Bribery Question

[Antagonist]

Recently I've been playing a campaign as Pontus in which I have little military power but a lot of money, and I'm wondering something about bribing units: Does anyone know what determines whether character or unit stack is willing to entertain the possibility of taking a bribe?

I'm talking about the fact that about a half the time I approach something to bribe it, they dismiss the possibility out of hand "our honour is not for sale" etc. I thought this might come up with generals who had certain traits (Upright, Loyal etc.) but I've also had it with captains and even diplomats. I have also had generals with negative traits (disloyal etc.) do it.

Anyone know why this happens? Is it the diplomat's influence is too low, or some random factor?

Thanks,

Antagonist

[professorspatula]

I think that occurs when you don't have enough money in the treasury to afford the bribe. You can need tens of thousands to bribe just a small army. I'm not wholly sure, but I think ever since v1.2, the more money you have, the greater the bribes tend to cost.

[Garvanko]

Yeah, bribery became pointless after v1.2. Far too expensive.

Diplomacy in general has suffered.

[Monarch]

Sorry to hi-jack your thread, but it concerns bribery.

Currently I'm playing un-patched so bribery is still effective. Is there any way to bribe enemy units into fighting for you? Usually they just 'return to the fields'.

[Ludens]

Currently I'm playing un-patched so bribery is still effective. Is there any way to bribe enemy units into fighting for you? Usually they just 'return to the fields'.

Only generals and units that your side is able to recruit actually join your side. So it is impossible for, say, the Gauls, to get Roman Cohorts or Spanish Bull Warriors by bribing. Neither will they get Roman peasants. But they can get Spanish Naked Fanatics this way.

[_Aetius_]

Bribery might aswell not be in the game it's so expensive, I have no idea how it is calculated and how a 4 unit army of low grade troops can cost thousands of Denarii when their combined recruitment cost and upkeep comes nowhere close to that.

The most expensive mercenaries are cheaper than the cheapest bribe of a brigand army in my experience, originally bribery was to cheap but atleast it was apart of the game, I have never used bribery since this insane rise in cost took place. I think also that every bribed army should join yours, certainly brigands and rebels, otherwise your paying thousands of denarii just to get rid of them you dont really gain that much otherwise. It makes bribery even less useful.

[magnum]

While I agree that they perhaps increased bribery costs to much, I do prefer it as it currently is to how it was before. As it is now, bribery is something I try only when I've done an 'oops' (i.e. Ack, a full stack army is at the gates and I can't get an relieving army there soon enough!) Bribery is an expensive, very very expensive, solution. But definately not something that I'd use simply to remove an annoying enemy force that could be defeated by one of my armies.

[Monarch]

Only generals and units that your side is able to recruit actually join your side. So it is impossible for, say, the Gauls, to get Roman Cohorts or Spanish Bull Warriors by bribing. Neither will they get Roman peasants. But they can get Spanish Naked Fanatics this way.

I see, explains why I can bribe Brutii and Scipii armies then.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Yeah, when playing on a hard setting the bribing of units in the civil war comes in handy because you get the units yourself!

[grapedog]

if nothing else, i find bribery in v1.5 to be a great way to eat up the huge amounts of cash that give all my governers bad traits.