{DIK} TIW Standardized Unit Pricing System

[Aneirin]

Hello guys,

as we are closing in for the battle beta release we are making last modifications

As I explained in this video preview, we used k/t's Standardized Unit Pricing System (SUPS) and expanded it for our own purpose.
In order to give you people a decent insight in our system, but also the opportunity to help us improve it and of course use it in your own project, we are happy to share our overworked version.


RECRUITMENT COSTS

nobles cost 0 (100 due to carl script) since they provided their own equipment
religious orders cost 0 (100 due to carl script) since they provided their own equipment

militia, levies and late professionals - 1 florin per man per turn of training + cost of equipment
early professionals, locals and mercenaries - no equipment cost, but 6 florins per man to sign up if exceptional or elite quality, 5 florins if superior or average quality, 4 florins if militia or peasant militia quality
bodyguard - 2 florin per man turn of training + cost of equipment

late professional training times
-------------------
average - 3 turns
superior - 4 turns
elite - 6 turns
exceptional - 7 turns
-> Actually we ignored these lines and used only the ones below


Equipment Purchase Costs:

heavy robes - 0.5
leather, gambeson - 1
leather lamellar - 2
light mail, light lamellar/scale - 3
heavy mail, lamellar/scale - 4
heavy lamellar/scale/Breastplate, partial plate - 5
Full Plate - 6
gothic plate / renaissance half plate / 3q plate - 7
axe, spear, lance - 1
2h axe - 1.25
mace, pike - 1.5
halberd - 1.75
light sword - 2
sword - 3
2h sword - 3.25
2h club - 0.15
short bow - 0.5
war bow - 0.75
longbow - 1
composite bow - 2
arquebus - 0.75
small crossbow - 0.75
war crossbow - 1
pistol - 0.5
bullets & powder - 0.10
arrows - 0.25
javelin - 0.10
buckler, small round, small kite - 1
large round, medium kite, kite, pavise - 2

+1 superior armour -> +0.25
+2 superior armour -> +0.5

+1 superior non-sword weapons -> +0.25
+1 superior swords -> +0.5

pony - 2.5
eastern horse - 3
archer horse - 4
combat horse - 5
horse barding - 2
horse mail - 4
horse scale, half cataphract - 4
horse cataphract - 5
horse armour - 6


UPKEEP COSTS

Feudal units have free_upkeep_unit, since they resided at their estates when not called to arms. Order and Militia units also have free_upkeep_unit.

Type:
levy, militia - 2 florins per man
local, early professional - 2 florins per man
late professional, feudal - 3 florins per man
bodyguard - 4 florins per man
mercenary - 3 florins (infantry) or 4.5 (cavalry)
order - 0 florins per man, only eq upkeep costs, arrows, lances and half horse upkeep


Quality:
peasant militia, militia - x 0.5
average, superior - x 0.75
elite, exceptional - x 1


pony - 1
eastern horse - 1.5
heavy horse - 2.5
mailed horse - 3
armoured horses - 3.5
camel - 1.5

lances - + 0.25 - cavalry broke their lances in battle and needed new ones
arrows - + 0.25 - missile units used up their arrows in battle and needed new ones
bullets & powder - + 0.10
javelins - + 0.50

Equipment Maintenance, Repair & Replacement - 0.05 florins per turn per Equipment Class per soldier. This represents the wear and tear on gear, as well as the resources needed to keep all gear serviceable.

Equipment Classes
soldier equipment = 0.05 (+)
soldier armour = 0.05 (+)
horse equipment = 0.05 (+)
horse armour = 0.05

unarmoured infantry equipment maintenance, repair and replacement - 0.05 x unit size
armoured infantry equipment maintenance, repair and replacement - 0.1 x unit size
unarmoured soldier unarmoured horse cavalry equipment maintenance, repair and replacement - 0.1 x unit size
armoured soldier unarmoured horse equipment maintenance, repair and replacement - 0.15 x unit size
armoured soldier armoured horse cavalry equipment maintenance, repair and replacement - 0.2 x unit size



UNIT POOL REPLENISHMENT RATES

Note: We use 4 turns per year in our mod, so it takes a whole year (4 turns) for a new generation to be ready for recruitment.
For cavalry +1, because the horse needed to be trained and raised, as well.

base rate - 4 turns to replenish
cavalry - 5
infantry - 4

Type:
order, feudal +2
early pro +1
late pro +0
militia -1
local -2

Special (spatharioi guard, pelekyphoroi, varangians, dismounted caliph's guard, emir's ghulam warriors) -> +5
These are high-quality guard units of the ruler who receive +2 to armour quality since they had access to the absolute best armour and weaponry available, but, due to their low numbers and high requirements for enrollment, take 5 turns longer to replenish than a comparable unit.

The credit for all this, lies of course with k/t and the guys from RR/RC!

Your TIW-Modding team

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

k/t is a great guy who has done much good work. He was very meticulous in applying the kinds of modifiers you have used for barding, horse armour, etc. All that is fine until we come to the calculation of the cost of the unit. As this is down my street, the pricing seems historically more or less ok, you have done a ton of work, most of what I saw was ok, you seem to have an excel spreadsheet, which sounds great, except that it seems slightly arbitrary to divide units according to status. I am also not sure that a unit with 0.675 mass and otherwise unexceptional stats should be worth 440 florins to recruit but it depends on what other units cost and the proof is in the pudding. The CA pricing system, and I think that of most well balanced mods, is based on points of attack or defense, charge and whether cav or infantry, factored by the number of men in a unit (it does not matter whether general BG, infantry, missile, this or that). Of course things such as AP and spear bonus and the like come into play and there are additional modifiers for hit points, range of missiles and a few other things, but you can make it work with a small set of variables and less arbitrariness. Personally, when I have used this system where you add up all the modifiers and multiply by the number of men x mass, I have been able to replicate the costs of practically all units in several popular mods. The danger with this costing is that there are some arbitrary elements. For example: are three units of militia as effective as two units of average/superior quality costing in total the same money? Are all average/superior units with the same stats but let us say differing in spear bonus or AP equal on the battlefield?

We will soon find out.

[Morifea]

I`m very curious how it will play out... so far everything sound reasonable to me.

@Geoffrey: Good Points, I`ll have an eye on it during the testing.

[Aneirin]

Our current problem is that the units quality is not respected in any way in the unit's recruitment costs. So for example a superior unit could be much cheaper than a militia.
Maybe we could apply some kind of modifier to the total costs.

[Geoffrey of Villehardouin]

Our current problem is that the units quality is not respected in any way in the unit's recruitment costs. So for example a superior unit could be much cheaper than a militia.
Maybe we could apply some kind of modifier to the total costs.

Some variability to the unit costs is not necessarily wrong if there is a system to it, for example if mercenaries cost more than what they are worth.

[Aneirin]

As soon as I am back home, I'll try out the following:

Modifiers for unit's quality:
Peasant, Peasant Militia - 0.25
Militia, Average - 0.5
Superior, Elite, Exceptional - 1

Austrian Pikemen: Militia / late professional

Equipment: Breastplate, pike
Recruitment: 3 turns
(3+(5+1,5)*0,5)*250 = 1563


Burgundian Pikemen: Superior / late professional

Equipment: pike
Recruitment: 3 turns
(3+1,5*1)*250 = 1125

That would mean to modify the quality of the unit's equipment according to its overhaul quality.
At least for all units except early professionals, locals and mercenaries.

[Aneirin]

Well, there is a system to it

An example:
Venetian Condottiere elite / merc : 4 turns to recruit
recruitment: 6*60 = 360
upkeep: =(4,5*1+3+0,25+0,2)*60 = 477
That includes pay, supply for the horse, replacement of broken lances and maintenance&repair for an armoured soldier on an unarmoured horse

Maybe one should look specifically at each unit, since for instance a condottiere would receive a prestanza (an advance payment, mostly a quarter or a third of a the usual pay), which is not taken into account yet.
This is a hard nut to crack

[FFJean]

Dear Anerin,

If I may add my 2-cents worth (or less) of ideas, I would first say how much k/t (and PointBlank, as he was, if I remember correctly, the inventor of RR/RC) has brought to the many mods he has participated to, or to which he has given his own submod.
However, and please, forgive my English if I may not be clear in what I want to say, I think that this objective approach is perfect as long as it applies to factions that have a common economical/recruitment rationale.
IMHO, it would be great if some broad multiples could be used to differentiate factions, like (stupid of course, just trying to make my point) to have horses (or maybe cavalry) cost twice less to horse oriented factions, whilst cannons would be much more costly to them.
If I may take an example, an Inca army at the time of the battle of Ollantaytambo, under the command of Manco Capac, would have much, much cheaper infantry than Pizzaro's forces, whilst access to cannons and cavalry would be very costly (to allow alternative history) or impossible (as in reality).

I am just wondering how very different "national" cultures systems could be accomodated easily into this great mod, as I do not think that a pure calculation system equal for all factions would reflect this. Although this calculation system should be the basis, the cornerstone, the foundation on which the whole would be built. Such a generic approach by faction type would allow to show the very different cultures and their impacts on the recruitment of their armies.

Again, just throwing in my 2-cents.

And congratulations, and many, many thanks, to the team, to k/t, for the hours of great play you kindly provide!

Best regards,

FFJean

[Aneirin]

Hello FFJean!

First of all, many thank's for your praise, very appreciated

Well, to your suggestion. If you ask me that is a reasonable point. Sadly we did not take it into account at the current state of affairs.
Maybe we could tie it to the culture of a faction?
According to their culture we could apply modifiers on the unit in respect of its type (cavalry, missile, melee, etc)

Regards,
Aneirin

[FFJean]

Dear Aneirin,

First, thank you for taking my suggestion for what it is, a try to help. What you say is exactly what I meant to say, not to create another layer of sophistication, as the SUPS system is and should be the foundation, the sophisticated, "objective", "mathematical" tool.

As you said, and that's exactly what I meant,but I guess my English is not fluid enough, I think that an additional, "ROM" (Rough Order of Magnitude)-type approach would be great to differentiate between cultures (I think) or factions, if there is only one in the said culture. But the culture I am referring to is obviously not (only?) religion, but availability of resources (are horses readily available, and people used to horse riding? is powder technology advanced? are men used to serve as infantry, cannon-fodders, in a way?) and military culture (infantry oriented? advanced in terms of openness to innovation, like, if I remember correctly, Burgundy was?). And this would be just a multiplier (and not anything sophisticated) giving more "feel" of the realities of the said culture at the time, and would allow another type of differentiation between factions, pushing the player and the computer when they choose the way forward wrt to recruiting troups.

Wrt maintaining troops, I don't know if there is any such differentiation or if such is applicable. Although, if we still choose historical examples, it seems obvious that Huns could be able to live on much less resources than the Roman legions, as by the way almost all Armies during WW2 were able to live on much less that the US Army. This said, one obvious consequence was that the US Army organised itself to provide enough resources to its GIs to fight successfully. And indeed, the percentage of troops dedicated to logistics was much larger in the US Army, but the results were excellent, clearly dismissing the German strategists that had assessed the US Army as not fit for a prolonged fight (even if deprived from resources, let's just take Bastogne and Guadalcanal).

All the best,

FFJean

[Aneirin]

My pleasure, FFJean

Well, we it depends on how complex you want to have it.
Cultures would be only a 'rough' pattern, to do it faction specific would make things less adaptable for other mods.

Maybe the right approach could be to set up several questions, to specify the faction's preferences.
What do you think?

[FFJean]

Aneirin,

I think it should be very simple and straightforward, the complex part being SUPS. Faction specific, IMHO, would be too complex, for me, it should be culture specific, unless obvious differences in a culture. So I totally agree with you, simple, culture based, and question based.
Maybe taking one culture as a baseline, and asking about differences with this baseline (any culture would fit as the baseline, nothing should be seen as saying that one culture is better, "standard").

All the best,

FFJean

[Mausolos of Caria]

I suppose that would work, but how would you define these cultures? Fighting styles are not necessarily tied to actual cultures. For example, the army of the Kingdom of Naples probably had more in common with the forces fielded by the Holy Roman Empire than with those of the Republics of Genoa or Venice- government form might also play a role here. I already talked with Aneirin about cheaper costs for ships for Genoa and Venice, so that could be a starting point I guess.

[Aneirin]

You have a point there, Mausolos.

So I'd suggest three questions:
1. What type of government do they have (feudal, republic, aristocratic, tribal, religious)
2. What is the faction's preference in regard of its army compositions (infantry, cavalry, missile)
3. What is their favoured type of troops (light, medium, heavy)

An example:

Republic of Florence
-> republic, infantry, medium
-> discount in medium tier infantry

The funny part would be to define the amount of those modifiers applied.

[FFJean]

Just to add that English is obviously not my language of birth and education, and I really appreciate how you try to understand my opinions!

[FFJean]

Dear both,

I do agree, this would reflect a blend of elements, that I called military culture but is really a mix. Maybe it would be worth going into what we mean, as Aneirin rightly did. Recruitment should be a way to reflect the preferences of the faction regarding troop composition. For example, a mercantile city-state (a "Republic") should be more tempted to recruit mercenaries than to use ils citizens. So I believe this should be reflected also. Exactly as for Carthage vs. Rome. And if I understand what happened during the Italian wars, it was the same. As for Carthage, both the much smaller population (as compared to Rome) and the oligarchic system based on commerce and wealth of families played a role in having an Army composition based on mercs. For Rome on the contrary, mercs (auxiliaries) were mostly a way to complement the core army which was based on citizens. So when you look at both Armies compositions, during the First and Second punic wars, you have very different compositions, with the Punic armies mostly, if not only, made of mercs, and Roman armies largely based on citizens.

My feeling is that comparable differences had the same effect, with French and HRE armies based on nationals (with of course specialised mercs complementing the core of the armies), same for Turkish armies (although with a more complex, multi-national base), whilst merchant city states armies (Florence, Venice, Genoa) would use sometimes fully mercs armies, up to their commanders. So to differentiate, I would add to Aneirin list "use of nationals / use of mercs " with a strong impact on recruitment and maintenance costs. Why? This would also reflect the fact, that IMHO can't be shown otherwise, that the economical system of the merchant city states is much more efficient than the feudal one. In a way, in a feudal system, the center (King or Emperor) has very few "available" resources, as most are managed by the feudal system. On the contrary, the oligarchy that controlled merchant city states owned much of the wealth of the city directly. It was obviously their goal to use money rather than manpower. And even more so because their approach was also backed by the fact that there was no support to risk their population on the fields of battle unless can't otherwise. So for me, this (the moral and economic rationales mixed) should be reflected in the cost that should be much lower for mercs, as the much better efficiency of the economic system can't be factored in larger income for same resources. For these cities, use of mercs should be much larger, easier and less costly than for the large kingdoms. Indeed, at least for Carthage, field armies were always based on mercs, only "emergency home defence " being based on citizens (Third Punic war). I have the impression that it was the same for the Italian city states.

For the rest, I totally agree with what you both said. The 3 elements you mentioned Aneirin, just completed by this fourth one.

With regard to the impact, I think it should obviously be tested. But noticeable, between 50% and 100%!

Let me add that I really appreciate your openness to discussion!

Kind regards,

FFJean

[Aneirin]

That's the name 'Military Culture', thank's dude

I absolutely agree on your point with the use of mercenaries. We should take the unit's origin into account, since that is an overwhelming important factor.

Though, I would argue that the government's motivation not to arm their own citizens, was their fear (especially the Florentine) of an overthrow through their population, rather then loosing too many of them on the battlefield.

Nevertheless, I am sure we can agree, that their access to much more and well trained mercenaries should be reflected in some way in their 'military culture'.

Well, thank's to our discussion, we are able to improve our mod. So why shouldn't we?
No worries, dude

[FFJean]

Dear Aneirin,
What you say about the Florentines is exactly what I meant. The Florentine system (and their leaders, but leaders changed, got overthrown) did not accept loss of Florentine lives and favored loss of money. For France, for the Ottomans, it was the other way round. Obviously, scarcity of different resources had this effect.
Wrt access to mercs, and their quality, I would see same as for others (why would mercs "prefer" to work for Florence rather than France?) but cost would be much less for Florence (to illustrate the better economic system).
Best regards,
FFJean

[Aneirin]

In my point of view, the question should not be 'why the mercs would rather work for the Florence'. The question should be 'why did the Florentine hired more mercenaries than the French?' and that was already answered.

Besides that, the availability for well trained and highly professional mercenaries was much higher in Italy rather than France. Mostly due the fact of the Condotta-System which the Italian States established over the centuries.

To decrease the costs for mercenaries for Florence seems not reasonable to me. You see, why should the charge less if they know that they have plenty of money?
Though I can see your point in case of custom battles, because you cannot represent their wealth properly.
But for campaign play, I'd rather increase the trade income for merchant republics, rather than lowering the recruitment costs of their mercenaries.
That of course only my personal view on this.

Well, how do we define these 'military cultures'?
I'd say we have already one, 'based on mercenaries'.

Do you have any suggestions for the others?

Best regards,
Aneirin

[FFJean]

Dear Aneirin,

I didn't know trade revenues could be increased for certain factions. That would obviously answer the question, and thus allow to use the standardised price system for mercs both for merchant states and other types of states. However, and I insist on this because I think that the effect is wider than just "more trade revenues", it is clear for me that merchant city states did not only get "more revenues" but also benefitted from a different, more modern, state organisation, so spending was also less spread out (hence my idea to have "lower cost" as a way to grasp this notion of "better management"). But here I guess I am going into economics, and if superior trade revenues can be built for merchant city states (and enough superior it can have an effect, as much, much smaller states could survive against France, HRE, or Spain for the Netherlands, although not having at all the same access to human resources and resources) this could make it perfectly. I think that Empire, through the different types of economics technologies, did grasp this.

With regards to categories, on top of "based on mercs" (but this would mean that non-mercs forces, maybe with free upkeep within their cities, should have a high maintenance cost, higher than mercs, which is obviously contra-intuitive but would push the player and the computer to rely on mercs to wage wars and keep locals to defend the merchant cities - which is exactly what happened historically), I would imagine a rather modern state (France, England) and a clearly feudal type (or quasi feudal state, i.e. a state were resources are very much spread towards the n-1s of the rulers, like the Ottoman Empire and the HRE.

I will try to figure out what it would mean. But if we look (please forgive me if my opinion is biased ��) at France, it should be better on cavalry, on artillery (it was a clear advantage at the end of the 100 years war) but would be lacking on pikemen, which would be an excellent reason to use Swiss pikemen (after all, the Spanish tercio would be ruling the end of the 16th Century!

I have to try to see what impacts would be the difference between "quasi feudal" and "bit more modern" states.

Sorry not to be more conclusive, but I do think we are progressing (or at least I do hope...).

All the best,

FFJean