Slitherine

SpeedyCM wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:58 am Honestly Rome is famous (especially in early to mid game period) for having armies wiped out repeatedly and just raising new ones, so really for historical sake the spiraling costs shouldn't kick in until after Rome already has 5-10 legions.

but in this case, the replacements cost the same as those you lost. its not cost per legion since the start of the game, the formula only works against how many you currently have.

loki100 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:54 pm

SpeedyCM wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:58 am Honestly Rome is famous (especially in early to mid game period) for having armies wiped out repeatedly and just raising new ones, so really for historical sake the spiraling costs shouldn't kick in until after Rome already has 5-10 legions.

but in this case, the replacements cost the same as those you lost. its not cost per legion since the start of the game, the formula only works against how many you currently have.

And that's the issue, due to the spiraling costs as you rebuild armies you are progessively weakened vis a vis an enemy so that facing an enemy such as Macedonia who can rebuild armies of phalanx troops at a set cost of 100 with relatively equal economies Rome's enemies can out attrit Rome which isn't very historical in the timeframe of the game.

And Auxiliae have a flat cost and are quite decent too.

When you say Auxiliae, do you mean alae troops? In one MP game, my Alae troops have increased in price from 72 gold to 96 gold. I currently have 6 alae units and it is turn 28.

SpeedyCM wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:26 pm

loki100 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:54 pm

SpeedyCM wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:58 am Honestly Rome is famous (especially in early to mid game period) for having armies wiped out repeatedly and just raising new ones, so really for historical sake the spiraling costs shouldn't kick in until after Rome already has 5-10 legions.

but in this case, the replacements cost the same as those you lost. its not cost per legion since the start of the game, the formula only works against how many you currently have.

And that's the issue, due to the spiraling costs as you rebuild armies you are progessively weakened vis a vis an enemy so that facing an enemy such as Macedonia who can rebuild armies of phalanx troops at a set cost of 100 with relatively equal economies Rome's enemies can out attrit Rome which isn't very historical in the timeframe of the game.

No,not directly, replacing lost legions costs the same as originally building, its expansion that costs more.

Also with 1.05 you don't need so many. I have a game up to T250 with Rome, have just raised a 5th army (4 legions each), find that armies of around 3-400 CP are now perfectly fine due to the other changes. No longer seeing any significantly over this limit whereas in earlier builds there was a steady escalation in the mid-game up to 1000+ power stacks

loki100 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:53 am Also with 1.05 you don't need so many. I have a game up to T250 with Rome, have just raised a 5th army (4 legions each), find that armies of around 3-400 CP are now perfectly fine due to the other changes. No longer seeing any significantly over this limit whereas in earlier builds there was a steady escalation in the mid-game up to 1000+ power stacks

Is that in Single-Player or Multi-Player?

I think the spiralling costs are fine for SP games, but for MP games they do create a disparity. IMO other Heavy Infantries should have spiralling costs also to balance things out in MP.

loki100 wrote: ↑Mon Nov 11, 2019 7:53 am

SpeedyCM wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 9:26 pm

loki100 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:54 pm

but in this case, the replacements cost the same as those you lost. its not cost per legion since the start of the game, the formula only works against how many you currently have.

And that's the issue, due to the spiraling costs as you rebuild armies you are progessively weakened vis a vis an enemy so that facing an enemy such as Macedonia who can rebuild armies of phalanx troops at a set cost of 100 with relatively equal economies Rome's enemies can out attrit Rome which isn't very historical in the timeframe of the game.

No,not directly, replacing lost legions costs the same as originally building, its expansion that costs more.

Yes and that is the issue, the spiraling costs mean they are far more expensive than the phalanx which is arguably a better unit even at the same price.

I have no problem with spiraling costs as long as it is evenly applied to all similar units - so both legions and phalanx having equal spiraling costs, I would suggest then alae not having spiraling costs along with the Greek heavy foot hoplites.

SpeedyCM wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2019 12:22 am I have no problem with spiraling costs as long as it is evenly applied to all similar units - so both legions and phalanx having equal spiraling costs, I would suggest then alae not having spiraling costs along with the Greek heavy foot hoplites.

This would sound to me like a very sane proposition

loki100 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 2:54 pm

SpeedyCM wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 6:58 am Honestly Rome is famous (especially in early to mid game period) for having armies wiped out repeatedly and just raising new ones, so really for historical sake the spiraling costs shouldn't kick in until after Rome already has 5-10 legions.

but in this case, the replacements cost the same as those you lost. its not cost per legion since the start of the game, the formula only works against how many you currently have.

Sorry, but I'm totally at a loss here - aren't you contradicting yourself?

If the formula only looks at how many troops you currently have, the troops should get cheaper to build as soon as you lose some - instead of tallying up all the units you build from the start of the game, resulting in ever-rising costs, because the total number of build troops can only go up?!?

don't think so - all I said was to reinforce the point that the cost of the next legion is related to how many you have -at the moment- there was a post earlier in the thread that seemed to imply the cost was based on how many you had ever raised.