Bribing armies

[qmark]

Apologies if this has been discussed to death but I'm at a loss to explain this.

If I bribe an army why the hell do the units I couldn't have trained myself disappear? If I'm not wrong this was a good way to get some different/unique units in MTW?

Bribing is far to easy when a family member isn't involved, I think we can all agree on that. However I'd really like to know why units vanish, just because I couldn't have originally trained them.

Solution - how about making bribing much more expensive but when you bribe an army you take control of the entire army?

PS

Finally completed the Julii campaign ~:cheers: on Sunday morning. Shame it has to end there. Have started a Greek campaign though and am frantically trying to fight off the Scipii from Syracuse. Could really do with some infantry though, these hoplites aren't too hot on the walls! I know, I know, I'd rather have archers or some other unit there but you make do with what you got. I keep trying to sneak out and hire some mercs but there's none left!

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

Why would a foreign soldier want to work for you when he could just go home? Mercenaries are one thing, but a soldier might take your money to leave you alone when he wouldn't want to switch to your side.

As for not being able to buy what you can't build, I assume CA would say it was to balance the game.

[Lord Ovaat]

I do believe someone mentioned in another thread (possibly another site), that the troops will join only if they are of the same culture. Up until my current campaign, I never bribed anyone or anything. Just think it's rather absurd and far too easy. Didn't do it in MTW, neither. Diplomacy isn't great in either game, and I've always found it more realistic to just slug it out.

However, after reading all of the negative aspects of bribing in RTW, I decided to try a campaign called "Bribing for Conquest". Since you need money to test the theory, I chose Egypt. It also helps that they have good troops & good location if you do have to fight. So far, I've "accumulated"--hate to use the word conquer since it isn't appropriate--almost all of Africa, Western Asia, Greece, and a big hunk of Eastern Europe. I've only fought about twenty battles, ALL against faction leaders or heirs whom I couldn't bribe. I stayed nice and peaceful starting out, and concentrated on economy. It's so easy to bribe that it's laughable. And it really isn't expensive. I can generally bribe an army for less than it took the faction to recruit it. I also used the incredibly funny tactic of selling maps to the same factions, year, after year, after year. By the time Rome got to me--I say it that way because every time they started an army my way, I'd use one of my blossoming 8-9 influence diplomats to make them disappear--I'd already taken Greece and was bordering them in numerous locations. Course, if one faction of Rome declares war, they all do.

So, as it stands now, I've almost "obtained" enough provinces to attack Rome for the win. The campaign has been interesting, often funny, but never really in doubt. I've learned two things from this: first, I've never had an army join my command after being bribed, even when the named characters do. Second, this stuff needs to be fixed by CA. Fortunately, campaigning is only single player, and we can play with whatever tactics we choose. I didn't use any of the cheats, because that wouldn't have given me an honest evaluation of the diplomacy in RTW. Looking back, I doubt it would have mattered, anyway. Sad.

[qmark]

How does that explain units you can build from a different faction/culture joining? The culture thing doesn't make much sense to me to be honest, I'd imagine that the troops were more interested in who'd promise them a full belly and riches.

If you bribe an army you should bribe the entire army. Was this the case in MTW?

As for using finances as a strategy, I daresay that's a valid tatic. If instance a nation has little population from which to recruit an army but has a treasury full of gold, what other option would they have had.

I agree it IS far too easy to bribe and it makes some parts of the game silly, but when you're constantly getting tiny stacks of 3 or 4 units harrassing your cities/towns it's, as you say, cheaper to just bribe them.

[Bob the Insane]

Firstly, I agree that bribing (especially characters like generals) should be much more expensive...

I know there is historical precedence for the bribing thing in the ancient world, but I not heard the results of these events, what occured when the army what was bribed to leave a city alone got home and had to explain themselves, or did they ever go home???

I personally thought a good idea would be to make any faction troops who were successfully bribed, and did not join your faction, join the Rebel (slave) faction and start acting like a normal rebel army... This would make bribing a choice between two evils rather than an easy game winning tactic for the rich...

[Sinner]

What I'd like to see is a more variable outcome when attempting a bribe.

If the bribe is accepted, it shouldn't mean that the entire stack simply deserts: some might stay loyal, others switch sides or become rebels and some might just disperse. The chances for each would depend upon culture comparison, whether the units are elite or militia types, whether the factions are at war, whether they are in the army's or diplomat's territory, and the size of the army, since a lone unit would be far more likely to accept a bribe than one surrounded by potentially loyal witnesses.

Another change I'd like would the chance that unless the troops completely disperse or desert that they kill your diplomat, even if he's a 10 star and they're peasant slaves. There would also be a chance that they'd take the money no matter what else they do.

Bribery could thus still be used to disrupt an enemy, without so much certainity as we have now. Instead of the current dull process of just handing over a bag of cash and yawning at yet another failed invasion attempt, you could have the fun situation of ending up with a dead diplomat, stolen money plus a 3-way fight as you command the deserting troops against the no-doubt furious loyalists, with other troops that decided to turn brigand complicating matters. Even the latter outcome might be worthwhile though, giving you enough time to move up an army to intercept any remaining enemy troops.

[qmark]

Yep, I think you're both right.

1/ Make bribing more expensive (800 denarii for a unit that cost 2/3 times that to build is pants)

2/ Make the units that don't join you either return to their own faction or form rebel bands

3/ Make the chances of this happening dependant upon the unit. ie Urban Cohort unlikely to accept a bribe...elite = less chance of bribing success, they're hardly going to disband are they?

4/ If the bribe is rejected have some consequences for your diplomat. I'm sure there used to be instances of diplomats being killed for insulting generals with a pittance? Or have him held to ransom?

5/ Anything else?

[Sinner]

How about bribes not being instantaneous? Surely it would make more sense if there was a delay to allow time for the money to arrive from the treasury. For bribes in your own territory, the delay would be 0-1 turns, with the delay increasing the further away you get.

The target army could still move and could perhaps be lying when they say that they are going to accept the bribe. You'd have the uncertainty of wondering if that approaching army really is going to defect or are you being played for a fool.

A delay could also allow a chance for the enemy to send loyal troops to persuade the potential deserters that perhaps they might like to reconsider.