Why do mercenaries suck?

One is reminded of the warnings of Machiavelli regarding the use of mercenaries :book:

Playing as Byzantilium last night I was forced to rely on mercs to bulk out my army in order to hold off the Turks. And was reminded once again of just how much mercs suck.

Fresh, full strength Saracen Infantry and Italian Infantry in ordered ranks fleeing when charged head on by Horse Archers!!! :charge:

GAH!

Anyway, I should've remembered how easily mercs flee from the battlefield. I never seen it in writing, but I assume they receive some kind of morale penalty? Only explanation for their consistent cowardice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Machiavelli

Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy. The fact is, they have no other attraction or reason for keeping the field than a trifle of stipend, which is not sufficient to make them willing to die for you. They are ready enough to be your soldiers whilst you do not make war, but if war comes they take themselves off or run from the foe; which I should have little trouble to prove, for the ruin of Italy has been caused by nothing else than by resting all her hopes for many years on mercenaries, and although they formerly made some display and appeared valiant amongst themselves, yet when the foreigners came they showed what they were.

---

I dunno if its Hardcoded or not but I can see why in real life they would suck.

Mercenaries are paid for the job at hand. They have no allegance to anyone and they would stab you in the back if your enemy came up with a higher price.

The reason I can see why they would run quicker would be like a Chinese Tourist running if (I live in Oregon, USA) the Oregon coastline was being attacked by Russians. They don't care about my empire, my code of honor or my way of life. But, because my nationality is from the U.S., I would go to the coast and do whatever I could do to defend.

Same idea applies. If someone paid me money (A big sum too) to stay and bulk up the army I would do a good job doing it. I would march and engage in combat like a "National Solder" would but if things got hairy or there is a better than not chance that I am going to die or be captured, I would drop everything and get the hell out.

But, like I said before, my country is being invaded by an army that was completely ruthless and evil. I would do everything I could, even giving up my own life to try and protect my family, friends, and loved ones. I would be more likely to fight against worst odds than as a Merc.

Well, thats at least my logic.

Also, you mentioned Cowardness.

I don't think so, to be a Mercenary - you must be attracted to the idea of killing others. If you didn't, you would be a farmer. I bet Mercenaries in real life back then were ruthless thugs and murderers that made money off of warfare or assasinations.

I dunno if you all know this but I was watching the History Channel and back then, Ransoming back prisoners was a big deal, more like an investment than for mercy of the POW's. Entire battles as well as battleplans were based on Ransom purposes. Mercenaries would get a share of this as well as their skyrocketed rate for being in the army to begin with. I mean, has anyone went straight for the king not only to crush the enemy but because you really needed that ransom money, I would be lying to say that I haven't.

Want more proof, watch or if they revised it after recent evidence has been found - look up the battle of Agincourt.
About 1500 British (give or take a few hundred, it was on earlier this week on the History Channel, went up against 20,000 French solders AND WON. To top it off, the British army was made of nothing but Archers and ONE Men at Arms. The French had Two Crossbow units, a bunch of Men at Arms and Knights.

Yeah, the weather and the lack of armor for the English helped out because a lot of the Armored Knights got stuck in the mud and drowned. Most of the English was wearing cloth so this wasn't a problem for them. Other were too crowed in the "Natural Funnel" that was there and crushed each others but the main reason (YES I HAVE A POINT) they won is because the ENTIRE FRENCH ARMY (NEGLECTING THE CROSSBOWMEN I MIGHT ADD) rushed the Men at Arms for the better ransom leaving the Longbowmen (Which are considered a garbage unit) to attack and surround the French from the sides. And anyone who plays this game knows what that means.

Also, I might add that after extensive research, the longbow's arrows COULD NOT PENETRATE the newer steel plating that the French had that day. The tips of the Arrows was made of Iron and buckeled when in a direct hit against the French Armor.

The casulties were a lot higher than they should be because the English King (Who was commander in the battle and was competent unlike in this game) choose to EXECUTE ALL CAPTIVE FRENCH SOLDERS FOR FEAR THAT THEY WOULD STRIKE BACK. Once again, no mercy rules the forum board.

The only thing that I wish I knew is was it FMAA or CMAA that the English had that day?

In Conclusion, it was nice to have something intelligent to add or read without having to wait for Eatyourgreens to add his half page worth of two cents.

I just saw this at Dailyrotten.com

AUG 20 1191
Crusaders massacre 3,000 bound Muslim prisoners at Acre, after a breakdown in negotiations over payment of their ransom. The kinllings take place in full view of the army from which they were taken.

Like I said, ransom was about everything back then.

Yes, I know all about ransom. Not sure what the long post about Agincourt had to do with Mercs sucking in MTW, but anyway. Oh, and the documentary you refer to was on UK telly a year or 2 ago, and it got slaughtered on the boards here. I remember one post by Frogbeastegg that comprehensively tore apart the program and summed it up. It can be found here

My comment about cowardice was to do with mercenaries in THE GAME not real life.

Edit: Found link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

One is reminded of the warnings of Machiavelli regarding the use of mercenaries :book:

Playing as Byzantilium last night I was forced to rely on mercs to bulk out my army in order to hold off the Turks. And was reminded once again of just how much mercs suck.

Fresh, full strength Saracen Infantry and Italian Infantry in ordered ranks fleeing when charged head on by Horse Archers!!! :charge:

GAH!

Anyway, I should've remembered how easily mercs flee from the battlefield. I never seen it in writing, but I assume they receive some kind of morale penalty? Only explanation for their consistent cowardice.

---

Playing on Expert, I've never noted a mercenary morale penalty compared to an equivalent unit of my own construction. In fact, there have been several battles in my campaigns (one bridge battle invoving a single merc who gnawed thru the enemy was particularly memorable) where mercenary units won the day for me.

The drawbacks to mercenaries that I see are several:
1) they can't be merged, so their valor gains mean less and less as the unit is attritted.
2) they can't receive titles, so any acumen owned is not useful to you.
3) their command stars are insecure, as every casualty in the merc general's unit is irreparable (see point 1 above).
4) their maintenance cost is double a regular unit's - large numbers of mercs drain the treasury at an alarming rate.

There are probably other points to be made on this issue - I'm just not remembering them now. :thinking2:
Given that most players are aware of their drawbacks, I suspect that mercs get used more recklessly than regular troops. That puts them in more precarious positions, and leads to more frequent routs - which may be what you're seeing. But at the same valor, in the same positions, I see no combat differences between merc and regular units. :toff:

If only MTW had a realistic system for peacetime armies etc. Then mercs would be veteran units rather than cheap cannon fodder.

I don't know guys. I made the point in another post that even though mercs have drawbacks, they are there for a reason. When you are taking heavy losses or are just plain getting attacked from 4 directions (especially early in the game), mercs can be the deal breaker. The have saved my ass countless times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Wolf

I don't know guys. I made the point in another post that even though mercs have drawbacks, they are there for a reason. When you are taking heavy losses or are just plain getting attacked from 4 directions (especially early in the game), mercs can be the deal breaker. The have saved my ass countless times.

---

I'll second that! I don't like hiring a lot of mercs on a regular basis, of course; but I've had quite a few games where they meant the difference between success and my kingdom completely disintegrating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

Yes, I know all about ransom. Not sure what the long post about Agincourt had to do with Mercs sucking in MTW, but anyway. Oh, and the documentary you refer to was on UK telly a year or 2 ago, and it got slaughtered on the boards here. I remember one post by Frogbeastegg that comprehensively tore apart the program and summed it up. It can be found here


Edit: Found link

---

Heh. I just checked out that thread. I have to admit, it was pretty fun watching Froggy systematically dismantle every single part of their argument. That show must have made her furious! ~:eek:

I have noticed some behavior that seemed inconsistent with my expectations; I've seen 0 valor mercs under a low command rank general break a lot sooner than they should have, but I've also seen mercs fight down to the last couple of men.

My explanation has something to do with individual unit characteristics, something like a vice, but I've never gathered any hard evidence, just anecdotal observations.

ichi :bow:

Mercenaries are a cheap way to pwnz0r everything at the beginning of the game. Just blitz every province and build an inn and get out as many khwarazimian cavalry and italian infantry as you can to sweep aside the urban milita and spearmen of your enemies. As the Aragonese in early expert I once managed to conquer france and western germany by around 1120. As the game progresses though, the advantage they give you is lessenned and their expense suddenly becomes more of an issue. It is best not to buy too many and keep them conquerring early on, so when it seems the merc rush is dying down you are left with units of 20 elites who are worth their pay.

:looks about the Main Hall: Hmm, a bit quieter, but everything else is still the same as I remember it. Not posted in here in ages; barely even read the place for longer. But then I've only recently started to play MTW again, albeit in a very idle '1 turn a week' sort of way.

Quote:

---

Link

---

~:eek: That was before I learned the finer points of writing, and if I remember correctly I was in something of a hurry as I wrote it. It shows. Gah!

Quote:

---

Heh. I just checked out that thread. I have to admit, it was pretty fun watching Froggy systematically dismantle every single part of their argument. That show must have made her furious! ~:eek:

---

I have a real dislike for these kind of so called history programs like this. I've seen many worse, and there were some good ones, but the profusion of crappy, infuriating documentaries is why I gave up watching any of them well over half a year ago. I stick to reading my history books now; they can easily outdo even the better documentaries by the simple fact of being a book, and therefore able to go into plenty of detail, give evidence and references, take as long as is needed to cover the subject well, and (if you choose the right books) do not need some controversial idea to centre the whole thing about. I can't stand inaccurate or plain daft 'history' being handed out; people beleive it, then it takes years of fighting for the misconceptions to be dismissed and mended. The damage that can do to the subject is ... painful.



To address the point of the thread, I've never seen anything about mercenaries being weaker in any way than ordinary troops. But it's been something like a year and a half since I last played the game, so how much the frog's word is worth is anyone's guess. I do recall other people making this same complaint though, but I think always another cause was found.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frogbeastegg

[edit]

To address the point of the thread, I've never seen anything about mercenaries being weaker in any way than ordinary troops. But it's been something like a year and a half since I last played the game, so how much the frog's word is worth is anyone's guess. I do recall other people making this same complaint though, but I think always another cause was found.

---

Hey FBE, good to see you again! Been a while since I've seen you in this part of the forum.

Well using using mercs *are* pretty hit-and-miss, at least for me. I should (in the spirit of honesty) admit that mercs have failed me at the exact wrong moment almost as often as they've saved me. You never know for sure how well they'll stand up in an actual combat situation. It's caused me to sometimes wonder if they're coded with a "random-morale factor" or something.....

That would make alot of sense. I never really had a problem with the Mercs but I have notice they are a bit... well... inconsisten. The random morale thing would make a lot of sense, in that being of a transient nature, even thier mood would be more prone to change rapidly.

I just try to make sure I give them a decent Genral - using 0 valour mercs without a decent general never seems to go very well for me... heh heh

so I stopped ~D

DE

I loved your post Froggy as this program aired in America several months ago. Documentaries have been getting more and more 'jumpy' and retarded. Honestly, the aparent need to 'rediscover' history and change assumptions that may or may not be correct is retarded. Especially when profound alterations to history are proved in 30 minutes.

I rather respected alot of the British Documentaries that get shown on History Channel, but this made me sad at the base stupidity involved. I mean, it's a British documentary, it's supposed to be smart!

Hell, I think Armageddon was more scientific that that thing.

I really love the HIstory channel... I'm not much of a TV person, but HC does it for me. Unfortunately it seems that they run about the same 15 episodes of 5 shows for the last year. I mean... there's only so many times in 3 months one can see a "special" on the Nazi Gold Train. After the first 6 times it's not special anymore. I would love it if they dod a little bit more of new programming.

Hey, I didn't say it was a 100% accurate or even worth watching. But it did spawn the idea to study the battle further. The only reason why I posted it was because it seemed that the whole battle was based around Ransom and I found that maybe it would help with a point or two.

Ever since I was a kid learning how to read, I would rather get my information through a book or now the new hightech books - the internet - instead of the History Channel or other programming.

It just was interesting, thats all.

If mercs are good for one thing, its getting a few units that you normally could not get. Example, Longbowmen are good merc groups, they tend to stay out of combat so they build valor and live a long time. Siege weapons are also good, that way if they get tore up, you don't have to wait two years to build another one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

If mercs are good for one thing, its getting a few units that you normally could not get. Example, Longbowmen are good merc groups, they tend to stay out of combat so they build valor and live a long time. Siege weapons are also good, that way if they get tore up, you don't have to wait two years to build another one.

---

I hire siege weapons as well, especially in the early game when all I can build are ballistas and maybe catapults. It's nice being able to add some mangonels and trebuchets to one's arsenal. ~D

Yeah, I do agree that mercs are a very useful way to get siege engines in early.

The point about using mercs for missile units is one I'd not considered before.

Although as I'm currently playing as Byzantium and get +1 Trebizond Archers and +1 Bulgarian Brigands I shouldn't need merc archers ~;)

Yeah, mercs are GREAT for sieges. You can get Bombards in early if you're in the East. I also have to agree that archers are great merc units. I always stock up on archers to hold out against the Camel Hordes and the Mongu-Dai.

You can get Polearm units too. I think the best role of mercs is to fillout specialized niches for balanced armies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budwise

Want more proof, watch or if they revised it after recent evidence has been found - look up the battle of Agincourt.
About 1500 British (give or take a few hundred, it was on earlier this week on the History Channel, went up against 20,000 French solders AND WON. To top it off, the British army was made of nothing but Archers and ONE Men at Arms. The French had Two Crossbow units, a bunch of Men at Arms and Knights.

---

I belive there were about 6-7.000 British vs. about 20.000 French. The brits had 5000 longbows, the rest were Men at Arms and a low number of knight. It was an impressive battle, love seeing programs and read books about it :book:

I'm finding that so of the Cav mercs can be helpful it the desert (if you play a catholic faction) can help. Many units of the units you can get are better then the Mounted Sargeants you would normally have to take into the heat with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m52nickerson

I'm finding that so of the Cav mercs can be helpful it the desert (if you play a catholic faction) can help. Many units of the units you can get are better then the Mounted Sargeants you would normally have to take into the heat with you.

---

Or you can just do what I do, which is to play as the Spanish all the time and descend on the Muslims with hordes of Jinnettes. ~D

Jinettes > j00 until they bring out the camel stick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mount Suribachi

Anyway, I should've remembered how easily mercs flee from the battlefield. I never seen it in writing, but I assume they receive some kind of morale penalty? Only explanation for their consistent cowardice.

---

I recall reading that mercenaries got a -2 morale penalty, but it was a long time ago so I am not entirely sure. You could test it by hiring merc Byzantine infantry (or another Byzantine unit), send it into battle with a non-merc collegue, and use F1 to see if there is a difference in morale. Sadly, I do not have M:TW installed on this computer, so I cannot check.

But the scenario you describe is very extreme. Were there any other penalties other than being charged by cavalry: outflanking, misile fire, champion-runner general?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Jinettes > j00 until they bring out the camel stick.

---

Jinette sees camel, Jinette switches to skirmish mode using javelins. Camel run speed = 14 (charge = 16), Jinette run speed = 24 (charge = 26). Who's going to catch who in this scenario?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezer57

Jinette sees camel, Jinette switches to skirmish mode using javelins. Camel run speed = 14 (charge = 16), Jinette run speed = 24 (charge = 26). Who's going to catch who in this scenario?

---

Good to know! :stunned: I forsee bad times ahead for the camel
population :evil3: .

javelins suck

Two things to remember.

First Jinettes get four shots before running empty, and these are best used on elite armored troops.

Second, Javelins can suck, but they can also be deadly. They are quite effective when trying to break down a high valor elite armored unit holding a bridge or hole in a castle. Place them on Hold Form in deep formation and order them right up behind your good inf, then manually order them to toss their pointies at the toughest enemy unit.

Javelins can also work well in the open skirmishing against enemy inf. Just don't let them try to melee. They can kill some or at the very least, exhaust an enemy unit trying to chase them down.

ichi :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geezer57

Jinette sees camel, Jinette switches to skirmish mode using javelins. Camel run speed = 14 (charge = 16), Jinette run speed = 24 (charge = 26). Who's going to catch who in this scenario?

---

Easy, the Berber Camel when they fire back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budwise

Easy, the Berber Camel when they fire back.

---

Exactly - never mix them up with plain Camels: they are deadly in desert. You can try to take Berbers out with a horse archer if you have a height advantage or archer + fast cavalry combo.

I use mercenaries for three things.

Mercenaries are primarily for absorbing casualties and filling out a line so your national troops can flank and destroy the enemy and get the Valour. Lovely Italian Light Infantry and pretty much any Muslim foot fill that position nicely.

My secondary use of mercenaries is for throwaway cavalry. In this form they are the disposable RPG of the medieval era, to chase down a thicket of archers or get a quick charge in faster than my knights can get there. Light horse and Horse Archers are preffered, along with Jinettes. When a couple brigades of Khwazariman are going to stomp on my flank a bit before I can break their line, harassing mercenaries force them to chase, and if they ignore them a couple volleys of Javelins will ruin their day, as will being charged in the rear, even if its just by Hobilars. Scotch Highlanders and Irish Gallowglasses do a good job as fire-and-forget weapons too, but I usually am England and pumping them out at a steady pace.

The tertiary use is for filling up on one-use gimmick units without having to payout for the infrastructure. I don't want to have to spend thirty years and thousands of florins to be able to nationalize artillery support for the one or two castles I'll bother assaulting in the course of a game. And Longbows are in scarce supply even when I am playing England, since I have to replace line infantry casualties and replace my fire-and-forget troops on a regular basis. If I see them, I grab them.

So do you just siege most of the castles you run across? ~:confused:

I didn't think of the florin savings by NOT trying to build up for siege
weapons and such :embarassed: . Give me some mercs ~;) .

No no no, I find that I'm rarely ever sieging a castle that has more than a dozen men in it, so I don't need regular supplies of siege engines. Especially since I'd rather starve out most of those sieges too!

Sometimes, you'll see time based units pop into it like Bombards in early and Huscarles in high. The thing I really wished is that the AI would build good units so they pop up in the pool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antisocialmunky

Sometimes, you'll see time based units pop into it like Bombards in early and Huscarles in high. The thing I really wished is that the AI would build good units so they pop up in the pool.

---

I had Arquebusiers(sp?) show up as mercs during 1220! Europe had'nt even discovered gunpowder yet! ~:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Varangian Beserker

I had Arquebusiers(sp?) show up as mercs during 1220! Europe had'nt even discovered gunpowder yet! ~:eek:

---

Isn't that supposed to be 1260? :jawdrop:

No, I've seen handgunners in Early in the merc-pool, so it's definately worth to keep an eye on it regularily. The turks got quite surprised, I guess, when I brought a cannon against them in Early... *boom* ;)

Some mercs are available in 1205 that would only get built past 1260.

I buy and keep mercs if they are a unit I couldn't otherwise build, like Pavise arbs as the turks, or longbows. I also buy and keep cannon and other seige weaponry, the upkeep is so cheap anyway, and it gives me time to build up the foundries for my heavy ships rather than seige cannon.

mfberg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budwise

I just saw this at Dailyrotten.com

AUG 20 1191
Crusaders massacre 3,000 bound Muslim prisoners at Acre, after a breakdown in negotiations over payment of their ransom. The kinllings take place in full view of the army from which they were taken.

Like I said, ransom was about everything back then.

---

Hey I tried to find this on the site you mentioned but I could'nt. Can you please give me a link to this article ?

[QUOTE=mfberg]Some mercs are available in 1205 that would only get built past 1260.

:thinking: This I did not know........amazing :dizzy2: . *dgfred rubs hands
together in anticipation* :smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mfberg

Some mercs are available in 1205 that would only get built past 1260.

I buy and keep mercs if they are a unit I couldn't otherwise build, like Pavise arbs as the turks, or longbows. I also buy and keep cannon and other seige weaponry, the upkeep is so cheap anyway, and it gives me time to build up the foundries for my heavy ships rather than seige cannon.

mfberg

---

This is my strategy too, and I was amazed to pick up not one but three organ guns before 1260 in my current campaign. I sometimes pick up "exotic" merc units just out of curiosity, to see what they can do, though they are rarely worth it in the long run. But longbows and artillery are usually worth having, and in the Viking campaign game there are quite often mounted sergeants to be had.

It is probably historically accurate to have a few professional bands whose equipment and training is ahead of the game (although organ guns in 1235 is perhaps pushing it a bit far). And the English longbowmen definitely hired themselves out to other employers during the gaps in the 100 years war.