Mercenaries: Cheaper than I thought.

I always assumed that mercenaries were an expensive alternative to native troops and they do appear to cost twice as much to raise.

But I was surprised to note that some of their upkeep costs are much lower than native troops.

For example:

Native Skirmishers: 180 recruit cost/170 upkeep
Libyan Mercenaries: 350 recruit cost/100 upkeep

and

Native Archers: 240 recruit cost/250 upkeep
Cretan Archers: 750 recruit cost/200 upkeep

However

Greek Hoplites: 850 recuit cost/170 upkeep

are as expensive to keep as

Nile Spearmen: 350 recruit cost/170 upkeep

So, it seems that in the long term some mercenaries troops might work out cheaper than native variants. For instance it would not take long for the cheaper upkeep costs of Libyan Mercenaries to compensate for their initially high recuitment cost.

With regards to the Libyan mercs I had not noticed the low upkeep. That would make them useful garrison troops. However, their weaker stats compensate for their low upkeep to a degree. Compared to the Numidian and Carthaginian javelinmen the mercs have 1 point less each in attack and charge bonus in both missile and melee weapons (5/1 and 2/1 vs 6/2 and 3/2). They have lower defensive stats (0/1/2 vs 0/2/2) They also have a lower mental state (2 vs. 4) which makes them prone to rout easily.

Mercs are often a mixed bag. Compare the merc spanish infantry with Scutarii. The scutarii have missile attack of 13/4 vs. 11/2 for the mercs, melee of 9/4 vs. 7/2, and armour of 5/2/5 vs 3/4/5. Interestingly the native troops have lower upkeep in this instance, despite superior combat stats.

With mercs you definintely need to read the fine print... ~;)

One thing I use cheap mercs for is to raise garrison troops in towns with small populations that I don't want to deplete.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

One thing I use cheap mercs for is to raise garrison troops in towns with small populations that I don't want to deplete.

---

Well thats my main reason for using them too.

Playing an Egyptian campaign on huge unit scale I soon discovered that I couldn't raise native troops without stripping my cities of manpower so I have been relying almost entirely on mercenaries for my armies out of necessity.

However, at last I have both Alexandria and Memphis with populations over 24,000 and so I am able to use both these cities as troop resources. It was when comparing the fighting abilities of these native troops with the Mercenaries that I noticed the cost differences weren't what I expected.

I am now considering using native troops for my main battle line units of Nile Spearmen and sticking to mercenaries for the skirmish support.