War is to profitable and cheap

**Reshey** · 10-26-2007, 12:15

I am no historian but I think going to offensive warfare should cost more, then defending. In this game it cost the same to have 5 units stationed as town garrison for 100 turns in a row, or to have the same 5 units on enemy territory for 100 turns.

In game there is a text for cartage stating that it could field large militia army's to defend the city. It seems reasonable.

Could one make :

Add some free no movable militia units that will slowly (re)generate according to city size. This will make blitz krig against AI undefended citys harder, and the AI can now use its army in the field. (Maby in connection with the garrison structure).

50 % increase in upkeep for units stationed in hostile territory with bordering friendly province.

100 % increases in upkeep for units stationed deep into hostile territory.

Infinite or much more ammunition for ranged units stationed in a city with walls. I dont believe the only could fire a few times before running out of spears or arrows.

Trade and population bonus with prolonged time of peace.

**Krusader** · 10-26-2007, 12:23

Hardcoded, so can't. Otherwise we could do it with scripts maybe, but would probably be many lines and would make it even more laggy.

In EB2 it should cost more though as some units can be free upkeep in cities.

**different_13** · 10-26-2007, 12:29

I was just about to mention EBII..

As Krusader said, they're planning on using Medieval II's free-upkeep system to enable cheap (free) garrisons.

In a perfect world a script could be written that simply adds +100 to the upkeep of every unit not inside a city or fort (actually, I'd halve the penalty for forts, but you get the idea).

So that would mean your city garrisons (3 units of hoplites) would be free, your newly trained cavalry (in the same city) cost whatever they cost now, your army already on its way to the front would cost over a 1000 more than it used to, and your border garrisons (ie fortresses at strategic locations) would cost slightly more than they used to, representing the luxury of actually having 'spare' troops (I say spare because they're not actively involved in an assault or campaign, nor are they 'policing' your cities).

edit: and this makes sense - a rich state can afford a standing army, a small poor one cannot. A nation constantly at war for decades is going to feel the strain, a peaceful one wouldn't. The small free-upkeep garrisons won't stop enemy forces for long, but it should be long enough to allow you to relieve the city with another army (or even the combined garrisons of nearby cities).

However, I think only certain units will have the 'garrison' quality (free upkeep in cities), and I don't think they'll be Silver Shields and Principes..

Btw, are there any plans on utilising the city/castle system?
Personally I don't see how it could be implemented, but I can imagine 'castles' now being military settlements and 'cities' being just that, cities.
As I said though, I don't think it's very appropriate for the time period..

**Zaknafien** · 10-26-2007, 12:40

sorry the title of this thread made me think of something my esteemed commander in chief would say....

**russia almighty** · 10-26-2007, 13:13

Well our esteemed commander would be correct if a certain black substance was directly plundered and all the historical artifacts sold off and a few bake sales were held .