Mercenaries vs. Regular Units

Mercenaries and regular troops conquer settlements which bring in money. When is it better to buy one over the other?

What do we know? Mercenaries are expensive. Mercenaries are instantly available, while regulars spend time waiting to be organized and traveling to battle. So should we grab up all the mercenaries we can, or should our cities be organizing armies to send to the front? Man... that's a tough one. I dunno. Let's move on.

Opening up the mercenary recruitment panel we see a variety of available mercenaries. Let's try comparing one which is a mercenary and a regular.
e.g. Frameharjoz recruitment/upkeep
Regular: 1088/272
Mercenary: 1904/272

Note the regular recruitment cost, mercenary recruitment cost, and difference between the two are multiples of the upkeep:
1088=272x4
1904=272x7
1904-1088=816=272x3
The excess mercenary hiring cost is equal to three upkeeps.

After 3 turns a regular's total cost will equal a mercenary's recruitment cost. If, after that time, a regular cannot reach the front, the mercenary is a better buy. This is even more so, as the increased income through the instantly-strengthened conquering army has been disregarded. Therefore, assuming the above proportions are universal, purchase mercenaries when a regular unit would take three or more turns to reach the front.

Please make corrections if the reasoning is faulty or if there are other things to consider.

You also can't retrain mercs, and they don't have the experience or weapon/armor upgrades regulars can get in some cities.

Most mercs start out with some bronze chevrons.

Not in EB. I did the file myself, most start out with no experience for the time being. Thankfully someone else has taken up the job of handling it and we should have a more sane merc system than the one I slapped together in a couple of hours to make the OB playable.

So there will be experienced mercs for the most part right? Afterall, that's what mercs are. Otherwise, they'd be useless.

No idea, not my department anymore. Although many units are "experienced" within the stats system itself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QwertyMIDX

Not in EB. I did the file myself, most start out with no experience for the time being. Thankfully someone else has taken up the job of handling it and we should have a more sane merc system than the one I slapped together in a couple of hours to make the OB playable.

---

Is this coming in the next release?

I'm not sure; I'm not the guy working on it and I haven't talked to the guy who is in about a week.

Can't you retrain Mercs to get upgrades in EB then? You could in RTW.

If you can't I haven't noticed.

You can retrain for equipment, but not for numbers. and thanks to mmadmaxx for doing that math.

yeah, good stuff:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Can't you retrain Mercs to get upgrades in EB then? You could in RTW.

If you can't I haven't noticed.

---

Yeah you can, but at that point you've had to bring them back a well devloped town and then back to the battle and you've wasted the major advantage mmadmaxx pointed out.

I must confess to hiring mercs for storming walls when my siege equipment is ready.I normally disband them shortly thereafter.The only other time i hire them is in Lepki to help hold of the Ptolemeic hordes.Your regular troops are just too valuable to risk taking large casualties given the distance they need to travel to retrain.This is speaking from a Romani point of view

I find mercs to be a usefull asset especialy when you need to get some men on the line fast. I find some times I will hire mercs on the way to a city to bolster my ranks. Some times I send a general out and the armie that he gets is waht ever I can aford to buy on the way to where he is going. It is not exactly the best tactic, I know, but it dose get the job done in a pinch.

Mercs are great on campaigns far from home, too. They can fill an army very effectively and after battle can be retrained by hiring more mercs and merging them. (not the cheapest strategy but it works) They can also help you cover up weaknesses and add more diversity to your armies, and are great to defend the troops that come from a distant homeland. The main thing i use them for now, though, is cavalry or for a unit that counters the locals (horse archers against horse archers)

I like to use mercs to prevent depopulating my cities - on large or huge unit size, that seems to be an early-game problem. In addition, i use them to get non-phalanx units (as macedon), as well as more cavalry. With all the mines in northern greece (pella makes 21000+ a turn), i can afford them.

This is a very good and sexually attractive question.

I myself have basically survived many wars just through recruiting mercenaries, and the major flaw with them that I have noticed is that they have no backbone.

I'd assume this is because that they are soldiers of fortune and will not be programmed to fight to the bitter end for the faction so to speak and that when the going gets tough, they will run.

Which is a pitty.

Indeed, I must agree that mercs are great when you're campaigning deep inside enemy territory. Those Korinthian hoplites were a godsend in my KH campaign. Though not the most powerful soldiers, they aided in holding my line against the seemingly-endless waves of Heratoi and other Makedonian supersoldiers.