Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Unit upkeep is too high and the battles are broken as a result.

Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 748
edited January 18 in General Discussion
When Total War 3K launched, militia spam was widespread and notorious. They were the most powerful units in the game. This was because they had far lower upkeep than every other unit but were fairly solid at holding the line, making it so your generals could have ample time to wreck the enemy.

CA patched the game to make militia weaker by significantly reducing their morale. However, they fundamentally misunderstood why militia were so strong in the first place. It wasn't primarily because of their stats, but because of their cost efficiency. Professional units are just way too expensive seeing as your generals do most of the killing power. Instead of paying for five professional units you might as well have eight militia ones. In Three Kingdoms, the numbers of your army are often more important than quality, since the main purpose of your army is to pin the enemy down while your general charges in and wrecks them with their abilities. Sometimes, you, and most crucially the AI, also cannot afford armies that aren't mostly comprised of militia because of how tight the economy is. Especially in the early-mid game.

This has resulted in fights against AI armies mostly made up of militia who, after the patch, route very, very quickly before battle even begins because of how low their morale is. If you play with night battles, fire arrows, and generals with scare, you can literally win battles with almost no kills. I think the game was better when militia were sturdier. The problem of militia spam hasn't gone away because their strength is in their cheapness. Instead, the game is still mostly comprised of militia armies but now generals are even more overpowered because they can very easily route the enemy army, making battles somewhat of a joke.

The frequency of militia spam was increased when CA decided to drastically cut recruitment cost (a good thing) but increase upkeep costs (a bad thing). Some faction exclusive cavalry units cost over 400 gold, which is frankly ridiculous. Instead of fielding unique armies, the AI, and most players because of monetary purposes, will simply use 2 militia cav or 4 militia infantry instead. This upkeep adjustment patch vastly increased militia spam in Three Kingdoms and made the battles even more broken as a result. The game now is almost entirely dependent on the strength of your generals until the late game.

This has also resulted in some professional units, most noticeably spear guards, archers, and crossbows, which are far sturdier in morale, stats, and are reasonably priced, being completely overpowered and used in nearly every army composition.

The way to fix this is to increase the morale of militia units so they don't break almost instantly after engagement. Reduce the cost of professional and faction exclusive units so they do not completely drain your economy. They should not cost almost twice the amount of militia, as is the case with several units and especially cavalry (thinking of heavy xiliang cav and Chen peacekeepers especially). I'm aware that elite units like Jade Dragons and Azure Dragons should be expensive, but we have a weird state now where there are militia which are affordable and everything else which is far too overpriced. Then there are exceptions like spear guards, archers, and crossbows, which are broken as a result of their reasonable upkeep.

And before you say something lazy like "get good", this applies to the AI as well. Because they find it hard to manage their economy, they field mostly militia units, which is a very, very large reason why the battles are such a joke.
«1

Comments

  • ShiroAmakusa75ShiroAmakusa75 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 29,138
    I see no reason whatsoever to implement this.

    This is one aspect where the game is designed well. Either masses of cheap, but weak militia or few but stronger professional soldiers.

    If you want mindless elite spam, play Warhammer.

  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 748
    Read the post before arguing against an argument for which I'm not proposing. I'm not interested in dealing with strawman posts.
  • tadakatsutadakatsu Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 775
    i dont feel as though elite units are too expensive if players actually max the eco potential for the different regions the last campaign i did was as nanman and i had the max armies i could have with nothing but elite units with atleast 4 war ele in every army and was still making 80k per turn by the time i conquered the whole map which took just over 200 turns. it really depends on the faction and whether or not the player maxes the eco potential in each region or not. the campaign before that i used liu bei and zheng jiang as my previous 2 favorites which in both cases i was able to again spam only elites. by turn 70-80 my armies always consist of nothing but elite units and swimming in money. also the ai are bad at recruitment and managing their eco in every total war game thats not unique to 3k that has to do entirely with the ai not being programmed well and not learning from mistakes like players can.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,636
    edited January 18
    Sometimes, you, and most crucially the AI, also cannot afford armies that aren't mostly comprised of militia because of how tight the economy is. Especially in the early-mid game.


    Overall I think that upkeep is generally too high - relative to the income you get from taxation. It doesn't really impact the AI "that much" tho. (Because typically big players will have "potential" and hence automatic discounts, regardless of the difficulty)

    I think Imperial units are generally fine, but nearly everything under is slightly overpriced.

    The biggest problem with Militia Spam by the AI (and sometimes for the player as well) is the lack of ability to upgrade said Militia into better troops (at least until you get the Dragons) because they simply lack units to do so


    (Screen taken from my current Cao Cao campaign)

    I typically see much better units in Retinues since I changed completely how unit unlocks are done. (And as much as I wish CA would follow me on this, I can understand the reluctance)

    Now to fix that overpricing I'd rather have CA deal with it in the tables rather than bring more -%upkeep reduction. But that would work as well (like the tier 4 Iron/Wood Supply towns could reduce the upkeep of Melee&Spear/Ranged units - still it would come in the mid-lategame)



    This has resulted in fights against AI armies mostly made up of militia who, after the patch, route very, very quickly before battle even begins because of how low their morale is. If you play with night battles, fire arrows, and generals with scare, you can literally win battles with almost no kills.


    This is true, Authority nerfs and nerfs to Morale in skills and careers have been pretty damaging for the battles. Some early game battles are an absolute nightmare to micro when your low morale Ji Militia routs after 20 losses because they are slightly flanked and cavalry is nearby. Then comes back, routs again, comes back again, until they shatter.

    Like I think playing without pausing is actually the hardest it's ever been since I started playing TW...

    Also Small unit size is even more impacted by the Morale nerfs. (Since AoE abilities will typically hit more units as the AoE of the abilities aren't scaled down)



    The frequency of militia spam was increased when CA decided to drastically cut recruitment cost (a good thing) but increase upkeep costs (a bad thing).


    A nuance on this : the only upkeep cost that went up was for the cavalry units who were overperforming + had a massive exploit with -100% upkeep on the campaign map. However this created a scenario where :
    - The player can't really field expansive cavalry and doesn't have to because cheap Sabre Militia Cav will do metric ton of damage thanks to Impact Damage + will soak arrows like no tomorrow

    - The AI can potentially not give a single damn because of the potential of the faction + potential FL traits (giving some heavy upkeep reductions), which then doesn't prevent them from fielding more cavalry than the player. If you play as Cao Cao in Normal, Yuan Shao will have 0 upkeep retinues of cavalry. It's an absolute nightmare (and thank the lord I can autoresolve that)

    - Player then has to deal with cavalry inferiority by fielding troops that can self sustain against Cavalry. (Hello hello Spear Guards)


    And before you say something lazy like "get good"


    Get good
  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 748
    Rewan said:


    The biggest problem with Militia Spam by the AI (and sometimes for the player as well) is the lack of ability to upgrade said Militia into better troops (at least until you get the Dragons) because they simply lack units to do so


    (Screen taken from my current Cao Cao campaign)

    I typically see much better units in Retinues since I changed completely how unit unlocks are done. (And as much as I wish CA would follow me on this, I can understand the reluctance)
    I really liked your post. What have you done to unit unlocks?
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,317
    edited January 18

    Read the post before arguing against an argument for which I'm not proposing. I'm not interested in dealing with strawman posts.

    Why don't you consider that the OPness of the generals results in broken battles and are the real reason battles get boring and routinely result in players wanting to AR?

    The only units I think are over-priced currently are some of the Dragon units that simply are not very good. The hybrid Dragon units are the best with Onyx Dragons and Azure Dragons overperforming for their cost.

    For the basic rosters, only Fury of Beihai/Thunder of Jian'an and most of the Shock cavalry are vastly over-performing for their cost. The reduction in morale for militia Fire cavalry almost makes them balanced if they actually ever died vs AI ranged on skirmish but the AI gets so many cheats it is not a problem of money but simply how the AI creates armies with terrible army compositions.

    There is some irony that the lower tiers of Shock cavalry are so good the elite units are completely unnecessary and thus could be considered over-priced but that is mostly due to how good the basic cavalry are and that all cavalry due to impact damage + speed and immunity to ranged are OP. The higher armour and morale of the higher tier cavalry might actually matter if they could get hit by arrows sometimes- as well cavalry formations should matter more than they do. Sabre/shielded cavalry should only get such a high block chance if they are in a formation that moves more slowly and has less charge while the shock cavalry similarly only get such a high charge when they are in a formation that moves more slowly so ranged might actually hit them.

    The positions of units in the reform tree as well the Wu Xing way of recruitment adds more difficulty for the AI than the player in recruiting balanced armies and for the player making a balanced army does not really matter as you mentioned because Vanguard and Champion generals are so strong.

    Generally, the higher tier units are HUGELY better than the lower tier and you can field high tier armies with 1.7 retinues (1 general + 6 units + general with 3 units + 1 solo general) that demolish the AI armies easily so even player did not manage their economy well they can field as many armies as the AI with elite units just with less units per army. If the player managed their economy well they can field more armies even than the AI on VH/L by the time Three Kingdoms form.

    Earlier in a campaign, the AI will almost always have more armies but that is the nature of the cheats AI gets on higher difficulties- 3K is actually the first TW since Rome 2 that the player can have more armies than the AI when playing on Legendary so I don't think there is any merit to the claim that units are over-priced in 3K.
    YouTube, it takes over your mind and guides you to strange places like tutorials on how to talk to a giraffe.
  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 748
    Ichon said:

    Read the post before arguing against an argument for which I'm not proposing. I'm not interested in dealing with strawman posts.

    Why don't you consider that the OPness of the generals results in broken battles and are the real reason battles get boring and routinely result in players wanting to AR?
    I do think that's an issue. But I think the way army composition is a major factor too.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,636
    What have you done to unit unlocks?


    No more tech-locks. Militia "upgrades" aren't locked to their specific class anymore (which means that everyone can recruit Sabre Infantry, but Sentinels are still the only ones able to recruit Jian Swordguards and Zhanmajian Infantry)

    So you have the Militia and Peasants at level 1.
    Regulars at level 3.
    Heavy Regulars at level 6.
    Elites at level 8. (Dragons + Imperial Units - I tried level 10 for Imperials, but I'd rather see them on the campaign map for the AI...)

    Of course that means that there are holes in the upgrades and stuff. But it's a start.
  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 748
    Rewan said:

    What have you done to unit unlocks?


    No more tech-locks. Militia "upgrades" aren't locked to their specific class anymore (which means that everyone can recruit Sabre Infantry, but Sentinels are still the only ones able to recruit Jian Swordguards and Zhanmajian Infantry)

    So you have the Militia and Peasants at level 1.
    Regulars at level 3.
    Heavy Regulars at level 6.
    Elites at level 8. (Dragons + Imperial Units - I tried level 10 for Imperials, but I'd rather see them on the campaign map for the AI...)

    Of course that means that there are holes in the upgrades and stuff. But it's a start.
    Is that a mod you've made for the game? I'd be interested to see it myself.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,636
    edited January 18
    Is that a mod you've made for the game? I'd be interested to see it myself.


    I don't have it as a standalone mod in 1.6.x (because it's part of the horrible pack file I use as a single mod since I'm too lazy to tick multiple mod boxes). But I should be able to do it real quick...
  • IchonIchon Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 5,317
    edited January 18


    I do think that's an issue. But I think the way army composition is a major factor too.

    Why do you think money is the main impediment to the AI recruiting higher tier units when there are so many other factors?

    When I look at the AI money in game (easily done via trading or spies) most of the AI have 10s to 100s of thousands in the treasury and for the AI fielding an army cost -50% or less compared to the player at anything above Normal difficulty so I am not at all convinced it is a money issue.

    In fact- since the AI poor army composition is present in all TW games there is much more a factor of the AI build priorities and how the AI does recruitment of units to armies.

    To be fair, CA has even improved the AI recruitment and army composition in 3K since launch- at launch the AI was stuck with militia armies nearly the entire campaign. Now the AI does recruit higher tier units and especially a large AI Kingdom left alone for a while will field armies with 50% Imperial units and few militia but the vast majority of AI armies even in late campaign are 2 retinues of militia and 1 retinue of higher tier units but all jumbled together and rarely do the AI units benefit from the skill specialities of the characters in command of their retinue.
    YouTube, it takes over your mind and guides you to strange places like tutorials on how to talk to a giraffe.
  • Vin362Vin362 Registered Users Posts: 627
    One thing that makes upkeep cost weird is how backgrounds can lower the upkeep cost of units but the units don't fit the class or are exclusively faction unique units, an interesting example of both a general upkeep reduction and faction unique comes from Gao Shun and his formation breaker a 20% general upkeep reduction to his own retinue but he also has a 35% reduction to the upkeep of flying raiders and camp crushers which are Lu Bu's faction unique it seems upkeep reduction is random in how it is distributed.
    Supporter of Shu-Han, Waiting for a Three Kingdoms start date for TW3K
  • ComradCommodoreComradCommodore Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 682
    edited January 18
    (Legendary/Records fyi)

    Firstly, as Ichon said, the generals really do effect battles in a negative way when it comes to how long actual fights go on for. Typical battles for me probably last 3-6 minutes, with alot of that being sped up (to get into position) so realistically it's even less time. The reason for the quick battles is rear charges from cavalry are devestating , and this is magnified when it's a general (considering alot of the passive buffs they get)

    Regardless of the make up of the army, everyone insta routes from a rear charge, it's painfully more noticable when full militia armies are in play. This is doubly magnified because the a.i is horrible at using its own generals in a meaningful way. In Records mode they sit behind their army, and perform a panic charge once it's too late. In Romance , you can mostly ignore them and concentrate on quickly routing their army, then just right click on the remaining generals and wait.

    To solve battles feeling weird , there needs to be a strong look at cavalry effectiveness, ranged units damage output. You either can insta route with rear cavalry charges, or dismantle every non shield division before they reach your line with concentrated archer fire.

    As for actual recruitment cost/upkeep, I haven't really had a moment of frustration trying to balance the 2. My army composition seems to follow my status in the game, and slowly gets beefed up as the game progresses. Early on you shouldn't field elite units, because it just isn't worth it when multiple militia units can take it's place. For example, as Cao Cao I always disband the tiger cavalry after Chen is taken because it's the difference of 100-150 gold a turn, and early on that extra 100 gold helps.

    By early-mid game, and onward though, I'm starting to swap out militia units when it suits me.

    I really think the frustration comes from how dominant cavalry / archers can be. What's the point of fielding the very best ji unit when it's just going to get targeted by 2 crossbowman and annihilated, and even if it gets to the front line, at the end of the battle it only obtained 20 kills while your Vanguard has 600 along with his 3 lance militia all having 300-400 respectfully.

    That's where the issue lies IMO

    /Edited section

    The fact my only care before a battle is "what side is the a.i's cav on? Right side? Good, makes it easy, go get em vanguard" says more about the state of battles then anything else really. The rest of the a.i's army doesn't matter once their cav is routed.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,636
    edited January 18
    @Bright_Eyes : https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2366557911

    This should do it. I just took it out, checked rapidly if it was fine and I just hope it actually works.



    @ Everyone else that think Cavalry is OP, you can try this :

    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2019011826

    AFAIC Cavalry is still hella strong but I feel it has less punch.
    I'm also testing things with the cavalry typing. (Aka turning most Shock cav into Heavy, Ranged cav into Light and Melee cav into Medium) but this actually require a bit more than a table to work properly (I can't remember where I change the cav type) so I'm not gonna post it unless you really want me to.
  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 748
    Rewan said:

    @Bright_Eyes : https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2366557911

    This should do it. I just took it out, checked rapidly if it was fine and I just hope it actually works.



    @ Everyone else that think Cavalry is OP, you can try this :

    https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2019011826

    AFAIC Cavalry is still hella strong but I feel it has less punch.
    I'm also testing things with the cavalry typing. (Aka turning most Shock cav into Heavy, Ranged cav into Light and Melee cav into Medium) but this actually require a bit more than a table to work properly (I can't remember where I change the cav type) so I'm not gonna post it unless you really want me to.

    Thank you so much for this Rewan! The mod sounds like it'll be a lot of fun!
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,636
    The mod sounds like it'll be a lot of fun!


    I just hope you get the same results as me lol.
  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 748
    Yeah I've tested it out and it works as intended. I'll be using it for a campaign!

    I wish I knew how to mod the game. Sharing our own mods and tinkering with the game could make some fun threads!
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 3,636
    edited January 19
    I wish I knew how to mod the game. Sharing our own mods and tinkering with the game could make some fun threads!


    It's not that hard really, if even I can cook up something then you probably can as well... you get PFM/RPFM (I use both >_>) and you just play around with tables and try to not blow up anything. :)
    (Or you can even mod directly from the Assembly Kit but I'd rather avoid that for a lot of reasons, which reminds me I still need to try messing around with the ceo's again... but I'll wait for 1.7.x to do that I think)

    At least that's what I do... except for the trying to not blow up anything part, the amount of times I crashed my game heh.... heh.... eeeeehhhh
  • NephliteXNephliteX Registered Users Posts: 153
    edited January 19
    I disagree with your claim of upkeep. Major faction AIs are already getting a good amount of economic bonuses, and that's a level of no problem building a high-quality army. As a result, It is not the cause of the AI creates a strange army.

    I only agree that the current combat balance is weird.

    First, Militia units are like typical unit of normal Historic total war, but from the very beginning they encounter Warhammer-style monstrous generals. It is natural that the initial game balance is going crazy. This problem has nothing to do with upkeep.
    Post edited by NephliteX on
  • NephliteXNephliteX Registered Users Posts: 153
    edited January 19
    Second, the problems at the nearly end are different; This is one of the rationale screenshots for the balancing post I wrote earlier.



    This is an AI army made up of units that consume a lot of upkeep costs, Commonly known as Doomstack, but players will never feel threatened at all.
    An army made of these stupid combinations is no real threat to the player.
    Because all three of the most powerful elements of this game are all missing here.

    -Powerful melee general
    -Powerful ranged archer
    -Powerful cavalry

    this would be a good example of Dumb AI army at late game. The basic template configuration is a mess, AI uses more and more stupid combinations as the session progresses. This problem has nothing to do with upkeep.

    Post edited by NephliteX on
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 1,894
    edited January 19
    I really don’t understand where all the fuzz is about. Army upkeep, army composition, fast battles...

    Don’t see the problem. The economy makes it too easy to maintain elite armies late game and rush construction in every territory without ever worrying about money. The ai get’s bonuses so it definitely has no problem with upkeep.

    Army composition is perfectly fine and programmed to let factions feel diverse. Kong rong lot’s of archers, ma teng cav, sun ce mercenaries and yuan shao infantry focused. If you dumb down the ai every faction starts fielding the same army and battles will become even more repetitive. I love how ca let different factions prefer different army set ups.

    Battle length is perfect. It already takes hours to finish a campaign. Make battles last longer will only make it more boring.

    We all like to moan but sometimes we are going over the top. So i felt it was time for some good old white knighting.
  • NephliteXNephliteX Registered Users Posts: 153
    edited January 19
    @LESAMA
    I understand the gist of your words to some extent, but unlike other Total War games, TK has a general units form determined by Wuxing. This is even against development intent!

    Do you really think that Zhuge Liang's infantry army is normal? He is the best of the strategist, and the blue generals are set to have ranged units. Otherwise, Why is he different from other common clone generals? He has no skills or bonuses for infantry. It's a complete waste.

    If Yuan Shao really likes the infantry army, he should have commander-champion-sentinel combination.
    There is no need for the strategist to command infantry army.
  • kweassa1kweassa1 Registered Users Posts: 738

    Upkeep seems fine. I don't have problems securing the amount of professional units to my need, as can be supported by my economic structure.

    There's so many factors behind why someone's having problem with upkeep, so there's really nothing anyone can say about this issue unless the op comes up with a LOT more detailed info on stuff like:

    (1) how one managed diplomacy
    (2) how one managed the economy
    (3) how one managed the reforms in what order
    (4) how one manages important court positions

    ... to say the least.

    It can very well be the way the op is building up his territories in a very inefficient way, that leads to the upkeep feeling restrictive. Just as much, op may be fighting too many enemies, resulting in too many armies needed than the economy can keep up with... and etc etc..

  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 748
    Don't assume I don't know how to play the game. I do. The prolem is that you shouldnt have to get 100% efficiemcy out of all commandaries and know everything about the gane just to field professional armies. The game doesn't even have a real tutorial.

    Unit upkeep is absurd. There actually are a lot of units in the game, but you don't use them because of how cost inefficient they are. Faction exclusive cav often costs 400. That's an absurd amount of money. You can buy 4 sabre militia for that and 2 lancer cav militia. In real terms it isn't worth it and you only do it for flavour. That's the real kicker, because the game feels it lacka flavour simply because faction exclusive units which should form a large part of your army are just not worth it. At least Shogun 2 understood this. It had factions gain stronger units at lower upkeep, making those units far more central to the armies. The only factions which feel right are Liu Bei, Kong Rong, Gongsun Zan (via upkeep glitch), Nanman. Their exclusive units feel fundamental to the army rather than overpriced to the point of worthless. They actually feel fun and different from one another.

    I mean a real example of how absurd the current situation is right now is how you often disband your faction exclusive units on turn 1. The game gives you them to use them early on to have a cool faction unit to use (a Total War tradition), but it cripples your economy. Militia are just more useful Imagine if you played Rome 2 and had to disband companion cavalry as Macedon because it was crippling your economy would be ridiculous. This is an example of how upkeep is clearly a massive design oversight and people still defend it.

    And honestly people aren't really engaging with the points fairly. Either saying you need to know the systems work inside and out to field professional armies or wait until endgame. Playing a militiafest until 80 turns in isn't a good rebuttal

    The only reason you should defend the upkeep is if you think all factions should rely on militia and play exactly the same.
  • shattishatti Registered Users Posts: 548
    edited January 19
    Rewan said:

    (I can't remember where I change the cav type)

    -Mounts
    -main units


    my cavs actually has a harsher nerf
    -350 collision nerf
    -jump attack chance reduced from 100% to 25 %

    but in the same time i increased the cav sizes from 60 to 80 men in extreme unit size and they work very well

    i'm acually having fun with unit size
    my peasants unit size are "315" angry famer instead of the boring 240 number :D
    Post edited by shatti on
  • LESAMALESAMA Member Registered Users Posts: 1,894
    NephliteX said:

    @LESAMA
    I understand the gist of your words to some extent, but unlike other Total War games, TK has a general units form determined by Wuxing. This is even against development intent!

    Do you really think that Zhuge Liang's infantry army is normal? He is the best of the strategist, and the blue generals are set to have ranged units. Otherwise, Why is he different from other common clone generals? He has no skills or bonuses for infantry. It's a complete waste.

    If Yuan Shao really likes the infantry army, he should have commander-champion-sentinel combination.
    There is no need for the strategist to command infantry army.

    Yeah agreed. Don’t know either what the purpose was but it doesn’t changes my opinion that i’dd rather have faction diverse armies vs every han faction fielding the same perfect army composition with the exception of unique units. Seems really boring and repetitive. It makes sense that ma teng is more cav focused due to his access to horses for example. That it doesn’t match completely with the wuxing system is something i’m willing to except for the sake of diversity.
  • SeabrookSeabrook Registered Users Posts: 2
    I think unit upkeep for all total war games should be lower.

    Maybe 10% unit reduction in 3k. Or

    Family Estates: + 2000 to each faction, easier start.

    There are factions that start with only 2000 treasury and only +100 to income
    After recruiting a few units, their income takes a big hit.

    Army composition: I'm beginning to think the AI puts the first three generals available to their faction into a new army. The generals then randomly recruit units.

    Unit Morale: I think all units need a morale buff, + 5.
  • YANGXuYANGXu Registered Users Posts: 37
    Rewan said:

    Sometimes, you, and most crucially the AI, also cannot afford armies that aren't mostly comprised of militia because of how tight the economy is. Especially in the early-mid game.


    Overall I think that upkeep is generally too high - relative to the income you get from taxation. It doesn't really impact the AI "that much" tho. (Because typically big players will have "potential" and hence automatic discounts, regardless of the difficulty)

    I can't say I agree with you on this. One of the reasons I find this title the easiest TW game after Medieval 2 is that even the legendary AI won't field nearly enough armies to challenge me. That's partly due to overpriced units and partly due to the difficulty balancing. I would suggest CA to add more upkeep reduction for AI on harder difficulties. It's not challenging or rewarding to conquer a supposedly powerful faction that occupies a third of map after defeating 3? 4? 5? full stacks.
  • ComradCommodoreComradCommodore Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 682

    Don't assume I don't know how to play the game. I do. The prolem is that you shouldnt have to get 100% efficiemcy out of all commandaries and know everything about the gane just to field professional armies. The game doesn't even have a real tutorial.

    Unit upkeep is absurd. There actually are a lot of units in the game, but you don't use them because of how cost inefficient they are. Faction exclusive cav often costs 400. That's an absurd amount of money. You can buy 4 sabre militia for that and 2 lancer cav militia. In real terms it isn't worth it and you only do it for flavour. That's the real kicker, because the game feels it lacka flavour simply because faction exclusive units which should form a large part of your army are just not worth it. At least Shogun 2 understood this. It had factions gain stronger units at lower upkeep, making those units far more central to the armies. The only factions which feel right are Liu Bei, Kong Rong, Gongsun Zan (via upkeep glitch), Nanman. Their exclusive units feel fundamental to the army rather than overpriced to the point of worthless. They actually feel fun and different from one another.

    I mean a real example of how absurd the current situation is right now is how you often disband your faction exclusive units on turn 1. The game gives you them to use them early on to have a cool faction unit to use (a Total War tradition), but it cripples your economy. Militia are just more useful Imagine if you played Rome 2 and had to disband companion cavalry as Macedon because it was crippling your economy would be ridiculous. This is an example of how upkeep is clearly a massive design oversight and people still defend it.

    And honestly people aren't really engaging with the points fairly. Either saying you need to know the systems work inside and out to field professional armies or wait until endgame. Playing a militiafest until 80 turns in isn't a good rebuttal

    The only reason you should defend the upkeep is if you think all factions should rely on militia and play exactly the same.

    I'm assuming you where exaggerating a bit, but on the off chance you arnt, if you can't afford anything but militia by turn 80 you are doing some very wrong. I have a entire retinue swapped out of militia by turn 10-15.

    The upkeep cost between militia and the very next tier isn't drastic at all. Between militia and the elite unit? Sure it's drastic, but I mean that makes sense. Your comparing peasants to the best of the best.

    You don't have to dump the elite units your given at the start of the campaign. Sometimes I play q campaign and even forget to. It's just a way to earn a little bit extra $.

    I think your the one who isn't engaging fairly, you seem to be ignoring everyone who is bringing up fair rebuttals
  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 748
    In most campaigns I use spear guards and archers because they are price reasonable and overpowered beyond belief as a result. Otherwise I use entirely militia because professional cavalry and swordsmen are far too expensive and so are worthless compared to miltiia.

    In some campaigns you almost have to disband elite units. Lu Bu is an example. But even when you don't, they hamstring your economy so much you might as well disband them and hire 4 militia. That shows you how overpriced they are. There's a reason why most people recommend to disband them on turn 1 (which is ridiculous design).
Sign In or Register to comment.