Army upkeep a bit too high?

**Scorpius_Brutii** · January 16, 2009, 10:36 PM

Playing as England on H/H, 6.1 + RR/RC + 6.2 (this install order; yes I know they're not compatible, but so far no crashes) and I'm losing all the florins I gained into army upkeep, yet I barely have any stacks; just a few garrisons here and there. I have maybe 4 stacks of mainly longbows, armored sergeants and light men-at-arms with at most 2 units of knights in them. No mercenaries.

I also control the top half of France, all of England (not Scotland; William Wallace is bloody scary) and a part of Ireland, including Flanders. And yet, I'm gaining no profits at all each turn so my nooby self is now relying on cheating. And then, after adding about 120,000 florins worth of economic improvements to my cities, I STILL am not getting any money. I checked my treasury and it says all losing to army upkeep

I have 7 cities to 4 castles btw.

**delra** · January 17, 2009, 02:12 AM

Convert some castles to cities, get trade agreements, disband some of your armies, conquer Scotland (what is one Wallace against four stacks of Longbows?) and maybe even Norway and Denmark for extra trade, send your stacks on a crusade so they can take Jerusalem back and plunder Egypt for cash (plunder the city, demolish all buildings... and move on to another city).

That should help.

**Scorpius_Brutii** · January 17, 2009, 04:33 AM

Originally Posted by delra

Convert some castles to cities, get trade agreements, disband some of your armies, conquer Scotland (what is one Wallace against four stacks of Longbows?) and maybe even Norway and Denmark for extra trade, send your stacks on a crusade so they can take Jerusalem back and plunder Egypt for cash (plunder the city, demolish all buildings... and move on to another city).

That should help.

Problem: 4 stacks of longbows eat up all my treasury, so the plan is busted before it even starts :/

But on another note, I did get rid of Wallace in 1 battle. Well, partly because the AI was stupid and allowed me to do the old English tactic of letting your enemy go under the hail of arrows, bogged down by the infantry and then finshed off with a massive heavy cavalry charge in the flank

**Dewy** · January 17, 2009, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by Scorpius_Brutii

Problem: 4 stacks of longbows eat up all my treasury, so the plan is busted before it even starts :/

But on another note, I did get rid of Wallace in 1 battle. Well, partly because the AI was stupid and allowed me to do the old English tactic of letting your enemy go under the hail of arrows, bogged down by the infantry and then finshed off with a massive heavy cavalry charge in the flank

??? england didn't do that, they used longbows and kept at bay with infantry and then the longbowmen ran in with axes. England had hardly any horses

PS don't watch brave heart

**Scorpius_Brutii** · January 17, 2009, 11:32 AM

Originally Posted by Dewy

??? england didn't do that, they used longbows and kept at bay with infantry and then the longbowmen ran in with axes. England had hardly any horses

PS don't watch brave heart

They only did that in Agincourt; Poitiers and the 2nd phase of the Hundred Years War this was their main tactic.

**delra** · January 17, 2009, 05:10 AM

You see. Now you send your remaining armies on a crusade and enjoy the money boost. :-)

**Inhuman One** · January 17, 2009, 08:02 AM

Personly I would prefer a higher recruitment cost and lower upkeep.

For elite units a really high recruitment cost.

**ricebowl** · January 17, 2009, 08:08 AM

same here, for my taste, I double the recruiting cost, boosted the morale for all elite units(knights & Qabuqulu...), and half their up-keep cost, and had a relatively fun game.

**Daneboy** · January 17, 2009, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Inhuman One

Personly I would prefer a higher recruitment cost and lower upkeep.

For elite units a really high recruitment cost.

Good idea. It would make them more valuable and a bigger blow to lose.

**delra** · January 17, 2009, 08:14 AM

So do it and post the file here. :-)

**Mike13531** · January 17, 2009, 01:32 PM

it's a good idea.. upkeep shouldn't be that high. Each unit only get enough money for their family to get by, not to mention some food. So yes, the upkeep is too high. It won't make the game easier either, because your opponent can recruit a even bigger army. So does it really matter? Nah, not really. It will simply be more fun as you have a large amount of army to fiddle around with. Should be interesting
Also for you realism junkies, yes, it is realistic, do the math.