Poll: morale and routing

[Kel]

Esben Mose Hansen said:
Boron: Why don't you see the brilliance in taxing summons?
Arryn: That would destroy the game, which is so good.
Cainehill: Why are you so stupid, Boron?
Arryn: WWII tanks are the best
Gandalf: If people would just use the units nobody use, they would easily counter [insert-strategy]!

Hehe.

- Kel

[The_Tauren13]

lemme throw something new into the mix...

what if a scaled upkeep was used for troops... for example:
a unit costs x^(1.8)/1000 upkeep where x is the unit cost

so a cheap militia will have .005 upkeep... a knight perhaps 1.3 upkeep... and a good mage about 15 upkeep

then of course high resource troops would be way better.. but at least then sloth 3 wouldnt be mandatory

in fact.. why not factor in resource cost?

[Gandalf Parker]

The_Tauren13 said:
lemme throw something new into the mix...

what if a scaled upkeep was used for troops... for example:
a unit costs x^(1.8)/1000 upkeep where x is the unit cost

so a cheap militia will have .005 upkeep... a knight perhaps 1.3 upkeep... and a good mage about 15 upkeep

then of course high resource troops would be way better.. but at least then sloth 3 wouldnt be mandatory

in fact.. why not factor in resource cost?

There is sense to what you say BUT....
it would still be a balance affecting situation. This would impact nations such as Ulm much more than Pangaea and even Pangaea would have more impact from it than Ermor.

In mentioning Pangaea, I rarely purchase any of the high resource units at all. They serve me no purpose in the way I play. Im sure that is quite oppossite from the way some of the people in this thread would play Pangaea.

[Cainehill]

The_Tauren13 said:
what if a scaled upkeep was used for troops... for example:
a unit costs x^(1.8)/1000 upkeep where x is the unit cost

so a cheap militia will have .005 upkeep... a knight perhaps 1.3 upkeep... and a good mage about 15 upkeep

then of course high resource troops would be way better.. but at least then sloth 3 wouldnt be mandatory

in fact.. why not factor in resource cost?

Sloth 3 is mandatory? That's news to me. Sloth 3 is _doable_ and possibly even desirable with certain nations, (C'tis comes to mind), but it's hardly mandatory. Quite a few nations would cripple themselves if they took Sloth 3.

And high resource troops generally are already better than low resource troops, because their armor (the usual basis for high resource cost) keeps them alive a lot longer than, say, LI, while their heavier weapons do more damage to the foe.

But now you want to make upkeep more expensive for high resource units??? (That's how I read that Last line of yours.)

[Boron]

Cainehill said:

Sloth 3 is mandatory? That's news to me. Sloth 3 is _doable_ and possibly even desirable with certain nations, (C'tis comes to mind), but it's hardly mandatory. Quite a few nations would cripple themselves if they took Sloth 3.

And high resource troops generally are already better than low resource troops, because their armor (the usual basis for high resource cost) keeps them alive a lot longer than, say, LI, while their heavier weapons do more damage to the foe.

But now you want to make upkeep more expensive for high resource units??? (That's how I read that Last line of yours.)

just 2 anti-examples :

high protection is for all 8-12 hp units not enough to survive 1 single lightning bolt .

a vanheim van / skinshifter is a really good troop but very resource cheap .
since the skinshifter has a bit regeneration and better hp then an ulmish knight he has way better surviving chances against battlemagic then the ulmish knight .



perhaps my suggestions could be added though as modding command ?
that i can e.g. make militia cost only 1/200 upkeep while a knight costs 1/50 upkeep and a mage costs his normal 1/15 upkeep .

or a scaled upkeep as tauren suggested as a modding command . this way we could start such a modding game which would find enough players while nobody who doesn't like this wouldn't need to care .