Mercenary modifications

[mlp071]

Great work here, many thanks.
The diversity of mercs is a good thing, but having them in only limited numbers (no more 3-4 units of the same type available foe recruitment) and having them spawn at greater intervals is the way to go. Also some strong units should be kept limited to only their province of origin. The Thessalian heavy cav only in Thessalia as I remember you could recruit in some neighboring provinces. Thracian Peltasts only in Thrace, Galatians especially wild-men only in Galatia, the Kluddolon perhaps in a few more provinces etc.. The one who gets some good mercs in his army should feel lucky that he got them.
I noticed in this version you reduced the typed of units available, for future versions maybe try and make more types available for recruitment. Just my opinion.

Couple of problems there:

- I tried keeping all mercs in pool with delayed spawn (2x, 3x 5x and 10x ), and result is that AI was not making faction units , but rather would park lone general in region with several merc units and wait till they spawn to recruit.

-Some of the factions are have tendency not to recruit cavalry in their barracks or they do it very rarely, for some reason. Namely Aedui, Arverni , Rome, Getai, Lusotannan, Pontus ....

- Rome has enough mnai to build all barracks upgrades before Polybian reforms, so AI never produces Polybian units...

- I am working on "wild men " recruitment, and plan is that they are available in 3 provinces: Galatia, Mrogaedu and Arvernotorg . That way Arverni and Aedui will have some heavier units before reform kicks in.

- For every mercenary unit that recruits ( especially infantry ones) , AI will not recruit one of faction elite units.He will recruit starting lower tier unit though (ex hellenic native sperman..) in their barracks.Thats why i have to slowly bring infantry back into the merc pool... They will replace some of the cavalry eventualy though.

I am trying to change money cap (raise for 50% or 75 %) at present time to see if that encourages them to recruit cavalry in barracks or not.

I would like to see some units available as mercs in certain regions , like Syrian archers , Belgian spearmen, but they are not on merc list and i am not sure if i can use them from faction scripts without messing something up .

Btw, peltastaithrakioi merc are already available in some provinces that have Getai population, adding them in more will get AI buying them over cavalry....Their presence in Makedon areas is historical too, since Phillipos and Perseus allowed them to resettle there after 2nd Makedonian war , hoping to boost recruitment base.

It is still work in progress though, so list will be changed more....slowly , since it is so easy to mess up AI's recruitment balance.

[Watchman]

-Some of the factions are have tendency not to recruit cavalry in their barracks or they do it very rarely, for some reason. Namely Aedui, Arverni , Rome, Getai, Lusotannan, Pontus ....

Poor cost-efficiency ratio I would imagine. The Pontic Katpatuka Asabara have it particularly bad - their price tag is around the level of the Hai and Pahlava archer-cataphracts, but stats are virtually identical to the Mada Asabara...

I'd be a bit leery of that sort of return for my Mnai too.

[The Errant]

Nice to see work in progress. I agree with Watchman on the cavalry issue. All the factions you mentioned have a very poor quality cavalry pool and/or require highest level MICs or in the case of the Aedui/Arverni two reforms before they can recruit even half decent cavalry.

About Rome I believe they do upgrade to Polybian reforms at some point. They did so in all my campaigns using the money script. It just takes time.

As for the money cap. There is a reason I made it so low in my script. It's very simple. Putting it high, say 100 000 before the first reduction of 30 000, the cumulative effect of the money assistance and their normal income trough trade/mining goes over the top. I dosen't really help to reduce 30 000 from the AI treasury if the have an income of say 80 000 - 100 000 per turn after paying the upkeep for their units.
Next turn once again the same 80 000 - 100 000 and the AI treasury just keeps building. That is the reason I put the "High End" safety of -150 000 to any faction that got 200 000 into their treasury. Some factions never achieve that sort of monster economy, so they don't really need High End cap. Some factions actually go static with the High End cap.
Increasing the cap too much, only leads to the AI endlessly recruiting elite stacks and mercs, plus the inevitable bribery of any city you conquer without a governor present.
I noticed this wonderful effect when playing the Casse.
I had over 350 000 mnai in my treasury and suddenly get the event message: Richest faction. Arche Seleukeia. Disabling fog of war I noticed they had something like 14-15 full stacks and numerous smaller ones running all over the place. And still a treasury of over 350 000 mnai and rising.
That sucked on so many levels I started to feel sick. How do you compete against that? And they were not the only ones. Carthies were the richest next turn. Then Rome and Koinon, followed by Baktria...

I'm not saying your idea of increasing the cap is bad. Just wanted to warn of an unfortunate problem that you will have to overcome one way or another.

[mlp071]

Yeah , i am thinking same 150000-200000, with less mercenaries will prevent big number of stacks.

And will hopefully induce AI to get like 30-40% more of the troops , i hope.That would be sort of ideal number.With 100000 cap AI is still little sluggish , with not to many mercs around.

I am finishing extended version of Descr_merc (70% done) then will try it and see if AI needs more encouragment than that.

Should be all known by tommorow night

[Southern Hunter]

If the AI has large empires, and collects revenue 'over the top', shouldn't there be something to spend it on? Historically speaking, some empires did indeed collect 'large' tax revenues, but they ALWAYS found something to spend it on, whether that be troops, large public monuments (or buildings), waste, games, etc

There appears to be a problem with the economic model if such a problem occurs.

Rather than inventing a 'cap', and subtracting money from that which is available, shouldn't the costs be re-scaled, such that anyone with heaps of money can actually spend it on really cool stuff? Maybe some of the 'really cool stuff' is existing buildings and capabilities that is simply too cheap?

In my challenge mod, I multiplied the cost of buildings by 2x up to 20x the existing costs (more at the higher end), and this serves to soak money up. I also increased the costs of troops (recruitment more than maintenance, but whatever).

Just highlighting a different way of thinking about the problem, rather than artificial caps on revenue.

Cheers,

Hunter

[Redmeth]

Hunter, in my script the "cap" is the point where the AI stops receiving bonus money, after they go under again bonus money will be received again depending on the various conditions (first 20 years 1200 for everyone to build up and then depending on the number of provinces different bonuses).

[The Errant]

If the AI has large empires, and collects revenue 'over the top', shouldn't there be something to spend it on? Historically speaking, some empires did indeed collect 'large' tax revenues, but they ALWAYS found something to spend it on, whether that be troops, large public monuments (or buildings), waste, games, etc

There appears to be a problem with the economic model if such a problem occurs.

Rather than inventing a 'cap', and subtracting money from that which is available, shouldn't the costs be re-scaled, such that anyone with heaps of money can actually spend it on really cool stuff? Maybe some of the 'really cool stuff' is existing buildings and capabilities that is simply too cheap?

In my challenge mod, I multiplied the cost of buildings by 2x up to 20x the existing costs (more at the higher end), and this serves to soak money up. I also increased the costs of troops (recruitment more than maintenance, but whatever).

Just highlighting a different way of thinking about the problem, rather than artificial caps on revenue.

Cheers,

Hunter

In principle this is sound advice. Just one problem, RTW AI. For the AI factions with the exception of the Eleutheroi their primary focus is always troops. Recruited or mercenary.

I dosen't matter what goody expensive city improvements are available, their primary focus is always military. They will keep recruiting until they run out of money or population. And with the money and population scripts neither will ever happen.

Plus, the downside is that if building and troop prices are increased, the human player which receives no cash assistance will never be able to build the kind of infrastructure that gives them a fighting chance against a large AI faction.

You can be the best tactician in world but no matter how good you are five or six stacks of enemy elites during the same turn is more than a half stack of mediocre troops can handle. Unless you use all slinger armies.

And at that point the game becomes more of a chore than a game. How many AARs and games have been abandoned to the AI stack parades?

Historically, only Rome fielded a large number of standing armies and that was in the Imperial Era. All other nations had a core of professional troops as the center of their army and then used levies and mercenaries to bolster their fighting power during large campaigns.

When the war was over those levies went home to continue farming or whatever else they had been doing before the war. During the Republic, Rome did the same. Land grants to veteran troops got them back to the general population. And while some troops did re-enlist, those where more akin to the professional core troops of other nations.

I don't mind AI full stacks. I just think they should be fewer and further in between. And not all elite units either. And when they loose one, It should really hurt. Not just be a minor annoyance that gets responded to by sending four or five fully elite stacks the next turn. And even if that was possible for some factions, the AI should not be able to keep doing that indefinately. Sooner or later they should face the reality of having no one to recruit and no money to do the recruiting with.

Had Trajan lost the legions he took with him to Dacia, without conquering it, I doubt very much he would have tried again. And certainly not in the next three months after his defeat. He might not have tried at all. And loosing that many men will take decades to recover from. Not three months.

[Darth Stalin]

@The Errant:

1. You’re right about the importance of heavy losses to ancient states/empires. When Romans lost 2 armies in 105 BC in battles against Germanic tribes (some 80.000 men!), that, coupled with some other wars that dragged manpower and changes in agriculture structure (number of free peasants decreased in favor of great slaver-powered latifundia), led to introduce marian reforms in recruitment system, when there no more conscripts obliged to arm themselves in proper fashion, but volunteered professionals paid and fully equipped yb the state. Again, when in 190 BC Antiochus III The Great lost in battle of Magnesia over 50.000 men army, he had to surrender and sign humiliating treaty with Rome, as he had little money left to pay new troops and still had many boundaries endangered (like with Bactria, Pontos and Parthians).

2. What about Your money script? Is it updated to be compatible with EB v2 patch? The Redmeth’s already is and I’d like to compare them. And maybe there will be a common-built money script to be added in final release of EB, together with final mercenaries script?

[Southern Hunter]

I dosen't matter what goody expensive city improvements are available, their primary focus is always military. They will keep recruiting until they run out of money or population. And with the money and population scripts neither will ever happen.

And at that point the game becomes more of a chore than a game. How many AARs and games have been abandoned to the AI stack parades?

I don't mind AI full stacks. I just think they should be fewer and further in between. And not all elite units either. And when they loose one, It should really hurt. Not just be a minor annoyance that gets responded to by sending four or five fully elite stacks the next turn. And even if that was possible for some factions, the AI should not be able to keep doing that indefinately. Sooner or later they should face the reality of having no one to recruit and no money to do the recruiting with.

Precisely the problems I was trying to avoid.

Some potential actions are to

a. Increase capital prices for troops, thereby making troop losses much more costly WITHOUT making upkeep any harder, or bankrupting anyone at the start. In my challenge mod prices are doubled, and could be increased further.

b. Stagger the money given to a faction so that it gets LOTS every now and again, and builds troops AND buildings with what is left. The residue will probably go on more troops.

Just suggestions, but logical ones it seems to me :P