Mercs: retrainable, streamlining?

[GraaEminense]

Quite a few troops recruitable as faction troops or AOR troops are also available as mercenaries. This makes sense -after all, there are only so many different ways for the Gauls (or whoever) to fight, and so the Gallic (or...) mercs available would be the same troops available to the Gauls themselves.

However, when I bring my crippled mercenary cavalry to the Cavalry Training City to give them some recruits, I cant. New weapons and armour, yes, but no new men. Now, this makes sense if they are a kind of troop not available to me, but as a common AOR or Faction unit I would believe that the barracks would be overflowing with potential recruits.

Given the warband-style armies of many less civilized factions and the extensive use of mercs and local auxilia by many civilized ones, recruiting 'in the field' into the (often anachronistical) standing army should be possible -represented by the ability to retrain these units, making them more attractive as garrisons among other things.

So... why aren't merc units treated like identical faction/AOR units with regards to retraining? Can this be fixed?

---------

To avoid making multiple treads, I have another mercenary-related issue: streamlining.

I seem to run into quite a few units which are not only identical in effect, but also in who they are supposed to represent. The Germanic Spearman is one such unit, available in red (faction) and grey (merc) flavour. They seem virtually identical in all respects, representing the exact same historic unit. It would seem tidier to remove one and free up the 'unit-slot' to something more interesting. Gallic swordsmen and warbands have the same issue, as does the generic 'light cavalry' (replacable with Gallic light cavalry). I am sure there are others.

---------

Neither of these issues are gamebreakers, but it does reduce the verisimilitude in an annoying way when I can't retrain or transfer troops between two identical units just because one has a different picture or was recruited outside the city walls.

Is there some hidden rationale here I am unable to see?

[Quinn Inuit]

Quite a few troops recruitable as faction troops or AOR troops are also available as mercenaries. This makes sense -after all, there are only so many different ways for the Gauls (or whoever) to fight, and so the Gallic (or...) mercs available would be the same troops available to the Gauls themselves.

However, when I bring my crippled mercenary cavalry to the Cavalry Training City to give them some recruits, I cant. New weapons and armour, yes, but no new men. Now, this makes sense if they are a kind of troop not available to me, but as a common AOR or Faction unit I would believe that the barracks would be overflowing with potential recruits.

Given the warband-style armies of many less civilized factions and the extensive use of mercs and local auxilia by many civilized ones, recruiting 'in the field' into the (often anachronistical) standing army should be possible -represented by the ability to retrain these units, making them more attractive as garrisons among other things.

So... why aren't merc units treated like identical faction/AOR units with regards to retraining? Can this be fixed?

I'm surprised about that. Most of the mercenary units are just like you mentioned. Some, like Eastern Spearmen, represent roving bands of mercenaries, but most of them are locals. Which unit could you not retrain?

For the record (this isn't to try to weasel out of fixing this issue, it's just a comment), I don't retrain troops because the AI can't (unless they happen to be in a city that will upgrade their w/a). I don't like to take advantage of helpful things (retraining them seems to cause much more rapid XP accumulation) that the AI can't.

To avoid making multiple treads, I have another mercenary-related issue: streamlining.

I seem to run into quite a few units which are not only identical in effect, but also in who they are supposed to represent. The Germanic Spearman is one such unit, available in red (faction) and grey (merc) flavour. They seem virtually identical in all respects, representing the exact same historic unit. It would seem tidier to remove one and free up the 'unit-slot' to something more interesting. Gallic swordsmen and warbands have the same issue, as does the generic 'light cavalry' (replacable with Gallic light cavalry). I am sure there are others.

---------

Neither of these issues are gamebreakers, but it does reduce the verisimilitude in an annoying way when I can't retrain or transfer troops between two identical units just because one has a different picture or was recruited outside the city walls.

Is there some hidden rationale here I am unable to see?

Yep, and I think I accidentally addressed this in another thread (forum's been busy for the last couple of months--I always feel like I've a lot of balls in the air).

The color change is just so you can tell who's who on a battlefield and distinguish the merc units from the faction units. They only take up an EDU slot, of which we've lots to spare. The DMB (model) slots are the cramped ones, and they share one of those. Where they don't, I've removed most of the extras just like you suggested.

[Carados]

Yep, and I think I accidentally addressed this in another thread (forum's been busy for the last couple of months--I always feel like I've a lot of balls in the air).

Blame FOE.


I've noticed a couple of mercs can't be retrained, or at least merged with a faction equivalent. To be honest though, I never really put much emphasis on my mercenaries. I prefer to use them as bait and/or pin cushions or as garrison troops after the army has moved on. I'll almost undoubtedly come across some issues when I do some playtests, when I do I'll put them here.

[pannonian]

Yep, and I think I accidentally addressed this in another thread (forum's been busy for the last couple of months--I always feel like I've a lot of balls in the air).

If you have balls in the air, stop standing on your head.

[GraaEminense]

I'm surprised about that. Most of the mercenary units are just like you mentioned. Some, like Eastern Spearmen, represent roving bands of mercenaries, but most of them are locals. Which unit could you not retrain?

In my current German game, the German light cavalry mercenaries have been un-merge/retrain-able. In my Parthia game, the Persian archers and javelineers at least were retrainable with no trouble.

For the record (this isn't to try to weasel out of fixing this issue, it's just a comment), I don't retrain troops because the AI can't (unless they happen to be in a city that will upgrade their w/a). I don't like to take advantage of helpful things (retraining them seems to cause much more rapid XP accumulation) that the AI can't.

You weasel I know about the AI handicap, but I really like having units with long and glorious histories. That gets kind of hard with no retraining.

The color change is just so you can tell who's who on a battlefield and distinguish the merc units from the faction units. They only take up an EDU slot, of which we've lots to spare. The DMB (model) slots are the cramped ones, and they share one of those. Where they don't, I've removed most of the extras just like you suggested.

OK. Even though I see your point about the differentiation, I for one would much prefer to remove the unnecessary distinction between "faction" and "mercenary" troops in most cases. Gallic swordsmen are Gallic swordsmen regardless, and should be retrainable where I normally buy my Gallic swords. If I'm a barbarian, the difference between "faction" and "mercenary" should really be moot as all my troops are warbands in it for the plunder, and if I'm a civilized conqueror the difference between locally levied (AOR) and mercenary troops doesn't really matter to the masters -they're all barbarians.

As a great fan of mercenaries, it just hurts the verisimilitude when there is an artificial difference between the troops I can recruit "in the field" and those I can train in the cities when these should be the same guys. That's why I'd like all my mercs retrainable (in the proper cities, of course), and with no difference between Gray German Spearman and Purple German Spearman, or between Posing Bastarnae or Relaxed Bastarnae.

[Quinn Inuit]

In my current German game, the German light cavalry mercenaries have been un-merge/retrain-able. In my Parthia game, the Persian archers and javelineers at least were retrainable with no trouble.

Now that's interesting. I wouldn't have expected the German LC. Hmmm...

Ah hah! It's because you're playing as the Germans. That unit doesn't have German ownership in the EDU, so you can't retrain it. All of the other factions can.

Why is this? I'm not sure offhand. That's a holdover from RTRPE. I'm sure they had a reason for it, though, since it's actually harder to code everyone _but_ the Germans having it than it would be to code everyone having it. Come to think of it, I think they kept that style for FOE.

You weasel I know about the AI handicap, but I really like having units with long and glorious histories. That gets kind of hard with no retraining.

True enough. You really appreciate XP more when you can't retrain, though.

OK. Even though I see your point about the differentiation, I for one would much prefer to remove the unnecessary distinction between "faction" and "mercenary" troops in most cases. Gallic swordsmen are Gallic swordsmen regardless, and should be retrainable where I normally buy my Gallic swords. If I'm a barbarian, the difference between "faction" and "mercenary" should really be moot as all my troops are warbands in it for the plunder, and if I'm a civilized conqueror the difference between locally levied (AOR) and mercenary troops doesn't really matter to the masters -they're all barbarians.

As a great fan of mercenaries, it just hurts the verisimilitude when there is an artificial difference between the troops I can recruit "in the field" and those I can train in the cities when these should be the same guys. That's why I'd like all my mercs retrainable (in the proper cities, of course), and with no difference between Gray German Spearman and Purple German Spearman, or between Posing Bastarnae or Relaxed Bastarnae.

Those are pretty good points. Would anyone object if we did away with the faction/merc unit distinction where it exists? I think I can remove it fairly easily.

[Cheomesh]

On the topic of mercenaries, are the Germanic Island Warriors not supposed to be able to skirmish?

M.

[Quinn Inuit]

Oh, ok. I'd forgotten about the FOE publicity.

I think the Island Warriors are now supposed to fall into the heavy skirmisher category. Basically, they have javelins, but they're mobile and heavy enough to fight as infantry.

[Quinn Inuit]

[Cheomesh]

Thanks. I was wondering what these guys were for, so I parked them behind my spear wall as a bank of missile fire.

M.

[Carados]

I'd like to put the auto-merge script in. I've seen it about somewhere. Will it slow the game too much?

I'm not so sure about the mercenary issue. How does the whole retraining thing work? Like, how much does it cost in the instances it works? What about upkeep, does a different upkeep between hired mercenaries and recruited AOR troops matter? Ideally, I think all factions should be able to retrain their mercenaries in the respective settlements but the mercenaries themselves having a higher cost/upkeep. We also have to take into account that mercenaries fight for themselves and not the faction (otherwise they'd be faction troops). Making mercs and normal AOR troops identical is not the way to go in my opinion

[pannonian]

I'd like to put the auto-merge script in. I've seen it about somewhere. Will it slow the game too much?

Auto-merge is in TIC. I think it works at the conclusion of every battle, so it doesn't slow down too much. Applying it to every end of turn might slow things down a bit more though.

[Quinn Inuit]

I'd like to put the auto-merge script in. I've seen it about somewhere. Will it slow the game too much?

I'm not so sure about the mercenary issue. How does the whole retraining thing work? Like, how much does it cost in the instances it works? What about upkeep, does a different upkeep between hired mercenaries and recruited AOR troops matter? Ideally, I think all factions should be able to retrain their mercenaries in the respective settlements but the mercenaries themselves having a higher cost/upkeep. We also have to take into account that mercenaries fight for themselves and not the faction (otherwise they'd be faction troops). Making mercs and normal AOR troops identical is not the way to go in my opinion

I'd be up for an automerge script. It wouldn't get rid of all remnant units, just ones that had another unit that could be merged. Anyone else have any comments?

Removing separate merc units would only matter when the merc and AOR units were identical. We can't make a mercenary retrainable without making them recruitable.

Hmmm...to make all mercenaries have higher upkeep, we'd need to actually make a new set of units in the EDU. Possibly in export_units, too.

I think the trick is that there are two visions of mercenaries here.
1) Mercenaries as roving bands of unemployed people who are in it for plunder and legally sanctioned violence.
2) Locals who are bored and willing to fight for money.

(1) should obviously have higher upkeep and costs, but (2) is more like AOR units.

(Sorry if this is a little disjointed. I'm typing this while participating in a conversation with a bunch of in-laws.)

[pannonian]

I'd be up for an automerge script. It wouldn't get rid of all remnant units, just ones that had another unit that could be merged. Anyone else have any comments?

Removing separate merc units would only matter when the merc and AOR units were identical. We can't make a mercenary retrainable without making them recruitable.

Hmmm...to make all mercenaries have higher upkeep, we'd need to actually make a new set of units in the EDU. Possibly in export_units, too.

I think the trick is that there are two visions of mercenaries here.
1) Mercenaries as roving bands of unemployed people who are in it for plunder and legally sanctioned violence.
2) Locals who are bored and willing to fight for money.

(1) should obviously have higher upkeep and costs, but (2) is more like AOR units.

(Sorry if this is a little disjointed. I'm typing this while participating in a conversation with a bunch of in-laws.)

Automerge gets rid of a player trick that the AI doesn't have.

No sauce with the duck please. I'll have it plain.

Mercs can be retrainable but not recruitable using the EDB trick I've banged on about.

Another cup of tea please.

Upkeep is governed by EDU. It would clear up confusion to have distinct corresponding entries in EU, but I think it's possible to have multiple EDU units point to an EU entry.

I'll have soup later.

Sorry about interrupting the meal. I'm trying to eat whilst posting to a gaming forum.

[Cheomesh]

I sometimes use tiny remnant units for special purposes so I would vote against auto merge.

M.

[Carados]

If anything auto-merge would create more remnant units. In my opinion anything over 50% strength is still a viable unit. Anyway. It was in TIC, aye, but I meant I remember seeing it in one of our files somewhere.

I sometimes use tiny remnant units for special purposes so I would vote against auto merge.

Does this involve sending ten men teams to be shot at by 300+ arrows/javelins or recieving a charge of 100+ cataphracts in order to soak up all the damage thus leaving all your other units unharmed......

Removing separate merc units would only matter when the merc and AOR units were identical. We can't make a mercenary retrainable without making them recruitable.

Hmmm...to make all mercenaries have higher upkeep, we'd need to actually make a new set of units in the EDU. Possibly in export_units, too.

I think the trick is that there are two visions of mercenaries here.
1) Mercenaries as roving bands of unemployed people who are in it for plunder and legally sanctioned violence.
2) Locals who are bored and willing to fight for money.

(1) should obviously have higher upkeep and costs, but (2) is more like AOR units.

Hmmm.
Ok. Well lets just tweak what we have already?

Actually. Forget I even said anything, I can't think properly about this topic for some reason .

[Cheomesh]

Does this involve sending ten men teams to be shot at by 300+ arrows/javelins or recieving a charge of 100+ cataphracts in order to soak up all the damage thus leaving all your other units unharmed......

Actually, I've never thought of that. I've just been using them as things to plug holes in the line and go on flanking missions.

M.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

Not being able to replace mercenaries in your own cities makes a lot of sense. Because they are mercenary units, they are by definition not the same as the basic manpower pool of your nation. To replace them you must hire more mercenaries, you can't bring a mercenary unit back to full strength because they people that make up your main army are local people that have been conscripted/summoned/volunteered to fight for your army.

They have no inherent interest in becoming mercenaries, because they are mostly interested in surviving the campaign they are obligated to fight so that they can go home to their families. They unlike mercenaries are not principally in it for the money.

[GraaEminense]

Not being able to replace mercenaries in your own cities makes a lot of sense. Because they are mercenary units, they are by definition not the same as the basic manpower pool of your nation. To replace them you must hire more mercenaries, you can't bring a mercenary unit back to full strength because they people that make up your main army are local people that have been conscripted/summoned/volunteered to fight for your army.

They have no inherent interest in becoming mercenaries, because they are mostly interested in surviving the campaign they are obligated to fight so that they can go home to their families. They unlike mercenaries are not principally in it for the money.

I beg to differ. In a warrior society (most Barbarians), the men fighting in your "faction army" would be the very same ones looking for mercenary work -volunteering for loot and glory. Conscription would be unlikely. I'm not so much advocating that mercs be treated like faction troops as that we accept that for some factions, all troops are essentially mercs -and so should be treated the same. There would be little difference in whether it's an ambitious freelancer nobleman or a representative of the King who turns up asking for volunteers -the same young men would grab their spears and join up regardless. Since it would not be feasible to make certain factions totally dependent on mercs, letting all factions treat their mercs like faction troops would help -and increase verisimilitude.

Note that I am not advocating making all mercs retrainable for all factions. As always, it would depend on what troops you are actually able to recruit in any given city, and what troops are available to what factions where is another discussion entirely. I'm just saying that the differentiation between mercs and faction troops is plain wrong in a world where most soldiers are, in effect, mercenaries. The exception to this is of course the professional faction troops like legionaries or agyraspidai, but these are hardly ever available as mercs anyway.

As I understand the mechanics (which I possibly don't), all factions should have ownership over all units, making them retrainable and mergable if they have access to the right cities. Also, quite a few mercenary units should be replaced with faction units where these are in effect identical.

I know that calling for reduction in the number of units in the game is heretical, but I feel it is a necessity to remove this artificial distinction between faction units and mercenaries. There are numerous examples, the Gallic Warband, Gallic Swordsmen, German Spearmen, Bastarnae, Illyrian Peltasts and Mercenary/Greek Peltasts are just the ones I can find off the top of my head. There are a few troops that could do without being recruitable anywhere, but they are few and limited to the very exotic (Elephants), notoriously nomadic or otherwise unable to be linked to a settlement/region (Arabs), and those from civilized cultures who have abandoned their societies for mercenary life (Mercenary Hoplites, possibly Mercenary Peltasts).



On a side note, Automerging units that falls below a certain threshold (25% perhaps?) would be a good idea. That's about the point where it ceases to be an effective tactical unit, and where collective cohesion and experience really should drop.

On another side note, would it be possible to give the AI a "retrain" script, much like the "upgrade" script it currently has? I have no idea how that would effect game balance, but letting the AI "top up" units where able should help it out -and with automerging and the increased ability to merge troops that comes with my Merc rant, it would keep from getting ridiculous.

[Slayer of Cliffracers]

I beg to differ. In a warrior society (most Barbarians), the men fighting in your "faction army" would be the very same ones looking for mercenary work -volunteering for loot and glory. Conscription would be unlikely. I'm not so much advocating that mercs be treated like faction troops as that we accept that for some factions, all troops are essentially mercs -and so should be treated the same. There would be little difference in whether it's an ambitious freelancer nobleman or a representative of the King who turns up asking for volunteers -the same young men would grab their spears and join up regardless. Since it would not be feasible to make certain factions totally dependent on mercs, letting all factions treat their mercs like faction troops would help -and increase verisimilitude.

But most Barbarians were not "Warrior Societies" as you describe them. They did not have standing armies, they relied almost entirely upon drafting up the social elite and even the peasantry if they had to in wartime. They are fighting primarily to maintain or gain social status within Barbarian society, not because their hands are greased with gold as mercenaries do.

They did have mercenary warriors, but these were distinct from the rest of the warriors and were generally speaking not the main body of the army. Most of the army would consist of conscripts/volunteers, perhaps elite conscripts/volunteers but still conscripts/volunteers.

The difference is very simple. Mercenaries are foreigners, who fight in a war that does not directly concern them because they are paid a lot. The ordinary troops even if they are a professional standing army (doesn't really exist actually anywhere at the game's start) are still ultimately conscripts or volunteers of some sort in their origin and paid as little as the rulers can get away with.

Because in a professional army the rulers have a monopoly on the labor market because they are associated with a particular nation, the distinction still makes sense. Mercenaries can always go off and work for someone else, they are not tied to any specific nation as such.