EB v1.1 - Immense costs for mercenary troops

[QuintusSertorius]

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.

[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.

[bovi]

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.

[Artorius Maximus]

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

[NeoSpartan]

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

[NeoSpartan]

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.

[Irishmafia2020]

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...

[Africanvs]

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.

[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 :-(

[Elmetiacos]

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!"

[QuintusSertorius]

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.

[Irishmafia2020]

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.

[sass]

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?

[QuintusSertorius]

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.