The vague and somewhat problematic definition of mercenaries — thoughts?

I gotta disagree, especially when holy sites as they currently are in the game only really represent one civ, and all but the Tengri (and the post-rework Sufi if you wanna include them) exclusively represent civs that are already fully playable. Most holy site units aren’t even religious.

The current devs have tried using Jesuits to represent Portuguese on top of Spanish, but the only Jesuit unit is the Conquistador (which is already a weird unit for Jesuits).

Edit to clarify: If holy sites were more like royal houses, with multiple units representing multiple people and speaking different languages, I still wouldn’t like the religious theming but I’d like holy sites better.

Agree with this definition.

Retrospectively, knowing how game turned out, the mercenary system should have been fused with the natives system. Since AoE3 now includes European maps, the mercenary units could be reintroduced as “native” units of local “minor” civilizations.

For example, just considering the original mercenaries, the following European minor civs can be introduced:

  • the Swiss (Swiss pikeman, rename to Reislaufer)
  • the Finns (Hackapell)
  • the Scots (Highlander, rename to Redshank)
  • the Egyptians (Mameluke)
  • the Albanian (Stradiots)
  • the Algerians (Barbary Corsair)
  • the Tatars (Manchus, rename and reskin to Tatar Horse Archer)

Now some of the mercenaries are associated mostly with major civs. In that case, they could be set as unique or shipment-only units, with the appropriate stat adjustments. Specifically,

  • Landsknecht replace Pikeman for the Germans.
  • Black Rider replace the War Wagon. War Wagon could be moved to create a Hungarian minor civ.
  • Hessians are redesigned as English shipment-only unit, representing both the original Hessians mercenaries and the King’s German Legion.

Finally, with mercenaries and natives fused, native mercenaries shipments now becomes quite intuitive narratively. The British shipping Cherokee mercenaries is no different than the French shipping Reislaufers mercenaries. And if certain major civs have particularly strong ties with certain minor civs (i.e. the English and the Scots), then special home city cards to upgrade and allow for limited recruitment of certain mercenaries can be done.

As I am not familiar with Native American history of this time. are the Cloud Sisters:

  1. Belonging to a civ that is notably different from the Lakota (or Sioux)?
  2. Renown for their fighting skill during this time period?
  3. Accessible as mercenaries/auxiliaries for other major civs (i.e. British, French, etc.)

If so, then under the proposed re-design, they can operate as an North American native mercenary.

Agree as well. Holy sites were probably designed along the themes of “spiritual enlightenment and exoticism” that came with TAD (i.e.monk explorers). However, this instead just made the unit, card, and tech rosters very awkward.

1 Like

Yes, it should be something regarding monks, not conquistadors (of all units they are the least that should be there) specially in south america, the Jesuit TP should be improvable to a fort with big cannons for defense

Perhaps train monks who can “convert” other TP from the enemy…
I don’t want to deviate from OP, and least of all gave more ideas that just gonna be given to other “popular” civs

1 Like

I think Conqs would be better as outlaws or Spanish UUs.

I’ve kinda stayed out of this thread, but here goes my thoughts. Back in 2005 on original release, mercenaries could only be acquired through shipments and a handful of the church cards. With the release of TWC the saloon was added which made mercenaries trainable and added the highly useless unit class of outlaws (keeping in mind there was only a few available and none were worth using). It has since continued to get more convoluted as the line between mercenary, native, consulate unit, outlaw is continuing to become more and more blurry. I got no answers anymore, its just a mess.

1 Like

The way I see it, Conquistadors are the perfect unit for the Jesuits. Both broke new ground to conquer and convert far flung regions of the world in the name of Catholicism. Both perfectly represent both Spanish and Portuguese ventures. The Jesuits didn’t shy from using force and violence, and the Conquistadors were undoubtedly zealous. What do you find wrong with the combination?

2 Likes

It is true, in the Vanilla Version, the majority of mercenaries were around the years 1400-1700, and more or less they were the mercenaries who participated in the Italian Wars, Protestant Wars, and the 30 Years’ War, as well as others. European wars of the Early Modern Age.

I also agree that what is mercenary and what is not has become chaotic, and since it is an extensive topic, I am going to divide my opinion into parts, since I have an idea of where things started to get complicated:

The German Mercenary Problem: Landsknechts and Doppelsoldier. 2 units to represent the same historical troops? (“Vanilla”)


The first real complication was with Germany: There were 2 German mercenaries that were common as shipments to all civs (Black Riders, Landsknecht), but these were also historically mercenary troops of the Holy Roman Empire, therefore they should also be on the roster normal.

To prevent “Spies, and assassins” from having an extra bonus against normal rooster units, 2 versions of this unit were created: “Doppelsoldier, as a base unit, and Landsknecht, which counts as a mercenary.”

Unfortunately, they did not create the base version of Black Rider, but happily, the card that summons him changes the sending of Uhlans for Black Riders, in vanilla, so in a way you could have your army of German black riders. In the definitive edition, however, these are available at the mercenary location.

image

The fact is that although this could have been the exception, it became common that in future expansions, certain units had 2 or 3 versions, especially in Native Civ, which to give different bonuses and subtypes to units that already existed, they were I created another version for rooster (Vanilla Eagle Warrior was Heavy Infantry, Eagle Knight is rank Shock Infantry).


The first Outlaw: Cowboys Feber (Warchief)


Cowbows for everyone: I think things really started to get chaotic since TheWarchiefts, when the “Salons” appeared, and the possibility of building “Cowboys” on Asian maps or in South America. It didn’t make sense, neither aesthetically nor historically: it didn’t look good at all to combine Spaniards with Cowboys, but it was a way to “promote” the expansion and the new campaign, which in some levels of Act II: Shadow you could produce *“American” outlaws * as mercenaries.

The thing was only solved in the Definitive Edition, where the name of the Hall was changed to “Tavern” for the European civ, it was given a varied design by civilization and “ruffians” or outlaw more in line with the civ that built the place or the region of the map in which one plays.


Asian “Mercenaries” (Asian Dinasties).-


Asian “supposed mercenaries”.- The thing is that more than mercenaries, they are “extra units” that did not enter the Common Roster of units for the civ in question, and they only had to introduce them as shipments.

This theory has a sustent if one sees that in the Chinese Campaign, you can create a Consulate with “allies” from India, Japan or China itself and guess what they give: The units that are normally extra per shipment (Ronin, ninja, jet lancer, iron troops, rattan shielder, etc).

At the balance level: Let us remember that European civs generally have 7 human units (archer, pikeman, musketeer, Guerrilla, hussar, dragoon, grenadier) and one or 2 additions or variations; so for the rest of the Native American and Asian civs, perhaps for balance, they also limited their non-siege human units to 6 or 7. For this reason, certain mercenaries or even common troops of the Asian civs (Ninjas, Ratan soldiers, Chakram Throwers) were set to recruit as Trading Post units, or by shipment as mercenaries or allies.

Of course, many of these allies have the advantage that since they count as “natives”, they do not occupy a population, and it is an extra advantage to exceed the maximum number of army units; but hey, it’s a shame that some are only limited to shipping.

I think that at least in India, following Germany’s example in the DE, it should allow mercenaries to be unlocked in the monastery or barracks after summoning them, since many of these are technically “part of the civ”. Until now, only Japanese has its own “consulate isolation option” to recruit ninjas, ronins, etc


Allied African Mercenaries?"


For AoE3:DE, after certain DLC, we now had African civs (Yupiii!). But yeah: given that these civs were already hiring “Allies” as they advanced in age, and the possibility of recruiting mercenaries from these civs (Portuguese: Spingardeiros, India: Elephants, Egypt: Camel with ) What would the port be for?

Well, for the same thing, you receive mercenaries from several of the possible options that you could have chosen when advancing in age, or native African allies from emphasized text"relatively" nearby towns. I’m talking about the Dahomey Amazon just in case.


The USA Port Case: What to do when historically USA didn’t use renaissance mercenaries?


When the American DLC came out, one doubt remained: the United States did not count as a European civ, nor as a native one, and it did not have common European mercenaries, since Landskecht and Black Riders were from a time before the USA itself. What to do? Instead of mercenaries, for the port, the USA acquires shipments of “Settlers” from other civs, which is fun and is actually historically okay.

In addition, they receive allies from “variant versions” of base units, such as grenadiers or dragoons, or from countries of their time, such as Prussia or Hungary.


And what is the current panorama like? (AoE3:DE)


Currently, with so many changes, things look like this:

  • All Civs have a port, and this must be used for shipping extra units.
  • The European civ receive Shipments of Mercenaries from the port, and 1 Allied Native that does not occupy a population.
  • The USA receives immigrants, apart from mercenary allies of the post-Napoleonic modern age.
  • Mexico receives native or Spanish allies, and bonuses for its Ouwtlaws.
  • Native American civs receive “allies” with units from the same civ, but with an additional bonus.
  • The Asian civ receive “allies envoys” from their own country, from units that did not enter the normal roster.
  • African civs receive mercenaries from several alliance options as they Age up.
  • Owtlaws for “EVERYONE”, but differentiated in the building that produces them (A beverage establishment to hire hitmen and thugs), the proper owtlaws of that civ, as well as zonal units depending on the map or game.

In general, I think there are many things that could be improved in that regard considering how things turned out, but I’ll leave that for another post, i have been writing a lot.

2 Likes

How do you justify a unit clearly based exclusively on Spanish representing Ports as well?
At least give them a second unit that speaks Portuguese. Could be an armed priest, since you want to represent their violence.

Conquistadors were the spearhead of spain to adquire more land and subjects by force, the Jesuits in the other hand were first of all, a religious order, not a spanish only thing, second, they work to “pacify” the villages of natives, also convert them in catolicism to adquire labor hand in (this case) spanish territory
I don’t know how they work in other parts of the world, but in the Jesuit Missions in South America, their work has a outstanding legacy for defending the rights (from slavery) and preserving the culture of Guaraní people, from military instructions to adjust the alphabet to write our language (various manuscripts on medicine, catechism and other things)

The importance of the Jesuit was really big because of the milita army they formed was used by the Virreinatos to defend Buenos Aires and Montevideo against “nomadic infidels”, portuguese incursions, to saveconduct the Virrey, to guard the frontiers, their ports, and build the Buenos Aires Fort, not only Buenos Aires was founded by Paraguayans but also defended by their indigenous cousings. In a country like argentina, so infatuated in their “european ascendence”, thats pretty much ironically hilarious.

Speaking on the subject, I have to say, the Cabildo of Indios (Indian council) that was working in their time wrote a letter to the King in Spain asking why they were abandon (becuase of the Treaty of Tordesillas), how come if they were good christians and loyal subjects of their majesty, they are abandon. (the true words in the letter are more ######### religious and inquisitive)

Just saying, spain didn’t need a “black legend” to be overthrown

Coming back to OP
Mercernaries; they should be people from other parts of the “map” one is playing, outlaws should be available in regard of the enemy you are facing (Ethiopia vs Japan) Japan could trade african outlaws and Ethiopia ronins

Another problem I have with holy sites is that it’s such a niche and overly specific concept that the only truly religious unit in all holy sites is the Sohei Naginata. Even if you’re generous and include the Qizilbash, that didn’t exist in TAD.

I can get behind linking mercs to specific maps, but I think restricting them to ones related to civs being played is way overboard.

1 Like

I know it sounds drastic, let me explain my thought process
What is a outlaw?
A person escaping the law, could be a criminal, part of a political oposition, a renegade from his town, a person with a motive to fight his country

Take for instance the case of the Gonzalo Guerrero, he was captured by thge mayans, got married and then fought for Mayans against the Spanish, in his case, for his new family (non of the above cited)

1 Like

Because they aren’t based exclusively on the Spanish? What do you think the Portuguese guys conquering Goa, Malacca, and Zanzibar are? All native units get only one language, so naturally they will pick the most prominent one, and in this case it is Spanish. That doesn’t mean the Jesuits exclude people from other nations like Portugal or France.

They were not as nice in other parts of the world. They apparently owned more than 20000 slaves and just like Conquistadors, they were not shy of using force.

1 Like

If they can give multiple units to European minor civs, all (or some) with different voice lines, they can do the same with non-European minor civs.
Holy sites are restrictive both in theming and in implementation.

2 Likes

They’re Arapaho. What I got out of an old Arapaho contact of mine is that Cloud Warriors were somehow a warrior society of theirs, but they refused to say further than that. The Arapaho are not open to giving out information on themselves to outsiders that much, so “Cloud Warriors” is all I really got.

I went with “Cloud Sisters” to model them after Chief Pretty Nose and so that she could look and act like a stro#### version of them. Among the prairie nations, there was no issue with women joining warrior societies, and many nations had women-only warrior societies. There’s no reason beyond the game’s limitations to make them purely a female unit, other than making a male and female model for the same unit is just confusing and only visually coherent for villagers.

There’s no reason they couldn’t be mercenaries for any other potential prairie nation (the Comanche, the Iron Confederacy, the two most likely contenders to be introduced as a Native civ), and they would be “fine” to add to the Haudenosaunee.

I have no information on whether or not the Arapaho had any dealings with the British or French, but it’s probably a safe bet that they did with the French, as their territories were entirely bordered by the Lakota, and the Lakota absolutely did.

1 Like

IMHO, there are a few errors on this post

Nope, that isnt the reason. Spies were added on the Warchief so the reason that they had two similar units is that they just wanted to create a merc version of a known unit. BTW, lands are more similar to haldberdiers than doppels (the merc version of the later is the ronin)

Yes, it exists, the base version statwise are the dragoons. And nope, the original version doesnt swap additional Uhlans from new shipments to Black Riders. German merc shipments works like instead of getting uhlans with the mercs, get more mercenaries in the same shipment.

Im not sure on that, but IRC outlaws depended from region. What DE fixes is which 2-3 outlaws you can get from the region pool.

You’re mixing natives with mercs. Besides that probably China had this consulate options on campaigns based on 1) they already existed 2) By the context of the scenario, it doesnt have sense to get Europeans, you are just getting units from the places that you’re moving on that expedition

1 Like

You do realize all mercs are just buffed up versions of ordinary units, right?

2 Likes

I think we’re past that period so these are unnecessary.

I do think the difference between native units and mercenaries isn’t so much thematically, but the difference is more in the gameplay mechanics. Mercenaries can be accessed and trained by a civ itself, and relying on coins greatly simplifies the order of economy. On the other hand, native units require TPs, which means your access may be lost if you fail to compete for TPs. Not to mention the late game implications of using population space or not.

I would say the Tengri Shrine is already the equivalent to a Tatar minor civ. Let the current Manchu be changed to a non-mercenary unit to serve the Chinese as a strong but harder to obtain light cavalry unit different from the Keshiks (which can be renamed Steppe Archer), and introduce a new mounted archer mercenary named the more generic Mongol or the more specific Oirat to replace the current Manchu. Along with this, the card Kalmycks will instead provide these new mercenaries renamed Kalmycks and have them use firearms as an upgrade uniquely for the Russians.

This makes Landsknechts and Doppelsoldner a little embarrassed in my opinion. The latter should be the elite of the former, however in the game the latter is a weaker regular unit, while the former is obviously more powerful than the latter.

A simple try is:

  • Renamed the current Doppelsoldner to the more generic Zweihänder or simpler Two-Handed Swordsman.
  • Then the current church tech Zweihänder changed its name to Master of the Long Sword (the title awarded by Mark Brotherhood).
  • In addition to still providing improvements to the generic Zweihänders, the Master of the Long Sword will also upgrade Landsknechts and rename them to Doppelsoldners. Therefore, Doppelsoldners are better version of Landsknechts uniquely for the Germans.

Sometimes I think the Missionaries should also be Jesuit units rather than regular Spanish units.

2 Likes

Fair enough. It is more of a what-if scenario, albeit this could solve a lot of complications with the current designation of mercenaries/natives/outlaws/etc. That being said, this information could be useful for an overhaul mod?

Agree that the Tengri Shrine is synonymous with Tatars. (However, the religious sites should really be renamed/replaced to actual minor civs.) That being said, the Oirat should be developed into a minor civ, as they were quite powerful in the heyday, i.e. Dzungar Empire. The Manchu can be replaced by the Solon Horseman, which could be feasibly hire-able by the Chinese and Russians (ignoring the Ottomans, but they don’t need mercenary horse archers any ways).

Agreed. The unit should be renamed to Zweihander Swordsman. Doppelsoldner should be a special card that upgrades and allows for limited creation of Landsknechts.

The Jesuits are probably the number one reason why Asian religious sites should be changed to proper minor civs. Important as they are, the Jesuits are not indigenous Asians by any definition, but tag-alongs of Spanish/Portuguese colonialism. They feel really different even compared to the other religious sites. In any case, it is not as if Asia lacks notable minor civs.

1 Like

There aren’t that many restrictions in theme on making mods. You can even make a mod that includes the Mushroom Kingdom civ with Princess Peach as the AI ​​persona, as long as Nintendo doesn’t get mad. :joy:

This wouldn’t be my choice. Since mercenaries can be used to represent units from other forces that are not part of the playable civilizations, the Oirat (or named to Mongol or any other Mongolian term) can become mercenaries just like the Iron Troop, Sennar Horseman, Zenata Rider, Kanuri Guard, etc.

Tengri Shrine is enough to represent the minor civilizations on the steppe. For me, I would prioritize maintaining a consistent religious theme, i.e. prioritizing the introduction of Theravada Buddhist temples (in Ceylon and Southeast Asia maps), Tantric Buddhist temples (in Himalayas, Mongolia, Manchuria, Eurasian Steppe, Central Asia), Shamanistic shrines (in Southeast Asia maps and a potential map of Yungui Plateau) and other Holy sites. Then the Ainu people, Formosan people, and native Siberian people (such like the Yakuts) etc. can be introduced in the form of tribal settlements, because they are difficult to be covered with religion anyway.

Regarding Dzungar, I will try to introduce Dzungar Camel Rider as another new mercenary, different from the Mongols/Oirats. The Zamburak can be changed into using small artillery like Abus Guns instead of rifles, which makes it good against cavalry and buildings but weak against artillery. Then, the Dzungarian Camel will be kind of a more powerful version of the Zamburak.

I think they are reasonable. Throughout our Asian history, the native Christian communities established by these European missionaries were always a threat to the native rulers in the centuries in the game’s timeline because those believers were very united and even believed that the authority of Christianity was superior to that of the rulers, such like those in Japan. You can almost think of an alliance with the Jesuits as an alliance with those native Christian communities, and they will assist you in resisting your enemies, even if your enemies are the very kings they are supposed to obey. In addition, Europeans, including missionaries, were not stingy about the use of force, so it is not unreasonable for Spanish-speaking conquistadors to be used as a unit.

1 Like

Honestly, the whole Native/Merc/Outlaw/Whatever tag list needs to be simplified. There’s way too many tags for what amounts to basically 2 different classes of units - Native allies and Mercenaries. Everything could just be given one or the other and things made so much simpler.

3 Likes