Re: Swordsmen versus Archers

**Tarenth** · 04-01-2008, 11:11 PM

The math is WAY WAY off there and I'm glad I'm not the only person to think the numbers are off now. ^_^

3h 21m 7s = 12067 seconds
32g/hour = 32 gold per 3600 seconds
12067 / 3600 = 3.35194...
32 * 3.35194... = 107.26 gold additional upkeep
64 * 3.35194... = 214.52 gold total upkeep

62g/hour = 62 gold per 3600 seconds
64 * 3.35194... = 214.52 gold additional upkeep
128 * 3.35194... = 429.05 gold total upkeep

See? The 'total cost' for the swordsman only covers the additional upkeep instead of both the natural cost and the additional (32 for the unit and 32 for being abroad). While the total cost of the archer is closer to true since it adds the additional upkeep to the natural upkeep.

**Turbinator** · 04-02-2008, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by El_Gringo_Grande

They can't multiply.

lol, like gringo said.

obviously a bug

**RedTalon** · 04-02-2008, 02:52 PM

Actually I think it might be a display bug, and is calculated in your gold correctly.

I Sent out 1 Archer to city X and my gold income went from -279 to -308 a difference of 29

Sent 1 swordsman to the same city and gold went from -253 to -268 a difference of 15

So taking in account there is population growth in 3 cities even the second it took me to take the two amounts things changed it still gives you an idea. For the 1 archer his cost jumped by 29 which is close to 32 his upkeep cost. So this seems right, if gold income was -32 with just the 1 archer hired sitting in a city, then you sent him out gold income of your empire would go to -64. Which is a difference of 32 (64-32). Likewise the swordsman jumped 15 which is close to his cost of 16.

So basically what this means is the display of the swordsman estimated cost is about 5 times what it should be. I actual game workings, and not game display, it is half the price to send a swordsmen. Also after doing some other math found out the displayed estimated cost is for the trip there and back but not the 20min spent pillaging. I am not sure if this is counted or not. Either way I would not trust the estimated price father then I could throw it. Lastly the reason I got a difference of 29 when I should have gotten 32 might have been due to population growth but it might also have been due to the wonder on the island, Ares' Stronghold. Which reduces troops costs, which is said to work but just not display properly on reported bugs. I always assumed it meant resource cost, but if this is the case then sending large attack fleets off from an island with this wonder could be a money saver on those long distance attacks. Going to need to do some more testing to figure this out.

**geologist** · 04-04-2008, 04:05 PM

I've found that the estimated costs are no where near accurate, or so it seems. If they were, I would have to sell a lot more pillage than I currently do.

**Tarenth** · 04-04-2008, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by RedTalon

Actually I think it might be a display bug, and is calculated in your gold correctly.

I Sent out 1 Archer to city X and my gold income went from -279 to -308 a difference of 29

Sent 1 swordsman to the same city and gold went from -253 to -268 a difference of 15

So taking in account there is population growth in 3 cities even the second it took me to take the two amounts things changed it still gives you an idea. For the 1 archer his cost jumped by 29 which is close to 32 his upkeep cost. So this seems right, if gold income was -32 with just the 1 archer hired sitting in a city, then you sent him out gold income of your empire would go to -64. Which is a difference of 32 (64-32). Likewise the swordsman jumped 15 which is close to his cost of 16.

So basically what this means is the display of the swordsman estimated cost is about 5 times what it should be. I actual game workings, and not game display, it is half the price to send a swordsmen. Also after doing some other math found out the displayed estimated cost is for the trip there and back but not the 20min spent pillaging. I am not sure if this is counted or not. Either way I would not trust the estimated price father then I could throw it. Lastly the reason I got a difference of 29 when I should have gotten 32 might have been due to population growth but it might also have been due to the wonder on the island, Ares' Stronghold. Which reduces troops costs, which is said to work but just not display properly on reported bugs. I always assumed it meant resource cost, but if this is the case then sending large attack fleets off from an island with this wonder could be a money saver on those long distance attacks. Going to need to do some more testing to figure this out.

There is another reason actually. By the time you research ballistics you've already picked up both Maps and Code of Honor. That means your upkeep costs are reduced by 6% to 94% of normal.

Swordsman 16g/h -> 15g/h
Archer 32g/h -> 30g/h

That would explain why the 'hard numbers' (the numbers shown on your details page) would match up and is further proof that the estimate is so far out of left field that they're playing soccer.

**RedTalon** · 04-04-2008, 07:34 PM

forgot about that tarenth, ya so the numbers would match up then.

**Turbo** · 04-06-2008, 11:20 PM

For some reason it cost more to send a Ram ship to blockade then to send a Ballista ship which is better.

Maybe better units cost less to send?

**machowner** · 04-06-2008, 11:25 PM

Originally Posted by geologist

I've found that the estimated costs are no where near accurate, or so it seems. If they were, I would have to sell a lot more pillage than I currently do.

I never really thought about that. I don't hardly sell anything, but I do a lot of pillaging and not always on cities with high gold scores. In fact I mostly hit guys with low scores in hopes that their low score is due to having all the working in the mine/sawmill.

**WhiskeySix** · 04-06-2008, 11:54 PM

estimated travel times are often quite wrong too :/

Thread Tools

Display