Mercenaries avaliablility

[kristoff]

Maybe I'm mistaken but I have an impression that types of avaliable mercenary troops are tied to provinces' resources, i.e. you won't be able to recruit mercenary cavalry in a province without horses (own or traded). This is an absurd. One of the main reasons of recruiting mercenaries should be getting troops you normally couldn't get (like Romans relying on Germanic or Gaul horsemen). Of course, mercenaries shouldn't be reinforced.

 

[unmerged(103250)]

You make a good point and i agree totally

 

[Cheexsta]

That doesn't seem to be the case: I've been able to train merc cavalry from provinces without horses (owned or traded). I think it was from bordering a province that had horses, though.

And why wouldn't mercenaries be reinforced? It's not like they're mercenary groups for hire, they're individuals. It makes sense for individuals to keep trickling in if the price is right. This is represented already by mercs not using any manpower but costing more in upkeep.

 

[kristoff]

That doesn't seem to be the case: I've been able to train merc cavalry from provinces without horses (owned or traded). I think it was from bordering a province that had horses, though.

And why wouldn't mercenaries be reinforced? It's not like they're mercenary groups for hire, they're individuals. It makes sense for individuals to keep trickling in if the price is right. This is represented already by mercs not using any manpower but costing more in upkeep.

Yes, it seems to be the case with bordering province's resources. Still it doesn't make sense. Why would Rome need to rush north into Gaul just to be able to recruit horsemen? They used better than their own cavalry of other Italic tribes also. Nevermind Rome, it's true for others too. About reinforcing, I'd just like a decision to rely on mercs or national troops to mean something. Now differences are so marginal that it's not the case. If you can afford mercs it means you're probably big and rich enough. But then you have usually enough manpower to recruit only your own freemen and pay them less. Especially that mercs do not offer anything exceptional like new kinds of troops because of being resource-linked.

 

[Cheexsta]

Yes, it seems to be the case with bordering province's resources. Still it doesn't make sense. Why would Rome need to rush north into Gaul just to be able to recruit horsemen? They used better than their own cavalry of other Italic tribes also.

Bear in mind that the Romans used cavalry in such a small proportion to their infantry that you'd literally have to have an army of 15k or so infantry before you even start adding cavalry units (300 cavalry to every 4-5k infantry), and near as I can tell, they're the only major faction without cavalry access - local or mercenary - at the start of the game.

 

[TheLand]

Yes, it seems to be the case with bordering province's resources. Still it doesn't make sense. Why would Rome need to rush north into Gaul just to be able to recruit horsemen? They used better than their own cavalry of other Italic tribes also. Nevermind Rome, it's true for others too. About reinforcing, I'd just like a decision to rely on mercs or national troops to mean something. Now differences are so marginal that it's not the case. If you can afford mercs it means you're probably big and rich enough. But then you have usually enough manpower to recruit only your own freemen and pay them less. Especially that mercs do not offer anything exceptional like new kinds of troops because of being resource-linked.

What should the solution be?

Mercenary-path countries having less manpower and (somehow) easier merc access?

I suspect that manpower for powers like Egypt and the Seleucids is low enough as it is, given their tendency for bloody wars.

That may not be the case for Carthage, though...

 

[unmerged(15623)]

Bear in mind that the Romans used cavalry in such a small proportion to their infantry that you'd literally have to have an army of 15k or so infantry before you even start adding cavalry units (300 cavalry to every 4-5k infantry), and near as I can tell, they're the only major faction without cavalry access - local or mercenary - at the start of the game.

You are incorrectly assuming that the integral cavalry fromation in later legions was the only cavalry in Roman armies. It wasn't. Auxilia cavalry was fromed in it's own "legions". And most Roman cavalry was auxilia, Gauls being the most numerous AFAIK.

Egypt and Armienia (!) are couple of countries that didn't have horses back in 1.1 at least. Haven't tried 1.2 so don't know if they changed province resources. I personally modded my game so that some provinces like Armenia, Cappadoccia, one province in Libya, one of the Carthaginian elephant provinces and the one in modern Lombardy have horses (gives either direct recruiting or mercenaries to all majors and mediums). I also eliminated most of the iron in Thracia, and gave it some horses. As Thracia was famed for it's light infantry and horsemen, I didn't really get why it got mostly iron.