That is pretty well captured with the native settlements.
2 Likes
Would be cool to actually see some Native warriors from history in them then, instead of random, made up things that are not connected to the history of any of the people they’re supposed to represent.
1 Like
I thought tripods instantly got into position automatically and the gun fired instantly??? At least, that’s what the game taught me. I like the idea.
2 Likes
I’d agree too, a setup delay would fix a large portion of abus problems, more than just tweaking stats every patch forever since 2005
4 Likes
A setup animation and maybe take away the +2 range in age 5. At a maximum they should only get up to 21 range in age 5.
This is exactly why they are a perfect fit as native auxiliaries who are map dependent, not mercenaries who can randomly appear anywhere. As far as I’m aware, natives did not hire themselves out to fight in foreign wars in the same way European or Asian mercenaries did. They already have a niche, they don’t need to bleed into the niche of other units.
There’s certainly room for improvement (at least minor things like renaming Cheyenne “Riders” to Cheyenne Dog Soldiers), but they should keep natives as natives and mercenaries as mercenaries.
1 Like
Lemme know when we figure out when Manchus were for hire on the Great Plains, or when the Swiss Pikemen made a trip out to Honshu.
Except, they did. Cheyenne Dogs would join any war on their territory, and even reach outside it. They were, across the board, extremely interested in the wars of the Europeans that happened in the area, and the entire campaign about both the Lakota and Haudenosaunee in the game are about Native mercenaries helping out the early US.
The only real difference is the Natives weren’t really looking to be hired for it and were moreso into just butting their way into any way they thought was interesting.
They were also commonly found among the American forces as hired scouts and auxiliary forces well into the 18th century. There were Crow and Arikara mercenaries amongst the American forces during the Black Hills War, and they were present when Custer’s regiment was annihilated.
It’s been discussed in this thread that Manchus probably shouldn’t even be mercenaries so I’m not sure why you pick them as an example. For Swiss Pikemen in Honshu I’d assume there were some Swiss Guards along with the Pope when he visited Japan.
Even if there’s not every combination of mercenary x at location y, there are still tons of examples of actual mercenaries fighting extremely far away.
All your examples are just local auxiliary forces (exactly what natives already represent). The ones that were actually hired were recruited directly into the army as regular soldiers and were therefore not mercenaries.
The only case I can think of where native warriors were hired to fight very far away is the Mexicans brought by the Spanish to the Philippines. But that’s very obscure and they were probably just part of their regular army.
Barbary Corsairs were hardly international mercenaries. Black Riders and Ruyters are based on the same historical cavalry regiment - the Reiters. Coincidentally, Harquebusiers are another form of Ruyter, entirely different from the Hackapell they replaced… and none of which were international mercenaries.
Scottish Highlander regiments were not mercenaries at all, but rather a specific division of the British forces that came from Scotland.
Jaegers were specifically civilians who entered armed forces with a background as a ranger or hunter, making them ideally suited to skirmishing and scouting as opposed to typical infantryman work. They were not a specific military regiment, just an archetype of how specific civilians could best put their non-military training to use in the armed forces.
Zouaves were never specifically mercenaries either, as they were specifically created as French regiments from Algiers, with other countries modelling their own regiments after them.
But I don’t want to keep listing things here - the point is, there’s more Mercenaries that weren’t mercenaries than there are that were, and the vast majority of them were extremely localized mercenary regiments or were an archetypical position that anyone could fill rather than an actual regiment. There’s no part of that that Natives couldn’t also fulfill.
And if you want to reduce the mercenaries to regiments that truly were mercenaries, you’re gonna be left pretty much just with Landsknecht, Mameluke, and Stradiot. Almost everything else fits under the two exceptions I list above.
2 Likes
You need to draw a line - where historical accuracy ends and where gameplay begins. If we push this logic far enough, then Lakota shouldn’t be allowed to play anywhere outside of the few maps they make sense, Ottomans would be confined to battling Romanians and Russians and so on and so forth.
IMO the vague and problematic definition of mercenary is fine - they are a wildcard in the game, so they don’t make every game on a particular map the same every time… The units are represented fairly accurately, the fact that they are mercs is simply a way to make room for them in the game.
Like for example how royal houses make room for many european civs that are not full blown playable civs.
This is totally fine.
If need be, we can have an additional map specific merc unit that is always there, like outlaws, and 2 random units. That would be totally fine. Going too far beyond that is grasping at straws.
2 Likes
A Dutchman raiding Iceland on behalf of Algiers is not international enough for you I guess.
Black Riders were first and foremost mercenaries, just like most early modern European armies. Later they became regular units of various standing armies which is what Ruyters represent.
Not really, they used a long gun instead of a bunch of pistols. The two did eventually converge in more modern Reiters, but that’s not really the same thing as the earlier forms. If you want to be that nitpicky, technically Reiters and Harquebusiers were also Cuirassiers. Tilly used them as mercenaries and they were very iconic in England so they are international mercenaries.
Yeah they were, they’re called Redshanks.
Basically every European skirmisher is named hunter in some form because that’s where they originated from. The reason they’re mercs is because they’re based on the Hessian Jaegers hired to fight the Americans among other things.
Still elite units fighting overseas.
No, you just seem to be ignorant on the subject. There certainly are some that aren’t a good fit and that’s what this thread is addressing. But it’s definitely not most, and the solution is not to add more bad options.
2 Likes
@AnaWinters @M00Z1LLA I think the way this could work is by unlocking a trained elite unit at the bar and equivalents by allying with a certain tribe. Similar to how royal houses or African natives unlock powerful mercenaries with some upgrade (like the askari or the royal horseman).
I like the concept of a mercenary native, but it wouldn’t make sense outside of the maps they would be on in real life. Mercenaries from regions other than America were more likely to travel to other continents.
Minor civs are military forces originating from within the map and not part of the civs.
Mercenaries are military forces from outside the map that are not part of the civs.
This means that their serious differences are limited to their sources. But definitions are loose, and things are open to many interpretations.
If Iron Troops and Ninjas were not introduced as mercenaries at the beginning, then assuming there are new minor civs with the theme of Mazu belief and Shinto belief in Asian maps, Iron Troops and Ninjas will most likely be their unit respectively.
Similarly, even Swiss Pikemen can become native units in some European maps, and the civs can still ship them in any maps anyway just like shipping Cherokee Riflemen.
Of course it looks a bit weird for the dog soldiers to be drinking, gambling, and waiting for contracts in a European-style tavern, but I don’t mind the dog soldiers becoming mercenaries, as long as the minor civs’ unit can be given a new name.
1 Like
There’s 6 major bands of Cheyenne units - of them all, Dog Soldiers make no sense being present in a Cheyenne settlement, as they deliberately segregate themselves from the Cheyenne at large and only turn up for fights and to protect the people.
Any of the other 5 bands of warriors would make more sense as the Cheyenne’s trade unit, while having Dogs as a mercenary would be a more realistic way to implement them.
On a similar note, I wasn’t kidding when I said the Cloud Sisters were another good choice for a mercenary unit. They showed up to satisfy a blood debt owed to the Lakota (I’m gonna have to find my source on that, I genuinely don’t remember where I found that tidbit) and it’s why they were present at Greasy Grass. Either way, that’s definitely mercenary work - paying off what they owe. They’d make for a good way to create a Rifle Rider mercenary unit, and I still think creating Chief Pretty Nose as a unique hero for the Lakota would be a good way to remove some power budget from the Lakota Warchief without losing that power altogether. Combine her with Chief Roman Nose and a Dog Soldier shipment and they’d have a solid and unique mercenary setup that they’re currently missing.
And for the love of god, get rid of the Cree. The Revolutionaries can’t train Hessian Jaegers.
1 Like
I’m gonna butt in and point out, as always, that holy sites are the worst type of minor civ.
By now I do think minor civs that represent “part” of the full civ are a good concept, but holy sites are a dumb and stereotyped way of going about it.
This topic was not created for minor civs, so I’ll just say long story short, I’m not averse to a religious themed minor civ in itself when I realize it’s a valid compromise. Rather than understanding them as a religion in itself, it is better to understand them as unspecified peoples and communities that share that belief in the region.
Okay, back to the topic.
I don’t get your opinion on the Cree. Do you want the Cree Tracker to become a mercenary instead?
I don’t necessarily think that the bars/taverns were full of soldiers drinking beer, people with contacts and influence always gathered here who knew where to find men willing to fight for other people’s causes just for money.
It’s not to get rid of the Cree from the game, it’s to remove the Cree from the Lakota deck. The Cree hated us more than the French ##### ### ####### or the British hated spices on food. The Cree would have created an I Hate The Lakota fanclub and been the President, VP, and Secretary all on their own and still have open positions to fill with more of their own.
Point being, the Cree hated us at this point. The single truce they made with us was because there were more important fights to be had for both of us, but they immediately ceased it ASAP to continue trying to kill us.
Why the living fuck we can hire them? The very first thing they’d do would be to desert us and join the enemy.
Oh, add: the point here is to remove the Cree Trackers and the Comanche Horse Archers and to replace them with Native mercenaries, like Cheyenne Dogs and Arapaho Cloud Sisters. Things like that to help put some mercenaries into the Native civs.
3 Likes
The same with the Seminoles for the United States, from what I understand.
3 Likes
We have so many different “categories” of units nowadays it can get kinda confusing:
- Regular unit
- Mercenary
- Outlaw
- Native
- Native Mercenary
- Levied unit
- Consulate/Legion
- Basilica Unit?
- Treasure Guardian
A lot of units are in the wrong category. Many units are in 2 categories.
The Native Mercenary category only has units in it that are also in the Native category. They are basically identical but the mercenary ones don’t count towards the same limit.
The Consulate category is also entirely made up of versions of generic units, but they can be pretty different like Hungarian Hussars compared to normal Hussars.
Which again kinda makes them more like a Native unit or a Mercenary.
I wonder if I forgot a category.
3 Likes