If you played Grand Campaigns then you know that you can actually have choices between Mercenary/Bodyguard unit which carries across future scenarios. I think this is an interesting concept and can be brought back to PvP game. If not improving existing techs.
We technically have Mercenary units but they are team bonus specific and often feels occasional if lucky. Sometimes can be useful with Condotierro.
Who will be the mercenary units?
We have many scenario editor generic land units which are locked to scenario editor only. This Mercenary unit will allows us the chance to being able to reuse them in PvP scenario at occasional scale.
Turning many existing UUs to Mercenary unit. Instead naming them as lets say “Mercenary Longbowman” instead of “Elite Longbowman”. Even regional units can be turned into Mercenary units. Overall civ context won’t matter since its tied to RNG seed and each player having its own unit.
** Will it be too strong with certain civs?**
With Cuman Kipchaks, we already see them rarely despite stacking OP upgrades and that happened thanks to low number, They always feels occasional units for distraction or small raiding army. Since they cant be created at large scale, at best you would use for similar purpose or simply mix up with units.
Utility:
Every Castle will have Mercenary unit. Will share same armor class as UUs or new Mercenary Armor class.
Mercenary units will be available through unique map seed and should be unique to each player.
Mercenary units wont have tech for Elite upgrades. Rather will be upgraded automatically with Age.
Like Chronicles Campaigns, you’ll have unique number for amount of Mercenary units you can deploy.
Some civs can have UU tech which improves Mercenary units directly.
Possible tech changes:
Cumans: Instead they can have current Cuman Mercenaries tech which’ll increase population of Mercenary Unit count like being able to create 5 more mercenary units.
Italian team bonus: Allowing to have Condotierro(if possible remove this as Team Bonus and give something new) along with 20% faster creation time.(Can stack up with Berbers as well)
Italian Silk Road: Along with speeding up trade carts, can speed up creation time.
Saracens Civ Bonus: Cheapening the cost of Mercenary units.Since cheap Market is their civ theme.
More like a random scenario editor only unit. Let’s say as Malians you can have Scenario Editor only Crusader Knight or Aztecs being able to create Scenario Editor only unit Kizilbash Warriors to be created at certain creation limit and can be changed each time map generates a map seed. Maybe next time Aztecs create Amazonian Archer in PvP games. Similarly how Chronicles Campaign allows you to create bodyguard unit like Bactrain Archer where Bactrian doesn’t exist as a civ to begin with. Class related upgrades will apply but won’t have traditional Elite upgrades. In Imperial Age you will automatically have increased stats for free.
Mercenaries should depend on the map (can be defined by the random map script
Everyone has the same mercenaries (more balanced and also logical)
Mercenaries only cost Gold
Mercenaries are only available in the Imperial Age and therefor always Elite
Some civs can have bonuses for them (Like Byzanzines getting Mercenaries in Castle Age for example)
Mercenaries do not cost population
Mercenaries get more expensive the more have been bought
The price is shared between players like market prices
Mercenaries do not benefit from Blacksmith upgrades
Mercenaries do benefit from other upgrades though
Mercenaries do not benefit from generic discount bonuses (like Goth cheaper Infantry)
Mercenaries do benefit from civ bonuses and UTs (unless explicitly excluded)
Map based mercenaries
The Mercenaries would always thematically fit to the map. You don’t have Asian units in the Yucatan map and thing like that.
Map creators also have the ability to make them fitting to the theme. If one map as a Asian, Arabian and European theme the mercenaries can be different depending on the theme.
For balance reasons everyone should have the same mercenaries. There are still some balance issues like civilisations getting exactly the unit they need to fill their roster.
Gold and Population
I like the idea of the trade of having a unit that only costs Gold but doesn’t cost population in the late game.
Gold is scarce but you are also likely to be at the pop cap.
Cost scaling
Making the costs scale between players makes mercenaries more expensive in team games and therefor compensate for the ability of having infinite Gold though trade.
For example you could have a unit that costs 50 Gold +1 for every unit alive across players.
That means if the true value of a unit would be like 100 Gold then it would mean there would likely be 50 on the field in most situations.
In a 1v1 that would be an average of 25 per player, but in a 4v4 that would go down to just 6.25.
Blacksmith upgrades
A lot of civilisations are balances by missing blacksmith upgrades, especially American civs have 0 cavalry armour upgrades. This would make some Mercenaries completely useless for some civilisations.
Other upgrades like Thumb Ring are important but I think units can still be useful without those. Missing Blacksmith upgrades is usually more punishing.
The most important technologies like Ballistics are available to all civs anyway.
Aztec cavalry will still be bad without Bloodlines and Husbandry but at least not completely useless.
Civ bonuses and UTs
I think it would be boring if Mercenaries would ignore all civ bonuses and UTs but they could get OP in some cases. The easy fix is to simply change a few of those civ bonuses and UTs to not apply to mercenaries.
For example the full British range bonus could be OP so maybe their UT does not apply to Mercenaries but their civ bonus does, so Mercenary Archers only get +2 instead of +3 range.
A lot of bonuses already only apply to things like “Barracks Units” so Mercenaries wouldn’t get those bonuses anyway.
Honestly I would prefer it being benefited from upgrades and actually should cost the way traditional unit lines does. That includes increment towards traditional pop count. Basically how Chronicles campaigns handles it. Otherwise there isnt a much point if your blacksmith other upgrade means nothing. Mercenary units are already worthless in a way since you cant make them more than specific amount and situational. Just one way getting many scenario editor only game into PvP scenario. “Elite” upgrade will occur when you Imp only. So that it stays consistent with how Castle Age and Imperial Age play. Thats like the only new addition compared to how Chronicles campaign handles it.
Not sure what the benefit of the system you suggested is.
It would just kinda feel like a random additional unit and not really like a Mercenary.
If they require blacksmith upgrades then some units are just completely unusable for some civilisations like cavalry for American civs.
Chronicles is different because they design the campaign around you having one of a certain limited number of units. Those units are pretty strong but limited.
In a pvp setting those units would likely be pretty OP, especially of already available in Castle Age.
American civs if lucky can get better infantry or archers. American and Indian civs at core got no to or bad cavalry to begin with. But that’s not the case for other existing civs.
Limited number unit concept done already with Cuman but more as a team tech thing.
Benefit being having a small edge in certain situation to break the stalemate. We already have same situation with Cuman Kipchaks but as with current design, they are situational at best. Same case will be with this RNG based Mercenary unit lines. If you played new Manor Lords game then you’ll see how random Mercenary units are available while you still have the option to make your generic units. So mixing that availability concept and Chronicles grand campaign’s bodyguard/mercenary picking option.
Side note: Maybe just have the Imp version the way Chronicles handles directly in Castle Age since its limited number already. In other word you already can make “Mercenary Longbowman” which’ll be like “Elite Longbowman” available in Castle Age. Benefitting from upgrades the way Chronicle civ handles it.
In short, concept is similar to Chronicles but doesn’t matter with civ context. Sure you can have independence of limiting mercenary unit varieties via RMS script for certain maps. Like having ME themed units in desert map or European themed units in European maps. But civs get to use of them regardless of civ background. I would like to keep cost and bonus effecting it because of the possible randomization you can get with units.
But that would introduce a lot of unfair RNG. I don’t think it is nice to lose because you rolled a mercenary that is completely useless while your enemy got one that is perfect for countering your army composition.
They are very limited to 5 per Castle though and can not be retrained. Once lost they are lost forever.
Very different to the Chonicles ones that are limited in how many you can field but you can simply retrain them once dead.
That game is very very different compared to AoE2 so I don’t think it’s a good comparison. In Europe Universalis 4 Mercenaries cost no manpower but more money. Also an unrelated game.
AoE3 is certainly the better comparison here. There mercenaries are very strong units that only cost Coin. But they do cost population and are not limited in numbers.
In the first act of the Chronicles Campaign you are mostly limited to the Castle Age so it doesn’t really matter how it handles Imperial Age.
I generally think it would make sense to limit Mercenaries to the Imperial Age anyway.
Currently the Castle Age already introduces a lot of new units compared to the Feudal Age while the Imperial Age gives some civs only 1 new unit (Trebuchet).
I think that should be decided on civ by civ basis. Some bonuses currently already explicitly exclude some units, mostly trash units like Halberdiers or Skirmishers and many civs don’t have access to certain units to balance strong bonuses they have.
This is why I suggested that Mecenaries don’t need blacksmith upgrades but they do benefit from most other technologies and civ bonuses.
If they would need blacksmith upgrades then some mercenaries would just be completely useless to some civilisations. Missing the last armour upgrade makes a unit significantly worse. Missing all armour upgrades makes them practically useless.
You can simply try your luck next time. Unit count is already limited. It’d be simple mixing some Mercenary Archer with your traditional xbow-line. Same case with other unit lines.
I still think Cuman bonus should simply replicate how its handled in Chronicles. Much better execution. Chronicles Mercenary Unit count hardly carried the entire campaign despite having pretty good stats.
It was unthinkable to add aura effect not long ago. Even the charge/dodge/shield tear effects. It can be expanded further even. You can make it your own unique idea based on other games. Economy/Balance is a different matter. As said we already have Mercenary unit concept with Berbers/Cumans/Italians. I still hope devs can touch upon this subject to add more unique gameplay effect.
As said previously can be balanced. Let’s say if OP then 5 archer in Castle and another extra 5 in Imp. You may see annoying Thumb Ring Longbows but at best they can snipe bombards which’ll require micro skills.
I think that’s why it’ll be good in its own way. If got good match then you would create it. Otherwise game will play how it was. So it’ll be a small luck factor on your side. Xolotl Warrior already exist and its kinda laughable already with super rare case use. But interesting nonetheless. As said, RMS can already manipulate Mercenary Unit list if its added to scripting. Hope they do it to make it interesting.
Giving generic mercenary would make it no different than UU. Altho each civ having unique team UU is an interesting idea but would create more hardwork on the dev team. Also can make it hard what to be added.
Make it a pickeable option in lobby. Just like you pick a main civ you can pick a mercenary contract with any civ or let it random.
Mercenaries cost only gold (which depends of unit gold cost+ a percent of the another resource) and are “trainable” in castles very quickly (or a new building could be added, the Mercenary Guild)
None player civ upgrade or bonus affects mercenarie unit.
You have contracts upgrades (that cost gold):
Contract lvl 1 (Castle Age): Make mercenarie UU available with full feudal Age upgrades.
Contract lvl 2: (Castle Age) Upgrades mercenaries UU to full castle age upgrades available for them (depending of mercenarie civs) regardless the player upgrades researched.
Contract lvl 3 (Imperial Age): Upgrades mercenaries UU to its elite version with full Imperial age upgrades available for them.
So a new generic unit that happens to be called mercenary and that also gets a different civ bonus from each civ?
How many different civ bonus for one unit can exist? A unit only has that many stats that can be buffed.
People don’t like losing because of bad RNG.
Most of things in AoE2 are not luck based. World generation is pretty fair and individual missing projectiles have very little impact on the results of a match.
That makes sense and I agree with this. Currently it’s pretty boring.
But I think if there was a general new mercenary mechanic it would be boring if it was based on Chronicles.
I agree with that too I just don’t like the way you’d want to execute it.
The problem is that I think it can only be OP or useless. There is not really a sweet spot of how many would be balanced.
Having 5 really strong units could win you a game in Early Castle Age but 10 strong units will likely not matter much in Imperial.
I don’t think that is a good comparison. That unit is a fixed part of the techree an it is available in every match (that you manage to convert a stable in) and not a unit that you have a certain random chance to get access to.
If there is a mercenary mechanic that gives you:
1/3 chance to get Infantry
1/3 chance to get Archer
1/3 chance to get Cavalry
Then you only get a usable unit in 2/3 of the cases as an Aztec.
A civilisation with all blacksmith upgrades will automatically have better mercenaries on average.
This means some civs suffer a lot more from RNG then others.
AoE3 doesn’t really have that issue because there are no blacksmith upgrades. There is only missing Arsenal upgrades that can slightly weaken certain Mercenaries for certain civilisations and of course some civs have some home city cards that buff some mercenaries.
Something I was thinking about this is… What about mercenaries and monks? Mercenaries should be convertible units or not? After all, they move by profit, not religion and loyalty like your own units.
Could exist some kind of market of soldiers of fortune which you can see the mercenaries available, see their prices, hired them and these transactions change the prices, like the normal market.
You could pay a big amount of gold to make opponent’s hired mercenaries brake their contract and work for you. A kind of a convertion mechanic. Very expensive, but instantly and massive.
This would be very hard to balance.And it will deter people from using mercenaries.
I do like the idea of them not being able to be converted.
If I remember correctly ron and aom had mercenaries that would be with your army for a fixed time and would automatically disappear similar to disbanding.
The Mercenary is an Egyptianinfantry unit in Age of Mythology , trained at the Town Center. The Mercenary can be trained incredibly quickly but only lasts for a short while, as it loses hit points over time.
I thought about that too. It would be kinda funny if they all just switched sides to whoever pays more.
Wouldn’t that be an interesting way to balance them.
They are strong for their cost but you can’t rely on them.
Mercenaries in AoM where changed from timed lives to slowly losing HP like Milita units in AoE3.
They don’t really feel like mercenaries because of that and more like an emergency defensive option.
They are practically useless in offence because they lose to much HP before they reach the enemy base.
I totally agree in all the point, but the concept, does it make the same as AOE3?
If there is the time to introduce the mercenaries, I think first you need to redo all the civilizations, unit tech tree, game balance, etc etc.
You can check my mod, Res publica Romana, where I replace Romans with SPQR.
The auxiliary (mercenary) in this mod are divided in 5 regions with 5 unit each.
You can choose only 1 region at a game, so 5 mercenaries will be available that cost only gold, and no population.
The 25 mercenaries available are infantry, cavalry, archers or elephants that can be hired only in the castle.
No blacksmith upgrade or civ bonus aplies to them, so somehow what you are requesting.
Almost none of the things I suggested are like AoE3 besides everyone having the same mercenaries and them costing Gold (Coin in AoE3).
But that is a very different mechanic. More like the Byzantines in AoE4.
You choose what mercenaries you have and it’s a civilisation feature of the Romans not a general game feature.
Because is boring, and no reflects how mercenarism works. Mercenaries shouldn’t depend of your civ upgrades or bonus.
At most, a little cost discount, or gold return if the unit die, or something relative with it as a civ bonus, but stats should be untouchables.
Taking in count my idea here:
Could become with some others civ bonuses, like discount in contracts, or Free LVL 1 contract.
This give me another idea. What if you can “to rent out” some of your own UU to generate infinite trickle of gold?
Suposing a new mercenarie building is added… You could garrison up to 10 unique units in it to generate gold (like gurjara’s sheeps bonus). This way you sacrifice the units’s cost and the pop space for an infinite gold income.
I supose that the amount of gold generated should some way relative to the unit’s cost, because a karambit warrior shouldn’t generate the same gold than a war elephant…