Upkeep for mounted troops

Users who are viewing this thread

Mounted troop upkeep is too cheap. For example: compare the Khuzait Heavy Horse archer to the Kuzait Marksman. Same skills, same bow, same upkeep, but one of them is mounted. Similar comparisons can be made for most factions. (I know the horses make them more expensive to create, but that does not matter in the long run if I don't let them die.)

To make matters worse, there's a perk for companions that will half the upkeep of mounted troops in a town's garrison. This makes horsemen better as garrison troops. Why would I ever recruit an archer without a horse? Even if I want archers fighting on foot, I can just order them to dismount.

Proposed fixes:
- Horses eat food
- Horses cost money to upkeep

(I know I can just mod the 2nd, but I want the vanilla game to be good and keep running into nonsense like this.)
 
I agree, it certainly would make sense as the upkeep and expense is what would prevent large amounts of cav in most armies

In some patches cav aren’t the super elite unit and are part of a rock paper scissors component so in a video game sense, they sometimes wouldn’t be worth that extra cost

They are very expensive to buy/train/upgrade but I think once you get over the economic hump it wouldn’t really be noticeable (which I assume would be Ananda’s point)

Still I think it makes good sense and as balance and time goes on it would be worth implementing. I would rather them polish elsewhere for now
 
ALL the higher tier units are WAY too cheap. Cavalry is a bit too cheap but the horses do add about 2-5 months extra upkeep depending how many upgrades and the prices of the mounts.

The cost of promoting a cavalry unit is fairly significant, especially if it requires more than 1 upgrade. 1500 extra cost from 2 horse upgrades is getting close to 3 months of upkeep cost and cavalry does die so for every top tier troop you promote and upgrade the horse for, probably .25 died so now 3.5 months of upkeep.

Since it seems rare for most people to have campaign longer than 2-3 years we'll go with 3, unit upkeep is around 20 instead of 18 but heavily reliant on how long you get use out of that unit.

Just a bit above a 10% exra cost difference from needing to buy mounts at 3 years of use but for every 6 months fewer, about a 1-2% increase in cost so if end a campaign 6 months after upgrading a cavalry, the upkeep cost is nearly +50% and the cost of the mount makes a huge difference as the price can vary by hundreds if you buy a mount directly after a siege vs from villagers from a horse village.

Horses consuming food would be more realistic but probably add nothing to the game other than extra micromanagement and barely any at that- just clicking a few more times when you buy grain.

Overall the prices in BL are not very accurate but a large part of that is to keep the economy functioning since it is a closed loop.
 
Last edited:
Can you explain what you mean by that?
Okay. Food is a non issue and you can get so much loot from winning battles ( larger battles can be won with HA, parties can be caught easier) that an increase in wage wouldn't matter unless it was absurdly high. I give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't mean make them cost 100X more or such. I agree it makes sense and the horse should eat and some troops should have higher wages, but it wouldn't change how people play the game.
To make matters worse, there's a perk for companions that will half the upkeep of mounted troops in a town's garrison.
Good, you're choosing that perk over another very powerful perk and giving up a captain or party leader to govern the fief and gving up powerful mounted units to a garrison and not using them in feild battles, it should be a worthwhile effect.
Why would I ever recruit an archer without a horse?
Typically because they are available without spending campaign time to go to another location and recruit horse archers. I will usually have 100-300 powerful HA (and some cav) to do the heavy lifting in battles and everything else I pick up is just extra to put into garrison as go I around sieging. Circling around the area I'm near and scooping up everything in vlandia or battania saves a massive amount of campaign time over going to another area to pick up and make more horse archers. Even if I'm in khuzland I'm going to just grab everything. I would never put warhorse units in a garrison (which is given to vassals) so why wouldn't I make archers/marksmen? It's like eliminating many armies and siege battles just by not wasting that campaign time and letting the enemy move and do things freely. that said, I know players who prefer to us Fians as the main force just because they don't want to deal with buying warhorses and fians are pretty much good out of the box and easy to replace.
 
Mounted troop upkeep is too cheap. For example: compare the Khuzait Heavy Horse archer to the Kuzait Marksman. Same skills, same bow, same upkeep, but one of them is mounted. Similar comparisons can be made for most factions. (I know the horses make them more expensive to create, but that does not matter in the long run if I don't let them die.)

To make matters worse, there's a perk for companions that will half the upkeep of mounted troops in a town's garrison. This makes horsemen better as garrison troops. Why would I ever recruit an archer without a horse? Even if I want archers fighting on foot, I can just order them to dismount.

Proposed fixes:
- Horses eat food
- Horses cost money to upkeep

(I know I can just mod the 2nd, but I want the vanilla game to be good and keep running into nonsense like this.)
Eh I think it's balanced for the player since you either have to have horses (I never seem to have enough War Horses for upgrades) or pay a higher cost for recruitment. (The real problem is the A.I. not needing actual horses for upgrade, that's why there's so much Cavalry in the game. But let's not balance Horse Production or anything like that :roll: )

Considering that if the horseman dies you effectively lose the horse also, I think it's fair.

Also you absolutely want Archers in your castle garrison over Cavalry. Cavalry lose their horses in sieges and thereby most of their advantage and just become rather "meh" foot infantry as result. 50% upkeep reduction may be a bit high (pretty sure it's 15%), but like I said it's silly to garrison Cavalry unless you are literally trying to save money or trying to boost Security.


Okay let's assume it's real late game; and you're rocking a 250 Party all Tier 6 Cavalry. That's 4500 denars a day, that isn't exactly cheap. Also unless you are rocking all Khan's Guard you are going to lose units. And that's just your party. Ideally you should have clan members leading parties so you can form your own army legit. And if you're maxing Garrisons too I guarantee you can burn through money. Heck even Khan's Guard die occasionally. I mean sure if you max out Steward/Medicine you can make the game a breeze. If it's true late game you should be using your excess cash to fully kit out your Companions with the best gear and or bribe Nobles to switch factions.


I strongly encourage people who find the game "too easy" to play on Ironman mode. When you have to own your mistakes and actually suffer defeat sometimes and start over the game takes on a whole other meaning. Very easy to trivialize the whole experience when you can just conveniently reload so that you never ever lose your super elite party.

I mean I get it; historically (and even today) horses are very expensive to maintain. But I think there's much more serious balance issues that need attending first. Also troop wages used to be higher and most everyone complained at the time.


Also I don't think money is really supposed to be an issue late game. I mean royals and nobles were usually pretty loaded. Also if you are actually at peace and you can't rely on battle loot anymore I think you'll find maintaining thousands of T5-T6 units is pretty impractical.

IDK in the grand scheme of things raising the upkeep of cavalry by a few denars (maybe like 1 denar per tier) would be warranted. But very few horseman make better foot troops at their respective tiers, real benefit is party speed.
 
Since it seems rare for most people to have campaign longer than 2-3 years
I suppose that's the core of the problem. The game has birth and death mechanics and a complicated economic system. I was formulating a strategy decades ahead, but the game doesn't take that long apparently.
 
The fact that you are expending 2 horses in almost all instances to get a Tier 5/6 Cav troop, the extra cost is front loaded. Their horse also counts against your herd (foot troops give 1 mount plus 1 animal, while cav just give you the 1 animal) so it's a little loss there.

I'd rather see Tier 6 cav just need a Noble horse expended to obtain one and have that as the balancing metric. Though, if you need 3 horses total in order to get top line cav, they REALLY need to fix herd delivery missions to where extra horses get added into the pool from completing them
 
Cavalry horses don't count against your herd limit, it's more that the horses that are being used for the Footmen on Horses map speed bonus DON'T count against your herd limit.
 
It is trivially easy to get enough money to afford any reasonable upkeep you care to name.
At midgame, sure. But my fur-clad ass ain't buying 30 grain for horses if I can get away with 5 (my pet solution, 3x food for horses, 5x for war horses).

Money would be a useless pain, but having to use the horses to carry extra food? Or even having to feed your Herd?

I know the AI isn't built for it, but horse feed is the malus for horses irl.
 
At midgame, sure. But my fur-clad ass ain't buying 30 grain for horses if I can get away with 5 (my pet solution, 3x food for horses, 5x for war horses).

Money would be a useless pain, but having to use the horses to carry extra food? Or even having to feed your Herd?

I know the AI isn't built for it, but horse feed is the malus for horses irl.
It is but you can carry a lot of food in Bannerlord. Enough for literal in-game years.
 
I've read some other posts on this forum and I see the economy of this game is way more broken than I thought. In hindsight unbalanced, unrealistic cavalry logistics are not its biggest problem.
 
I've read some other posts on this forum and I see the economy of this game is way more broken than I thought. In hindsight unbalanced, unrealistic cavalry logistics are not its biggest problem.
Yep.

I've never really liked the amount of cash you can get from loot, the idea to make it rewarding to occasionally get a higher tier item for cheaper wears off after a short time. The cost of most things in the game becomes trivial as the main way to advance is to fight battles which rewards with huge amounts of money. Between loot, prisoners, and mercenary pay- you can get to 1 million in a couple months.

The only way I could see the current amounts of battle loot being important is if soldiers also needed gear to level up, not every piece but that the party leader would have to supply at least 2 piece of equipment for the soldier to get promoted.
 
Yep.

I've never really liked the amount of cash you can get from loot, the idea to make it rewarding to occasionally get a higher tier item for cheaper wears off after a short time. The cost of most things in the game becomes trivial as the main way to advance is to fight battles which rewards with huge amounts of money. Between loot, prisoners, and mercenary pay- you can get to 1 million in a couple months.

The only way I could see the current amounts of battle loot being important is if soldiers also needed gear to level up, not every piece but that the party leader would have to supply at least 2 piece of equipment for the soldier to get promoted.
But discarded armor and weapons kind of fill that role?
 
I've read some other posts on this forum and I see the economy of this game is way more broken than I thought. In hindsight unbalanced, unrealistic cavalry logistics are not its biggest problem.
The problem, that is often overlooked, is that you, kind of, have to have these very large incomes.

Buying up clans later in the game becomes incredibly costly and thus money have to be easily available. If you truely want to balance the economy around something akin to getting by, on a day-to-day basis, then that endgame moneysink need to be the first thing that that would have to be revised.
 
But discarded armor and weapons kind of fill that role?
How so? I am talking about regular troops, not companions.

If regular units had to get some gear just like companions do- not 100% but at least 2 pieces per troop with the troop expected to find the rest themselves.

Paying 200 to upgrade from 4th to 5th tier when 5th tier has +500,000 value of equipment is just stupid.

The problem, that is often overlooked, is that you, kind of, have to have these very large incomes.

Buying up clans later in the game becomes incredibly costly and thus money have to be easily available. If you truely want to balance the economy around something akin to getting by, on a day-to-day basis, then that endgame moneysink need to be the first thing that that would have to be revised.

Should the end game be about buying up clans? I guess but that is mechanically meaningless- just a money sink if TW simply can not balance the economy in any other way.

I would much prefer having to sway clans by personality and influence with some clans just not going to come over to the player no matter what and other not wanting to because only aligning partially in personality and the player not having enough influence with people of that clan's culture but maybe that is when a bribe would be appropriate.

As it is culture and influence plays too little of a roll while money and not military power per se- but only how many T5 and T6 units players have amassed.
 
Back
Top Bottom