Should Mercenaries really require Maintenance?

[Nostalgium]

I'd argue no. One of the benefits of mercenaries, historically, was that they were expected to bring their own equipment, and that standing armies were a constant expense due to needing the state to support them in some fashion. Instead, I would suggest a system where Mercenaries operated more like loans: You pay for them in a lump sum, but then they cost no maintenance until the next payment is due. When this occurs, you again pay a lump sum to keep them on retainer, or disband them. You could also sneak in a "promise to pay later" option which could lead to mercenary rebellions, defections and all that other fun stuff which made the 30YW awful.

This would also make mercs more feasible for smaller nations, as right now, they are quite simply prohibitively expensive to maintain, when the whole point of mercenaries being that they were an alternative to the state needing to maintain troops in the first place. As it stands now, small countries actually have a much easier time maintaining a standing, professional army than a mercenary one, and the niche mercenaries fall into is an early-game siege stack due to them being separate from your manpower pool - not as a serious economic alternative to a standing army.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[yyrkroon]

In the game balance, they are primarily a way of trading money for manpower.

As this is typically a really good trade, further restrictions were put in place to make them generally worse than they were originally in game.

To clarify, are you asking that they be cheaper over a given period of employment than they are now (including initial hire cost) ?

 

[newtlord]

It should be noted that, historically, mercenaries were generally very reluctant to get involved in situations that would involve taking substantial losses. (The wars between the Italian states were marked by campaigns of maneuver with fairly perfunctory battles, for this reason.) Since EUIV has no way of modeling this, it seems fair that, instead, the mercenaries make their employer pay through the nose when they do take substantial losses.

 

[Nostalgium]

To clarify, are you asking that they be cheaper over a given period of employment than they are now (including initial hire cost) ?

Not quite. The cost in total can be the same, or even more, for that matter, but I'm of the opinion that payment should happen in lump sums. Annually or bi-annually. Essentially, just a restructuring of how payments are made. But it should be implemented in such a manner that you're not paying for their upkeep on a monthly basis while you have them hired. Especially for countries which are small, this makes them prohibitively expensive, as loans are often not sufficient to pay for their upkeep for more than a few months if you run out of gold, creating the weird situation that I described in which mercenaries are less useful to the nations which made use of them: Those who could not afford to upkeep their own armies.

 

[Republic of Mercury]

Not quite. The cost in total can be the same, or even more, for that matter, but I'm of the opinion that payment should happen in lump sums. Annually or bi-annually. Essentially, just a restructuring of how payments are made. But it should be implemented in such a manner that you're not paying for their upkeep on a monthly basis while you have them hired. Especially for countries which are small, this makes them prohibitively expensive, as loans are often not sufficient to pay for their upkeep for more than a few months if you run out of gold, creating the weird situation that I described in which mercenaries are less useful to the nations which made use of them: Those who could not afford to upkeep their own armies.

If the total cost is the same, how does making it a lump-sum instead of monthly make mercenaries more affordable?

 

[MatthewP]

If the total cost is the same, how does making it a lump-sum instead of monthly make mercenaries more affordable?

Yeah. It seems like the only difference would be adding a little micro where the player should delete their mercs just before the year expires (or more likely, get frustrated when they forget and take 3 loans).

 

[Nostalgium]

If the total cost is the same, how does making it a lump-sum instead of monthly make mercenaries more affordable?

You wouldn't be paying extra for their reinforcements, for one. I don't think there are many examples of kings paying for mercenary recruitment drives. Additionally, it makes going into the red and taking loans one large decision rather than 12/24 small ones (assuming you're coasting near 0 or have hit it). But as I said; the cost could be the same, but it could also be made more affordable by lowering the upfront - that's all stuff that would need balancing.

Yeah. It seems like the only difference would be adding a little micro where the player should delete their mercs just before the year expires (or more likely, get frustrated when they forget and take 3 loans).

I'd envision this as more guided by popups or events than simply deducting the lump cost at the end of the period with no warning. Think something like influencing nations. "Do you want to keep the Redshanks on retainer? Yes/No" with associated costs listed.

 

[KRBLACK]

This would make going over forcelimit essentially free.

The penalty for being over FL is extra maintenance. But if merc maintenance is 0 that no longer applies.

 

[Nostalgium]

This would make going over forcelimit essentially free.

The penalty for being over FL is extra maintenance. But if merc maintenance is 0 that no longer applies.

Now there is something I hadn't considered! It could be covered by hiring a mercenary company that takes you over FL incurring penalties to the hiring cost (the game can already tell when hiring a unit will take you over FL, so modifying it predictively isn't outside the engine's capability), or perhaps yield some other malus - or both. Ticking war exhaustion, maybe, to reflect the political elites being wary of the king/doge/pope taking on more than the state can administratively handle.

 

[MatthewP]

I think your idea for the direction of mercenaries is better than the one the devs chose. But I think there are too many moving parts. I don’t want a pop up every year per merc company I’ve hired. Folks have already identified exploits and corner cases.

Basically the stated approach in the OP isn’t enough to move the needle on its own and would come with serious issues. A more through rework in the same direction could be great, but we know that isn’t in the cards. So I’ll say good idea for the devs to take into EU5 development.

Edit: Definitely still worth hashing out more details here though. I think the idea of making mercs more accessible for smaller powers AND more something you get for war and then release in peace rather than just keeping on is good.

 

[Nostalgium]

I think your idea for the direction of mercenaries is better than the one the devs chose. But I think there are too many moving parts. I don’t want a pop up every year per merc company I’ve hired. Folks have already identified exploits and corner cases.

Basically the stated approach in the OP isn’t enough to move the needle on its own and would come with serious issues. A more through rework in the same direction could be great, but we know that isn’t in the cards. So I’ll say good idea for the devs to take into EU5 development.

Edit: Definitely still worth hashing out more details here though. I think the idea of making mercs more accessible for smaller powers AND more something you get for war and then release in peace rather than just keeping on is good.

Oh, for sure. The maintenance thing is just one aspect of something that'd need to be considered in a larger rework. This shouldn't be considered a "standalone proposal" - more like musings on where the mechanic might be taken in the future or redeveloped for EU5, as you say. So all numbers for years and costs and such are essentially just spitballing.

 

[AvengedK1ng]

I'd argue no. One of the benefits of mercenaries, historically, was that they were expected to bring their own equipment, and that standing armies were a constant expense due to needing the state to support them in some fashion. Instead, I would suggest a system where Mercenaries operated more like loans: You pay for them in a lump sum, but then they cost no maintenance until the next payment is due.

CK uses this system
Can give some good results, but as first 5 months are to get to full morale, would reccomend at least ck 3's 3 year tender

When this occurs, you again pay a lump sum to keep them on retainer, or disband them. You could also sneak in a "promise to pay later" option which could lead to mercenary rebellions, defections and all that other fun stuff which made the 30YW awful.

People complained about the merc looting own province giving unrest event, i dont think they want merc defections, although speaking of random events dont think ive ever seen a pope captured event despite all of emperors deep research, like palatinate becoming historical friends with France

This would also make mercs more feasible for smaller nations, as right now, they are quite simply prohibitively expensive to maintain, when the whole point of mercenaries being that they were an alternative to the state needing to maintain troops in the first place. As it stands now, small countries actually have a much easier time maintaining a standing, professional army than a mercenary one, and the niche mercenaries fall into is an early-game siege stack due to them being separate from your manpower pool - not as a serious economic alternative to a standing army.

Any thoughts on this?

Mercs are great for the unceasing wars that the haspburgs and valois had, small militias just weren't viable long term which is why saxon and Brandenburg's experiments with them in 30 years war failed

 

[Nostalgium]

People complained about the merc looting own province giving unrest event, i dont think they want merc defections, although speaking of random events dont think ive ever seen a pope captured event despite all of emperors deep research, like palatinate becoming historical friends with France

Mercs defecting should be directly connected to deferring their payment in some way. Similarly to events that may or may not kill an heir, have an advisor reveal your fog of war to an enemy, or stealing a Cardinal, it should be a calculated risk the player can take. Something where, if your mercs do defect to the enemy or turn on you as rebels, you can always go "welp, I knew the risk and took it." I'm generally not a big fan of "random dice roll spawns enemy"-mechanics in general.

 

[AvengedK1ng]

Mercs defecting should be directly connected to deferring their payment in some way. Similarly to events that may or may not kill an heir, have an advisor reveal your fog of war to an enemy, or stealing a Cardinal, it should be a calculated risk the player can take. Something where, if your mercs do defect to the enemy or turn on you as rebels, you can always go "welp, I knew the risk and took it." I'm generally not a big fan of "random dice roll spawns enemy"-mechanics in general.

You need to make it worth the risk (without being overpowered) or people will just skip it
Maine and danzig wars can be skipped by just giving up the province in question
Demak can be sold to prevent its independence
A bad Timurids player can just release transoxiaina whilst integrating the rest
Religious culture gives benefits but are they worth rebellions every 20 years across the empire