SSHIP - General Discussion

[Dekhatres]

it's a good idea to backup a file before modding it

[j.a.luna]

A question, what is the proposal of reduce the cost of hire mercenaries? Now i think that are cheaper than almost a regular unit... And another thing i think that should exist a "warning window" one turn before that you can not pay your mercenaries and they will disband, sometimes you dont look your finances and in the next turn you are in red numbers and inmediately your mercenaries disband... This could noticed before(the turn previous) and maybe you can solved before a lot of troops can be disbanded.
Also exist some troops than in their description are not mercenaries and they are disbanded ,for example lithuanians ducal axes, is a lithuanian faction unit but they also are disbanded with this event if you dont pay them.

[Lifthrasir]

Costs and upkeep are currently being discussed internally.

[j.a.luna]

Costs and upkeep are currently being discussed internally.

OK perfect

[Kilo11]

Out of curiosity, are there historical reasons for mercs to be either more or less expensive in general? I understand that they should cost a fair bit to hire, but my thought is more about the upkeep of mercs versus faction units. As it is now, mercs are far more affordable in the long run, as they are generally better than lower-tier faction units, but they cost way less upkeep. But I wonder what the historical situation is...

[Dekhatres]

i would just use the SS6.4 costs but doubled

[Just let me post]

Stating the obvious, but cheap to hire and expensive to upkeep would not only be common sense but also good gameplay-wise, as you already lose mercenaries when out of cash

So I guess merc units could be half-priced compared to normal units, but cost like 75% more to upkeep

[Tripledot]

I think the reasoning may be that the active upkeep of a standing army during the middle ages would have been really expensive. I can see why mercs would be so costly to recruit as well, if only to stop merc spam.

[Kilo11]

Stating the obvious, but cheap to hire and expensive to upkeep would not only be common sense but also good gameplay-wise, as you already lose mercenaries when out of cash

So I guess merc units could be half-priced compared to normal units, but cost like 75% more to upkeep

Interesting. I would have thought the reverse. Granted, I have little knowledge of the costs of maintaining armies in the middle ages (either regular troops or mercs), but I would guess that mercenaries would be expected to provide their own weapons and training, which would justify them asking a high "hiring" price, but also mean that they would require less upkeep costs from the hiring state. I mean, if I refuse to buy them new shields and swords (they're mercs, after all, so they should make themselves combat-ready), then they would be cheaper to keep than those guys who I have to constantly outfit for war. So I'd say high recruitment cost, but lower upkeep.

Does anyone around here happen to know a bit about this topic?

[j.a.luna]

Interesting. I would have thought the reverse. Granted, I have little knowledge of the costs of maintaining armies in the middle ages (either regular troops or mercs), but I would guess that mercenaries would be expected to provide their own weapons and training, which would justify them asking a high "hiring" price, but also mean that they would require less upkeep costs from the hiring state. I mean, if I refuse to buy them new shields and swords (they're mercs, after all, so they should make themselves combat-ready), then they would be cheaper to keep than those guys who I have to constantly outfit for war. So I'd say high recruitment cost, but lower upkeep.

Does anyone around here happen to know a bit about this topic?

Yes i agree with you @Kilo11, mercenaries should have high cost of recruitment but a normal upkeep, more on less as regular troops, for me is more logical and historically correct, in some historical documents are mentioned medieval mercenaries with a high cost for the country( we dont know how many)
So if we make up for their high cost and pretend they already have combat experience compared to regular troops, even late mercenaries like Swiss pikemen, Genoese crossbowmen or others should have good quality weapons and armor (small sword icon and small shield) but still higher cost. Therefore your recruits experienced troops in combat and with good weapons and armor in just 1 turn (without having to wait all that time to obtain experienced troops and develop infrastructures for your soldiers, high era) but at a high cost for your coffers and their maintenance would be the same as regular troops.

[Just let me post]

These are very good points guys, but think about it on the flip side:


1. Mercenaries already exist and are armed, so you don't have to make equipment for them. You don't have to drill them.

2. You need to keep them loyal by paying a lot, not only with 1-time hefty payment. Imagine this scenario: "Ok guys, lets fight for me, I will pay you thousands now, and then only some pennies. Please keep fighting for me". With that logic, it would be much better to just be hired again by someone else

3. Gameplay wise, don't you hate to lose mercs when you just pay thousands for them only to abandon you next turn when lost cash for a brief moment?

4. The argument that high entry price limits the mercenaries use... why not? Lots of armies were full of mercenaries.

[Kilo11]

I understand you points as well, but that is why I'd like it if someone happened to have some actual knowledge on the subject. I mean, there are fair arguments for both sides:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

High recruitment cost/low upkeep: They're armed and skilled, so they'll ask for a high fee to fight for you, but once contracted, the price lowers greatly, given that they do not require as much from the state. They provide their own weapons and supplies, so the only money going to them is wages. Regular troops, however, need both wages and weapons/supplies, making their upkeep higher.
Low recruitment cost/high upkeep: They are already ready to go, so no need to pay for their weapons and armor (as with regular troops), but their only alliance is to money, so it needs to flow regularly.

Given such points, it would be really nice to have a solid idea of how mercs compared to regularly employed soldiers, in terms of cost to recruit or maintain.

[kostic]

According to my sources (Philippe Contamine "War in the Middle Ages"), all warriors, knights or pedestrians, even when they were doing their duty to their overlord, were paid:
-Every day during military campaigns.
- Every 1,2,3, see 4 months in case of garrison. Knights often receive more than 10 times the pay of a pedestrian.


Mercenaries are distinguished from other troops because they sell to the highest bidder and have no personal interest in defending a particular fief. In general, they were more expensive because already trained in war, with a reputation for efficiency due to their previous exploits. The lords employed them for lack of regular soldiers, often against the prescriptions of the church ...
To transcribe this reality in the game, I think we have to give them a higher purchase and maintenance cost than for the other units. However, their stats should be rather better due to their combat experience.

[Just let me post]

This topic is fascinating but also a potential rabbit hole


Because if you look from a lords perspective, the pure sum of money/gold needed to persuade and upkeep mercenaries is greater

However... if you look from the total collective economy effected by both:

- direct costs (soldier wages, cost of forging equipment, officials' wages etc.) and

- wasted potential (sons taken away from helping their fathers plow the fields or sell/manufacture stuff, materials diverged from other branches of economy etc.)

... My conjecture is that levying "normal" units is even more expensive, it just doesn't hit the lords purse as much


But that would be a question of who do we control in the game? A king? A self aware-kingdom?

[Dekhatres]

maybe i missed it but just incase, there's also the quick recruitment that mercenaries have, it's a pretty huge + imo to be able to fill your ranks on the spot

pedestrians

thou meant "peasants" verily

[kostic]

Sorry... Google Translate

[Kilo11]

This topic is fascinating but also a potential rabbit hole


Because if you look from a lords perspective, the pure sum of money/gold needed to persuade and upkeep mercenaries is greater

However... if you look from the total collective economy effected by both:

- direct costs (soldier wages, cost of forging equipment, officials' wages etc.) and

- wasted potential (sons taken away from helping their fathers plow the fields or sell/manufacture stuff, materials diverged from other branches of economy etc.)

... My conjecture is that levying "normal" units is even more expensive, it just doesn't hit the lords purse as much


But that would be a question of who do we control in the game? A king? A self aware-kingdom?

These are interesting points, and definitely worth thinking about more. (By the way, where did you find the info? I'm not questioning the facts you've presented; I just think it might be useful if the SSHIP team can also have a look, as they're a pretty historically rigorous crowd, and usually like to be sure about their facts.)

In particular, I find your final question to be super interesting, and one worth answering for these purposes. Obviously, there are fair arguments to be made one way or another (some people role-play as "the king", some like to be the omniscient observer, some just want to interact with history, etc.). However, I would say it makes most sense to set things up so that they are accurate with regards to the kingdom as such, and not to the king's purse. I mean, we build lots of buildings that don't necessarily affect how wealthy the actual monarch is, but rather increase the wealth of the nation (even if "nation" was not yet a concept in this sense). Moreover, there are a number of factions that do not even have a proper king or royal line, with SSHIP including a fairly good number of republics or similar things, and for those it seems particularly worthwhile to view economics as they affect the nation-state, rather than one dude at the top.

So I would be for setting costs and upkeep as they relate to the entire state, not just to the king's purse. And for the reasons you give above, I think that means mercs should be more expensive to hire, but less expensive for upkeep. My main thinking there is related primarily to your final point:

However... if you look from the total collective economy effected by both:
- direct costs (soldier wages, cost of forging equipment, officials' wages etc.) and
- wasted potential (sons taken away from helping their fathers plow the fields or sell/manufacture stuff, materials diverged from other branches of economy etc.)
... My conjecture is that levying "normal" units is even more expensive, it just doesn't hit the lords purse as much

If it is the case that levying troops from the population creates all these knock-on costs (that are not really code-able in-game), then they should create a larger drain on the economy. Calling it "upkeep" might be a bit misleading, since it is part upkeep, part lost economic advantage for the nation, but either way it would translate to them being a larger economic burden over time than mercs would be. Mercs, on the other hand, should cost a hefty sum to first employ, given that they will arguably want a fair signing price, will come with significant advantages that levy troops lack (like experience), and that it is important to make them harder to get into armies (limit merc-spam, and if they have lower upkeep, they need some limitation to being put into forces).

Just my two cents though.

[Just let me post]

These are interesting points, and definitely worth thinking about more. (By the way, where did you find the info? I'm not questioning the facts you've presented; I just think it might be useful if the SSHIP team can also have a look, as they're a pretty historically rigorous crowd, and usually like to be sure about their facts.)

I must shamefully admit you have caught me red handed here, as those were simply my speculations and critical thinking in action so I cannot share a definitive source, I'm afraid. <sorry>

That said, I think we are getting towards something nevertheless:

Calling it "upkeep" might be a bit misleading, since it is part upkeep, part lost economic advantage for the nation, but either way it would translate to them being a larger economic burden over time than mercs would be.

I wholeheartedly agree, I think the word "upkeep" is the main perpetrator of the uncertainty here. Maybe it could be changed to "total upkeep" to reflect its meaning better?
I also suggest we should look at things from a statewide perspective.

Because otherwise you would look at some levied peasants and ponder "why the heck are they more expensive to keep than those hardened mercs?"


So now I concur, high initial cost/lower (total) upkeep for mercenaries could be a way to go But "Upkeep" should be explained in-game somehow

[Lifthrasir]

We need to consider several facts.
1. Any soldier had to pay for his food and drink. Knights had to provide food for their horses as well. Beside, in Western countries, it was also common to have the king compensating the loss of a horse to a knight.
2. Beside his payment, most of the soldiers were looking for profit by looting.
3. Feudal units were "reliable" only for a certain amount of time: 40 days for a French noble serving the King for example. There are also records of soldiers leaving the siege of setlements in the Levant during Saladin reign, these guys going back home for harvest.
4. Armies, regular or not were incredibly expensives for any realm (big or not). Only the professionalisation during the 14th century allowed regular armies. These were also made possible due to the development of administrations and optimizations of the royal incomes (taxes, etc...) and not in the same way for all kingdoms.
5. Mercenaries upkeep should be high because they actually were.

I don't know how these facts/points can be represented in game but beside the historical accuracy, we also need to keep a logical gameplay. With the latest changes made by JoC, incomes have become more important. We can reduce them, we can increase expenses or we can try to use a bit of both. I'm in favor of the later.

[kostic]

In the latest SSHIP 0.9.6 version, I am a little surprised to see that the cost of maintaining mercenaries is so low, without the cost of recruiting them being particularly high.
In fact, we can distinguish 2 kinds of mercenaries:
1- Bands without faith or law like the "Cotereaux", the "Brabançons" and other truckers ... very violent and deadly but not necessarily very well equipped.
2- Knights, squires and sergeants well armed and very professional like "Guillaume-le-Catalan" and his men, who served Siena, Bologna, then Florence around in the second half of the 13th century.

The 2nd ones should actually be much more expensive to maintain than the 1st ones.

But Lifthrasir is right to emphasize the importance of gameplay. Whichever you choose for the next version, the important thing is to keep a good balance to keep the player enthralled.