What will be in the new patch?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Puupertti Ruma

I have played for a while with the Lusotannan and got ridiculous amounts of mnai from my mines. I've conquered the western Iberia so I have 6 towns and all of them have mines. I have about 2½ stacks of mostly medium strength units; caetranann, caetratii, gestikapoinan and like, but bunch of scutarii and cavalry as well. Still, I have income of about 5-8000 mnai IIRC. Isn't that a lot? I've been having a hard time to think what to do with all that money.

---

A mine fix is definitely in-scope for the patch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kull

One of the things you'll notice is that complaints about a "too easy" economy are coming from people playing the major factions like Rome, Carthage, and most of the Greeks. So the concern is to do something without crippling the already-hard-to-play factions like Casse, Saka, Sauromatae, and Hayasdan (among others).

---

Maybe a good way to deal with this would be to:
- generally tweak down income as intended
- consider that gallic and nomadic factions (i.e. most of the weak ones) do not really have to "pay" their soldiers the way Greeks, Romans and Carthies have to => lower upkeep for these factions-specific units. It would be, IMO, good both for gameplay and for realism.

This way, factions such as Gallic nations would have a low budget, which makes sense, but still the ability to field respectable armies. Note also that it would make relative price of buildings, compared to units, higher for nomad and Gallic factions. Which again makes sense :yes: A gallic King, I guess, was spending less money on public baths, statues and theatres than a Greek king was... And similarly it would increase the relative price of non-faction-specific units (such as mercs). Which also makes sense :yes: : how many Greek mercs did fight for Sweboz or Arverni? Very few I think...

Now this is just a suggestion from someone who does not know all the mechanics in place behind the scene, so I'm aware it may be totally irrelevant... just sharing my thoughts on this issue.

Numahr, in my ears that sounds good. And should be easy to achieve. Or not? I don't know much about EB rules.

If done this way upkeep for Germanic and Celtic etc. mercenaries should be significantly higher than for normal troops.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Numahr

Maybe a good way to deal with this would be to:
- generally tweak down income as intended
- consider that gallic and nomadic factions (i.e. most of the weak ones) do not really have to "pay" their soldiers the way Greeks, Romans and Carthies have to => lower upkeep for these factions-specific units. It would be, IMO, good both for gameplay and for realism.

This way, factions such as Gallic nations would have a low budget, which makes sense, but still the ability to field respectable armies. Note also that it would make relative price of buildings, compared to units, higher for nomad and Gallic factions. Which again makes sense :yes: A gallic King, I guess, was spending less money on public baths, statues and theatres than a Greek king was... And similarly it would increase the relative price of non-faction-specific units (such as mercs). Which also makes sense :yes: : how many Greek mercs did fight for Sweboz or Arverni? Very few I think...

---

Gallic peoples weren't poor; in fact their wealth was one of the reasons it was so attractive for Caesar to venture north. Certainly later on they also used professional troops, not just as mercenaries. Nomadic peoples should have cheaper costs since there was far less distinction between warrior and civilian. Not sure about Sweboz.

Also, upkeep is an abstraction representing various factors such as equipment upkeep, the money lost when people aren't available for farming or other such things, and in some cases the civil unrest caused by recruiting such units.

Geoffrey,

I see your point.

I did not mean in any way that Galic/nomadic peoples were "poor", rather that, let's say, the "central government" had less monetarized budget than the Greek or Roman ones, relying rather on solidarity networks for collective action such as warfare.

Given the abstract nature of the EB system, this relative ease of access to what is comprised within the scope of these solidarity networks ("vassal" tribes' soldiers...), compared to what is outside (Greek mercenaries...), could be modeled, IMO, by a relative lower upkeep for faction MIC troops in the case of factions relying on such government systems.

I see the limits of this proposition: in the case of profesionnal warriors, who certainly existed as you mention, my suggestion is self-deceiving, I admit.

Problem is if poorer nations have cheaper troops as soon as they get rich areas they will just steam roll everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sdragon

Problem is if poorer nations have cheaper troops as soon as they get rich areas they will just steam roll everything.

---

Well right now the Romans are cheekily wtfpwning the Gauls, so i prefer they (Gaul factions) would be stronger and had at least some chance against the roman horde :smash:

About the Lusotani, i have taken almost all of Iberia, i have 2,5 stacks (mostly comprising of expensive elite troops), and border cities filled with mercs (for protection), all cities have ''medium'' or ''low'' taxes and i still make 20 000 per turn :laugh4:
The mines are just too uber right now, it removes any kind of challenge... well, at least until i run into the roman horde :2thumbsup:

is there anyway to change the aggressiveness of the AI? Twenty years into the game and only Arche Seleukai(sp?) and egypt have expanded because they were initially at war with their neighbors and took a province. KH did this as well and snagged one mak province then stopped moving. Everyone else just has huge armies sitting around doing nothing.

Also, do you plan on implementing any new scripted wars. i.e. similar to Pontos attacking Sinope and warring with KH? I was thinking this could be done with Rome and Carthage over Sicily as well in a few other places.