Printable View
Just want to do you guys just recruit mercs when on campaign or do you actually wait for home produced unique units before continuing your advance. I'm playin as rome and want to be historically accurate but its so hard to wait for home troops because my supply lines bog down when my empire gets too big.
Send them part of the way by sea.
Hiring Mercs is a valid strategy in any case, whole Merc armies become slightly silly.
It depends of how do you like to play.
Hiring mercs is fine as long you don't over do it.Downside is , with huge empire = money,you can attack just anyone by just sending one arme and 2-3 lone generals, which will buy mercs and get you additonal 2-3 stacks.
Having long suply lines , if you rely on homegrown troops,in huge empires is also fine and realistic.I found it for myself more intriguing , because it slows me down ,and requires more micro management, time and invasion/attack preplanning.But for someone that can be a downside.
Just play it as you feel is most enjoyable for you :2thumbsup:
Check this out, it designed to, amongst other things, help with overly large empires lines and the problems they involve.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=86710
I usually have no problem getting units recruited in Italy out to the far reaches of the expanding republic. Like, If Rome just recruited a unit of principes, then you can set it up so it will march to Arretium, freeing up a unit there to march to the next city, which frees up a unit there to march even further, etc. etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by nanoman88
Transport by ship can also improve travel times dramatically, of course especially if the water way is a shortcut (Italy to Spain or Greece for example).
And then finally, recruiting a large amount of mercenaries is fine. As long as you don't run around with armies of only mercenary units it is historically correct.
Even that was done a few times, though, was it not, even if it did ussualy end in disaster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
Sure, although I don't know of the Roman Republic doing it. The Carthaginians are probably a better bet, or the late Roman Empire for that matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pharnakes
If one wanted to nitpick pretty much the whole post-Marian Roman army was all mercenaries... depends of definitions of the term of course. But yeah, the Carthies apparently did pretty well with what were often essentially all-merc armies and AFAIK only had one major crisis of them turning against their paymasters (and that was after the First Punic War, when the reparations the state had to pay Rome meant the mercs weren't getting their paychecks anymore).
Limiting mercs is fun because it introduces logistical constraints. Couple it with a no retraining houserule and EBs recruitment system, and you introduce new restraints on expansion that fit well with EBs 4TPY timescale and with the desire to have a more challenging game.
It also can mean you fight outnumbered, which is good given the limitations of the battlefield AI.
It's a hard balance to strike though, particularly because pre-Marian armies were half allies and arguably mercs can represent those allies.
I usually use mercs when i'm at the start of the campaign, later on i mostly stick to factional units.Quote:
Originally Posted by econ21
I just wish the AI would do the same... :no:
Professional soldiers are not necessarily mercenaries. A mercenary is someone that fights for other states/factions than his own, primarily motivated by (promises of) material gain. If you fight for your country, getting paid to do it doesn't make you a mercenary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Meh. Same thing as far as I'm concerned. But YMMV - that's why the "depends on definitions" is there after all.
'Sides, by your definitions wouldn't all of the Auxilia have been mercenaries since they per definition weren't Roman citizens...? :beam:
Watchman, the ancients distinguished mercenaries from paid soldiers, even from paid soldiers from allied or subject states. Sometimes the definition got fuzzy, either a) because of the close similarity between paid symmachoi (allies) and actual misthophoroi (mercs), who could easily come from the same city-state, league, tribe, etc, or b) because of the political views of some historian, who preferred to see allies as mercs out of disdain for the hirer.
As for hiring vs training, I prefer to hire mercenaries in emergencies, or in situations where there's a unique mercenary available (like kretans). All rules are off if I'm near Galatia though, I've no qualms about hiring anything I can. Oh, and a related little wishlist item: it'd be wonderful if there was a chance merc units would either desert or even go rebel if your treasury goes into the red for more than a turn, with the chance increasing each consecutive turn. Alas, it don't work that way.
Could you not script a trigger, something along the lines of; if a general has a merc unit in his army,then he gains a hidden trait. In the EBBS, then have an eddition that recongnizes whether or not the treasury is less than zero and if it is, then it gives all generals with the merc hidden trait, a trait that gives -10 morale or something of that nature.
Didn't the Athenians consider sending a 30.000 men fully mercenary force into Makedonia at some point during the fight over the Chaldician peninsula?
Seems more like a pragmatic issue of reliability to me, the "paid soldiers" presumably "staying bought" due to (hopefully) having some more motives than the paycheck and the "mercenaries"... well, not necessarily.Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
At the fundamental level - a man selling his fighting ability and, potentially, life, in return of economic gains - it is difficult to perceive much meaningful division.
The difernece being I think in that full time soldiers would (hopefuly) sell their lives as well as their fighting abilities, whereas mercs would only sell their fighting abilities and might start to get a bit thoughtful if asked to sell their lives as well.
In the Roman Republic there was the further incentive of Roman citizenship and electability. Perhaps even some "nationalistic" motivations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
So there was some difference, although how big it was probably differed a lot around the Mediterranean world.
Something like that would be absolutely awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by paullus
Hannibal would beg to differ.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Problem is AI can't differ between Qarthadastim and other factions , so they all do their share of buying everything on the market .:dizzy2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Intranetusa
Because of AI being totaly incompetent , i have my own house rules and one of them is "cannot buy more then 3 mercenary units in whole campaing, and cannot buy any infantry mercs".
Thats not because of historical or ahistorical , but because of AI.Human knows how to maximize use of mercs , and AI doesn't.
Human player buying alot of mercs is hurting AI in more than one way, and AI is already fully capable of doing that on its own.In my view , just because of AI , that would be exploit.
On other side, like i said above , everyone should play the way they think is most fun for them. As long they don't try to pressure anyone to agree or disagree with them.
There is a pretty big difference between the RTW idea of mercs and the bulk of troops who made up Hannibal's army. I sort of mentioned it in the thread about North African mercs, I'll let it stand there.
Ok what about allied troops????
In my Aedui campain I am starting to have armies composed mostly of Greek and Camilian Roman units that I trained in my conquered cities. My Gallic towns have low populations (due to high taxation and constantly training armies) so I have to give them a break.
Do you guys apply the same merc. rulz??? I used to, but now is becoming a real problem.
That only applies to auxilleries, and only in the Principate after 25 years service. In essence Watchamn is correct about the post-Marian Legions. They were mercenaries and would fight for whoever paid them and had a decent chance of winning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
As far as I know military service was a requirement for holding offices in Republican Rome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
I don't use mercenaries unless it is absolutely necessary, with the exception that I'll sometimes hire my own factional troops so they can fight while I get the infrastructure up to train more. An example would be samnitici milites as the Romani. I prefer troops that I can produce in significant numbers and retrain to take advantage of experience gained. I try to strike a balance with my standard troop types between quality and the logistical challenges of getting them retrained and back to the front lines as quickly as possible - so no cohors evocata (trainable only in Italy) as the post-Marian Romani. There are times though when I'd love to have mercenary lugoae, or a similar poor but numerous unit, available for garrisoning new conquests. I have yet to be in a situation when an important arm has been completely unavailable and necessary to recruit mercenaries for, but (to use the Marian Romans as an example again - can you guess who I'm playing and how far I've got?) I could see that happening with cavalry in some theatres in my current game.
One answer to the problem of long supply lines and travel times for reinforcements is to not require them. Enter a theatre with sufficiently overwhelming force to completely overrun it. This done, head home, retrain and march to the next theatre. Not always possible, I'll grant, but when it is it works nicely.
But this is expensive. You're using good troops to garrison cities, rather than larger, cheaper units when only the number of men present affects public order. You'd be better off force-marching the principes all the way and garrisoning your cities with leves.Quote:
I usually have no problem getting units recruited in Italy out to the far reaches of the expanding republic. Like, If Rome just recruited a unit of principes, then you can set it up so it will march to Arretium, freeing up a unit there to march to the next city, which frees up a unit there to march even further, etc. etc.
I mostly use factional but will supplement with a few particularly useful mercs & to make up for losses on campaign, especially to keep strong enough to defend gains (never to keep advancing).
Is that particularly historical anyway?Quote:
Originally Posted by Underhand
I'm not certain. The Romans did keep garrisons in cities that might defect if given the chance, in which case they presumably would have used 'proper' troops, because the kind of crap many of us use would be a considerably less potent threat to the populace. In loyal cities though, I don't think there was much of a garrison, because there didn't need to be. However, in RTW if you leave your cities empty some rebels or enemy troops will walk in. If one of these cities was threatened in real life the citizens would shut the gates, man the walls and wait for assistance from the 'real' army. This would usually work to keep the foe out, because taking a city by assault, even if defended only by armed citizens, was a deeply unpleasant and dangerous affair, something that's not really represented well in RTW. Unless it's got a respectable army inside, an assault on practically any large city is a bit like Constantinople's final stand - good walls and defences*, but hopelessly inadequate manpower to defend them. It's telling that the great majority of historically taken cities fell by bribery, deception or outright surrender.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura
Anyway, it seems to me that the best way to represent this is to keep leves, vigiles or equivalent in loyal cities and some better troops in newly-conquered or especially disloyal cities, with your real army responding proactively to threats to your cities. The bottom line though is that stats are meaningless in RTW for public order bonuses. Two units of leves (60 men each) will be better at keeping people in line than two units of hastati (40 men each) and will be cheaper. That's what works best and doesn't really offend my sensibilities, so that's the way I play.
Personally, I don't go to great efforts to play historically, since the game itself even with EB's significant enhancements in that regard is quite inaccurate in many ways. I would take no pleasure from doggedly trying to stick to what I see as 'historically accurate' in the face of what the AI and the engine get up to. Hence my armies of samnitici milites :yes:
Oh, one more thing: wouldn't it be nice if being badly beaten in a province made the city rather more likely to expel your garrison and either throw in its lot with the invaders or declare independence? And it should happen after one turn, so that it's somewhat unexpected. At present cities only seem to kick your troops out after two consecutive turns of revolt, and that can be avoided in a worst-case scenario by moving your capital every turn so that problem settlements only revolt every other turn.
* Yes, I'm ignoring the fact that Constantinople's walls were obsolete against gunpowder artillery.
In any case, accensi are better than leves and remain available in polybian barracks.
I think I recall accensi (half as many men as leves) having more than half the upkeep of leves. At any rate, the units I use for garrisoning don't have to be leves, they just need to be large and cheap. I make a lot of use of akontistai and, latterly, vigiles.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sakkura