[Kjeld]

Not to argue about which is best, but the costs make a lot of sense.

According to what I have seen thus far, the gold cost of an unit is more or less tied to its quality, professionalism and special powers, regardless of equipment (at least, when comparing units of the same nation/theme) : thus, units with higher morale, higher base attack, defense, hit points, berserking, or beeing sacred will cost higher.

The ressource cost of an unit is entirely dependant on its equipment, the heavier the armor and the weapons, the more it costs, and every additional items (helms, shields, additional missile attacks ...) add to the cost.

Gold and ressource cost do not have to be tied to each other. That's just why mages leaders costs a huge amount of gold and a very low amount of ressources, heh. Putting an heavy armor on a militia will cost the same (in resource) as putting the same armor on a seasoned soldier. A grizzled veteran will need to be paid more (in gold) than a blue militia

Considering that, the cost of spearmens vs huscarls are completely understandable. Huscarls are quality, elite troops, with higher morale and base (unmodified by equipment) combat stats, but more lightly armored (scale vs chain) than regular spearmen. Thus, a higher gold cost, and a lower ressource cost.

PS : you also forgot upkeep costs (in gold). Huscarls will overall cost you more in the long run, because their wages are directly poportional to their base cost.

Now, anyone is entitled to his opinion about whether *you* value pure protection or better overall prowess more (or whether Jotunheim should have recieved an elite AND heavily armored unit or not), considering the always highly situational choices you have to make (sometimes you are starved for ressources, sometimes for gold). But the costs are completely logical, not bizarre, when you know what resource and gold costs are supposed to represent.