value/cost ratio for units

[Hannibalus]

Let me open a thread for discussions about value/cost ratio by military units in order to know your point of view and may be from other visitors also (not only EB2 team members).
I hope this discussion will help to a better understanding and a may be could contribute also to make EB2 better.
If it is again an issue which is unpleasant for you to talk about outside of the EB team I can understand you and I promise I will be not upset and I do not insist.

I would be interested to know what is the opinion of the EB2 team and of other EB players also what should have EB2.
1. Weak troops should have a better value/price ratio so that elite units should be used really only in critical positions and in special cases.
2. It should be a ballance so that weak, middle and elite troops should have about the same value/price ratio so that investing 10.000 in 20 levies would give the same force as investing 10.000 in 3 elite troops.
3. Elite troops should have a better value/price ratio so that practically for an attacking army it should be more reasonable(and pricely better) to have only elite units from home. So weak units will be used mainly to keep loyality level in the cities and as additional mercenaries if there no others available.
I think personally this is the historical most accurate situation. The usance of nonprofessional troops was only rentable in history for defence or in case of national emergency when you need any troops available. By attacking in a foreign teritory the usance of nonprofessional troops should be rentable only as local mercenaries in the last moment before the battle.
Moving troops far away from the home costs a lot of money. (jurney, ships, food) By defence you have anyway the cheap units putted as townwatch to keep order.

Anothern question what I put ist how this ratio moving along the reforms.
So may be this relation value/price have developed along the history. My oppinion that eventually it could be a slight move during the covered period of EB2 between point2 and 3.

If the EB2 team find that this topic is disturbing please feel free to remove it. I am interested in this question especially for EB2 but generally also as a historic point of view. So in this case I can put it in another topic outside of EB2. I like this mod and I saw that here is an interrest in some isuues to keep a historical authenticy.

[delra]

It should depend on a faction. Some factions had it harder to motivate citizens to fight and except of small (and costy) local Thureophoroi force had to hire whole armies of mercenaries.

Carthage and Greek Cities are good examples of that.

[eggthief]

I thought Ludens already told you what it's going to be (option 1)? The other two would make early troops completely worthless within a 100 turns.

[Hannibalus]

Thanks for your answer.
Yes I think you have right in this case. But this is a question of troops availability in elite/medium/levy area. This is shurely also related with my question and I was thinking to ask this also. Availability in the casern is programable with MTW2 engine.
I was asking before about value value/price ratio for levy/medium/elite troops and how they shoul relate each other.
I had the impression that would be case 1 implemented by EB1.2 but I think it would be historically more correct if would be case 3 (by the most factions and especially by Rome).
What do you mean ?

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

You should see the EB1 unit cost system to get an idea of what will happen.

Unit pricing will be based mostly on how much the unit historically cost. Things like: Does recruitment cost have to cover buying equiptment for the men or do they bring their own? Are they professionals who get payed, citizens who defend their homeland, or levies forced into service? Does recruiting the unit damage the economy, such as removing agricutural labor?

Of course there is gameplay balance and AI recruitment considerations added in.

[Hannibalus]

That is all true and it was correct if this points were considered.
However the effects should be also considered.
I am olways selecting for every purpuse the best value/price troops. And this was shurely the case in the antic world also.
So in Italy I have in every town only 1-2 ascensi and 1 general unit.
For an attack stack the must rentable is 4 generals, 1 triari or 1 lugogae, 3 principes, 4 toxotai(or gallic archers) and 8 ascensi.
- equites can you forget because to recruit generals is more rentable
- rorari, hastati can you forget - not rentable to fight and for town watching ascensi is also better
There is no roman infantery troop which would be rentable for town order keeping only ascensi.
2/3 of my troops are ascensi
I cannot beleave that in roman times they had so many ascensi.
They must have beeng something like the 'town watch' unit in the original RTW.
As I know the romans had so many hastati as principes but it lacks any specific advantage or price benefit to recruit them.
So what I want to say the value/price ratio should be kept for different units so that it shpuld be beneficial to have abaut the historic ratio.
So not only 4 units of 20 (1/4) of the roman army should have the basic units. Principes hastati and triari should be so encreased in value that they could be recruited rentably in the historic ratio which is much higher than 1/4.
By the hellenic factions it seems also similar as I see. It is more rentable to build toxotai than anything else what do not correspond with the historical reality because they had as I know more infantery.
And by Carthago also. Only skirmisher and generals.
So the elite infantery is undervalued as I see.

[delra]

You should consider some roleplaying as far as your army composition goes. It will be much more fun than value/price ratio you're using now.

Try this:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=229740

[Hannibalus]

May be.
But unfortunatelly more roleplaying brings less strategy in the actual situation. At least I think so.
Especially by recruited generals I would say they should be entirely removed but client ruler should be a little bit cheaper and weaker.
Other solution would be that recruited generals should be also weaker or less in number of horses.
Otherwise nobody creates standard cavalery units and it cannot be very historic that generals cavalery (unlimited number) can regenerate themself underway.
I think nobody likes going to war no matter if he is in a general unit or not. Especially not if he needs to fight against his own people. But it is much easyer to find people to rule over others.

[delra]

I create standard cavalry units all the time and I almost never have more than one general in my army. Unless there's a kid I want to teach the art of war. I almost never adopt (unless they are next Marcus Aurelius) and I usually don't use mercenary generals at all. I like client rulers but in combat I keep them behind and use only in emergency.

If you try to roleplay a bit instead of powergaming with stacks of Principes, you will learn to enjoy this game at a whole new level. I can assure you of that.

[Calamarain]

One should also take unit availability into account. Levies might be easier (larger recruitement pool, faster pool replenishment) to recruit then elite soldiers.
See what Point Blank did with Real Recruitment.

[Hannibalus]

delra
If I would make a presentation of roman history I would shurely do this way and difficulty can be set as necessary to win or loose as the situation require.
But I am playing at the hardest level on combat an strategy and I play to win. This is also not a problem to win just not with the historic configuration.
Calamarain
Shurely unit availability(what does not exist in RTW) could change a lot on the MTW2 engine.
Difficulty settings, faction selection, dofferent experience advance system on MTW2 also will influence.
But I quess the point what I have spoken will still exist.

Shurely making a good ballance for all mod versions, all factions and eras is not so easy. And it is also not so bad the solution.
I was just telling to you some points where after my experience the ballance could be improoved.
But as I see you have already reflected at this point and may be with your gaming style will give a historical army composition the most efficient solution.
Or may be you are limiting your game strategy with parameters what existed in the history as limitation factors but couldn't be implemented by this game engine. (like availability in RTW)
In this case shurely you have right from your point of view.

[delra]

You are not supposed to run around with stacks of elite heavy infantry in this mod. It's official.

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

Making an army composed entirely of elites sort of goes against the spirit of EB. It is advised to use somewhat historic army compositions and not exploit the game. It is not a must, it is just the EB gameplay style.

[Shadowwalker]

@Hannibalus:

Please don't take this as an offense (it isn't meant that way) but the more I read about your opinions how a M2TW mod should be done and played the more I'm sure that EB isn't the "right" mod for you. Your preferences are a bit abroad of what the team wants to achieve*.
EB is about history first. Not about the ultimate winning strategy or the highest challenge.


*Of course I can only speak for what I have read here and over at the .org. I'm no member of the team and I have no more insight into EB than any other people outside the EB team. Just to make that point clear.

[Antiochos VII Sidetes]

I agree with the above. EB is Roleplaying. Plain and simple.

Not precisely how history went (for me) but at least what could have happened. No Seleucids in Britain, that sort of thing.

[Hannibalus]

Rome Total War is a strategy game and Medieval1 or2 Total War also strategy game.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome:_Total_War
But if you don't like Wikipedia you can look other sources also which will assert the same.
Of course EB it is more historic as RTW and you can claim on this basis that has more roleplaying elements.
But the basic game style will remain the same and I am not shure if only having more detailed maps, units and traits and the intention of playing in a specific recomended way will transform it from strategy game into roleplaying game.
If yes then I am not shure who is exploiting the game ?
Even if it is the case for somebody from us it is not a crime.
So if it was planned to be a completelly different game category as RTW, I am sorry, I didn't know it. Then somebody from us misunderstood it.

[Shadowwalker]

Of course the basic game is and will stay a strategy game and no RPG.
(BTW: It can't be a RPG since you've got no influence at the character's starting attributes and equipment. )

My point wasn't to stat "EB is only about roleplaying".
If you read again my above post you will probably find I didn't even use the word "roleplaying". my point is about historical accuracy and the means of known engine limits.

I try to make it a bit clearer:
Of course you are free to play the game the way you want. You are free to blitz or to turtle, to use the AI bugs and dumbnesses or not, to use stacks full of Pedites Extraordinarii and Principes or stacks with a composed Roman army.

All these things (and far more) are up to you if you want.
But the team clearly stats that you get a much more satisfying game if you follow a few guidelines - including "Use armies not consisting entirely of Principes. We would force you to do this but the game engine doesn't allow. (Maybe it will be easier for us to prevent you from doing this with the M2TW engine.)."

So now you have exactly 3 possibilities as far as I'm aware:

(1) You accept the aim of the team, agree with it and try to use historical armies (as far as this is possible. The 20 units/stack limitation effectively thwarts the checkerboard formation...).

(2) You accept the aim but using armies as you like even if they consist of 19 Principes and 1 General. You don't complain about the game being too easy since you know you 're using the mechanics built in by team that give you boni but you don't use the recommended flaws that would balance these boni out.

(3) You use all the advantages the mod gives you through his unique features but ignore the recommended restrictions.
And then you complain about the mod isn't as much challenging as you would like it.

Honestly - with the agrument "it's in the original game so I have to use it to not exploit the game" you could also heavily use the console in the first turn and win before the first turn ends. Not sure if this was that satisfying...

I hope you can get my point now.

[Hannibalus]

I don`t want to contest that ist is also a roleplaying effect until a certain degree otherwise I would play Warcraft which doesn't have anything with the reality. It is also very interesting how the game gives back the atmosfera of that era. Exactly this is the main reason why I play the Total War games.
But it remain stil a strategy game. So why should we give up strategy for the roleplaying effect if both could be realised much better together in the same time ?
Give me just a single reason. At least by wardogs I heard some reasonable reasons also why not to have.

[Mediolanicus]

Hannibalus, nobody is forcing you to play EB.
You don't like anything about EB that makes EB different from RTW.
You ask the modders to give us an uncompleted mod so people can complete it themselves.
You want fantasy units, units that were rare or fighting technics that are impossible to implement realistically with RTW-engine and thus were left out of EB back in the game.

I highly doubt the Romans or even Barbarians breeded dogs to use as cannon fodder. There is some evidence to show us that sometimes dogs were used in war, but possibly much the way we use police dogs now, not like the suicide missiles they were in RTW.

The best evidence that EB has balanced value/cost units is that even the braindead AI is capable of making balanced stacks. Every unit has its own purpose in EB. If you chose to use only principes and slingers than that is your choice. Using varied armies is more fun and more efficient too. And since you're always swimming in cash as the Romans, economy isn't a problem.

Animals were expensive to breed, train and feed and groom. Professional soldiers cost more than levies. Soldiers that bring their own equipment cost less than equipment you as the state have to pay for, but the former may cost more because they leave behind their land and reduce farming incomes and lower the economic growth of a state.

EB has the best cost/value of all mods, keeping in account all those variables.

And again nobody forced you to play EB.
And nobody should force EB to play as they want either.

[Ravager123]

Will most of the units in EBI be in EBII but just better?.