[Submod] No Mercenaries

[MagusCaligula]

Hey guys, this submod completely removes mercenaries spawn meaning neither you or the AI can't recruit mercenaries. I did this in some of my campaigns and it does make the game much more challenging in a fair way. Player is always much more effective at recruiting mercenaries than AI so it's always an advantage. This way you really need to have a good strategy in your campaign and make a really good use of your settlements recruitment pools. This is a very easy thing to do but I realize many don't like to mess up with the files so I thought it wouldn't harm making a submod.

Before installing I recommend backup "descr_mercenaries.txt" file in ebii\data\world\maps\campaign\imperial_campaign in case you want to revert back. However I made it very easy to install, so you can just download and extract somewhere and then move or copy/paste the "data" folder directly to ebii main folder and chose "replace all" when asked and the new "descr_mercenaries.txt" will go to the right folder.

DOWNLOAD

[LusitanianWolf]

Interesting idea. I was already thinking that the current availability of mercenaries unbalances a bit the game because of so large a pool of easily recruitable good quality troops. What's the point of using units like toxotai or hippeis, when you have plenty of Cretans and Tessalians wandering about? Also, makes new conquests and government choosing less rewarding. Why conquering and establishing an allied kingdom in thrace when you get professional thracians everywhere? (especially since you also have colonists).
Still I think completely removing mercenaries is not the perfect solution as they are accurate and add another interesting layer to the game. Maybe reducing their availability so they become much rarer? Or making them even more expensive? Anyway I will try this submod for gameplay purposes. Would this be savegame compatible?

[QuintusSertorius]

If you're playing on Hard campaign difficulty or above, they disappear very quickly at the start, and the refresh isn't that fast. Unless you glut on them on turn 1, they're a relatively rare additional resource, not a free buffet.

Reducing availability is easy, there are only three variations on refresh:

replenish 0.03 - 0.045 max 1
replenish 0.06 - 0.09 max 2
replenish 0.09 - 0.135 max 3

Do a find+replace on each line for a lower number that suits better.

[LusitanianWolf]

Thank you, Quintus! Is there a great difference on mercenaries use by the AI between H and VH?

[QuintusSertorius]

I don't think so, it seems to be a simple toggle; on Easy and Medium they rarely hire mercenaries, on Hard and Very Hard they often do. It's the sole reason Hard is the recommended campaign difficulty.

[LusitanianWolf]

Hummm, I asked this because In my current campaign (Pergamum H/M in 2.2l) I always seem to have plenty of mercenaries available so It appears to me that the AI isn't recruiting them very often. So while mercenary recruitment on the field is an accurate and interesting feature, as MagusCaligula noted, it ends up being an advantage mostly to the player as he can keep good quality armies at most times, raise troops quickly to face invasions and replenish troops while blitzing. Without/with less mercenary availability logistics will be harder, and settlement troop availability would matter a lot more. Still, I'm quite hooked in my current pergamese campaign so I probably won't test this soon.

[MagusCaligula]

I don't know this game that well but that script is read when you start a new game so probably it isn't a good idea to replace it mid game. Lowering the spawn rate from mercenaries I don't think would change much because you'll still be much more effective recruiting them and also don't changes the fact you can still recruit them to save you from some kind of surprise attack. Anyway just keep in mind it makes the game much more challenging and I'm not kidding lol that's why I don't do it in all campaigns, sometimes I just want a relaxing roleplay campaign

[LusitanianWolf]

I've been playing Pontos on VH/VH (2.2m) with this and its a really nice change in gameplay! Currently, government and colony recruitment pools already include plenty of mercenary type troops (celts, Thracians, greeks etc) so there's really no need for them to be available in field mercenary spawn. Troops are more valuable this way and expansion needs to be slower and more carefully planned. I like it!

[QuintusSertorius]

Hummm, I asked this because In my current campaign (Pergamum H/M in 2.2l) I always seem to have plenty of mercenaries available so It appears to me that the AI isn't recruiting them very often. So while mercenary recruitment on the field is an accurate and interesting feature, as MagusCaligula noted, it ends up being an advantage mostly to the player as he can keep good quality armies at most times, raise troops quickly to face invasions and replenish troops while blitzing. Without/with less mercenary availability logistics will be harder, and settlement troop availability would matter a lot more. Still, I'm quite hooked in my current pergamese campaign so I probably won't test this soon.

In my 100-turn run of Epeiros-as-Syrakousai (2.2m) H/M, anything I didn't hire immediately was gone by turn 2. Subsequent to that, Rome or Carthage would hire anything available when it reappeared, so the pool was never full, and rarely had more than 2-3 units in it at any one time. Perhaps the difference there is that both are rich, whereas in Anatolia the Seleukids and Ptolemaioi are likely to be financially overstretched, and Pontos are poor.

[LusitanianWolf]

Its possible. I've seen the AI use mercs as well in different occasions but since there are lots of them there's always some left, much to the player advantage. Without mercenaries the player must be more carefull with logistics and will be outnumbered or outclassed much more often, gicing the AI a bettter winning chance. No matter how good Z3n's AI is (I love it) it depends on numerical advantage to put a real challenge to tbe player. So I like the more limited unit availability, also because it makes each army more unique and region specific and troops less expendable. I like it. Might be a matter of taste though.

[QuintusSertorius]

I can't get away from how fundamentally ahistorical removing mercenaries is. They were a major facet of warfare in this era.

[LusitanianWolf]

Still you can (and already do) represent recruitment of mercenaries through regular (settlement based) unit pools. Anyway i'm not arguing for merc pools to be deleted from the official version (i'm itching to get my hands on se Maryagatae whem 2.3 comes out) but its a interesting and refreshing change in gameplay and imho worth trying, especialy for players itching for a new challenge. That's what's submods are for

[QuintusSertorius]

Most of the settlement-based pools don't represent mercenaries, they represent locals (or settler-soldiers - who also aren't mercenaries). With the exception of the Carthaginian trade colony pools.

Still, as you say, that's what submods are for.

[MagusCaligula]

Well I never said not having mercenaries was historically accurate, mercenaries were actually a big thing in those days. The point of this is making the game more challenging and it does deliver in that regard It also changes your strategies a lot because many times you can just rely on mercenaries, it also makes it a lot harder to blitz. Armies are also more unique as LusitanianWolf said. Also mercenaries makes it easy to deal with rebel spawns that can attack your bad protected towns because if you have a FM or General near you can just recruit a few mercenaries fast and deal with them, without mercenaries you run the risk of actually lose towns to rebels

[QuintusSertorius]

Dealing with Rebel spawns is what your garrisons are for; if you haven't protected your settlements properly, that's a problem in and of itself. Taking advantage of high order in similar-culture settlements to leave nothing but a governor in place, is an exploit. Though it's also something the AI does. Either way it's a risky strategy, the AI likes to attack weakly-garrisoned settlements.

Just seems a strange way to address an already-problematic playstyle. But it's a valid submod, so carry on.

[MagusCaligula]

The thing is, most will only recruit enough troops to deal with unrest and maybe sometimes a few more, because anyone knows they can just recruit mercenaries fast to deal with some surprise rebel stack. Also troops have a big CD in EBII and you can only recruit more troops at once in Winter. Join to that the fact after a battle you'll need to retrain your troops or recruit more and it will be hard to have 2 battles in a short time if you need to deal with big stacks. Before playing without mercenaries might not seem a big difference but it is as LusitanianWolf could testify. Not having mercenaries to recruit you really need to have already bigger garrisons and also some better troops prepared and that will add to your bill also adding a bit more challenge in terms of economy.

[MagusCaligula]

Also you need to look at the big picture, not just at one thing at a time. Without mercenaries you need to rely on town pools for everything: garrisons, main armies, patrols, given the big recruitment CD present in EBII is not easy. Also there are always really strong mercenary units around, while the best units recruitable in towns are usually very limited with bigger CD.

[QuintusSertorius]

Sorry, but you're describing a playstyle that's alien to me. I don't use mercenaries as garrison units, nor as a rapid response to Rebel appearances. I have minimum garrisons of 4 units in the smallest settlements, 6-8 in larger ones and usually a half-stack in the capital. I expand slowly (eg in my last game, at turn 100 I had six settlements) and properly garrison and develop a settlement before thinking about where to go next.

[MagusCaligula]

Well it's different doing something for roleplay reasons (that's what you're doing) than because you actually need to do it. Removing mercenaries makes you need to do things you would only do for roleplay reasons. Anyway the best use of mercenaries is exactly as a fast answer to an unexpected threat or to blitz, if that's not the use you give to them you're doing something wrong in my opinion (unless of course it's just for roleplay reasons).

[QuintusSertorius]

Well it's different doing something for roleplay reasons (that's what you're doing) than because you actually need to do it. Removing mercenaries makes you need to do things you would only do for roleplay reasons. Anyway the best use of mercenaries is exactly as a fast answer to an unexpected threat or to blitz, if that's not the use you give to them you're doing something wrong in my opinion (unless of course it's just for roleplay reasons).

I don't agree; the best use of them is as a small part of your regular army, because that's how they were deployed. Whether to give you a capability you lack (eg Kretans to give you decent archers as a western faction) or to provide more reliable troops for certain roles (eg Celtic heavy infantry as a Germanic faction). There are lots of reasons beyond simply fuelling rapid expansion, or covering overstretch caused by too-rapid expansion.