Mercenaries and what you can do with them

**gregori99** · 09-05-2007, 13:37

Despite playing this game for years, I'm still finding the odd thing I never knew.

I don't use mercenaries much and when I do I don't keep them around once they've achieved their immediate objective. So it was a surprise when I found I could have the leader of a mercenary unit marry into my royal family.

So what would happen if all the heirs died and this guy was the only one left when the king died? Could he become king or would it just be game over? I suspect the latter.

It would be nice if merc units could reinforce themselves over time, like the king can. It would be historically accurate. Is that moddable, or hard-coded? Being able to name specific units, like in Panzer General, is the one thing missing from the game that would have really have enhanced it, IMO.

**Prussian1** · 09-05-2007, 14:16

I personally love to use mercs early on playing as GRE. Ater taking Pomerania FIRST TURN of the game, I always build an inn ASAP. This allows me to attract mercs quick for an Instant Army of very high quality troops before the cash crunch hits. I then take those guys and take Ile de France, Flanders, and Champaign.

All in all, an excellent opening.

I agree with you that it would be very historically accurate for mercs to rebuild their numbers. However, I would asusme that it would screw up game balance something fierce.

I would have personally loved to have seen a "contract conversion feature" in which you could buy out a merc company's contract and bring them on a full-time household troops.

**Martok** · 09-05-2007, 22:14

Originally Posted by gregori99

Despite playing this game for years, I'm still finding the odd thing I never knew.

I don't use mercenaries much and when I do I don't keep them around once they've achieved their immediate objective. So it was a surprise when I found I could have the leader of a mercenary unit marry into my royal family.

So what would happen if all the heirs died and this guy was the only one left when the king died? Could he become king or would it just be game over? I suspect the latter.

The game would simply end. It was long rumored that generals married into the royal family could become the new faction ruler upon the death of the current monarch, but it's (unfortunately) not true.

Originally Posted by gregori99

It would be nice if merc units could reinforce themselves over time, like the king can. It would be historically accurate. Is that moddable, or hard-coded? Being able to name specific units, like in Panzer General, is the one thing missing from the game that would have really have enhanced it, IMO.

I agree it would be nice if mercenary regiments in MTW replenished their ranks. Unfortunately, Prussian1 is essentially correct that this would unbalance things. To be specific, it would unbalance things *further*, as the AI does not (and probably cannot) take advantage of mercs at all.

I'm not sure if the mercs can be modded so that their numbers rebound after battle losses. I doubt it, though. I seem to recall others have investigated this, only to discover it was hard-coded.

Originally Posted by Prussian1

I would have personally loved to have seen a "contract conversion feature" in which you could buy out a merc company's contract and bring them on a full-time household troops.

Me too! The Byzantines were well-known for employing mercenaries who -- for all intents and purposes -- were a part of the regular army.

**Sensei Warrior** · 09-05-2007, 23:10

It would also be cool if you could reinforce the merc units you have, if you had the same building types. For example, as the English, you picked up a unit of merc Swabian Swordsmen. IIRC they require a Royal Court and a Swordsmith (if the SS dont than please just play along

). As long as you had the requirements, you could replenish that unit, but not make any new units.

That doesn't seem too bad, but perhaps still leaves the door open for abuse.

**macsen rufus** · 09-06-2007, 09:37

One thing I really miss from the "vanilla-vanilla" edition (ie the original, unpatched, pre-VI release) was that mercs were mergeable - not only with each other but also with non-merc units of the same type. That was the nearest thing to contract conversion that I can recall. Many a time I would drain a broken merc unit to transfer its men into a "regular" unit. For some reason CA "fixed" this

**Haccapelite** · 09-06-2007, 14:47

I dont usually use mercenaries, but there are a few exceptions:
-If I attack a province that has at least a castle in it, I usually hire some siege-equipment mercenaries to use if i have to assault the castle since I dont normally bother to build those pre-gunpowder siege-equipment myself.
-If I see some special units (eg. italian inf. on early or some nice shocktroops like gallowglasses) I might hire them if I can use them almost immediately.
I disband my mercenaries right after they have fulfilled the task I needed them for, because the support costs are so high.

**Prussian1** · 09-06-2007, 15:41

Originally Posted by Haccapelite

-If I attack a province that has at least a castle in it, I usually hire some siege-equipment mercenaries to use if i have to assault the castle since I dont normally bother to build those pre-gunpowder siege-equipment myself.
-If I see some special units (eg. italian inf. on early or some nice shocktroops like gallowglasses) I might hire them if I can use them almost immediately.
I disband my mercenaries right after they have fulfilled the task I needed them for, because the support costs are so high.

Well thought out. I use them for very specific blitzkrieg missions and let them go a few at a time as I get troops trained up in the newly taken provinces. With the exception of units I will never have access to, I try not to keep a mercenary unit more than ten turns.

**Brandy Blue** · 09-07-2007, 02:52

Originally Posted by Martok

The game would simply end. It was long rumored that generals married into the royal family could become the new faction ruler upon the death of the current monarch, but it's (unfortunately) not true.

I agree it would be nice if mercenary regiments in MTW replenished their ranks. Unfortunately, Prussian1 is essentially correct that this would unbalance things. To be specific, it would unbalance things *further*, as the AI does not (and probably cannot) take advantage of mercs at all.

I'm not sure if the mercs can be modded so that their numbers rebound after battle losses. I doubt it, though. I seem to recall others have investigated this, only to discover it was hard-coded.

Me too! The Byzantines were well-known for employing mercenaries who -- for all intents and purposes -- were a part of the regular army.

Seems to me that the game does an okay job of handling mercinaries as part of the Byzantine standing army. The Byzantine Emperor would be the only Christian ruler who could afford to have a standing army, never mind a standing army partly made up of expensive mercinaries. (I cannot comment on Muslim armies because of my shameful ignorance.

) So instead of allowing everyone to nationalize mercs, the game allows the Byzantines to raise units which were historically mercs (Varangian Guard and Bulgarian Brigands) but function - as you say - as part of the regular army. Not a perfect solution, but seems acceptable to me.

**The Unknown Guy** · 09-07-2007, 10:18

The Fatimid Khalifas had big standing armies as well, mostly mercenary. The Turkish Janissaries were a standing army in their own right, partially mercenary. As for the Almohads, I am not sure. They were strong apparently in its day, but on the other hand, they got wiped out all the way to Seville after the Spanish realms joined forces...

**Roark** · 09-07-2007, 14:14

With the exception of big siege engines, I only employ mercs when I see something really special which I can't train myself due to faction/location restrictions etc.

I just hired two units of lancers as the Turks in 1229, one of them with Pride.

Can't wait to try them out against the Mongols...

**Prussian1** · 09-07-2007, 18:53

Originally Posted by Brandy Blue

The Byzantine Emperor would be the only Christian ruler who could afford to have a standing army, never mind a standing army partly made up of expensive mercinaries.

One of the things that makes my subconcience go "you're playing a game" is fielding medieval units as standing armies year after year, all year.

I do suppose that one could justify this by concluding that the "one year turn" does not assume everything is taking one year, but the events modeled occur at some point in the given year. Therefore, a unit of - say spearmen - would be fulfilling their feudal obligation to their lord over a few months rather than being in the field all twelve months.

This would also help suspend the disbelief of a fleet of ships being out in the middle of the North Atlantic for 10 years

**The Unknown Guy** · 09-10-2007, 19:13

The problem is that a full simulation of the feudal system would be... complicated. Maybe by making units raised on a province lower permanently its income until resettled? Or, for what I´ve heard about the new TW games system, lowering its population, until disbanded?

I think that overrrealism is usually wearing, in any event. For instance: turns, as they are now, can be long enough (honestly, how often you fight the six 45 minute battles that can arise in a single turn? I pick the most interesting one, or ones, and autocalc the rest (barring sure defeats which I could turn around)

**Sensei Warrior** · 09-10-2007, 23:54

I agree about the whole realism thing. I mean if the game was uber-accurate, we'd never conquer the map, or maybe not even allowed to conquer the map.

I just thought of something. Has anyone ever played a whole game, using mostly to all merc troops? Something like, outside garrison troops (troops you use to keep provence from rebelling, usually 1-2 units of peasants), and troops attached to a leading general (an actual govenor), all others must be mercenaries.

I wonder if it can be done? I think it can. Cant wait to get near my comp to try it.