a substantial increase in trade income in comparison to VH (trade income on Medium is trade *1.00; on VH it is trade *0.85). With a decent sized empire that is already 1000s of Mnai per turn.

Once you have 8-12 cities, you should not be able to lose against AI anyway, unless your cities are severely depleted.

The population replenishment script for the AI however is cause for concern on VH. Basically it allows the AI to spam unit after unit, while still improving the economic infrastructure at the same time. Does not make much historical sense. Alternatively switching that part of the script will result in most cities becoming ghost towns with a population of 400.

[Drewski]

There's also the fact that on VH, its often very beneficial to blitz ai cities with similar culture.

E.g. As KH, if you blitz Epeiros, and take Ambrakia, it generally has a lvl 4 MIC, which is far quicker than you can possibly build one yourself. Then there are the mining centers, which get built for you in super-rapido time, and never mind the future income, each one saves you 35,000 mnai, which you couldn't possibly spare early on...

There are other ways of using the ai's money against it, but they mostly seem like gaming to me again...

@ d'Arthez:- completely agree on the pop replen point. Its a rock and a hard place though, as you say. What is really needed is a seperate pool of money, one for economy, one for military. This would solve a lot of problems, but its impossible as RTW doesn't have that definition.

[ziegenpeter]

Well I recently discovered, that playing on M/H is going to be my prefered setting.
What bothers me about VH/M is that you have to fight stacks doubble the size of yours all the time - and win!
On M/H the ai is not that aggressive tiger on crack as on VH, but does its expansion and when it comes to a fight, its actually very interesting. Plus I am a very slow expansioner/conquerer or in Atraphoenix' terms: a house rule follower.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Interesting. I always play Medium battles so the AI doesn't get any bonuses.

Also I always play according to the following mantra: 'spend as little mnai on the army as you can possibly get away with, and spend as much mnai on town improvements as you possibly can.' The aim is 'the cheapest army possible that will still be sufficient to achieve my objective'.

So I always buy the troops which present the best value for money - generally the cheaper ones. Unless they are really, really crap, like levy spearmen, and a slightly more expensive unit will suffer fewer losses in battle and thus save town population losses - which means more taxpayers left in the town, which means more mnai coming in.

I either have a smaller army than the enemy army I'm fighting, making the battle interesting because I'm outnumbered by the enemy, or I have a larger army, but with crap troops compared to theirs, making the battle interesting because my units are outclassed by the enemy and suffer heavy losses.

Later in the campaign, and if I'm absolutely rolling in mnai but don't have a town overcrowding problem, I buy mercenaries. Mercenaries are expensive, but don't reduce your town population, maximising your tax income.

[ziegenpeter]

Well I played like you, but when you spend a bit more for the army, fighting is actually fun.