Cavalry comparison

[Sin Qua Non]

I'd go one step further and make Roman cavalry, for instance, cost a lot to build and maintain, but make Parthian cavalry, for instance, be relatively inexpensive. That way factions that are based around horse warriors would not be penalized.

I agree with this idea, especially since it would help represent the efficiency gained by having a cavalry strong, semi nomadic culture. Quillian's ideas for why things may be more expensive than others are good ones, I just find myself thinking that upkeep differences seem a bit extreme. Nitpicky stuff, maybe. 90/110 turn for light cav upkeep is perfect for the horsebreeder cultures, since they were practically born into the saddle. But for Rome, where cavalry is (historically) secondary, and mercenaries(historically) make up the roman cavalry, they should be paying more for upkeep than other factions. Once a Roman gets going financially, it will hardly matter if they pay triple, so maybe upkeep pricing is mostly gameplay.

And it isn't just cavalry. Maybe to look at upkeep from an cultural standpoint would be better. Romans, Carthiginians, Greeks and Egyptians are the "civilized", seditary empire builders in this game, so naturally all of that infrastructure, technology and wealth would call for greater upkeep in terms of wages (& plunder), military overhead and bureaucracy.

The Britons/Iberians/Gauls/Germans and Dacians are semi nomadic at this point. They can't build infrastructure to the extent of the Romans, which can be restrictive and liberating. They are most likely going to be getting their supply from several sources, not least of which is themselves. They may not have the most technologically advanced and uniform armor/weapons, but they are more individually resourceful, as a general rule. And their government, not always as sophisticated as the Romans, is much less bloated. Upkeep should naturally be lower across the board for them.

The Scythians/Parthians/Armenians are the most nomadic, and would probably follow the form of the previous, except with an emphasis on cavalry. This (simplified) way of looking at upkeep may be the best broad spectrum approach. Well, I'll stop rambling. This thread is just full of good ideas!

[Quillan]

Well, all joking aside (the bit about wear and tear on the shoes was a joke, if you hadn't figured it out), I think both cost to raise and maintain are both based more on a game balance perspective than on total historical accuracy. Cavalry in RTW (at least until you get to the really top tier units) has some drawbacks: it doesn't work as well at maintaining public order due to lower numbers, you can't defend or attack walls with it, once it gets bogged down in melee with infantry it tends to die in short order, etc. So I suspect that the maintenance cost is lower just to reflect the fact that for all those things infantry is more useful.

[Sin Qua Non]

I kind of figured you weren't actually factoring in new shoes for the kids.