What's required for to build a keep?

[Ldvs]

It's just that seeing the AI having 20 full stacks of his best units in each province kinda kills the fun (there are sometimes so many units in greece or turkey on the campaign map that scrolling the map becomes laggy !).

Well you didn't see my Persian war campaign, the Persians were toying with a 46 full stacks army , but with the new economic model it only happened to me in this "era". It's up to you to gang up with small factions before one of the major faction overrun the map. (exactly the same strategy as the viking era in VI).

[Saracen]

Using the Gnome Editor, does anyone know the "formula" used to calculate the support cost per unit that you see in the game? Column 4 in the Editor has an interger number. For example Polmiste has a 1 in that column and their support cost is 16. Spartans have a 2 in that column but their support cost is the same, 16. Horses tend to have big numbers in that column and their support costs show it. Help please if you know.

[komninos]

Hi all,

A good way to calculate support for anything is 20% of building value. I have avoided it since the support cost is a bit strange how it is calculated in the game and I can't figure it out.

Any way I was afraid that increasing the support will make the original starting in negative while I felt that a 4 unit complement was a mast in every territory.

Thanks for the input though ... I will increase the support cost of all units a bit while keeping the rest of the values unchanged except the starting values that will be change to 20%*the_sum_of all_provinces*10_years.

I will come back to you with this so check back!

[Saracen]

I am in about year 25 of a game as the Athenians. My income is about 6000 a turn and my support costs are about 3700 a turn. I have accumulated about 30,000 Gc. Trade accounts for about 4800 of the income. I am in every sea area possible. I have attacked mostly rebels and not been attacked by any faction. I have about 7 provinces and basically been left alone to grow as I choose. I think this gives me a good "best case" scenario" of the feel of the economic model I have adopted. Obviously any kind of war where my trade was cut could put me in a negative annual income. I could potentially go from about a +2000 a turn to a -2000 a turn. I see many provinces still with single stacks some with 2 and a few mostly the Eastern armies with 3 or 4 but the quality of their troops is not as good. This is the settings I am using. All regions base income reduced by 50%. All start money is 10% of the original amount. For example 6000 became 600! Tradable goods value cut by 50%. Imports percentage increased from 20% to 40%. This yields the original import value. I am very pleased with the "feel" of the game so far. I am going to continue playing and will advise of any further tweaks. I have it in my mind that I want to reduce the trade further perhaps by as much as an additional 50% which means the tradable goods would be 25% of their original value but I want to play a few more turns in hopes of getting in a big war and seeing if I really struggle which is what I want to do.

Looking at the unit information I would like to see more balance in the armies particularly the Greeks. I have gone back and looked over some historical data and as many of you have mentioned in other threads the proportion of Hoplites is far to much. One of the areas I see as an issue is the support costs. 16 is equal to many of the crap units in the game yet they are among the elite of all units. These units should require more support costs and perhaps take even longer to train. I am going to start working on this issue by doing the following, increasing the build time to 3 years and increasing the support costs to 80. These units are the core of the Greek armies not necessarily the majority in all cases. I am going to go digging in the attic for some source material pertaining to the composition of ancient armies. I will tell you what I find.

[Saracen]

Some 3 hours later a a few pounds lighter from being in a hot attic I have come up with some reference materials. First a little background. I started board gaming, mostly war simulations with Avalon Hill games in 1960 when I was 15. Between than and 1978 I went from board games to military miniatures of which I have several thousand. Every house I owned in that period had to have a "war game room" which was basically a pool table with a 5X9 sheet of plywood on top painted green. I have collected several sets of war gaming rules written by many historical experts. I also have a library of books concerning war gaming and military history. Bought my first computer in 1978 and gradually my gaming has moved over to the computer which I have done exclusively for over 10 years. This game is like fighting a battle of miniatures and reminds me of those "old days". At any rate when we played ancient miniatures we would fight balanced battles. An example of how the rules worked would be say each side gets 1500 points worth of troops. The rules would provide army lists which would give you how many points a particular unit will cost. A unit of Hoplites might cost you 250 points where a unit of light slingers might be 25 points. Also and more importantly each army had a list of percentages of troop types allowed. You were not allowed to spend all 1500 points on Hoplites. It might give you a minimum/maximum % per unit type, for example you might only be able to spend 20%-25% of your 1500 points on Hoplites. Perhaps Slingers might be 15%-20%. These are just examples but you were "forced" by the rules to play with an army that was a reasonable simulation of the composition of that army from an historical perspective. If I wanted to be Carthaginians you couldn't take all elephants for example. I think you get the idea. Some of the rules sets are even more specific and give you an actual list of units to use vs an opposing army of specific units. Then of course the historical data itself of specific orders of battle perhaps give us the best picture of army compositions. When the Greeks fought Greeks they tended to have smaller armies with a greater proportion of Hoplites. There were different mixes of troops when the eastern armies arrived on the scene. Terrain also had a bearing on troop types used.

So how does any of this bear on this mod of MTW. The nature of the software does not "force" a particular army composition. With the almost unlimited funds available we wind up with to many total troops and the troop types tend to be the "best" you could buy. Hence 16 Hoplites units vs 16 Hoplites units, not exactly what I would call a historical simulation. Before I start I want to say that this is simply for my own enjoyment of the game and I am not putting "anyone down" for what they have created or how they wish to play. I wouldn't have anything to work with if it hadn't been for the fine efforts of the folks who created the mod.

The first step is to get the total economics under control. I am probably 80% of the way there with the modifications I have made so far. As I said I will probably "tone down" the trading even further but that is for another discussion. My first step will be to take the reference materials and come up with some idea of appropriate army compositions. I am going to start with the Greek Hoplites as that is the most glaring inconsistancy I see. I have to use the game software provided as the "tool set" so that means to me a combination of unit cost, build time and support cost. For example if I first take away 90% of your available funds, reduce your yearly income by 80% then make you take more time and money to build them and yet more money to support them I can "force" you to build less Hoplites and more of other troop types. Your total army will more closely resemble historical reality. here is a list of the reference materials I am going to use:

Warfare in the Classical World by John Warry
An illustrated encyclopedia of weapons, warriors and warfare in the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome. From the rise of Mycenae to the decline of the Roman Empire 1600 BC - 800 AD.

Ancient Empires - A simulation of wars of antiquity by Greg Pitts & Scott Bowden, Emperor's Press LTD.

War Games Research Group, war game rules 3000 BC to 1250 AD
5th Edition, June 1976

War Games Research Group, war game rules 3000 BC to 1000 AD
Revised August 1981
Revised January 1982

War Games Research Group, war game rules 3000 BC to 1485 AD
Revised August 1992

The Shock of Impact - Rules for the ancient period by Ian S. Beck and Michael Bussey, copyright August 1981

Classical Warfare - Rules for ancient warfare from the Pharaohs to Charlemagne by Gary Gygax, published by TSR Rules copyright 1975

Tactica - A historical approach to ancient wargaming by Arty Conliffe, copyright 1989

[Pericles]

Some 3 hours later a a few pounds lighter from being in a hot attic I have come up with some reference materials. First a little background. I started board gaming, mostly war simulations with Avalon Hill games in 1960 when I was 15. Between than and 1978 I went from board games to military miniatures of which I have several thousand. Every house I owned in that period had to have a "war game room" which was basically a pool table with a 5X9 sheet of plywood on top painted green. I have collected several sets of war gaming rules written by many historical experts. I also have a library of books concerning war gaming and military history. Bought my first computer in 1978 and gradually my gaming has moved over to the computer which I have done exclusively for over 10 years. This game is like fighting a battle of miniatures and reminds me of those "old days". At any rate when we played ancient miniatures we would fight balanced battles. An example of how the rules worked would be say each side gets 1500 points worth of troops. The rules would provide army lists which would give you how many points a particular unit will cost. A unit of Hoplites might cost you 250 points where a unit of light slingers might be 25 points. Also and more importantly each army had a list of percentages of troop types allowed. You were not allowed to spend all 1500 points on Hoplites. It might give you a minimum/maximum % per unit type, for example you might only be able to spend 20%-25% of your 1500 points on Hoplites. Perhaps Slingers might be 15%-20%. These are just examples but you were "forced" by the rules to play with an army that was a reasonable simulation of the composition of that army from an historical perspective. If I wanted to be Carthaginians you couldn't take all elephants for example. I think you get the idea. Some of the rules sets are even more specific and give you an actual list of units to use vs an opposing army of specific units. Then of course the historical data itself of specific orders of battle perhaps give us the best picture of army compositions. When the Greeks fought Greeks they tended to have smaller armies with a greater proportion of Hoplites. There were different mixes of troops when the eastern armies arrived on the scene. Terrain also had a bearing on troop types used.

So how does any of this bear on this mod of MTW. The nature of the software does not "force" a particular army composition. With the almost unlimited funds available we wind up with to many total troops and the troop types tend to be the "best" you could buy. Hence 16 Hoplites units vs 16 Hoplites units, not exactly what I would call a historical simulation. Before I start I want to say that this is simply for my own enjoyment of the game and I am not putting "anyone down" for what they have created or how they wish to play. I wouldn't have anything to work with if it hadn't been for the fine efforts of the folks who created the mod.

The first step is to get the total economics under control. I am probably 80% of the way there with the modifications I have made so far. As I said I will probably "tone down" the trading even further but that is for another discussion. My first step will be to take the reference materials and come up with some idea of appropriate army compositions. I am going to start with the Greek Hoplites as that is the most glaring inconsistancy I see. I have to use the game software provided as the "tool set" so that means to me a combination of unit cost, build time and support cost. For example if I first take away 90% of your available funds, reduce your yearly income by 80% then make you take more time and money to build them and yet more money to support them I can "force" you to build less Hoplites and more of other troop types. Your total army will more closely resemble historical reality. here is a list of the reference materials I am going to use:

Warfare in the Classical World by John Warry
An illustrated encyclopedia of weapons, warriors and warfare in the ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome. From the rise of Mycenae to the decline of the Roman Empire 1600 BC - 800 AD.

Ancient Empires - A simulation of wars of antiquity by Greg Pitts & Scott Bowden, Emperor's Press LTD.

War Games Research Group, war game rules 3000 BC to 1250 AD
5th Edition, June 1976

War Games Research Group, war game rules 3000 BC to 1000 AD
Revised August 1981
Revised January 1982

War Games Research Group, war game rules 3000 BC to 1485 AD
Revised August 1992

The Shock of Impact - Rules for the ancient period by Ian S. Beck and Michael Bussey, copyright August 1981

Classical Warfare - Rules for ancient warfare from the Pharaohs to Charlemagne by Gary Gygax, published by TSR Rules copyright 1975

Tactica - A historical approach to ancient wargaming by Arty Conliffe, copyright 1989

I'm also a wargamer. :)

I personally like to agonize over my purchase choices.

I think this is part of the fun, and forces you to really use tactics in order to win.

I think you are on the right track, and fully agree with what you are doing.

Too bad MTW doesn't use population totals per province.

However, I think using many of your techniques, we can come to a better solution.

Cheers!

[Saracen]

To Komninos - If a "rule of thumb" for support value is 20% of purchase cost that would for example make the Hoplite support cost somewhere around 100 or so instead of 16. That certainly is in line with my thought process. How did it get to be 16 which is almost the standard cheapest support cost in the game? Not bitching, just asking. I see a Spartan listed as 1500 and 3 years with a multiplyer of 2 for support cost in the Gnome editor. I assume that will yield a 32 support cost but since I haven't seen one of those units yet I am guessing. 20% of 1500 would give you a support cost of 300 which is 10 times what I assume it is now. Certainly increasing the support costs with the reduction in overall money would reduce the number of available Hoplites and bring more balance to the unit composition.

Could you provide a list of names you use in the game to help identify units using the Gnome Manager? That way I could begin to compile an excel spreadsheet of units with all pertinant data, look at tweaks such as what we are talking about and generate a list of units and specs which would benefit the players much like the books that were sold with the original MTW.

[Pericles]

I am in about year 25 of a game as the Athenians. My income is about 6000 a turn and my support costs are about 3700 a turn. I have accumulated about 30,000 Gc. Trade accounts for about 4800 of the income. I am in every sea area possible. I have attacked mostly rebels and not been attacked by any faction. I have about 7 provinces and basically been left alone to grow as I choose. I think this gives me a good "best case" scenario" of the feel of the economic model I have adopted. Obviously any kind of war where my trade was cut could put me in a negative annual income. I could potentially go from about a +2000 a turn to a -2000 a turn. I see many provinces still with single stacks some with 2 and a few mostly the Eastern armies with 3 or 4 but the quality of their troops is not as good. This is the settings I am using. All regions base income reduced by 50%. All start money is 10% of the original amount. For example 6000 became 600! Tradable goods value cut by 50%. Imports percentage increased from 20% to 40%. This yields the original import value. I am very pleased with the "feel" of the game so far. I am going to continue playing and will advise of any further tweaks. I have it in my mind that I want to reduce the trade further perhaps by as much as an additional 50% which means the tradable goods would be 25% of their original value but I want to play a few more turns in hopes of getting in a big war and seeing if I really struggle which is what I want to do.

Looking at the unit information I would like to see more balance in the armies particularly the Greeks. I have gone back and looked over some historical data and as many of you have mentioned in other threads the proportion of Hoplites is far to much. One of the areas I see as an issue is the support costs. 16 is equal to many of the crap units in the game yet they are among the elite of all units. These units should require more support costs and perhaps take even longer to train. I am going to start working on this issue by doing the following, increasing the build time to 3 years and increasing the support costs to 80. These units are the core of the Greek armies not necessarily the majority in all cases. I am going to go digging in the attic for some source material pertaining to the composition of ancient armies. I will tell you what I find.

Keep up the excellent work!

HTW is by far my favorite mod.

It just needs to be tweaked.

As far as building costs/time to build/income goes, the Viking expansion is a good guide to go by.

Also, ALL starting armies should be reduced to 25% to 40% of current totals.

The Greek hoplites should be expensive and take more time to train.