Auxiliaries/Mercenaries

Anyone who has read "The Prince" will know that using mercenaries and auxiliaries are ill-advised when compared to having a standing national army. However, it is completely unrealistic that all settlements should be able to turn out "National" or "Core" units like in RTW.

A more realistic approach would be like that of EB where you recruit auxiliary troops from your conquered provinces. For a compromise they could make it so that you can recruit auxiliaries for a "normal" price in conquered foreign territories (at reduced morale) or pay a lot more for "National" troop types. After a certain occupation time the province could be considered sufficiently nationalised so that you can start producing National units.

It would also be more realistic that mercenaries can be recruited by diplomats (if the campaign map follows the old format) and moved across the map to join your forces. However, the real point of this post is that both, although easy/quick/cheap should eventually pose problems. In RTW mercenaries were somewhat flaky, which is great....that's how they should be; their morale should be much lower as they are just paid to fight, and it doesn't matter if they win or lose really....just that they live.

Auxiliaries should of course have problems of their own, from reduced morale to reduced loyalty....and (fingers crossed) if civil wars are back in, recruiting too many auxiliaries compared to national troops could be one of the causes of this.

In fact, I think CA should just have a good read of the aforementioned book since it deals with (almost) this time period and the political climate of the (later) era.

Anyone got any thoughts on how they'd like this kind of thing to be handled?

Whats EU? Was that a typo for EB?

Well I've not played Europa Barborum, but I've played RTR which I think has a similar system to your suggesting. Recruiting troops that are not typical of your own faction. IE. Romans occupy Alesia in RTW, Romans can thus recruit gallic warbands. I liked that alot, adds something to the game.

Yes....I meant EB....I play Europa Universalis II too much :confused:

Maybe they could make it so you can only recruit local and standard troops right after conquering the province, but after a while, converting the province to your culture, you would be able to make your "national" troops.

I think keep it as it is.

Its known that conquering armies recruited the local populace of conquered provinces and made them copies of their original army, albiet of less quality.

So its still realistic, you can raise your faction troops in conquered provinces but they wouldn't have that armor/sword upgrade that you have in your original provinces.

Yes perhaps, but I still think you should be able to recruit local troops... F. ex highlanders if you control Scotland, etc...

Exactly....you had that feature in MTW, being able to recruit Highlanders/Gallowglasses/?Jinettes?....it should be in the sequel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GFX707

Anyone who has read "The Prince" will know that using mercenaries and auxiliaries are ill-advised when compared to having a standing national army. However, it is completely unrealistic that all settlements should be able to turn out "National" or "Core" units like in RTW.

A more realistic approach would be like that of EB where you recruit auxiliary troops from your conquered provinces. For a compromise they could make it so that you can recruit auxiliaries for a "normal" price in conquered foreign territories (at reduced morale) or pay a lot more for "National" troop types. After a certain occupation time the province could be considered sufficiently nationalised so that you can start producing National units.

It would also be more realistic that mercenaries can be recruited by diplomats (if the campaign map follows the old format) and moved across the map to join your forces. However, the real point of this post is that both, although easy/quick/cheap should eventually pose problems. In RTW mercenaries were somewhat flaky, which is great....that's how they should be; their morale should be much lower as they are just paid to fight, and it doesn't matter if they win or lose really....just that they live.

Auxiliaries should of course have problems of their own, from reduced morale to reduced loyalty....and (fingers crossed) if civil wars are back in, recruiting too many auxiliaries compared to national troops could be one of the causes of this.

In fact, I think CA should just have a good read of the aforementioned book since it deals with (almost) this time period and the political climate of the (later) era.

Anyone got any thoughts on how they'd like this kind of thing to be handled?

---

I agree - in rtr i was completely owning as pontus using just mercs; it felt wrong (but was great fun :) )

How about like the religious conversion in BI so you know how many people you converted

I agree with King Yngvar's point. It would be funnest and historically accurate at the same time if when you conquer a province you can recruit local forces (in the form of mercenaries) but I think you should only be able to build your standard units and non-mercenary local forces once you've built up the province a bit. Like you have to in RTR with the auxillia phase buildings. For example in the Hundred Years War, the English could (after a while) recruit archers from Normandy, in a similar way to how they did in England. This was due to the fact that after a period of time English laws and customs began to be implemented in the conquered territories.