[EB] Romani vs Qarthadastim MP

**teoman10** · 03-05-2010, 23:22

Greetings.

Me and my friend are playing EB. I like Rome and he likes Carthage and we usually end up fighting each other in Multiplayer battles.

I usually end up victorious in these battles, but my friend thinks that Carthage should have more money because he claims they had it in RL. (None of us have archeologic proof for this.)

The question is: Should Carthage have more money than the Romans in an MP battle, or is the cheaper yet just as strong manipular units of the Romans balanced to represent the manpower advantage they had in most wars?

**Titus Marcellus Scato** · 03-06-2010, 11:27

Well, in single-player EB (at least the way I play it) Carthage's greater wealth isn't an advantage.

Because as Carthage, I always hire lots of mercenaries. Which are very expensive to recruit. I prefer to use the population of my towns as tax-paying citizens, rather than soldiers, so I recruit as few soldiers as possible and use as many mercenaries as I can.

Just my perspective.

**fraoula** · 03-06-2010, 12:01

As far as MP is concerned you should either try not spend all of your allowed treasury or let your friend use more money. Recruitment costs and upkeep are not correctly portayed. If anything it would be much more expensive to arm your soldiers with chain mails, swords, heavy bending javelins and a large sturdy shields than give them an axe a wooden shield and two threads of cloth. However it was the only way (RTW evil wayz of recruitment) to accurately portray Rome's ability to levy and train immense manpower in relatively small time.
Thank god EB2 will be a bit more balanced in that.