RealityMod for SS 6.3 (WIP)

[krolyn]

The aim of this (so far small) SS 6.3 submod are two: standardize the difficulty levels and add realism to some aspects of the game. This is my first try on M2TW scripting so I'm sure it has lots of bugs and some of my changes can have secondary effects that I haven't forseen. If anyone finds bugs, more AI bonuses or has any suggestion, comment, etc... please let me know.


OBJECTIVES:

• The first aim of this SubMod has to do with the almost arbitrary bonuses the AI has. Most people has no idea of it but the AI gets bonus on all kinds of things from buildings (extra money, morale, health, law, etc..), leaders traits (eg. less chance to be sick and more likely to get good traits), bonus in battles (leaders have hidden extra command points, morale, etc.. ), merchants, etc etc... and most of them are not even related to the difficulty setting. My idea is to remove all arbitrary AI bonus and make them difficulty_level-dependent. At least this way you know the bonuses the AI has...
• The second aim is not so specific. It just tries to include all changes that can had realism to the game.

NOTE: Since it is still WIP, the files are just for the "Late Era" campaign with "SavageAI" and with "Permanent Watchtowers".

======================================================================================


So far the changes that have been included are:

• Difficulty Settings: removed all AI bonuses (that I could find) and just left some difficulty-dependent. Right now it we have:

Easy

• No bonus
• Higher Faction diplomatic standings (SavageAI)

Medium

• AI's leaders get small bonuses - Loyalty 1, TroopMorale 2, LocalPopularity 1, Command 1, SiegeDefence 1, SiegeEngineering 30
• AI gets an extra General at startup.
• "King's Purse" with small bonus
• Slightly higher Faction diplomatic standings (SavageAI)

Hard

• AI's leaders get average bonuses - Loyalty 2, TroopMorale 4, LocalPopularity 3, BattleSurgery 15, Command 3, SiegeDefence 2, LineOfSight 10, SiegeEngineering 50
• AI gets an extra General with troops at startup.
• "King's Purse" with average bonus
• Normal Faction diplomatic standings (SavageAI)

Very Hard

• AI's leaders get huge bonuses - Loyalty 4, TroopMorale 8, LocalPopularity 6, BattleSurgery 30, Command 4, SiegeDefence 4, LineOfSight 10, SiegeEngineering 70
• AI gets an extra General with troops at startup.
• "King's Purse" with big bonus
• Worse Faction's diplomatic standings (SavageAI)

• Realism
  
  • All arbitrary AI bonus (that I could find) removed!!!
  • Ballista towers are now body-piercing.
  • Recruit Generals (thanks to Lord_Phan). Specially interesting if you're playing with G5 "Limited Activities" script.
  • Both the Palyer and the AI lose money when besieging (500 florins per turn)
  • Mongols
    
    • Reduced initial "Fortune"*
    • Removed all its money bonus*
    • Reduced spawned units a bit
    
    
  • Timurids
    
    • Removed all its money bonus*
    
    
  • Loaded ship's movement points (TODO). Loaded ships travel less than unloaded ones. I'm currently trying to fix this issue.
  • AI problem with money (TODO). It is well known that the AI does not handle money correctly. G5 tried to fix it but with these changes (since I've removed a lot of AI money bonus) I get the feeling that, at a certain point, the AI looses strength due to low income. Needs further testing...
    
    • Reduced AI building cost
    • Tweaked G5 Economy script. AI with less than 1000 florins cannot recruit units.
    
    
  • AI diplomatic bias (TODO). I've read some time ago that the AI treats other AI factions preferently in diplomatic agreements but still haven't been able to find where it is specified.
  
  

* In hordes there is no point in giving huge amounts of money since it will never be enough (they don't have a source of income). Besides, with G5 Economy Script, they will never go terribly into debt.

======================================================================================


INSTALATION:

- Setup SS 6.3 for "Late Era" campaign with "Savage AI" and "Permanent Watchtowers"
- Backup original files to be overwritten
- Copy files into "SS6.3/data" folder

[ninja51]

Im liking what im seeing, perticularly the realism part of it. I always hated how my ship couldnt move as far because I had a group of men in it, balista towers should have been body piercing from the start, it all looks good. The only thing im concerned about, which im sure you are trying to balence, is the AI. They are pretty dumb from the get go, and even with all those bonuses I can still beat them easily, but the only thing that gives them a chance is the ability to have massive amounts of troops and completely unrealistic battle bonuses. The AI would have to be fairly reworked to try and make things realistic, but also not rediculously easy

[Gorrrrrn]

interesting ideas.
the ballista towers sounds reasonable.
making AI bonuses difficulty dependent also sounds a good idea.

best of luck with fixing the AI economy - I haven't played the game long enough but on the couple of tests up to T100 I noticed some of the AI economies nose-diving,
but that may have been a one-off.
basic problem is upkeep of units - the game engine is hopeless at working out what upkeep it can afford if given enough money to keep recruiting.
the script should freeze AI recruiting at a point where the economy stabilises.

we can help factions by increasing free upkeep, reducing replenishment rates, recruitment pools, merc pools.
(but they just delay the problem usually)

building costs look OK - but you could try lowering them further, especially at higher levels, which is where the economy starts to really pinch.
other problem is some small factions get plenty of money to begin with, and the very large empires usually manage OK, but often the one's in the middle have the most difficulty.
(especially those surrounded by enemies.)

there are scripts from the old RozMod and RC/RR compilation that work in other ways -but maybe it's time for a fresh approach.

[ninja51]

The AI generally just constantly buys units, if it has the money is builds expensive buildings and hires expensive units. If they can they get mercenaries where ever they go. The AI like stated has no concept of upkeep and ends up driving themselves into the ground because they are so in dept they cant buy more units of build new buildings. When you start to beat a faction, they will only become progressivly easier to beat. The Crusader States can NOT ever even hope to survive, they cannot come close to paying for their units, they have high upkeep and are not necissarily that good. When you start to take an enemies settlements they're fate is sealed. They will recruit any units they can afford, buy everything they possibly can and cant afford the upkeep, they get into debt more and more untill they have no hope of getting out. So thats what im concerned about, they only last as long as they do because of the rediculous bonuses. So if you want to make things realistic first youve got to stop the AI from disregarding upkeep

[Meneth]

On AI bonuses: I would recommend not giving out that big BattleSurgery bonuses, seeing half an enemy force get resurrected after fighting to a close defeat is annoying as hell. I'd also recommend you to not give movement bonuses, at least not that big. 20 movement points approximately doubles a general's movement range.
In my LLP sub-mod, BattleSurgery has been halved, and the movement point bonus removed.

[RollingWave]

I don't think part of it can be helped, such as the AI always committing everything it's got at the begining, and really it's not THAT much more challenging if they don't.

Also, the movement part really need to be reconsidered, otherwise AI Crusade / Jihad is basically on teleport mode London to Vilnus in one turn? no problem! (especially since you also removed the slower ships with units)

[rusnmat]

I think that ship movement and balista body piercing changes is a good idea. AI generals big movement bonus is not. Otherwise AI will outrun any army and settelements become undefendable. 50% bonus to AI movement is great, but not more than that. Battle surgery 40 to 60 on VH is appropriate. Since AI don't win many battles in a first place

[krolyn]

Thanks all for your comments/suggestions..

As far as the AI is concerned, unfortunately you're right.
- the AI spends all its money on units
- and then, if it has something left, improves buildings
- also, the AI tends to "waste" a lot of units in battles (the reason why it needs extra money and units all the time). First, because of strange BattleAI behaviour (like rushing all troops to the front gate or charging with its Generals), but also because it tends to do several small attacks rather than concentrating its forces for one big attack. Its small attacks are easily destroyed and so it loses much more units than the player (that tend to garrison its cities, protect its territory, build a large army and attack a settlement trying to minimize losses).


To minimize the first part, I thought to slightly tweak G5 Economy script so that:
- AI budget never go under 100 florins
- if less than 1000 florins, no recruitment allowed
- Building cost greatly reduced

This way the AI always has a small amount of money to improve its cities and an army proportional to its monetary possibilities. At this point, the size of the AI army will only depend on the amount of money we give them, and this can be set according to the difficulty level (maybe increasing kings purse).

If this works, the big remaining difference between the AI and the player should be army management (since I'll leave BattleAI to G5 which has done a pretty god job). I haven't looked much into this but I'm thinking of making the AI a bit more conservative on attacking and, if possible, make it have bigger stacks.

[Gorrrrrn]

krolyn interesting observations on AI economy.

I'd note that the AI wasting units should be a good thing for its economy - it should cut upkeep !

IF I UNDERSTAND IT PROPERLY currently the G5 script seems to work by having an upper limit of 120,000 and lower limit of 40,000.
with code that is supposed to keep factions within those limits.

what happens to some factions is that they keep recruiting due to the 40,000 floor until their upkeep exceeds the amount the script allows each turn to boost it.

the script also is supposed to remove the recruitment slots if the faction has no money.

and there is further script to boost the faction finances so that they eventually recover.

however, even with no recruitment slots the AI can still recruit mercenaries - and these are often more expensive than ordinary troops.
the latest version of the RozMod has a script that should disband mercs if a faction treasury falls below a certain amount.
other scripts exist to disband other categories of units if money falls below certain amounts (which can, of course be varied to taste.)
however they rely on amendments to the EDU, in particular giving various types of attributes which can then be coded for.

the problem with the merc script is that it can't handle all mercs as many are AoR troops and part of some factions roster but not others.
equally the crusading_unit disband script only covers certain units and factions.

Even so the the RozMod scripts doesn't solve the issue but may help factions recover their position.

In some sense maintaining the 40,000 fl floor can make matters worse as faction incomes don't fall to a level to stop recruiting until there is a catastrophic collapse due to over-recruiting.
---------

there are other issues that may help - although players may not like them such as :
reduced replenishment rates so there are longer gaps between units being available. (slows down the rate at which units become available)
boosting the AI finances, especially with higher level settlement. (although this also means the AI has more money to spend on recruiting units !)
reducing the mercenary pools. (so the AI has less chance to recruit from them)
increasing recruitment costs, whilst reducing upkeep costs (the AI is better at working out what it can afford to recruit, rather than upkeep costs)
trying to write CAIs which emphasise peace over war, as factions tend to suffer most economically when at war
reduced building costs (but that might mean the AI gets to build better uni (and more expensive units quicker)
more restriction on when units can be recruited - even real recruitment allows for recruitment of some obsolete units when they have been superceded by more advanced units.
(eg for england: fyrd spears could be stop recruiting in 1200, levy and archer militia by 1300 etc.)
scripts to remove obsolete units after 30-40 years of last recruitment
introduce more economic buildings especially for castles so they generate more wealth, especially when they expand. (eg C_Grain_exchange C_Market for fortresses and citadels ?)
reduce cost of farms and merchants to encourage AI to improve /build more.

another idea would be to have a script that stops recruitment if a faction had been at peace with everyone (except slave) for at least 5 years.

another issue that one might consider if a way of reducing faction income in early stages of game, but incrementing it as the game progresses.

(one can adapt and simplify a script from old RC/RR which gave wall bonuses of varying amounts for different levels of wall. this can be introduced later in the game
and amounts adjusted.)
--
note none of the above on their own can solve the AI economic problem, but combinations of them might help alleviate it - at least for some factions.

[krolyn]

krolyn interesting observations on AI economy.

I'd note that the AI wasting units should be a good thing for its economy - it should cut upkeep !

IF I UNDERSTAND IT PROPERLY currently the G5 script seems to work by having an upper limit of 120,000 and lower limit of 40,000.
with code that is supposed to keep factions within those limits. what happens to some factions is that they keep recruiting due to the 40,000 floor until their upkeep exceeds the amount the script allows each turn to boost it.

I think it is between 100 and 120000...

monitor_event PreFactionTurnStart FactionType venice
    and not FactionIsLocal
    and Treasury < 100
    and Treasury > -1001

    add_money venice 1100
end_monitor

the script also is supposed to remove the recruitment slots if the faction has no money.

Yes, if a factions is below 3500 florins. But shouldn't this be redundant? I mean, if the AI has no money, how can it still recruit units?!?

and there is further script to boost the faction finances so that they eventually recover.

Yes, so the AI always has around 1000 florins.

however, even with no recruitment slots the AI can still recruit mercenaries - and these are often more expensive than ordinary troops.
the latest version of the RozMod has a script that should disband mercs if a faction treasury falls below a certain amount.
other scripts exist to disband other categories of units if money falls below certain amounts (which can, of course be varied to taste.)
however they rely on amendments to the EDU, in particular giving various types of attributes which can then be coded for.

the problem with the merc script is that it can't handle all mercs as many are AoR troops and part of some factions roster but not others.
equally the crusading_unit disband script only covers certain units and factions.

Even so the the RozMod scripts doesn't solve the issue but may help factions recover their position.

I didn't knew of this mercenary issue.... but it can be a problem. Is it possible to forbid the AI to recruit mercenaries?

there are other issues that may help - although players may not like them such as :
reduced replenishment rates so there are longer gaps between units being available. (slows down the rate at which units become available)

For everybody? But that would reduce the game's pace, as everybody would have to wait longer to build a proper army...

boosting the AI finances, especially with higher level settlement. (although this also means the AI has more money to spend on recruiting units !)

It will always have to be, but I think only has an extra help.

reducing the mercenary pools. (so the AI has less chance to recruit from them)

Yes, but it would also remove them to the player. That would be a shame.... mercenaries do add a nice touch. In fact I sometimes think there should be more....
Any way to remove/reduce the mercenaries just to the AI??

increasing recruitment costs, whilst reducing upkeep costs (the AI is better at working out what it can afford to recruit, rather than upkeep costs)

That is an interesting idea..... is it possible to do it just to the AI? The only thing is that it could lead to huge armies (due to relatively low upkeep).

trying to write CAIs which emphasise peace over war, as factions tend to suffer most economically when at war

I think this is a very good idea.... In fact, war has always been VERY expensive and every country would try to avoid it at all cost. Also, make the AI more cautious when attacking; it would only attack when its forces are greatly superior.
Some players might not like it but it is more realistic. Unfortunatelly I have no idea how to change CAI....

reduced building costs (but that might mean the AI gets to build better uni (and more expensive units quicker)

Have already done it in my mod and I think its a good idea. This way the AI can always build and have developed settlements on the later parts of the game.

more restriction on when units can be recruited - even real recruitment allows for recruitment of some obsolete units when they have been superceded by more advanced units.
(eg for england: fyrd spears could be stop recruiting in 1200, levy and archer militia by 1300 etc.)
scripts to remove obsolete units after 30-40 years of last recruitment

Good idea!!!

introduce more economic buildings especially for castles so they generate more wealth, especially when they expand. (eg C_Grain_exchange C_Market for fortresses and citadels ?)

But if so, what would be the point of ciities??? They have weaker units and if castles also make good money, I'd go for all castles!!!!

reduce cost of farms and merchants to encourage AI to improve /build more.

I think this can be achieved by drastically reducing all building cost.

another idea would be to have a script that stops recruitment if a faction had been at peace with everyone (except slave) for at least 5 years.

But then it would prevent the AI from rearming and preparing for war.

another issue that one might consider if a way of reducing faction income in early stages of game, but incrementing it as the game progresses.

(one can adapt and simplify a script from old RC/RR which gave wall bonuses of varying amounts for different levels of wall. this can be introduced later in the game
and amounts adjusted.)

Interesting idea...... is that script easily adaptable?

--
note none of the above on their own can solve the AI economic problem, but combinations of them might help alleviate it - at least for some factions.

Thanks a lot for your suggestions. +rep
I'll think about them and see if I can implement them...

krolyn

[Gorrrrrn]

krolyn will get back with more ideas tomorrow -very late today - time for some ZZZZZZZZZZZZZs.

anyway quick note about mercs - I don't think we can stop the AI from recruiting mercs.
merc pool appears to depend purely on dates (which includes events) and religion and region.
the only possible thing would be a trait that stops it if the faction has little money but that may not be possible.

--

did a quick calculation on relative numbers of units and upkeep costs for two extreme hypothetical cases, both assuming 10,000 fl income.

one had unit cost 1,000 fl with 500 fl upkeep, the other 2,000 fl cost and 250 fl upkeep

hopefully you'll be able to open the zipped spreadsheet in excel format:
Attachment 112581

assuming I got the maths right with higher unit and lower upkeep costs and the same income, one can get more units over a longer period of time. and with the usual level of wastage and rigorously controlled replenishment rates I suspect we can balance the books so the AI can continue to recruit

However what we can't factor in is reductions in faction income after it has lost regions or trade income by being at war. However a lower level of upkeep would be easier to manage than a high level of upkeep.

equally having more units might make factions more likely to declare war ?

[krolyn]

did a quick calculation on relative numbers of units and upkeep costs for two extreme hypothetical cases, both assuming 10,000 fl income.

one had unit cost 1,000 fl with 500 fl upkeep, the other 2,000 fl cost and 250 fl upkeep

hopefully you'll be able to open the zipped spreadsheet in excel format:
Attachment 112581

assuming I got the maths right with higher unit and lower upkeep costs and the same income, one can get more units over a longer period of time. and with the usual level of wastage and rigorously controlled replenishment rates I suspect we can balance the books so the AI can continue to recruit

However what we can't factor in is reductions in faction income after it has lost regions or trade income by being at war. However a lower level of upkeep would be easier to manage than a high level of upkeep.

equally having more units might make factions more likely to declare war ?

From what I understood you're idea was to switch the AI money managing focus from long term (upkeep) to short term (cost) as the AI can only manage the money it has (not the one it will have the next turn). The thing is that it has other consequences as we can see from your maths:
- unit upkeep: controls army size (higher upkeep, smaller armies)
- unit cost: controls army building speed (higher cost; slower to build army)

As an example, if we reduce AI unit upkeep to half it will be able to double its army size and recruit units faster (since the upkeep it didn't spend the previous turn can be used to build new units). If we increase unit cost, it will build slower (maybe comparable to before) but it will still be able to have bigger armies.

I've tried to automate your simulations (see attached) to play a bit with the numbers. In the end, I think we could reduce upkeep (to shift focus to short time money managing) while slightly reducing AI money income (maybe removing AI money bonus would be enough). Since the AI woudl take longer to build its army, maybe we could greatly increase initial AI garrisons so that the Ai would only have to maintain them. As an example:

Your standard example:
Income - 10000
Cost - 1000
Upkeep - 500
= would take 7 turns to recruit the MAX of 20 units

If we reduce income by 10% and upkeep by 30%:
Income - 9000
Cost - 1000
Upkeep - 350
= would take 9 turns to recruit the MAX of 26 units

Or if we reduce income by 50% and upkeep by 80%:
Income - 5000
Cost - 1000
Upkeep - 100
= would take 35 turns to recruit the MAX of 50 units


PS - should keep in mind that the time is not linear (it follows a power law). that is, in the last example, although it would take 35 turns to recruit the MAX of 50 units, the AI could have 20 units by turn 6.

[Gorrrrrn]

krolyn - good idea to try other values.

I'm reluctant to reduce AI income too much, it gets into serious difficulties later on.

as we know there will be other expenditure - hopefully by limiting replenishment rate and recruitment pools, the AI won't be able to build so many units that it spends all its cash on them. we need it to be spending on buildings as well.

I don't know about the increased AI garrisons - the danger is that with some factions the upkeep might swallow up all its cash so it won't be able to build anything.
(that's more true of large empires than small ones.)

also al those units are likely to fly out of their settlements on T2 and capture as many nearby rebel settlements they can. (some people might like that - I like to keep the rebels in the game for as long as possible.)

the other big problem is that some factions are just in worse start positions than others
(but that position changes dynamically.)
(one of the reasons I deliberately equalise the money everything across faction in descr_strat and campaign_script - so I can observe what is going on without having to take more variations into account.)

As an example, if we reduce AI unit upkeep to half it will be able to double its army size and recruit units faster (since the upkeep it didn't spend the previous turn can be used to build new units). If we increase unit cost, it will build slower (maybe comparable to before) but it will still be able to have bigger armies.

As I'm doing a 2tpy mod with a replenishment rate of 40% of standard SS6.3 (more or less) it's rare for the AI to have the ability to recruit much every turn.

so the carry over is often much larger from turn to turn which allows the AI to construct buildings etc.

(this may fall as empires get bigger and settlements get bigger. another reason for possibly reducing recruitment slots?)

anyway I think the general principle of increased unit cost and decreased upkeep seems worth trying out.

(in my experience these sorts of changes rarely do what you expect them to - the game is probably too complex to model
one has to run the simulation to observe the outcome.)

[krolyn]

krolyn - good idea to try other values.

I'm reluctant to reduce AI income too much, it gets into serious difficulties later on.

as we know there will be other expenditure - hopefully by limiting replenishment rate and recruitment pools, the AI won't be able to build so many units that it spends all its cash on them. we need it to be spending on buildings as well.

I don't know about the increased AI garrisons - the danger is that with some factions the upkeep might swallow up all its cash so it won't be able to build anything.
(that's more true of large empires than small ones.)

also al those units are likely to fly out of their settlements on T2 and capture as many nearby rebel settlements they can. (some people might like that - I like to keep the rebels in the game for as long as possible.)

the other big problem is that some factions are just in worse start positions than others
(but that position changes dynamically.)
(one of the reasons I deliberately equalise the money everything across faction in descr_strat and campaign_script - so I can observe what is going on without having to take more variations into account.)

As I'm doing a 2tpy mod with a replenishment rate of 40% of standard SS6.3 (more or less) it's rare for the AI to have the ability to recruit much every turn.

so the carry over is often much larger from turn to turn which allows the AI to construct buildings etc.

(this may fall as empires get bigger and settlements get bigger. another reason for possibly reducing recruitment slots?)

anyway I think the general principle of increased unit cost and decreased upkeep seems worth trying out.

(in my experience these sorts of changes rarely do what you expect them to - the game is probably too complex to model
one has to run the simulation to observe the outcome.)

I agree with you, but we can solve that by reducing building cost. In the end I think we could have:

• G5 Economy script
  
  • AI always has around 1000 florins
  • AI cannot recruit if less than 1000 florins
• Reduced building cost
  
  • If building is reduced by (for example) 90% and since the AI always has around 1000 florins, it will always be able to improve buildings!! (one thing solved that we can remove from our equation)
• At this point, we can drastically reduce its upkeep (to shift money management to a more short time focus).
• To balance things we can slightly reduce its income. Since it already has cheaper buildings (more money to recruit units) maybe just removing some money bonus will be enough (maybe the AI's "kings purse" bonus).
• With this I think the reduced replenishment rate wouldn't be necessary (since it would also affect the player)
• About the garrisons.
  
  • I think the upkeep won't be a problem, since we will drastically reduce it.
  • About the chance that the AI will try to conquer all rebel settlements around it, is a good point (I also like to keep the rebels as long as possible). However, since all factions (including rebels) will have increased garrisons, I think it won't be much of a problem. If, as we discussed on a previous mail, we also make the AI more cautious when attacking, I think this problem can be minimized...

Right now I don't have much time, but I'll try to implement these changes and make a couple of tests...

[Gorrrrrn]

I'm a tad busy too with my mod (s) so it'll take a while to be able to test this.

looking at the figures in the EDU what strikes me is that what is expensive are mercenary units - effectively the AI has to recruit them afresh every turn, whether it wants them or not,
as the disbanding script only kicks in once the money gets too low.

it might save the AI factions a lot of money if they disbanded all their mercs at the end of each year.
with reduced replenishment rates and smaller recruitment pools they might not be able to recruit so much and it would help with upkeep costs.

(again this varies some mercenary units are part of faction rosters - some have the same recruitment cost and upkeep cost; others have the normal (much reduced) upkeep.)

again the upkeep costs for most other units are actually quite cheap - it's really only the cavalry units that are horribly expensive.
problem is as much that their wages are based on when they were on active duty - but in game it doesn't distinguish when they are just sitting around or campaigning.

one could argue that a 50% reduction in upkeep for those units might be sensible as they wouldn't be paid for when they weren't fighting and they rarely fight every turn.

I suspect the only way to test is to do a couple of test EDU's and see how they play in practice.

[krolyn]

I'm a tad busy too with my mod (s) so it'll take a while to be able to test this.

looking at the figures in the EDU what strikes me is that what is expensive are mercenary units - effectively the AI has to recruit them afresh every turn, whether it wants them or not,
as the disbanding script only kicks in once the money gets too low.

it might save the AI factions a lot of money if they disbanded all their mercs at the end of each year.
with reduced replenishment rates and smaller recruitment pools they might not be able to recruit so much and it would help with upkeep costs.

(again this varies some mercenary units are part of faction rosters - some have the same recruitment cost and upkeep cost; others have the normal (much reduced) upkeep.)

Yes, mercenaries can really unbalance the AI economy. But does the AI really recruits a lot of mercenaries in the game?! Have you tested it?? In average, what percentage of its army is mercenary?
Maybe you could try the "recruit_priority_offset" setting in EDU to make the AI avoid recruiting mercenaries.

Another thing about your mercenary disbanding script. When you disband them, do the units go back to the mercenary pool or are they lost? Because it could lead to mercenary depletion for the player.... (the AI would be constantly recruiting them and the script constantly disbanding).

Also, by reducing recruitment slots you can be "forcing the AI" into hiring mercenaries....

again the upkeep costs for most other units are actually quite cheap - it's really only the cavalry units that are horribly expensive.
problem is as much that their wages are based on when they were on active duty - but in game it doesn't distinguish when they are just sitting around or campaigning.

one could argue that a 50% reduction in upkeep for those units might be sensible as they wouldn't be paid for when they weren't fighting and they rarely fight every turn.

I suspect the only way to test is to do a couple of test EDU's and see how they play in practice.

And what about drastically reducing upkeep (to reflect units not campaigning) and increase costs after a battle or a siege?

After each battle you'd have to pay (player and AI) double the upkeep of the surviving army (or a fixed amount of florins).
For siege would be double the army upkeep (or a fixed amount of florins) per turn.

[Gorrrrrn]

krolyn - good points as ever

trying to work through all possible outcomes when discussing this is impossible .

I haven't examined a lot of AI armies - but did notice that the Cumans and turks, for example, can recruit very little at the start of the game and have the money.
what is available in their barracks are very expensive horse archers -as part of the AoR system they are treated as merc units to allow other factions to recruit them.

so if the units are there to be recruited and they have the money and there's nothing else they will recruit them.
(I did quite a bit of hotseat testing of factions some time ago so I could dip into various factions to see what they had recruited.
turks had quite a few expensive mercs that were costing them dearly.)

have just discovered from Squid the difference between recruitment cost in barracks (set in EDU) and in field (set in descr_mercenaries)
have compiled costings from EDU for all mercs, now need to compile costings from descr_mercs.

as for mercenary pool replenishment - the AI might recruit and later disband if they get there before human player -
but they can do that anyway.
I don't think human players should assume mercenaries will be available when they want them to be.

I think a new thread for mercenary costs might be in order.

other than that, I think it's only by running a lot of empirical tests we'll find out how any changes work in practice.
-------------

may have to revise my ideas on AI recruitment of mercs - did a rapid 30 turn hotseat -
couldn't find the AI recruiting any mercs in that time frame (although mercs do take a while to become available.)

** aha - found an AI army with lots of mercs - it was an HRE crusader army - the AI does like to pick up mercs en route.
mix of crusader units and ordinary mercs. they got to the target just after Poland took it, so had a long march back.
the crusader units, at least, went due to my script. but the other mercs they kept. The HRE economy was very healthy.)

need to a few more runs for 200 turns or more to see what is really going on.

CS were hurting financially - I might change their start armies to have fewer armenians in my mod.

another problem with hotseating - when you take control of a faction, it loses all its AI bonuses.
took over cumans and immediately they were in the red. must have been borderline the turn before.
couldn't find any generic mercs in their armies, but lots of horse archers. those yasis are expensive to recruit.

I'm beginning to think we need to tone down the faction standings so AI factions are more amenable to negotiating ceasefires,
which would do wonders for their economies. the egyptians work it very well -always keen on peace, until they have built up their armies
and then they attack - gain objective - seek peace.

another observation -with 2tpy, the AI has plenty of empty recruitment slots so it does upgrade, replenish its units more often than if
the recruitment slots were full of new units. buildings (at lowest levels) were being built just about everywhere. the AI will build everything
in a building browser if it has time and money, but has certain priorities.
---

and a final observation - the economy script doesn't necessarily cap faction income at 120,00 fl

dipped into hre at T112 to see they had nearly 300,000 fl (and moors not far behind.)
and a little later the rebels had nearly 900,000 fl. (I'll nerf their kings_purse for the next run!!)