Standard pricing.

[UnOrthOdOx]

We really need to start discussing pricing of rentals.

Proposal, just to start discussion:
H=hammer cost
Rented units: H/2 per 10 turns
Refund: Refund of 1/2 cost for living units returned (H/4)
Purchase of units H*2
Secrecy charge: H/4 (price of secrecy depends on how many mouths you need to pay to keep shut)


This makes it so any unit being held longer than 40 turns is cheaper to buy. I doubt this is going to be an issue, but may as well throw it out there.

Also, what do you guys think of unit renaming:

Rented units get a tag at end of name:

Spearman(GS)

This is to indicate it has been hired to everyone. If the secrecy charge is paid, tag would read:

Spearman(Hired)

Attack of Mercenary units not hired would constitute an act of war.

[polarnomad]

One question about turns hired. Would renting of units begin from the moment they arrive at a pre-arranged destination? If so, then the prices seem fair. If however this is from the moment units leave our borders then we could run into problems as it may take many turns for a unit to arrive to the area of need, making it quite expensive for some teams. We might want to consider a transport surcharge for teams that are far away, and only begin charging rent once units arrive where they are needed.

I like the idea of renaming units, especially with the secrecy clause added to it.

Also, while units are moving to the area of need they could remain neutral merc units and be renamed only upon arrival so as to provide an extra guarantee that they arrive there as other teams will be declaring war on us if they are waylaid en route. Or does this defeat the purpose of the secrecy clause?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Yes, pricing has to start the turn they are delivered.

As for units being attacked in transit, I don't know what the answer to that will be.

[Togas]

The pricing scheme you proposed is a very good point for us to start from. I also concur with the naming policy, to give fair notice to any nation who is considering attacking our units.

I have only 2 concerns with pricing:

1) if we're making the units too expensive or too cheap. Which depends a lot on how much gold is available for trade. If we find that our potential clients can only afford to hire 3-5 units, tops, we may have to lower our price to H/4 (with refund of H/8).

2) How will we factor in the value of techs? How many hammers is a tech worth to us if a civ decides to give us tech in exchange for renting our units?

--Togas

[UnOrthOdOx]

I think we need some public input on how expensive that will be, but H/2 would SEEM reasonable.

Lets see some examples:

Take an Axe, That would be 17 gold, for 10 turns. Returned they would get back 8, making it 9 gold total.

that sounds cheap...especially if we're talking trading techs for 1-1 beaker to gold. Alphabet, for instance is 300 gold, that's what, 15 axemen?

Look at a little later:

Macemen would cost 35 gold
Returned would get 17 back. So 18 gold total.

Techs around right there go for about 1200 or so.

So, we either need to increase the cost to 1 hammer = 1 gold and discount to H/2 or adjust the beaker to gold rate to 2 beakers =1 gold or something.

Let's look at Axemen. I think 10 units is a reasonable number we could expect to be renting at a time. Enough to do something, not enough to fight an entire war. By the time you get Currency, how often do you have 350 gold in the bank? What is your GPT if you wanted to save gold?

I have to think expecting a payment of 170 gold is more reasonable on a sheer gold level. Tech at 2 beakers per gold puts tech trades in roughly that same value, 10 units per tech traded.

Do we want to lessen that to 5 units? That is the question.

Charging Gold = H per unit would be the simplest.
Discount to H/2 on safe return. 35 gold per axeman for 10 turns? 170 gold for 5?

Tech trades need to be done carefully as refunds will need to be done in cash in those cases.

[Togas]

Based on your example, I really like the H/2 for 10 turns formula.

2 beakers for 1 gold sounds like a good starting point as well.

I think that our customers are going to have lofty goals. They're going to expect that hiring us will net them a city, or will signifigantly weaken the enemy's SOD. 5 units against a human player won't make much of an impact in a war. 10 units will turn the tide and will certainly be worth every gold piece they spend.

--Togas

[UnOrthOdOx]

Alright, I think we have enough to get a discussion going on in the public forum.

Prepare for some possible fallout and complaints that we are breaking rules by posting anything of any kind on the public forum.

[polarnomad]

Just checked out your public post. Looks good!

So if a unit is requested to report to an area of need by team x, will the unit be renamed "Unit(x)" while in transit, or will it be renamed only once it arrives at the destination?

[Kloreep]

I tend to agree with those posting that there should be some sort of refund if a unit is returned with experience gained.

Likewise, I think the other side of the coin should apply, with a penalty for losing our high-experience units.

We want people to get our units experience if possible, and we don't want them treating our highly experienced units less than their great value. Especially not throwing them in as cannon fodder as often as they do those with only starting XP. We should have monetary incentives to encourage both behaviors.

[OzzyKP]

Transit seems to pose challenges for us.

Our client wouldn't be renting them during transit, but the enemy to our client would certainly recognize where our units are going and what purpose they serve. It would definitely be likely to expect attacks on our troops in transit.

What would happen then? Would we declare war formally? How would that affect our contract with the client?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Indeed, transport will be cause for a lot of thought.

On the Experience, Kloreep.

I agree with the principle behind it, but things become VERY messy if we try to start putting prices on experience. I don't see a way to keep it simple and easy to calculate or predict. 2 things essential for teams being able to plan on hiring us.

[Kloreep]

UnO: It's a lot of paperwork. So it could end up being a timesuck for the hiring of large armies. But it really only requires proper documentation by us at time of hiring + comparison to how things end up in the end. E.g. when someone hires, a list is created thus:

Swordsman Inigo Montoya - 6
Axeman Fezzik - 5
Archer Vizzini - 6

When the units are returned, a list is created of the survivors and their experience:

Swordsman Inigo Montoya - 7
Axeman Fezzik - 5

We see that Vizzini is dead. Assuming that base XP is only 4 (thus barracks standard at this point, but neither XP civic), we'd charge the hirer for 2 "dead experince points." Fezzik did not gain experience but is alive, so they'd get the refund for bringing a unit back alive. And Inigo Montoya gained an XP point, so they'd get a refund plus a bonus for gaining the unit an XP point.

This system would be pretty simple once we put a price on an XP point. And initial pricing stays the same; all fees and refunds regarding experience are charged afterward, once we see if any high-XP units we gave them have actually been lost (or created).

It's true that it makes the final price a little unpredictable. Things could balance out if our units fight a well-balanced campaign, taking predictable losses but gaining the survivors some XP. But it's also true that some high fees could be faced by the hirers should our units be wiped out. But the alternative I see is not making any price difference between the death of 0 XP unit and a 10 XP unit (or returning a 0 XP unit to us still without XP, or with 10 XP!)

[OzzyKP]

If we are going to give people a discount for gaining us XP, then are we going to charge more for units based on their XP as well?

[UnOrthOdOx]

Paperwork = messy to me.

It just sounds like work I really don't want to be doing. I don't want to make this a chore. If there's someone that really wants to get into it and manage this aspect, I'm all for the idea.

Another way to look at it would be levels.

Level 1 units are defaul, Level 2 units cost X extra any unit that gains a level and is returned safely will be refunded X/2 on top of base refund.

Something like that.

From the Hiring Team's perspective, a 10 xp unit and a 16 xp unit are equal value, why should they pay extra for the 16?

[Kloreep]

Levels would have to be kept track of on a before-after basis just like XP. Not really any less paperwork. And I would be willing to handle it myself when I'm around; it's just a two-time thing, when they're sent off and then when they return.

I agree that there is not much real difference between 10 and 16 XP for the hiring team. (There certainly is a little. The 16 XP could gain a promotion if it survives its first battle, giving them not only a more valuable unit in any further battles, but some quick healing for it if it survives a turn on defense.) As such, I agree that hiring prices should not be based on straight XP if we can avoid it. But again, look at the alternative... if we agree with the Hiring Team that there is no difference between a 10 XP unit and a 16 XP unit, we are agreeing that there is no difference between sending the 10 XP unit against bad odds (in order to soften up a target or what have you) and sending the 16 XP unit into the same battle.

It depends somewhat on who's making decisions. If we are given leeway to take/destroy Target Z with X units however we see fit, then I suppose I could accept any loss of high-XP units as being on our heads. But if they are giving orders, I do not want there to be no difference between suiciding a 10 XP unit and a 16 XP unit.

Still, pricing rentals on XP does have the advantage of not causing problems when we get to upgrades. (What if a unit w/ 4 promotions, thus very valuable, is upgraded and has its XP drop back down to 10? It would be severely undervalued.) I could agree to price rentals based on that, but it still leaves the problem of not placing any value on XP that has not yet earned another level.