EB v1.1 - Immense costs for mercenary troops

Hello, forum

In general, I´m used to assemble my Roman army out of the dependable (heavy) Roman infantry and regional shock-troops for the decisive blow on the battlefield.
When I recently invaded Asia Minor I was somewhat shocked about the enormous costs for the regional mercenary contingents… for instance nearly 8.000 monetary units for the “Galatian Wild Men” and about 11.000 monetary units for Thessalian Heavy Cavalry. That is nearly as much as for the heavy onagers or the big bolt throwers.
Why were the costs for mercenary troops increased to this unpayable amount?

Regards

Marcel

First of all you are talking about two of the most prized Mercenary units around; indeed: Galatian elites and Thessalian elites. Secondly mercenaries are over-all somewhat more expensive than other troops as you (and the AI) are not supposed to build entire armies of them.

I surely don´t want to complain about the high costs for these elites... but I think that they cost about half of the present amount in v0.81. That´s a bit amazing...

Regards
Marcel

I hope so. Im still on V1.0 while doing an A.A.R. Trying to put the romans to bed at the moment but they hang on while recruiting outrageous mecernary armies.

Rebalancing will happen between versions. Besides later on when you've got a solid economy, 8000 is a paltry amount of money. Of course if you're blitzing your way across the map, you won't have that solid base.

come on now, how can anyone blitz the EB campaign map? the mod isn't build for it. if you built mines in all the provinces you own, you will be bury with all the denarii, but those mines cost an arm + leg to build in the beginning. I think those prices for elites are just right atm.

All mercenaries cost

<EDU base cost> * (2.3 + (0.15 * <experience level>) )

Seeing as you get them immediately instead of having to pay for one upkeep before using them, and have them right where they are needed the most instead of having to march them around, I think it's a fair trade.

Edit: The change was made for 1.0, by the way. You may or may not remember the flood of mercenary only stacks that any AI would throw at you in 0.8x. Believe me, it's better this way.

While the prices are high, I think they are about right, especially since they are considered to be elite units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bovi

All mercenaries cost
...
Edit: The change was made for 1.0, by the way. You may or may not remember the flood of mercenary only stacks that any AI would throw at you in 0.8x. Believe me, it's better this way.

---

I remember them... and they pissed me off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craziii

come on now, how can anyone blitz the EB campaign map? the mod isn't build for it. if you built mines in all the provinces you own, you will be bury with all the denarii, but those mines cost an arm + leg to build in the beginning. I think those prices for elites are just right atm.

---

u can do 2 types of blitz

in the early game you do "mini-blitz" to get importan cities, stop, "mini blitz" again, and so on.

late in the game, you can chill for a few decades, mass a TON of money, and then train like 5 stacks with 1 in reserve and blitz. While at it you keep making elite troops back home and sending them on a continual basis, AND making cheap garrison troops and sending those in a continual basis. That way ur army can advance and not have cities rebel.

Granted, the blitz is STILL a slow. And you will have to stop many times to reorganize ur armies and keep cities from rebelling while you wait for garrisons to come, or for the level 1local MIC to be built.

Huh... I thought that the merc price had been lowered somewhat since 1.0 myself. For the record, Galatian wild men are one of the few Merc units that I would buy no matter what. For all of the complaints about them being unbalanced when you are facing them, it is certainly nice to have them on your side as well. Even a small unit of 10-15 men can be used as a special forces/assault unit. They surely destroy enemy units of equal value... And the Thessalians are the next best thing to Companion Cav that you can buy, so if you know how to use them, they are probably worth the money as well... Honestly it seems to me that the mercenaries are cheaper than they were in 1.0, although it may be that the merc pool was expanded and I now have more cheap mercenaries available.
Also, I do the Mini-blitz strategy myself, I try to capture two, three or four cities that are clumped together in a small region. It takes me few years after I have captured those cities before my army/economy/captured cities are again ready for another offensive. Actually, it seems like most empires in the EB time frame grew this way (Roman for example). Of course their were major blitzes as well - Alexander being an example of the all out world-conquering ten year war...

I have to admit I was shocked as well by the cost of mercenaries, but once I got my economy going, I was ble to afford them here and there. Makes sense since it was really only the very wealthy nations like Carthage etc. that used them widely.

Now it really hurts when I loose some of my "Galatian Wild Men" in battle. With every casuality nearly 66 monetary units are gone :-(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irishmafia2020

Actually, it seems like most empires in the EB time frame grew this way (Roman for example). Of course their were major blitzes as well - Alexander being an example of the all out world-conquering ten year war...

---

I'm not so sure about Roman expansion being mini-blitzes, I researched a historically accurate conquest timeline, and particularly early on there were long periods of inactivity or warring within already-conquered regions. It was only really from the Second Punic War onwards that there were big campaigns absorbing lots of territory, and even then in fits and starts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by darkangel87

Now it really hurts when I loose some of my "Galatian Wild Men" in battle. With every casuality nearly 66 monetary units are gone :-(

---

I'm reminded of Monty Python's Lord of Swamp Castle - "Did you kill all those guards? They cost five pound each!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Elmetiacos

"Did you kill all those guards? They cost fifty pound each!"

---

:yes:

"Did you kill all those guards? They cost fifty pounds each!"

er... sorry.

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

I'm not so sure about Roman expansion being mini-blitzes, I researched a historically accurate conquest timeline, and particularly early on there were long periods of inactivity or warring within already-conquered regions. It was only really from the Second Punic War onwards that there were big campaigns absorbing lots of territory, and even then in fits and starts.

---

Well yes... but that is what I mean by "mini-blitz" - small regional conquests that occur in fits and starts. The Romans seemed to focus on warfare in geographic areas and afterwards it might take a decade to gain actual control over an area. The conquest of Sicily or Northern Greece (Makedonia) would be an in-game example of a mini-blitz. Then you would have to wait for years as you built up the cities involved before further attacks commenced. If the area is one that is a front line with another empire, then the wars might last longer as well and the cities might be recaptured by enemy forces...

Blitz is a bit of a misnomer anyway. I am talking about a five year campaign to capture sicily (three cities) followed by a decade of building before the forces are rebuilt/redeployed to another region in which 3 or four more cities might be conquered. The Romans seemed to have engaged in specific campaigns with geographically limited objectives - Spain, Greece, Gaul, Britain, Anatolia, Africa, Illyria, Thrace, Macedonia, etc... I mean that they moved in fits and spurts and captured small regions and important cities and then absorbed them into the empire before expanding into another specific geographic area later.

The Romans did not sustain an endless campaign, but rather fought a series of short wars that had limited objectives, and that added territory in a specific region to the empire. That is what i mean by "mini-blitz", and it is largely supported by your time line. The early empire (Late Republic) seemed to grow as geographic wars were fought, and those wars were followed by periods of peace as the new territory was absorbed.

Also, if I am wrong, well so be it... I realize that you are a Romanophile who plays this game as a historical re-enactment, so I am not going to argue my point further. Against a less educated or less passionate (for historical authenticity) person I might expect to win. If you continue to disagree with my assessment that the Romans used "mini-blitzes" to capture territory in their empire, then you may consider yourself the victor in this conversation, as I will defer to your (presumed) greater knowledge on this subject.

My Qustian is why are there SO very Few mercenarys to buy compard to the last builds? that dosent seem right....In whats now turkey there use to be tons of them now your lucky to get 5 and it takes foreverrrrrrr for them to come back so you can buy more..whats up with that guys?

I get lots of mercs in my games when the population is high i dunno

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Irishmafia2020

Well yes... but that is what I mean by "mini-blitz" - small regional conquests that occur in fits and starts. The Romans seemed to focus on warfare in geographic areas and afterwards it might take a decade to gain actual control over an area. The conquest of Sicily or Northern Greece (Makedonia) would be an in-game example of a mini-blitz. Then you would have to wait for years as you built up the cities involved before further attacks commenced. If the area is one that is a front line with another empire, then the wars might last longer as well and the cities might be recaptured by enemy forces...

Blitz is a bit of a misnomer anyway. I am talking about a five year campaign to capture sicily (three cities) followed by a decade of building before the forces are rebuilt/redeployed to another region in which 3 or four more cities might be conquered. The Romans seemed to have engaged in specific campaigns with geographically limited objectives - Spain, Greece, Gaul, Britain, Anatolia, Africa, Illyria, Thrace, Macedonia, etc... I mean that they moved in fits and spurts and captured small regions and important cities and then absorbed them into the empire before expanding into another specific geographic area later.

The Romans did not sustain an endless campaign, but rather fought a series of short wars that had limited objectives, and that added territory in a specific region to the empire. That is what i mean by "mini-blitz", and it is largely supported by your time line. The early empire (Late Republic) seemed to grow as geographic wars were fought, and those wars were followed by periods of peace as the new territory was absorbed.

Also, if I am wrong, well so be it... I realize that you are a Romanophile who plays this game as a historical re-enactment, so I am not going to argue my point further. Against a less educated or less passionate (for historical authenticity) person I might expect to win. If you continue to disagree with my assessment that the Romans used "mini-blitzes" to capture territory in their empire, then you may consider yourself the victor in this conversation, as I will defer to your (presumed) greater knowledge on this subject.

---

Look at the list. Granted I sometimes went with the end dates of the original campaigns to conquer, not necessarily when they were finally pacified, but there aren't many examples of lots of land taken in a short period (Spain during the Second Punic War and 146BC is an exception - Carthage and free Greece were both absorbed).

Sicily for example was taken over the course of 20 years, and the final Carthaginian settlement of Lilibeo was only taken through the peace treaty of 241BC. There were only a few set-piece battles on the island and lots of raids and sieges. Even the sieges were pretty indecisive, usually falling either to treachery or starvation, not assault.

The crucial thing is historical-guided expansion is slow. Really slow. I've seen people holding much of Rome's historical territories within about 50 years of the game.

In essence I think we are arguing over the words "mini-blitz", and how long that should take, so I won't press the issue any further.

Well, im at like 230 BC and just cracked my first million as the Romani. I conquered Italia and Sicily, and ceasefired both the gauls, disbanded my army
and spent two decades building roads, markets, ports, public health stuff, mines in Southern Italy etc. I now have 4 full stacks (2 on Greece, 1 retraining, and 1 heading north into Provence. Training another 2 at the moment.
You get too a stage, where its almost exponential money growth, no matter what, i just keep making money, especially since capturing Pella (Maks had top tier mine there). Im on Hard map difficulty too, so its not that bad.

Sass--

Mercenary refresh rates mean that it now takes between 3 and 10 turns for most mercenaries to refresh by 1 unit. Elite mercenaries take a good bit longer, and a rare few take a much longer. That's a factor of realism. The population of mercenaries wasn't some rabbit population. Finding a few thousand mercenaries in Anatolia wasn't usually a huge problem (3-4 units in game terms), but if you raised ten thousand, you would need to wait several years before you're gonna be able to do that again. In our old system, that didn't have merc pools across regions and had much faster refresh rates, you could recruit whole stacks in each region every couple of years. That's preposterous, so we fixed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paullus

Sass--

Mercenary refresh rates mean that it now takes between 3 and 10 turns for most mercenaries to refresh by 1 unit. Elite mercenaries take a good bit longer, and a rare few take a much longer. That's a factor of realism. The population of mercenaries wasn't some rabbit population. Finding a few thousand mercenaries in Anatolia wasn't usually a huge problem (3-4 units in game terms), but if you raised ten thousand, you would need to wait several years before you're gonna be able to do that again. In our old system, that didn't have merc pools across regions and had much faster refresh rates, you could recruit whole stacks in each region every couple of years. That's preposterous, so we fixed it.

---

:laugh4: I know I Miss the massive amount of mercs:laugh4: and now that there are new units of mercs that you can buy it makes it even more intresting....

On a side note i think the team shoudl set up a sticky on how to give anouther faction a unit from well anouther faction or a merc unit of the same....and the hidden resorce thing is alot differnt in the last build that i played i try and delete and Hidden resorce and the game crashes for some resion i got all of the hidden text but it leaves a space that i dont know how to close up?:sweatdrop: