So I'm up to some shenanigins again regarding the cost of various troop types and I'd like your thoughts. Troop costs in ACKS are unique because of all the real world economics that you put in to the figures. I've done some conversions of old "twin cities" material andI'm interested in comparing the costs of troop types in ACKS with a conversion I've done of the Troop costs from Dave Arneson's pre D&D Napoleonics campaign (light cav with light cav, infantry with infantry and so on).
Here is the issue, similar to what we see in the "Coot Invasion" material in the FFC, Arneson's Napoleonic campaign had an initial purchase cost, (for example 13 pounds sterling for light cav), followed by a 5% upkeep cost (per month I think). (I'm using an 8.3 gp per late 18th century pound rate) I think I have two choices if I wanted to compare the conversion to ACKS figures. The easiest basis for comparison would be the slave troop type table on page 250, but there is also the Mercenary Troop Type on page 52. The Mercenary table could be converted to a comparable purchase price by multiplying the monthly cost by 20.
Since you created these tables and know the assumptions behind them I figured I better ask you which of those two will give me a more apples to apples comparison, or if there is some other cost table that would work better.
Not having Arneson's numbers in front of me, I cannot be sure, but I would imagine that the appropriate cost to use would be the cost to train and equip conscripts as a particular troop type. Slave troops have a higher upfront cost because you do not have to pay them high wages later.
For instance, light cavalry cost 306gp to conscript, train and equip, and 30gp per month thereafter; while slave light cavalry cost 1,150gp to buy, but only 3gp per month thereafter.
That said, I'm not sure how helpful that is. Just using what you shared, 13 pounds sterling for light cavalry at 8.3gp / pound would translate to 107gp upfront and 5.35gp per month thereafter - roughly one-third the upfront cost and one-sixth the monthly cost.
I suspect - given mass mobilization, less armor, and nationalist fervor - that troops were relatively less expensive and less well-paid in the 18th century then they were in Antiquity. That explains substantially larger armies without necessity of the total-war government of Rome. I'm just musing, though.
[quote="Alex"]
.....For instance, light cavalry cost 306gp to conscript, train and equip, and 30gp per month thereafter; while slave light cavalry cost 1,150gp to buy, but only 3gp per month thereafter.
[/quote]
Interesting. Yeah, that's the sort of comparison I was after. I don't see that figure in the ACKS book, is it from DOW or something?
[quote="Alex"]
.
I suspect - given mass mobilization, less armor, and nationalist fervor - that troops were relatively less expensive and less well-paid in the 18th century then they were in Antiquity. That explains substantially larger armies without necessity of the total-war government of Rome. I'm just musing, though.
[/quote]
Yeah could be. Seems likely cost would be less in the Napoleonic era.