MTW Economics 101

I know that frog beast has a good guide for newcomers. This post illustrates the economics of MTW.

The keys to your MTW economy are mines, agriculture, trade and governors. This is on the income side of the house.

Mines

If you invest in the mines, the first mine yields a return of about 10% (example: salt mines cost 250 florins, and yield an additional 26 in revenue). The upgrade results in a return of 5%. You have to spend more to get a smaller percent increase. In economics this is called diminishing returns. So prioritize your mines by building the first level in all provinces before you build the second in any.

Agriculture

Most people know that you should focus your agriculture investments on the most productive provinces. Most provinces are profitable to make the first 20% upgrade. Even so, since each investment costs more and gives you the same 20% increase, returns are diminishing.

Ex. Take a province with 300 florins from ag.
20% upgrade (costs 600) = 60 extra florins
40% upgrade (costs 1000) = +60 more
60% upgrade (costs 1500) = +60 more
80% upgrade (costs 2500) = +60 more

so the yields are:
20% upgrade = 10 percent
40% upgrade = 6 percent
60% upgrade = 4 percent
80% upgrade = 2.2 percent

You can figure out how many years your investment will pay off by dividing 100% by the the yield. An investment that yields 2% will take 50 years to pay off.

Another big fat law of diminishing returns for ag.

Trade

After that, there’s trade. Trade’s returns are not diminishing, but increasing. The more you invest in your trade network, the greater your returns. I recorded some information from a recent game as the Turks.

With 5 ships and 3 ports built in Antioch, Tripoli and Egypt, and 2 captured in Greece and Constantinople, I built a small trade network for:
2250 florins (3 ports)
3000 florins (5 ships)
2400 florins (3 trading posts – 2 others were captured)
1200 florins (2 docks)

And just like that my trade network is producing 1150 florins yearly. If I invest 8850 and get 1150, that is an annual yield of about 13%, even in its initial stages, far superior than most other economic investments.

Then after 5 more years, I have built 3 more ships. My total investment is now 10,650 but the increased network is now giving me an additional 2300, or a total annual yield of over 20%. (A little more complicated: look at the extra investment and the extra return. I added 1800 florins to my investment and increased my return by 1150 per year compared to the earlier first trade period. This is called the marginal return, and it exceeds 60 percent.)

By the time I reach Portugal, I now have 23,450 florins invested in my trade network, which totals 19 ships (and new ports/trading posts in conquered Crimea, Khazar, Nicea and Bulgaria). My profits from trade are now 12,300 annually. This is a 50% return on my initial investment. It pays me back every other year. And then again. And agan.

Then after building enough ships to reach the Baltic, I have spent 30,650 on my trade network. It gives me 26,500 in florins per year. This return is almost 90 percent. Though it took me 20 years to build, my entire network nearly pays for its cost every year.

I did not add the costs of the fort and keep, as they are not direct costs of trade and I’d build them even if trade did not exist.

The advantages of trade?

Besides the profits for continual upgrades and more units, it:
Secures your coasts from invasion, letting you mass your armies on the frontier
Allows you to move troops from production areas to trouble areas quickly (side benefit of ports)
Captures some benefit from the trade of others in the form of import taxes

Do wars break out between you and your trading partners? Unless it breaks out right at the beginning of your construction, you have likely come out ahead.

Note: this analysis does not include the costs of maintaining ships. Such costs are quite small compared to the cost of the ships themselves. It would reduce the returns, but not enough to displace trade from being the easiest way to accumulate huge amounts of florins. OTOH the taxes I get from trade were also not included, which would increase the returns.

Governors

Since govs add 10 percent to your florin income per year per accumen hash mark they have, govs can be a decisive impact on your economy.

Since I tend to try to put my richest provinces under a high accumen gov, I checked and I was getting a 66% bonus from governors for their accumen. This is often the difference between adding profit and loss when you have huge expensive armies.

Investments

I was struck by the poor returns in most of the economic investments in MTW. Besides the first ag, mines and trade (which I feel is very unbalancing for the AI -- the trading player ends up with Spanish lancers fighting against mounted sergeants), the investments mostly stink and might take 50 years to payback.

That's OK, though. If you have sufficient florins to see you through a long period, make the investment. While the returns are low, the return on unspent florins is even lower -- zero. If you have the money to see you through rough patches and trade wars, make even the low-yielding investment.

Costs

Every king should be sensitive to costs, and trying to get the best bang for your florins. Disband or use recklessly your low quality troops -- the upkeep on them is usually just as high as more modern units. I tend to use my lower quality (outdated spearmen, UM, whatever) troops to storm castles. The upkeep on these guys is very expensive.

Also expensive past a turn or two are mercenaries. Use them as cannon fodder or in the most dangerous assault. Or disband.

Also, get to know how much the troop types cost. Remember that the life cycle cost of a unit includes the upkeep you pay in periods of peace. Let's say that your units last an average of 20 years (it obviously depends on how aggressive you are with that unit). A jinete will cost 1050 florins (250 acquisition cost and upkeep for 20 years). A steppe cavalry would cost 925. The jinette gives you better value for the money than the steppe cav.

Here are some units with REALLY low upkeep costs (compared to their substitute)

(compare with 53 for CMAA, 45 for FMAA)

gallowglasses 22 florins
highland clansmen 22 florins
militia sergeants 30 florins

crusading knights 50 florins (compare to 85 florins for CK upkeep)
Tucroman foot/Genoese archers 30 florins (compare at 37 for regular archers
Gothic knights 60 florins (vs 85 for CK)
arbs/crossbows 22 florins (vs 37 for archers)
Gothic sergeants 37 florins (compare to 63 for CS)

Units with high upkeep??

Porno cav 125 florins
Katanks, boyars 105 florins
RKs 62 florins
trebizond archers 53 florins (compare to 30 florins for bulgarian brigands)

Obviously, just because JHI's upkeep is higher than saracen infantry does not mean you won't use them. And the byz player who does NOT use TAs is not wise. But avoid getting crushed by the numbers. Too many troops can be a great hindrance in the early/mid game, as you are fighting off rivals, building a trading network and making investments that have not yet paid off and trying to squeeze enough to invest in modern facilities.

Lastly, be aware of the discounts that your faction receives. Most people knows where billmen should be built (Mercia). But many people do not know the discounts that each faction gets in the troops it buys. The discount is 25 percent.

Turks
discount on Ghazi infantry and Khwarazmian cav

Italians
discount on HGs and arqs

France
discount in CS, CMAA, CK and xbow/pavise xbow

Egypt
discount on Bedou camel

Germany
discount on GK Turcopoles and Gothic Sergeants

Russia
discount on HA and woodsmen

Danes
discount on vikings

Byzantine
discount on Genoese archers and naptha throwers

English
discount on plain archers and gallowglasses

Don't get hung up on these discounts -- the Germans are usually a long way from Antioch's high quality turcopoles, but they get a discount if they get there.

nice job with that post.

something to add would be that for farms, a rough estimate on profitability of investment is to right click the farm upgrade icon where it would give you the amount of florins gained from the upgrade. If that is 10x the percentage of farm upgrade, then it's worth it to invest in that immediately.
ie. if you right click on the 20% upgrade and see 300, then it's worth it.

however, if you righ click and it says 100, then it's not worth it unless you have cash to burn.

this is based on a rough 20 yr. rate of return.

BTW, build mines rather than farms first as it takes longer to pay off so give it time to pay it off.

this is some economic costs.

the unit upkeep and unit discounts is pretty interesting, some of which I didn't know.

I disagree on the 25% reduction part tho. I played a nov campaign recently and the woodsmen cost 62 fl. which is about 16% off 75 fl., not 25% off.

anyhow, good job

It may be worth examining the effect of different merchants levels as well.

e.g.

Trade Post
Merchant
Merchants Guild
Master Merchant

According to VI 2.01, there are a whole bunch more discounted units. Too many to list, but there its easy enough to check with gnome.

-
Great post, thanks

About the merchants... I've grown some principles of upgrade as follows:

Coastal Provinces:

1 trade good...........Merchant
2 trade goods..........Merchant's Guild
3+ goods...............Master Merchant

Landlocked Provinces:

1-2 trade goods........Trading post
3 goods................Merchant

(Syria has exceptionally larger trade income, hence up to Master Merchant.)

These are completely intuitional, based on mere observations during gameplay. Therefore, more precise rules would be welcome. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/cheers.gif
_

RE: Merchants.

I will save some money/time here, not building merchants all the way up to master.

The optimal merchant building level depends on (1) what trade goods you have and (2) how big your network is.

If you have a small network and the trade good is grain (which gives you a low return AND is in alot of provinces which you do not get a return for because the trading partner has that good) then upgrading doesn't make much sense.

But if you have (or expect to have) a ship in each sea area, then at least the second merchant upgrade is worthwhile.

For Antioch, Tripoli, Venice, Khazar, and Constantinople, the highest merchant building is worth it.

I guess I really should do some numbers to see how it works, but the returns are skewed by the governor level. For example, in a recent game, one province producing grain gave me 30 florins per turn per port it was exporting to. Another gave me 37. I assume that the difference was the result of the governor.

If you have a better governor, it compounds the return from the building.

So, put your best accumen governors on high trade provinces, and build good trade buildings.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/tongue.gif

-
Personally, I check how much income the current facility provides first and then upgrade if I find it promising.

My network is usually the widest or second from early on so... http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif
_

Excellent post.

A few extra hints from a trade-minded player:

IMHO, you should always, always, always trade I must admit I find it difficult to see how it could be possible to win the game on any reasonable difficulty level without some form of trade going on. Use your trade income to fund the development of your provinces, including farms and mines, rather than the other way around.

Always put your money into ships, ports and merchants, unless you are landlocked. There are certain factions where it is almost a given that you must trade to survive: the Danes are a classic example. In the case of the Polish, you must try and find a way to the coast, either to Moldavia, Kiev, Crimea, and Khazar to the south-east or more likely to the north with Prussia and Pomerania, perhaps expanding to the Baltic ports and the Scandinavian countries. Make it your first priority.

If a faction with whom you do not have a land border attacks your naval fleet, there are two possible resolutions for the trader:

1st: if you have naval superiority, destroy their fleet and withdraw from their coastlines. You will then, after one turn, default back to neutral, and trade lines will be re-established. If you destroy their fleet, you are also less likely to suffer another attack and your trade routes will be safer.

2nd: If you are unlikely to win a full-scale naval encounter, just withdraw from any sea in which they have a fleet, and from any sea that your enemy has a coastline. Once again you will default back to neutral. However, this time make sure you have local naval superiority before putting your fleet back into harms way.

You will usually only need mines and farms when you are at war with either a power with a large navy, or one with a substantial number of ports. Your trade income will be badly hit in both these scenarios. Ideally, you want your farm/mine income to cover your support costs, hopefully with a little extra. Speaking of which, I usually try to have a substantial war chest before embarking on a long campaign with such a power, usually enough to fund 20/30 turns without any trade income, and factoring in any building/replacement unit costs.

Once you have established a good trade income from your local defendable provinces, you should have sufficient funds to expand. I try to cherry pick other good trading provinces, ones that will justify have a large stack of units simply for their protection. Any 3 trade good province will satisfy that, as well as a number of 2 goods e.g. Flanders, Antioch, Khazar, Lithuania, Egypt, Constantinople. The latter one comes with one reservation: almost all crusades, excepting the Spanish (and perhaps the Italians, if they have a large fleet), will pass through Constantinople in the normal course of events. This brings a deal of hassle, even if you allow them to pass through: you lose some of your finest men (if you are Catholic) and you lose money, which if you are quite rich, can be substantial.

Always take advantage of rebellions so that you won't have to declare war on a faction. Rebellious provinces that also have profitable tradable goods include: Khazar, Pomerania, Prussia, Ireland, Lithuania, Livonia, and Portugal, the last two being the most rebellious in the game. Judicious use of spies in these provinces can reap great rewards. Use your emissaries to bribe not just high command generals, but high acumen units as well, preferably ones you can retrain. Rebels are always cheaper than national armies. I normally don't get much higher than 4 feathers in my generals without any virtues, but I can usually find a governor with much higher stats around the board. Remember to check the whole stack, not just the commander.

An exception to the rebel rule is crusade won lands, where the victorious faction usually has no land border. Antioch and Tripoli are two such lands, and both are very rich for the trader (and the farmer). As an example, say you are the Danes, and the Spanish have just conquered Antioch. You will most likely have no land border with Spain, so you just attack in large numbers, secure the province, withdraw your fleets from Spanish waters, and wait for a turn as above. You can now free trade with the Spanish port, the Spanish fleet allows safe passage for your troops and trade, and you are now in possession of one of the richest provinces in the game, capable of supporting a huge army all on its own.

Generally, it's not worth it for just one tradable good, unless it is Ireland, where you don't need to maintain a garrison for defence. A hundred or so peasants, border forts, and a spy will more than do for that province, raking in ~1000 florins per annum if you have a sufficiently large fleet. OTOH, keeping 1000 troops in the Crimea to gain access to one tradable good (grain), which only has a rating of 30, is poor business. You are unlikely to reap much of a reward unless you conquer its two surrounding provinces, and that can be risky before the Horde has arrived.

FYI, this is a complete list of the tradable goods, and their relative values:

glassware 40, wood 20, furs 40, wine 40, wool 30, silk 40, cotton 30, linen 30, wax 20, honey 40, salt 20, hides 30, butter 20, pottery 30, fish 20, spices 50, gems 50, sugar 40, dyes 50, ivory 40, olive oil 30, grain 30. This tells you why Antioch, with its gems, spices and silks, is so profitable

Another worthwhile tactic is to take and hold the Scandinavian countries (including Finland and Novgorod) and the British Isles (plus Flanders if you can manage it). Both are easily defendable, are fairly rich in tradable goods, and the English are usually preoccupied in France, and the Danes are usually quite weak.

Ireland is also an excellent province to develop into a ship-producing region. Just as it's good to dedicate a couple of regions to unit production, especially if they have the iron resource, it's equally a good tactic to do the same for ships.

Once you have developed your lands, have access to the best units with armour and weapons upgrades, and have a war chest of a million or so florins, it's time to knock some heads together In fact, once you have such units you can usually just frighten you enemy into retreating. Even peasants become formidable with Attack+4, Defence+4, morale +6 from buildings, not factoring in any bonuses from your general.

A favourite tactic of mine is to attack not only the province you want, but also to attack any escape route. For instance, say you hold Scotland and you want to quickly defeat the English and gain their trading lands. You attack Northumbria, where the English have a fair stack of units, in overwhelming strength. You also use your naval ability to attack Mercia, cutting off any retreat. More often than not Mercia, not being a border region, will be lightly defended, so you won't need many invaders to force the retreat. The English will retreat (probably to the garrison) in both provinces, but their main force in Northumbria will be captured. Similarly, if you have Papal problems, attack all the English provinces in Britain in one turn, capture all their forces bar their garrisons (if they choose to retreat there), and then storm the castles the next turn. The Pope will warn you, but you will have won what you wanted within the 2 turns, and so he'll be happy enough.

Well, that's quite enough to get you going as a merchant methinks.

Out of curiousity, are y'all factoring in the cost of the castle upgrades required to build the higher merchants? I mean a master merchant is more expensive then a trading post as is, but if you want one you'll also have to pay for the citadel. No small expense.

Very good post

I wanted to post something similar long ago, but I didn't do it (too much work). I do have some (theoretical) additions.

1) Your income is specified in 2 files: the building_production file and the files in campmap\startpos. Every specified income value in these files is 100 times the weekly revenue, so they have to be multiplied with 0.52 to have the yearly return.

2) No further multipliers are applied to the income in the building_production file (cathedral and mine income), the incomes specified in the campmap\startpos files (farm and trade) have to be multiplied with:
*)governor's acumen factor: +10% for every acumen quill
*)king's acumen factor: +2% for every acumen quill
*)tax ratings: -25% for very low, -10% for low, +10% for high and +25% for very high taxes

A little exemple: the farm income for Tunisia (specified as 300) with a 7 acumen governor and 4 acumen king and very high taxes, will be:

300*0.52*1.7*1.08*1.25 = 358.02 or 358 florins a year

3) Building influence:
*) farm upgrades will increase the farm income with 20%, 40%, 60% and 80%, as already said in the first post (these values can be modded in the building production file if you want)
*) Merchants: the first level will enable the goods to be sold, this gives a multiplier of 100%, the second level uses a multiplicator of 120%, the third one 140% and the fourth 160%.

Another little exemple: wool (value of 30) in Leon, merchant guild, 6A governor, 4A king, very high taxes, sold to 26 provinces, this should give:

30*0.52*1.6*1.08*1.25*1.4*26 = 1226 florins a year.

The values for the merchant (100%, 120%, 140% and 160%) seem to be hardcoded. I once tried to mod in different multiplicators (100, 200, 300 and 400), but the old ones were still used. It is however possible to mod a 5th merchant level in the game (and maybe also a 6th, 7th,...) but the multipliers were a bit screwed up then (95% of the expected values). This means 95%, 114%, 133%, 152% and 171% instead of 100%, 120%, 140%, 160% and 180%.

Whoever isn't bored to death after reading this post must be a mathematics or statistics freak

*)king's acumen factor: +2% for every acumen quill

Where did you get that info, I was wondering about that number.

A while ago, I wondered which factors where taken into account when calculating the income. Because I don't have a strategy guide, I did some tests to see how the different factors influenced the income, and one of them seemed to be that every acumen point of the king increases income with 2% (calculated it manually).
Btw, I started in the supposition that the taxes equated 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70%, as mentioned in the manual on page 20, but this proved to be wrong.

An excellent post -- except for one serious omission.

Steward, Good steward and Great steward weren't mentioned anywhere in the thread.

Steward' is one of the easiest virtues to get, and one of the most valuable. Not only does it raise farm income by 10 percent, but it raises loyalty by the same percentage.

If your ruler gets the virtue, that's a 10-percent increase throughout the kingdom. More important, it doesn't go away when the king dies. If your next ruler gets the virtue, you get an additional 10 percent.

Good steward raises farm income by 20 percent, I believe, while the comparatively rare Great Steward give a 30 percent increase.

The results compound. Suppose you had a governor with the steward virtue over a province that has a base farm income of 300 florins. The income goes to 330 florins. Now suppose the king ruler the steward virtue. Now you're up to 363 florins. Your king dies, your new king continues with farm improvements in other provinces, and also gets the steward virtue. Now that province's farm income is up to 399 florins.

If I'm wrong about the compounding benefits here, somebody correct me. However, I've seen steward virtues turn marginal farming provinces into productive areas worthy of development through more farming investments, further boosting income.

The only way to get steward virtues is to invest heavily in farming.

Now this is a cut-out-and-keep thread if ever I've seen one. One for the archives?

Great posts - thanks, guys

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/bigthumb.gif

all very nice posts. oughtta be stickified.

there was a post on farming virtues and in terms of trader and steward vices which are great for a king and can boost income significantly, just build and destroy mines and farms and do that repeatedly to get the vices.

this is most profitable for a king that is young when he starts. Also, do this in your poorest provinces or destroying farms can cause a serious drop in income. BTW, it's the number that counts, not the quality so only destroy 20% and basic mines.

when you do this, you can get a hefty +30% to both trade and farming http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...-2thumbsup.gif

more moola to fuel world conquest. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif

I did not count the upgrades for the castle, etc. Who doesn't make these upgrades? If you don't mind having only peasants to fight with, by all means don't upgrade the bldgs. I did not count it was I'd have upgraded anyways.

Once this topic runs its course, I'll look at getting it added to the Table of Contents in the Main Hall.

great info here, as trading is indeed essential...
anybody have interesting tactics for foreign shipping that crosses through your trade routes??? when a war pops up it gets all complicated really fast. just wondering how everyone goes about dealing with the other ships, neutral or not

One thing to note; not considering the costs of building the castle upgrades to get the various upgraded merchant buildings is not an accurate way to calculate returns. For poor provinces, I am not going to waste time building much infrastructure unless there is another advantage besides increased revenue.

It could be to defend a border (by making it more difficult to seige), or to build better troops or other agents, or even ships. But to say you would do it anyway (without stating why) seems to be an empty reason to justify not including the cost of these buildings againist any trade income you produce.

Also of course, the opportunity costs need to be weighed as well, i.e. money that could have been spent on something else. And finally, one needs to look at the cost of defending the province because a ripe province needs more defending often than a poor one. So th cost of maintaining units left there to defend the trade house province needs to be calculated as well.

Sorry, I forgot to add, otherwise a great thread with some useful info to digest.
Though as an after thought, I won my first campaigns with the English by doing almost no trading at all, so it is possible to avoid trading and still win.

Yes, I too won my first campaign without using trade, because I didn't understand it at first. Some factions can't rely on trade to win anyway. Winning without trade requires a lot of aggression against other factions in order to build up your own agriculture at the expense of other factions. It is, however, definitely possible.

For Seven.the.Hun's question, I simply sink them all. I don't care about the faction being allied or neutral, I simply sink them.

I usually have 5-8 provinces capable of building ships and that usually means that I can outproduce any AI faction in terms of a navy. Besides, first strike gives a nice little advantage in naval combat so I always attack first.

I would sink them all and not risk any disruption to my trading. Only exception is early in the game if my trading is not set up yet and I can't afford a naval war.

gaijinalways, it's funny that you are talking about opportunity costs. This might turn into a full blown economics course Anyone though about the rate of inflation and unemployment within MTW? possible tabulation of number of mercs for unemployment statistics? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

yeah, my first few games I didn't know to trade but I'm a huge trader now in every game. I guess I would only not trade to make the game harder.

This game requires you need some understanding of economics (even if it is only on an intuitive level)to pay for troops and the buildings you need to expand.

Also, the number of ships and their distance from the port they were built in is another cost(though a lower one, it's still there). I like to keep a strong navy too, but sometimes early on it's more difficult to support and keep them (especially if you don't start the war when you lose the trade with that faction).

I know economics is necessary and I'm actually amazed at the fairly good implementation here.

I was being a bit sarcastic about the economics part but economics class could be more fun if we talked about opportunity costs and round about production in terms of Total War in say whether we should rush to ships as they provide better long term returns, etc.

I also don't sink them until I'm fairly set up and consider the economic consequences.

I like to have all the islands that I can get as naval bases and is acutely aware of sharp cost of ship upkeep and thus have at most two ships in each sea lane before deep water ships or less after that with deep sea ships ensuring trade lanes don't get cut because of a storm.

This is different if I'm in a naval war though. I would frequently premptively start a naval war and wipe their entire fleet off the map within a year, launch amphibious raids to destroy their sea facilities the next, get my troops back if possible, pull out my ships for autocease fire and then go back.

I can often reduce a glorious enemy navy to shambles and risk little trade loss.

This also means that they don't get benefit of large trade networks and keeps them weak.

If I feel like having a challenge, then I don't touch their navies and wait for them to backstab me.

also, it's nice to work with agents and try to kill off their faction. they get big armies after reemergence but their oversized fleets are gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (katank @ Mar. 12 2004,16:18)]For Seven.the.Hun's question, I simply sink them all. I don't care about the faction being allied or neutral, I simply sink them.

I usually have 5-8 provinces capable of building ships and that usually means that I can outproduce any AI faction in terms of a navy. Besides, first strike gives a nice little advantage in naval combat so I always attack first.

I would sink them all and not risk any disruption to my trading. Only exception is early in the game if my trading is not set up yet and I can't afford a naval war.

---

But if you start war with a faction that you are profitting very nicely from by sinking their ships, don't you lose a lot of money? I've had a game where I was getting 3000 Florins a turn from trade alone and the computer decided to start a war for no reason (both of us were making a lot of money) and I was suddenly getting
-2000 every turn.

This is a great thread, is there anywhere on the web where such details on the MTW statistics are all together (website...)? These sort of things, such as the exact effect of king's acumen on province finances are very useful to fools like myself. It is a little difficult to have to run an experiment or search through lots of posts to get some of these numbers, and I'm relatively new to the MTW online community so don't know all the good haunts yet. Thanks.

@ dragonchr15, yes you do lose the income, but only for two turns.

the first turn, you sink all their ships, the next, move out of all neighboring seas and then move back.

thus, you will be neutral again and no navy for them to threaten you with.

the key to this is to have a large treasury that you built up so you can weather the storm of a few years without trade and also to kill them all in one fell swoop to make the war and hence loss of income as short as possible.

-
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif BUMP http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/bigthumb.gif

Shouldn't this one go to the Guides board? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/gc-blush.gif
_

Ransom Cheat (I know you know how, but here it is.)

1. Chase or otherwise maneuver enemy king into one of his last unconnected provinces (Northumbria/Wessex is good for the Eng, Arabia/Egypt for the Eggs, all that is important is that they don't touch each other, and you control most/all other access by potential spoilers).

enemy King - You - enemy province

Just keep moving back and forth between the three countries capturing his king every other turn and abadoning that province for the loyalist rebels. Make sure loyalist rebels are there and win if there is also a peasant or religious (gray) rebellion.

I haven't tried this for long (3 captures and I got tired of it), but its a cheat. I hope the enemy king would get captured VV quickly and fight to the death.

mfberg

mfberg, that tactic just outcheesed every tactic that I ever thought up before.

that would make the target faction broke beyond belief but also you rich beyond belief.

they have to ransom him.

your fun might only be spoiled when an heir gets born so the king gets killed and you get delayed by an iteration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (therother @ Mar. 10 2004,02:26)]In the case of the Polish, you must try and find a way to the coast, either to Moldavia, Kiev, Crimea, and Khazar to the south-east or more likely to the north with Prussia and Pomerania, perhaps expanding to the Baltic ports and the Scandinavian countries. Make it your first priority.

---

Thats exactly what I did. Now with 500000+ in the bank and an income of >20000/yr its time to chastise the French who think they can bleed my troops with their damn crusades passing through my lands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Mouzafphaerre @ April 19 2004,16:53)]-
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif BUMP http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/bigthumb.gif

Shouldn't this one go to the Guides board? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/gc-blush.gif
_

---

Oops, must take care of this. Thanks for the reminder Mouzafphaerre.

Your last statement is an interesting tactic. To wipe out a navy by taking down the faction. Of course, this is predicated on having a large number of higher valor assassins and being able to reach all of a faction's descendants. It definitely may be an alternative strategy as having assassins doesn't require support costs as ships do. The training, perhaps on your own peasants, does require some time and some scared peasants, but the peasants can be sacked or assassins can practice on each other.

Generally, I find that when I attack other navies, whether I retreat my ships (or not) the other faction remains at war (of course there are also no land borders shared as well). Because of this, I attack sparingly unless I can afford the possible loss of trade.

Yes I did this the other day against the Italians. They were the dominant power, my major trade partner, and had a big navy. Plus, they were beating me for GA points. If I started a war, my income would plummet - so instead I had the royal line assassinated. *Poof* their ships disapeared, GA's reset to 0, and I could still trade with the rebels. Job done.

well, syria assasins are almost a given provided you crusade.

those 5* slice up the italian kings good.

I personally use that tactic only on italians and sicilians due to their relatively low level kings/princes vs. the byz who are a naval threat with many more stars.

Great thread Thanks for all the thoughts, folks, and katank for turning me on to it...

One thing I haven't seen mentioned re: economics, is taxation versus police armies. I did some playing around and had somebody on ezboard confirm, that only warm bodies count toward keeping a province loyal. That is to say, 100 peasants is exactly as good as 100 royal knights, for keeping the peace. Considering the amount of money that can be gained by jacking up the taxes in most provinces (each tax level may well give another 100/turn in productive provinces), vs. the cost of a peasant unit (37/turn), it makes good economic sense to keep peasants around simply for crowd control. It also gives you something to make with those sucky provinces early in the game, while keeping the rabble down if you expand quickly. Finally, rebellions can be real expensive if they turn nasty - but if you are generally keeping peasants around and provinces nice and loyal, you not only reduce the chance of rebellion, but you will probably have some peasants nearby that you can grab, if you do goof up and find a province about to rebel. Like in those nasty inner-continent provinces, or if your real armies are stretched thin.

One concept that I've not tested or heard of anyone testing, is the extent to which having excess police armies in a newly-conquered province, causes it to become more loyal, faster. In other words, can you slam 10 peasants on it and then walk away after a few turns, with it highly loyal, or is it more cost-effective (vs. the cost of the peasants) to let it slowly limp up to high loyalty over time?

Change of topic...

Cutepuppy, are you still around? Re: your post in this thread on the equation for farm income,

I took detailed data on 45 provinces in my current game. Your farm income equation is close, but not quite a cigar, for me. The best match is +0.5% off (none are below +0.5%) and half the 45 computed values are within +2%, but a third of them are +12% or more, with the worst being +16%. This is with dividing my computed value (using your equation) by my actual in-game farm income. I've double-checked very closely to make sure I got everything right, including e.g. taxes and governor vices and virtues. Any ideas on what may be off? Is it possible for as yet unrevealed v&vs to be affecting it? Or anything else like, how close/presence of the governor?

And, to clarify: My king has 6 acumen, so that should be a 1.12 modifier... but he's also a Steward (+10% to agri), so the king should be 1.22 overall, right? His v&vs aren't also taken at a fifth, like his acumen, are they? If I take the Steward 10% at a fifth (which makes 1.14 overall), I'm off by -6% to +8%, which could conceivably be due to lots of rounding errors, but I doubt it... it is nicer that it's centered on the right value on average though.

TIA -- Mike

A post on the first page of this thread by Doug-Thompson says that once a gov or ruler gets the steward virtue, the +farm income is permanent, even if he dies. In your tests, perhaps an ex-gov had the steward virtue so his +farm bonus is invisible.

Hiya Motorhead, are you the same Motorhead as on ezboard? Anyway, thanks for pointing that out - I hadn't thought of that. Looking closely at what Doug-T wrote, he sometimes says ruler in general, and other times king specifically, but never specifically says that governors carry the benefit past death. It would solve the 'problem' of my regions that are 12-16% over, though; there seems to be a definite group of them. Would anyone mind confirming whether governors too carry death benefits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (RedKnight @ May 07 2004,04:17)]One concept that I've not tested or heard of anyone testing, is the extent to which having excess police armies in a newly-conquered province, causes it to become more loyal, faster. In other words, can you slam 10 peasants on it and then walk away after a few turns, with it highly loyal, or is it more cost-effective (vs. the cost of the peasants) to let it slowly limp up to high loyalty over time?

---

I have never tested it, but I don't think so. It doesn't make sense. Would you feel more loyal just because your new ruler has left a large army in your back garden for a few years?
More likely you would be so fed up with troops looting, stealing and urinating against your garden fence that you'd be ready for revolt. But this would make the loyalty calculation needlessly complex and I doubt the programmers cared to add it.
Rather I would like to know if the tax rate, besides its direct effect on loyalty, influence the rate at which newly conquered people accept your rule.

I'd like to see a better trade network for the landlocked provinces. As it is now they earn 1 income while coastal provinces earn 1 income for every trading partner. It seems to me that a network of trading posts should do the same thing.

Perhaps there has been a Mod?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (RedKnight @ May 07 2004,04:17)]Cutepuppy, are you still around? Re: your post in this thread on the equation for farm income,

I took detailed data on 45 provinces in my current game. Your farm income equation is close, but not quite a cigar, for me. The best match is +0.5% off (none are below +0.5%) and half the 45 computed values are within +2%, but a third of them are +12% or more, with the worst being +16%. This is with dividing my computed value (using your equation) by my actual in-game farm income. I've double-checked very closely to make sure I got everything right, including e.g. taxes and governor vices and virtues. Any ideas on what may be off? Is it possible for as yet unrevealed v&vs to be affecting it? Or anything else like, how close/presence of the governor?

And, to clarify: My king has 6 acumen, so that should be a 1.12 modifier... but he's also a Steward (+10% to agri), so the king should be 1.22 overall, right? His v&vs aren't also taken at a fifth, like his acumen, are they? If I take the Steward 10% at a fifth (which makes 1.14 overall), I'm off by -6% to +8%, which could conceivably be due to lots of rounding errors, but I doubt it... it is nicer that it's centered on the right value on average though.

TIA -- Mike

---

Hi Mike, I received your e-mail, so I will try to answer your question.

I have to admit, that when I wanted to determine the influence of the king's acumen, I only took the king's acumen into account. I did it by comparing the basic farm income (multiplied with 0.52) with the farm income represented in game, without having appointed a governor for that province. (a problem with only 1 variable is much easier to solve)
I did this for all the provinces occupied by one of the playable factions, and only in 1087 (starting year).
By dividing the in-game income by the basic income I got the king's acumen factor. None of them was exactly 1+0.02*A (A being the king's acumen), but that's probably due to the fact that only whole numbers are used (123.65 becomes 124 in game), but these rounding errors should only play a minor role.
If a king has 6 acumen and steward, I think the multiplier should be 1.232 (1.12+10% = 1.12+0.112 = 1.232).
Maybe the small deviations (

With regard to return on investment and other economic factors, I have to say that IMO its irrelevant to this game.

Why ignore RoI? Because at some point in the game (assuming domination here rather than GA) you arent going to have anyone to trade with. Thus you need every penny you can muster from your farms and mines in order to keep a steady income so that you can support any kind of an army at all in the endgame.

What you have to do, is build EVERY money making improvement in EVERY province you own, regardless of how long it is going to take to 'break even'. In addition, always ensure that your governors of your provinces have at least 4 acumen (the only exception is if the governorship gives command stars, in which case giving it to a good general obviously takes priority).

Think of it as investing for your old age.

Once you get past the initial stages of the game, and you have some good trading provinces + a dominating ship network, you should have more money rolling in than you can possibly spend. So you can afford to build every money upgrade. And even if the RoI is only 1%, the game lasts a LOT longer than 100 years.

The only point at which RoI starts to become a factor is in the endgame, once you get to the point where you think its all going to be over in 20 years, then there is no point in building any upgrades which wont pay off in that timescale - but by then youve won the game anyway.

I have to agree with Davey, build every money making building you can. At some point you will lose your trading partners and will need to be self reliant. One year you're pulling in 15K florins a year and the next you have a 35K deficit. It doesn't take long to chew up that 500K warchest.

Also, I'm a big believer in the happy buildings. They don't generate income but they do allow you to reduce the size of the local garrison, reducing maintenance cost, without creating a revolution.

More good points

Thanks for taking the time to give details, cutepuppy... you're right, I didn't try the king's stewardship as a multiplier, I just added it... multiplicaton makes sense, so I took a look at it. But, since my results were already on the high side (+0.5% to +16%, calculated divided by actual), making the king's modifier be 1.232 instead of 1.14 only caused my results to be slightly more wrong on the high side (+1.5% to +17%). I rather like the sound of motorhead and Doug-T's idea, that there might be hidden steward v&vs... it would especially explain this shelf of high values... in my original results (king=1.14), half the values were +.5% to +2%, then there's a few up to +5%... then, bam, the worst third is a shelf of values from +12% to +16%. It's much like an extra 10% is being thrown in... and then there's some other minor rounding factors or something going on that make it otherwise be from 0 up to about +5% high.

Ludens - clearly, extra armies increase the loyalty. Thus they don't cause more rebellion per se. But whether or not they affect the rate at which loyalty changes, I dunno. You will notice that if you use auto-tax, it tends to stay at about 25 to 30% loyalty, above what it would need to make the next tax bracket... and then slowly over time, it eventually does make it to the next tax bracket. I've always wondered if this was the programmers saying don't tax them too hard, or their loyalty won't go up over time. If true, then it's possible that having more troops than needed, might increase how quickly they go loyal. But, who knows... and it's a fairly moot point, hehe.

Davey and Seth - while it's true that in the long scheme there's no such thing as ROI - and that's a good point, thanks for that - I'd argue that in the short term, there is such a thing. Specifically, in the early turns of a game, when you can't build everything you'd want to (and in fact might be so short of cash that you have to leave some building queues idle). In this case, you want to be choosing the best ROI buildings... which generally means, your best farms, since that early in the game, there probably hasn't been time to make a trade network yet. (Unless maybe you're playing a Late game or maybe High game and already have dockyards ready to crank, in some regions.)

Seth, that's a good point about the happy buildings... you can take everything I said about 'peasants as police armies' and apply it to happy buildings, with the big difference being of course, that buildings don't keep having a maintenance fee - so they're even better, on that score. Conversely though, peasants are mobile and can be moved on to newly-conquered provinces as needed (which it will take a while to make happy buildings in), so I guess there's a place for both concepts.

In case anybody cares, I did a VERY simple analysis of the concept of how many sea trading regions returns the most money, before you start cutting into how many there are to trade to. In this very simple scenario (all your coast regions can trade, all trade makes the same amount of money, no trade goods block each other, etc. etc.), the maximum point is when you own half of all the available coast provinces. A graph of income/turn vs. number of provinces owned, looks like an upside down bowl... e.g. the income from your second province is almost double what it is with one province, and slowly plateuas, then past the midway point it does the reverse... down to zero if you own all coastal provinces, of course. In the real game, of course, a big reality check vs. this simple example, is that, to whatever extent possible, it makes a lot more sense to try to own coast provinces that have trade goods, and not own ones that don't (so they can buy from you, without worry about being 'blocked' because they sell the same thing you want to sell). But that's a real big 'if', especially seeing as how you'll never get any money from some enemy's provinces (trade goods or not), if you got in a war with him to get a juicy trade province, and now not a one of his coastal provinces will ever trade with you again, lol. (assuming you can't move away and make him go neutral, if you've just attacked into some provinces he borders on.)

FWIW I'm trying to make an applet that computes the optimal real-game income (trade, agri, mines, the works) based on specific province data (agriculture base value, trade goods, mines), but it's a bit of work so don't hold your breath. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/gc-zzz.gif

it's true, if you want maximum profits from trade income, you have to own some ports, buth ai have to own the majority. for example, it's hard to get points for controlling the north sea trade if you own all ports in the area

well, I think for the start, you really have to prioritize.

RoI is very important for early years.

once trade is fully connected, then it's worth while to build all the farming and all the happiness buildings you can.

I like all my people to be 200 loyalty while being set on highest taxes.

However, contrary to davey, my games almost never last longer than 100 years.

average length is 80-90 years.

Heh, well... i like to take my time (that and i'm crap).

Agree that when cash is tight in the early years you have to make every penny count. Shame that trade networks are so overpowering and often so one-sided. Its difficult to resist dominating the seas even though its cheesy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (RedKnight @ May 10 2004,21:33)]Ludens - clearly, extra armies increase the loyalty. Thus they don't cause more rebellion per se.

---

No argument there. I was just saying that it is unlikely that the people of a newly conquered province will accept you sooner (that is: the 'newly conquered' penalty disappears faster) if you bring a large army with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]You will notice that if you use auto-tax, it tends to stay at about 25 to 30% loyalty, above what it would need to make the next tax bracket... and then slowly over time, it eventually does make it to the next tax bracket.

---

I am sorry, but I do not quite follow what you are saying here. Could you explain what you mean with tax bracket?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]I've always wondered if this was the programmers saying don't tax them too hard, or their loyalty won't go up over time. If true, then it's possible that having more troops than needed, might increase how quickly they go loyal. But, who knows... and it's a fairly moot point, hehe

---

I guess this is the difference between loyality and happiness. If you tax them to high, their hapiness won't rise. You can compensate for that by increasing their loyality with large armies. But this is just guessing, I don't really know if there's a difference between hapiness and loyality in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]FWIW I'm trying to make an applet that computes the optimal real-game income (trade, agri, mines, the works) based on specific province data (agriculture base value, trade goods, mines), but it's a bit of work so don't hold your breath.

---

That sounds very useful. Please tell me when it is ready.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Ludens @ May 11 2004,14:17)]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]I am sorry, but I do not quite follow what you are saying here. Could you explain what you mean with tax bracket?

---

I think he means Very Low/Low/Normal/High/Very High

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] ]I guess this is the difference between loyality and happiness. If you tax them to high, their hapiness won't rise. You can compensate for that by increasing their loyality with large armies. But this is just guessing, I don't really know if there's a difference between hapiness and loyality in the game.

---

Well, i know it can be important to make sure that your garrison armies have a loyal general, because otherwise you will get a higher chance of civil war. Dunno if the loyalty of the garrison force affects the hapiness/loyalty of the civilian population though...

I usually have 4 units of peasants as a garisson force (keeping them in the castle for tidyness). Its always worth checking through the stack for the unit with the highest loyalty, dragging that unit out of the stack, then dropping it back in, as the most recent unit dropped in a stck becomes its general, assuming all other things (stars, titles, royalty etc) are equal.

the best way to gain money is not through trade,this is extremely volatile. Although of course you may well want to have a trade network to finance the farming and mining processes necessary to make a 'stable' economy. I'm not saying don't trade, on the contrary it is very necessary. Also disband those damnable peasants, they're damn expensive to keep around. However as a medmod player new to the org i dont have this problem http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ns/biggrin.gif SO rock on

Welcome to the Entrance Hall ah_dut. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wave.gif You know you have to explain your name. There is a story there waiting to come out...and if there isn't, make one up to keep it interesting. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...icons/wink.gif

I am ROCKIN' ON http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...-guitarist.gif ah. You do likewise http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...gc-drummer.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (ah_dut @ May 12 2004,12:38)]Also disband those damnable peasants, they're damn expensive to keep around.

---

Peasants are the cheapest unit out there, and theyre 100 men in size, so they are perfect for garrison troops.

try slav warriors which are equal support and better fighters.

even better is celtic warriors who are a real gem at 22 support.

Wow, never realised that celtic warriors were that cheap. Nice one. Looking at the spreadsheets, it seems that Bonnachts are the same price. Heh, but everyone gets access to bog standard peasants, so theyre still a good choice for most people at the beginning of the game.

Nubian spearmen are also just as cheap as peasants/slavs, and might be better at holding a line in castle defences (if the ai ever bothered to instigate them)

There are also other units which come in smaller unit sizes, so you need more units, but are just as cheap to maintain per man, so it works to out the same maintenance cost overall.

So, heres a list of viable garrison troops based on their cheapness.

#men / unit = cost
100 Peasants/Muslim Peasants = 37
100 Viking Thralls = 37
100 Bonnachts = 22 (Very Cheap)
100 Nubian Spearmen = 37
100 Celtic Warriors = 25 (Very Cheap)
60 Golden Horde Warriors = 22
60 Irish Dartmen = 22
60 Crossbows / Pav Crossbows = 22
60 Arbalesters / Pav Arbs = 22
60 Arquebusiers = 22
60 Woodsmen = 22
60 Gallowglasses = 22
60 Highland clansmen = 22
60 Kerns = 22
60 Slav Javelin Men = 22

my name is simple if you understand cantonese gregoshi http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/bigthumb.gif My cousin couldn't pronounce the Chinese for little brother (that is me even though i'm not actually his brother.) The chinese is roughly 'ah dai' in English. So the mispronounciation of my name has stuck for the last 10 years poor me

Thanks for the welcome by the way Gregoshi it's better than any i've had anywhere else
long live the ORG http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/cheers.gif

I knew there was a good story - maybe not an exciting one, but a good family story none-the-less. Thanks for sharing it. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...ons/gc-yes.gif

@Daveybaby
- just a small clarification since you included a viking era only unit (bonnachts). Support costs vary between viking era and medieval campaigns. Peasants are only 12 support in viking, and i know several other dual campaign units also have differing support costs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (motorhead @ May 16 2004,02:16)]@Daveybaby
- just a small clarification since you included a viking era only unit (bonnachts). Support costs vary between viking era and medieval campaigns. Peasants are only 12 support in viking, and i know several other dual campaign units also have differing support costs.

---

Doh

I assumed that since vikings_unit_prod.xls lists that unit as being available in ALL periods, it was available in the main medieval campaign.

Okay, so: can someone tell me where in vikings_unit_prod.xls (or in any other file) it tells you whether a unit is available in the Viking Campaign, the main campaign E/H/L, or both?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (Daveybaby @ May 17 2004,11:16)]Okay, so: can someone tell me where in vikings_unit_prod.xls (or in any other file) it tells you whether a unit is available in the Viking Campaign, the main campaign E/H/L, or both?

---

If a unit has no building requirements in the viking_unit_prod, it is not trainable in viking campaign.

yeah, gotta look out for the building requirements stuff, i had to mod through some of it before

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by [b

Quote[/b] (cutepuppy @ May 17 2004,04:21)]If a unit has no building requirements in the viking_unit_prod, it is not trainable in viking campaign.

---

Okay, i can see that - but how do i tell which units are buildable in the viking campaign, but NOT buildable in the main medieval campaign? I cant see anything in unit_prod or build prod which indicates this.

you actually need to look at the separate crusader_unit_prod and viking_unit_prod files (get the gnome editor). It looks like the devs just copied the crusader file onto the viking file then editted it.

- In the viking file, a buildable unit in the viking era needs both a building requirement and a faction. A bunch of medieval only units are listed in the viking_unit_prod file as ALL FACTIONS but have no build requirements (like siege cannons), so they're not buildable. Basically, it looks like the files were just slapped together and lots of garbage was left in them.

yep, make sure the units have a build reqs column which is 17 IIRC.

Okay, me very stupid.

I'd assumed (not unreasonably IMO) that the vikings_unit_prod.xls file was used by both the vikings campaign and in the Early/High/Late campaigns - because, like, ALL OF THE OTHER UNITS ARE IN THERE http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/rolleyes.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/angry.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...nquisitive.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...c-confused.gif Assumed that crusader_prod was made redundant. Stupid. Duh.

Hey cutepuppy, and anybody else who's been trying to pin down the income equations -

There's a lingering question of whether, when the king gets Steward, he truly adds 10% farm income, or is it divided by 5, like his acumen feathers. (Each king feather adds 2% to all provinces' income, but gov's feathers add 10%.)

I just had a game where my king got Steward, and I had a savegame from the turn before. So I carefully compared income from eight regions with high farm income, before and after. I made sure there were no changes in my governors or building levels, or any other change in my king. And fortunately my sea trade network stayed exactly the same that turn, so trade-building income served as an excellent control that no other wide-ranging effect happened (they all stayed exactly the same).

All eight provinces saw their farm income go up by an average of 9.1% (9.087%; range: 8.992-9.213; only one was below 9). So, indeed it is (almost) 10%.

I wonder if the approx. 0.9% less than 10%, tells us a little more about the equation? Although I can't think right off hand, what it might be saying. Interesting that it's almost 10% less than 10%. Maybe it's just an unfortunate big rounding happening in some step of the equations.

Daveybaby, thanks for those support cost numbers... I had rung them up too. All those you list, are 0.38 florins/man for support costs. It's interesting that all the higher level archers are 0.38/man, but not archers themselves (0.50/man). Also I just noticed to my amazement that the Swiss Pikemen that I just captured, are 0.50/man... I'll take it.
http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...s/bigthumb.gif

It can be useful to see the initial per-man costs, for a listing like that... peasants take the cake at 0.50/man, and the higher-tech units cost more. GHWs are highest at 5.0/man; interestingly the second highest is both pavise and regular arbies, at 0.42/man (shields are free hmm... except for building costs).

All these units (same as DFabeyBaby's, except no VI units) are 0.38/man for support costs... This shows production cost/man, production cost, and number of men... I'm currently cranking out woodsmen where I can instead of peasants, as peacekeepers...

Golden Horde Warriors 5.0 300 60
Arbalester 4.2 250 60
Pavise Arbalests 4.2 250 60
Crossbows 3.3 200 60
Pavise Crossbows 3.3 200 60
Arquebusiers 2.9 175 60
Gallowglasses 2.9 175 60
Kerns 2.1 125 60
Highland Clansmen 1.7 100 60
Nubian Spearmen 1.5 150 100
Woodsmen 1.3 75 60
Peasants 0.5 50 100
Peasants (Muslim) 0.5 50 100

Moving this topic to the Guides forum.

Request: does anyone want to volunteer to wade through this topic to organize and summarize all the information in this topic? It is a big job, but all will benefit from having everything together in one place.

Will do Greg. Might take a while though with school and all http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cg...cons/mecry.gif

Now ah_dut has kindly condensed this into a new topic I'll send this one back to the EH to prevent confusion.