Mercenaries vs. Regular Units

**mmadmaxx** · 04-05-2006, 01:05

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.

**QwertyMIDX** · 04-05-2006, 01:17

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

**Avicenna** · 04-05-2006, 02:09

Most mercs start out with some bronze chevrons.

**QwertyMIDX** · 04-05-2006, 02:15

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.

**Dooz** · 04-05-2006, 02:19

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

**QwertyMIDX** · 04-05-2006, 02:39

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

**fallen851** · 04-05-2006, 03:41

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?

**QwertyMIDX** · 04-05-2006, 03:44

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.

**the_handsome_viking** · 04-10-2006, 21:11

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.

**Homo Sapiens** · 04-10-2006, 22:06

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.