(While there are excellent threads covering most of the topics mentioned here, I decided to make this thread specifically to make this point, unencumbered by the myriads of arguments in the context of other discussions.)
**
The main reason to prefer High-tier troops instead of Low-tier troops is simple: army sizes put a limit on how many troops one can lead, so it is obvious that to maximize your army's fighting strength you ideally want every troop to be the best soldier they can possibly become (i.e. High-tier troops).
However, there should be a 2nd reason: Food Supplies.
As the military maxim goes: "an army marches on its stomach".
Campaigning with a large army of untrained peasants against a medieval kingdom, where castles secured most available supplies in the surrounding villages (and provided staging grounds for disrupting your logistics), would make for a very short campaigning season or a tragic military disaster.
Hence why kings relied on smaller armies of professional soldiers (nobles, retainers, mercenaries, etc) when campaigning outside their realm. A smaller army could sustain itself on the field for a longer period of time (e.g. by raiding for supplies, or "living off the land", as Napoleon euphemistically put it), perhaps long enough to achieve important objectives, such as besieging and securing the surrender of a castle on a vital location.
**
There's a debate going on right now about equipment and upgrade costs, and how to balance them with the effectiveness of High-tier troops vs Low-tier.
My 2-cents for that debate is this: if you make supplies more costly to sustain and thus further differentiate High-tier vs Low-tier, you will obtain greater leeway when balancing other aspects such as upgrades and equipment.
**
I'll leave the post here, in order to keep it short and to the point.
(I can elaborate on these and other points further below, if people want me to.)
**
The main reason to prefer High-tier troops instead of Low-tier troops is simple: army sizes put a limit on how many troops one can lead, so it is obvious that to maximize your army's fighting strength you ideally want every troop to be the best soldier they can possibly become (i.e. High-tier troops).
However, there should be a 2nd reason: Food Supplies.
As the military maxim goes: "an army marches on its stomach".
Campaigning with a large army of untrained peasants against a medieval kingdom, where castles secured most available supplies in the surrounding villages (and provided staging grounds for disrupting your logistics), would make for a very short campaigning season or a tragic military disaster.
Hence why kings relied on smaller armies of professional soldiers (nobles, retainers, mercenaries, etc) when campaigning outside their realm. A smaller army could sustain itself on the field for a longer period of time (e.g. by raiding for supplies, or "living off the land", as Napoleon euphemistically put it), perhaps long enough to achieve important objectives, such as besieging and securing the surrender of a castle on a vital location.
**
There's a debate going on right now about equipment and upgrade costs, and how to balance them with the effectiveness of High-tier troops vs Low-tier.
My 2-cents for that debate is this: if you make supplies more costly to sustain and thus further differentiate High-tier vs Low-tier, you will obtain greater leeway when balancing other aspects such as upgrades and equipment.
**
I'll leave the post here, in order to keep it short and to the point.
(I can elaborate on these and other points further below, if people want me to.)
Last edited:
