Is the human player at a disadvantage by not retraining?

[morteduzionism]

I saw another post talking about this. I don't know if this idea has been discussed/settled but based on the recent post concerning human player retraining it seems like the idea that 'humans shouldn't retrain' is still the dominant one. Is it a good idea?

Isn't the human players greatly disadvantaged by not retraining?

The computer controlled factions receive welfare, right? In other words each AI faction gets a subsidy every turn (I think I heard it was 10K). If that is correct then there's really no way a human could compete with that, right?

Here's the scenario:

AI controlled Gaul recruits 4 Warband units(0 recruit time and cheap)

4 units attack human controlled city...get mauled...50-100 escape out of 480(medium unit size)...

Gaul recruits another 4...combines them with the others...now you may have 1 unit that's gains experience...wash/rinse/repeat...

The fact that the AI gets the extra cash and uses cheap units it can constantly pump out soldiers and eventually the experience piles up...sooner than later you're facing a 3 Gold Chevron Warband...

The human can't do that! One can't constantly recruit units of Princepes and Triarii, human player economics simply won't allow it. The alternative is to fight EVERY battle to ensure you get as few losses as possible and that those losses come from non-Roman units. But that's tedious and quickly gets tiresome.

So, based on two factors: a) AI subsidy b) access to extremely cheap units; isn't it disadvantageous for a human player to try to play like the AI? The field is not level.

In no way do I suggest it's impossible to play like this(no retraining) I'm only suggesting that the popular notion that human retraining is a disadvantage to the AI is incorrect.

[AqD]

You can still win, of course. Even with 0-turn recruitment.

Let's think of sarmatians vs thrace: sarmatians have the best HAs and thrace has no heavy infantry or capable archer, so:

turn 1: thrace sends 20 warband units, vs your 15 HAs - thrace lose and all units destroyed because they're too slow to run away. And your loss is less than 1% (causality by friendly-fire)

turn 2: thrace sends another 20 units, vs your 15 HAs - same, lose and all destroyed.

Now thrace already lose 2 * 20 * 80 = 3200 populations - that's for large unit scale. Huge scale would take 6400. Within a few turns thace would have all its populations killed and unable to afford any army even if they have plenty of $$$.

The same goes for parthia vs seleucid. In fact it's rather easy, with or without 0-turn recruitment (which rather benefits the AI because your HA don't need re-supply). You could win with rome too, and probably spain.

PS: AI in RTR with alex.exe does retrain troopers and the effect is quiet terrible. I have witnessed one silver seleucid swordmen unit slaughtered my bronze east legionaries in a speed of about 1 man / 0.5 sec, and it's from the front not back/flank. They're unstoppable until my cataphracts charged them.
________
HaveMyBody cam

[morteduzionism]

turn 1: thrace sends 20 warband units, vs your 15 HAs - thrace lose and all units destroyed because they're too slow to run away. And your loss is less than 1% (causality by friendly-fire)

turn 2: thrace sends another 20 units, vs your 15 HAs - same, lose and all destroyed.

That's specifically in regards to Horse Archers, correct?

A human playing with an infantry based faction couldn't survive a war of attrition with the AI because losses wouldn't be @1%/battle...

Furthermore, what is the upkeep on your Horse Archers?

Like I said, I'm not suggesting a human can't win I'm just saying that a human choosing not to retrain is putting themselves at more of a disadvantage than is needed.

[Brusilov]

That's specifically in regards to Horse Archers, correct?

A human playing with an infantry based faction couldn't survive a war of attrition with the AI because losses wouldn't be @1%/battle...

Furthermore, what is the upkeep on your Horse Archers?

Like I said, I'm not suggesting a human can't win I'm just saying that a human choosing not to retrain is putting themselves at more of a disadvantage than is needed.

I think the retraining thing is simply because the AI doesn't retrain. But as aqd has pointed out if you use the Alex executable they do (when I play RTR PE I use the Alex executable).

@aqd if you post back you should edit the original post rather than add another one. You posted minutes apart with no-one posting in-between. A moderator will eventually pick this up and point it out (I did it once before).

[AqD]

one sarmatian HA has upkeep = 170, parthian HA = 180
it's cheaper than all the heavy and medium-armoured units.

You may still win with Rome and Spain because they both have surperior infantry, assume you're not playing VH in battle
________
condo Pattaya sale

[morteduzionism]

You may still win with Rome and Spain because they both have surperior infantry, assume you're not playing VH in battle

Even if that was 100% true, the math still says you'd lose.

Ok...not being a math-guy I'm probably wrong but here goes:

You start out with 100 soldiers...battle...you lose 8: that's less than 1% losses, right?

Immediately after that battle you're attacked again...battle...you lose 8 again: you're down to 84 soldiers...

so-on-so-forth...

The fact that the AI only uses unarmored meat-bags is nothing to laugh at, because they're wearing you down...slowly but surely you're losing

When viewed against a larger empire that becomes devastating...you'd have to recruit fresh troops for armies all over the place...an army in Iberia may need 30 Principe while an army in the Pelopponeses needs 27 Principe...whatcha gonna do?

You need 57 Principe. It's going to be a hassle(IMO) because not only will it cost you the price of 2 full units because you have to recruit the units but you also have to wait the 2 turns for them to be done and send them in opposite directions.

It's easier for me to just keep a relief army(commanded by the youngest General) in Italy for specifically this reason...I send my relief force out to spell foreign legions allowing them to retrain and get some R&R back in Latium...the added benifit is chance that the relief force will see some action, giving the young commander some experience

Oh well, if your way works for you...do you...lol

[AqD]

Even if that was 100% true, the math still says you'd lose.

Ok...not being a math-guy I'm probably wrong but here goes:

You start out with 100 soldiers...battle...you lose 8: that's less than 1% losses, right?

Immediately after that battle you're attacked again...battle...you lose 8 again: you're down to 84 soldiers...

so-on-so-forth...

The fact that the AI only uses unarmored meat-bags is nothing to laugh at, because they're wearing you down...slowly but surely you're losing

Assume you're fightint on one front only, with 20 units * 64 = 1280 sarmatian HAs (large scale). After first battle you have 1267, second 1254, third 1241, fourth 1229, fifth 1217 - where you lose like an entire unit. So in the best situation you may need only to resupply one HA every 5 turns, yet the AI would have lose 20 * 80 * 5 = 8,000 soldiers - his largest cities would have become small towns!
________
How to roll a joint

[V.T. Marvin]

Both retraining and merging units have some advantages:
retraining - you get several units to full strength in a single turn (but lose experience accoordingly)
merging - you keep all the experience.

I think it might be reasonable to role-play a bit regarding this question. I, for example, do retrain units that represent some form of militia or part-time soldiers (i.e. hoplitai haploi). This represents replenishing of the losses with fresh green levies - overall experience is kept at comparativelly low level (bronze chevrons) as suited to this kind of troops. On the other hand, I merge professional long-serving soldiers and elites thus allowing them to retain their experience from previous combats and ultimately reaching for gold chevrons.

NOTE: If you retrain only one sigle unit in a city and you do not recruit anything else, it will be brought to full strenth again AND keeping all the experience!!! This might be considered cheating and avoided.

[morteduzionism]

Assume you're fightint on one front only

How often does this actually happen? Maybe when playing as another faction but not when playing as the Romans.

with 20 units * 64 = 1280 sarmatian HAs (large scale). After first battle you have 1267, second 1254, third 1241, fourth 1229, fifth 1217 - where you lose like an entire unit. So in the best situation you may need only to resupply one HA every 5 turns, yet the AI would have lose 20 * 80 * 5 = 8,000 soldiers - his largest cities would have become small towns!

Once again aren't you specifically referring to Horse Archers vs. unarmed infantry? Would they still suffer less than 1% casualties vs an army with alot of Heavy Cavalry? Is it even realistic to assume you'd lose so few men? What happens if by some freak of AI multiple stacks attack you?

I think it might be reasonable to role-play a bit regarding this question.

First, I'd like to say I'm not trying to argue in favor or against either tactic. I'm only suggesting that merging units is a handicap for the human player.

I, for example, do retrain units that represent some form of militia or part-time soldiers (i.e. hoplitai haploi). This represents replenishing of the losses with fresh green levies - overall experience is kept at comparativelly low level (bronze chevrons) as suited to this kind of troops.

Even if I understood why you do this I couldn't do it if I wanted to. The game/mod I play doesn't allow mercenaries to be "retrained."

I would think it'd be more logical/realistic to just let merc units die away and just recruit some new mercs.

On the other hand, I merge professional long-serving soldiers and elites thus allowing them to retain their experience from previous combats and ultimately reaching for gold chevrons.

What about esprit de corps? You merge a unit from Legio I with a unit from Legio II, which legion does the new unit join? Or do you just merge units within the same army? If so, doesn't that end up forcing you to recruit a fresh unit anyway?*


*I should mention that I play with the Romans and try to play historically accurate with legions as historically accurate as the game/mod will allow. I don't have armies of 20 units of the same type or even armies with 3 units of the same type(well I do have extra Principes). Because of this I don't have the luxury of constantly merging units together because I'd eventually destroy an entire unit which, for me, would be a major hole in my army.

The only option I could do is recruit fresh units and send them to the army to then merge with the deficient units. Which is helluva expensive and a logistical nightmare.