Medieval Kingdoms Total War: MERCENARIES

**OutsiderKK** · June 22, 2016, 10:40 AM

Originally Posted by Linke

What do you have planned for the muslim world wich famously used slabes for battle?
I don't know so well what should be but west africans for the almoravids and mamluks of course, kurd raiders, Kwharezmian cavalry?

Since Mamluks and Ghulams are the slaves we are talking about I guess Kurds, Turks (Cuman, Turkish, Kipchak, Chagatai) and Circassians would make a lot of sense.

**+Marius+** · June 22, 2016, 11:14 AM

Western mercenaries in the Middle East;

"...Simon de Saint-Quentin, a Dominican priest, was sent on a diplomatic mission to the Mongols in 1246. During his journey he met Christian mercenaries in the service of Armenian princes and of the Sultan. He is thus able to tell us that a rebellion in 1240-1241 could be put down only with the help of 300 of these mercenaries." - Mercenaries in Medieval and Renaissance Europe, Hunt Janin, Ursula Carlson

"Immediately following the First Crusade, the Seljuk sultans had resorted to employing Frankish warriors; they then took into their pay some of the crusaders Louis VII had been obliged to leave behind in Adalia; and they were again employing large numbers of Franks when they came into conflict with the Mongols." - Experience of Crusading, Volume 1, Marcus Bull, Norman Housley

**Linke** · June 23, 2016, 06:17 AM

But sweden did use german knights for real

**Kjertesvein** · June 23, 2016, 01:14 PM

I will have to agree with Linke. There may be reasons to limit certain faction's cavalry potential, your heart is in the right place Påsan, but your reasoning doesn't sit very well. German Mercenary Knights were the go-to cavalry for Scandinavian factions, specially Sweden, while their native equivalent was none-existent to my knowledge. German Mercenary Knights were as instrumental in Scandinavian warfare as the Leidang itself or siege warfare.
If anything, native Swedish knights should be gimped to make the faction less cavalry adept, either by bumping the cost or lower their effectiveness. They either were not used at all or their impact was so low that they were not mentioned in historical records. In addition, give a recruitment cap to German Mercenary Knights of 2-4. The standard multiplayer requirements of cavalry usually is around 6, which means, combined with worse native knights, Sweden isn't going to steam roll other cavalry factions from horseback. The historical reasoning behind limiting the numbers of Germans was the acquisition of German Mercenary Knights were not always an alternative to the Scandinavian rulers. There was a certain process of alliance making with German high nobility that was needed, and sometimes it simply wasn't an available option. At least, that's my opinion.

~Wille

**Påsan** · June 23, 2016, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by Kjertesvein

I will have to agree with Linke. There may be reasons to limit certain faction's cavalry potential, your heart is in the right place Påsan, but your reasoning doesn't sit very well. German Mercenary Knights were the go-to cavalry for Scandinavian factions, specially Sweden, while their native equivalent was none-existent to my knowledge. German Mercenary Knights were as instrumental in Scandinavian warfare as the Leidang itself or siege warfare.
If anything, native Swedish knights should be gimped to make the faction less cavalry adept, either by bumping the cost or lower their effectiveness. They either were not used at all or their impact was so low that they were not mentioned in historical records. In addition, give a recruitment cap to German Mercenary Knights of 2-4. The standard multiplayer requirements of cavalry usually is around 6, which means, combined with worse native knights, Sweden isn't going to steam roll other cavalry factions from horseback. The historical reasoning behind limiting the numbers of Germans was the acquisition of German Mercenary Knights were not always an alternative to the Scandinavian rulers. There was a certain process of alliance making with German high nobility that was needed, and sometimes it simply wasn't an available option. At least, that's my opinion.

~Wille

I never said that either the Swedes in this example should a) not have access to german knights or b) that german knights should be bad. What I was trying to convey is that german knights should cost a bit more for sweden than the native German knight does for German factions. They can still be the best cav Sweden have available by far. Similarly Swiss pikemen could be cheaper for the Swiss faction than the mercenary variant other factions have available or they completely looses their faction advantage. They are mercenaries after all and its probably historically accurate that a Mercenary cost more than calling on your own forces. See Sweden would still bring German Knights, but a Sweden player knows that since he brought mercs the German player has more cost-effective cav and he'll still struggle to beat him in a straight cav engagement.

The reason I say this is to avoid the meta of the SS multiplayer games. There every faction would field mercenary welsh longbowmen simply because they were the most cost effective unit available. So you'd have instances where the Turks were fighting the Byzantines and both employed four welsh longbowmen each instead of the native units that made the factions diverse and interesting. (In this case the Turks have a nominal advantage in the skirmish phase which was canceled out completely by the mercs)

Limiting the unit has one problem, when more mercenaries are made, the in this instance cav-weak factions are just going to hop on to the next best merc cav rather than trying to overcome the problem with his faction strength.

**Slytacular** · June 23, 2016, 01:21 PM

I would just bump the cost of Swedish cavalry. If you're able to conquer other places as Sweden, you should be rich and powerful enough to afford good cavalry.