Argh! These Units are too Expensive!

**UnfortunateHam** · November 08, 2009, 12:34 PM

I was very excited to play ExRM when I finally was able to play it, and believe me, I mean it when I say it's a great mod, but:

The units are simply, too, damn, -ing, expensive. When playing as pretty much any faction, I start losing money immediately. I try to build as few units as possible, but no matter what, I always go into debt!

SO, I'd like advice on how to manage my money better, and maybe advice on how to change the game scripts for this, as well. Thank you all.

**pannonian** · November 08, 2009, 12:55 PM

Depends on which faction you're playing. With Rome, the key is to start conquering Italy immediately with what you have. Once you have a couple more settlements (typically within a year), you should break even, and even have some money left over to retrain. With Carthage and some other big factions, you'll need to disband some of your more expensive units, so as to afford to maintain the more vital line troops. Whichever faction you play, you need to plan your military campaigns carefully, in order to avoid crippling your empire's economy.

**FriendlyFire** · November 08, 2009, 01:29 PM

Yeah, with Rome I don't build any new units for a couple of years. You start with enough forces for a double legion, which should be enough to capture rebel towns, plus a few units left over to replenish your losses. In my current campaign I took Corfinium first, and bottomed out at -3200 denarii in spring 279 BC. Then I captured Paestum and started clawing my way back. By the end of that year (after taking Croton as well) I had a positive bank balance and my economy was running a profit of about ~4000 a turn, so I could start recruiting again.

**pannonian** · November 08, 2009, 01:53 PM

Originally Posted by FriendlyFire

Yeah, with Rome I don't build any new units for a couple of years. You start with enough forces for a double legion, which should be enough to capture rebel towns, plus a few units left over to replenish your losses. In my current campaign I took Corfinium first, and bottomed out at -3200 denarii in spring 279 BC. Then I captured Paestum and started clawing my way back. By the end of that year (after taking Croton as well) I had a positive bank balance and my economy was running a profit of about ~4000 a turn, so I could start recruiting again.

I prefer Ariminum and Arretium, which are weak enough and close enough to take both by Spring 279, after which I'm making just enough to retrain. Hopefully Pyrrhus will have damaged his army enough in taking Corfinium, allowing me to take him in turn. After Pyrrhus's army is gone, the rest of Italy is there for the taking, and once Italy has been conquered, you should be rolling in 5000+ per turn.

**slayer8908** · November 08, 2009, 03:44 PM

Originally Posted by pannonian

I prefer Ariminum and Arretium, which are weak enough and close enough to take both by Spring 279, after which I'm making just enough to retrain. Hopefully Pyrrhus will have damaged his army enough in taking Corfinium, allowing me to take him in turn. After Pyrrhus's army is gone, the rest of Italy is there for the taking, and once Italy has been conquered, you should be rolling in 5000+ per turn.

the problem with Ariminum and Arretium is once you take them you get to close to gaul who normally takes bonnia, which gives a land border with a sworn enemy. so now you would have to fight a 2 front war with pyrus and gaul. best move is to expand south right away. defeat epirus and than swing the armies up north to deal with gaul.

my advice is to disband as many units as you can but keeping a somewhat large enough army to take cities. it varies with each faction. the beginning is always the hardest . with the Romans i disbanded almost my entire army besides 3 princeps and 1 triari than i put all my general units in the army while putting the cheapest unit i can make in my cities. which gave me a pretty strong but cheap army. the gauls was the only faction so far that i didnt have to disband units right away because there are enough cities surrounding you with small garrisons that you can take and level out your economy.

the reason why units are so expensive is to discourage the AI from making countless stacks of weak units. it also makes the game more realistic.

**Quinn Inuit** · November 08, 2009, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by pannonian

I prefer Ariminum and Arretium, which are weak enough and close enough to take both by Spring 279, after which I'm making just enough to retrain. Hopefully Pyrrhus will have damaged his army enough in taking Corfinium, allowing me to take him in turn. After Pyrrhus's army is gone, the rest of Italy is there for the taking, and once Italy has been conquered, you should be rolling in 5000+ per turn.

Hmmm...this is frequently what happens with the AI, too. Pyrrhus attacks Corfinium, Rome hits Paestum, and there's no great clash. I want a great clash!

I've made a slight map change in my developmental build (extending Corfinium's territory to just barely cut off Tarentum and Croton). Then, based on what they've done in FOE, I think I'm going to give Rome Paestum and Corfinium to start the game, along with a very weak garrison in Arretium to represent the last minor Etruscan resistance. If I start Pyrrhus physically in Corfinium's territory, I think we'll have a proper fight.

I'm not sure what to do about Rhegium. I'm thinking I'll make it Roman-controlled at the start of the game, but with no garrison to speak of so it promptly revolts. OTOH, I may just make it rebel to start with to avoid mucking about with intentional revolts.

**slayer8908** · November 08, 2009, 09:18 PM

you should do what EB did, or i think its diadochi mod. which ever one did it, when you start a roman or epirus game the background script forced the romans and pyrus into a battle.

is FOE out?

**UnfortunateHam** · November 10, 2009, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by pannonian

Depends on which faction you're playing. With Rome, the key is to start conquering Italy immediately with what you have. Once you have a couple more settlements (typically within a year), you should break even, and even have some money left over to retrain. With Carthage and some other big factions, you'll need to disband some of your more expensive units, so as to afford to maintain the more vital line troops. Whichever faction you play, you need to plan your military campaigns carefully, in order to avoid crippling your empire's economy.

So, you immediately have to disband some of your units, eh? Wow, they weren't kidding that this was supposed to be hard!

FYI: I'm a noob at this.

**slayer8908** · November 11, 2009, 10:13 AM

Originally Posted by UnfortunateHam

So, you immediately have to disband some of your units, eh? Wow, they weren't kidding that this was supposed to be hard!

FYI: I'm a noob at this.

depends who you are playing. you have two choices you can have a very small army expand really slow but have a strong ecnomomy. or a large army that allows you to expand fast but you would be in negative so you cant work on ecnomomy till the cities you take level out your economy. there is no best choice it really depends on your style of fighting and what faction you are playing.

germans and romans in my opinion would be slow but strong economy expansion while factions like greece and egypt would be fast. it also depends on how large the cities are around you because that would determine how much money you get.

**Carados** · November 08, 2009, 03:33 PM

As the Romans I take Ariminum and Paestum by the end of the second turn (edit: battle difficulty is always medium for me). With these 5 settlements all on the highest tax rating you can get away with, with the presence of just one unit for the garrison, you should stop the money loss. I then typically combine both these armies together and take out Pyrrhus. Usually taking Corfinium in the process. When this happens you start making money. Arretium might get taken somewhere between all that as well - it all depends on when Pyrrhus takes Corfinium.

For all the other factions I'll typically disband all cavalry units, except for one or two of the bigger factions where I will retain one or two (and the cataphracts for Armenia and Parthia - they are definitely worth their cost). I'll also be tempted to disband the elite infantry as well or send them on suicide missions for battles that I can do in the first few turns. E.g. when I play as Epirus I usually throw the Charaons(sp?) and Thesslian cavalry into the thick of things straight away when I take Corfinium and Paestum. You perserve the strength of your basic infantry for use with the romans, reduce your upkeep with the loss of your expensive elites, and take out massive numbers of rebels.

In short, pay particular attention to the upkeep of all your units, especially in the first few turns. What buildings you select in the first few turns is also important. Farms are useful due to their long build time, hence you won't be missing out on valuble build time due to having no money. You might also only have time to build some units on the first turn. Getting cheap units might be useful to act as initial garrisons for conquered settlements - missile being the favoured due to being able to cause casulties without taking any themselves.

**Quinn Inuit** · November 09, 2009, 06:54 AM

Yeah, I've lost it, too. I'm not sure I want to win it, since I like seeing how things play out historically.

I could definitely script it, but I'd like to see if I can make the AI just want to fight it first.

**slayer8908** · November 09, 2009, 06:12 PM

i was thinking about this, its just a theory. how about you make acona rebel and give cornfinum to rome. put larger rebel garrisons in arrinium paestrum and arrretium. than put the main roman starting forces outside cornfinum right next pyrus and his army. this way the most logical and easiest target would be a great roman and pyrus clash. do you think that would do it.

**Quinn Inuit** · November 09, 2009, 09:49 PM

It would be the logical and easiest target, but you're underestimating the AI's obsession with rebels. It'll attack a rebel target if at all possible. My goal is to counter that by giving Pyrrhus nowhere else to go and hoping the Romans actually defend themselves.

**Carados** · November 10, 2009, 08:02 AM

i was thinking about this, its just a theory. how about you make acona rebel and give cornfinum to rome. put larger rebel garrisons in arrinium paestrum and arrretium. than put the main roman starting forces outside cornfinum right next pyrus and his army. this way the most logical and easiest target would be a great roman and pyrus clash. do you think that would do it.

It would be the logical and easiest target, but you're underestimating the AI's obsession with rebels. It'll attack a rebel target if at all possible. My goal is to counter that by giving Pyrrhus nowhere else to go and hoping the Romans actually defend themselves.

Look at what I've put about the Seleucid Empire in the 3.5 thread... they really do go above the call of duty to take out those rebels.

Are you going to change the stats for the Roman units? In particular the Hastati and Principles. In FOE these are hardly any better than the Hoplites and it strikes home that Rome has a vast amount of manpower and resources to win with wars of attrition, but that in any single battle they aren't anything special. At the moment, giving them Corfinium and Paestum without any rebalancing would mean they will almost certainly steamroll anything and everything after a few turns. In the current climate, I've never seen Epirus actually take out the Romans. The only time this has happened was when the Gauls AND Epirus attacked Rome.

With Rhegion, you could make it rebel at the start but cut the region off from Epirus (expanding the Paestum region?) so that Pyyrhus isn't tempted to go take it. Of course, if you put Laevinus in the way of Pyrrhus and that forces them to fight then changing Paestum might not need happen.

**slayer8908** · November 10, 2009, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by Carados

Are you going to change the stats for the Roman units? In particular the Hastati and Principles. In FOE these are hardly any better than the Hoplites and it strikes home that Rome has a vast amount of manpower and resources to win with wars of attrition, but that in any single battle they aren't anything special. At the moment, giving them Corfinium and Paestum without any rebalancing would mean they will almost certainly steamroll anything and everything after a few turns. In the current climate, I've never seen Epirus actually take out the Romans. The only time this has happened was when the Gauls AND Epirus attacked Rome.

thats why im afriad of giveing more cities to rome. there units are already very strong. beyond epirus or gaul unit stats.

**Carados** · November 10, 2009, 02:04 PM

Quinn Inuit:

I don't think there is any need for scripting with getting Pyrrhus to fight "Laevinus" (or whichever Roman you put there). As part of my mucking about with the SE, I've made the Galatians start at war with them. Euthydemus starts in their territory, but on the opposite side to Bithynia. It seems Galatia like to attack Euthydemus. I reckon the same will happen with Pyrrhus.

I'm going to quickly have a go at doing this though (Romans having Corfinium and Paestum with Laevinus starting right next to Pyrrhus).

**Quinn Inuit** · November 10, 2009, 07:37 PM

Hmmm...good point about making the Roman units less tank-like. I think that's probably the way to go, especially if I give them additional starting regions. Might need to give Pyrrhus more guys, too.

btw, if you want to have an easier time of it, just add three squares to the territory of Corfinium along x=112 to block them off. I've already checked and no resources are present there. I suppose for a release I should make that part of Paestum, though, since that already contains part of Lucania.