The problem is bandits in this equation. Their design is the one that makes the bandit tag necessary.
2 Likes
Yes, the mercenaries and natives in general are fine, the problem is the outlaws.
Outlaws were a mistake. I can justify the african ones to an extent because they were designed to be part of the civs. The rest are just redundant.
3 Likes
Some outlaws on European maps are useful. But TWC and TAD ones are all very bad.
Just like mercenaries and native units. Only those that a civ can regularly access could be useful. In the end people are mostly using those that can be guaranteed or enabled by default (like African, US & Mexican outlaws) as viable strategies.
Some of the TAD Outlaws are actually solid.
Wokou Ronin are tanky melee infantry with good siege and base melee damage that can be dropped to 2 pop each with card.
Wokou Horseman are like Bow Riders/Cavalry Archers that can be dropped to 2 pop each with card.
＞European
＞Egyptians, Algerians and Tatara
Honestly I’d be fine with a Egyptian minor civ tho lol
Haha. Fair enough, Europe and MENA (although Tartars did exist in Europe). That being said, in Europe alone, the following civs and units can be considered good candidates for minor civs:
- the Swiss (Reislaufer)
- the Finns (Hackapell, Sissi)
- the Scots (Redshank)
- the Irish (Gallowglass, Kern)
- the Wallachians (Seimeni, Rosior)
- the (Serbo-)Croats (Crabat)
- the (Albano-)Greeks (Stradioti/Argoulet, Evzone)
- the Hungarians (Tabor, Pandur)
- the Tatars (Outrider)
- the Ruthenians (Serdyuk, Registered Cossacks)
- the Caucasians (Murtazeki)
Notice that most of these units have historically served as mercenaries in one form or another while remaining ethnically distinct. Realistically, the difference between mercenaries and native auxiliaries are not too big during this time period.
Sort of agree. Outlaws generally have terrible stats with respect to their pop count. However, I do feel that they could be redesigned to something more viable. Maybe revise their stats, give them stealth, higher siege, and a bonus vs. settlers? The idea is to have these units operate as “guerilla warfare specialists” (terror-sower), as was done with many irregular military units in real-life.
As much as I despise holy sites, Tatars are already included in Tengri, which does already show up in a few European maps.
Wish the Mongol Scout was moved to it as well tho.
Right. So that is one European minor civ done. All they have to do is just rename it to the Tatars. Also agree that begin able to train the Mongol scout there is a good idea.
I mean, yeah but why? Currently if every outlaw was removed that isn’t integral to specific civs (mex, usa, hausa, eth) the game would be exactly the same in 95%+ of games. I don’t see them being useful or meaningful unless they were severely discounted.
Outlaws are just mercenaries by a different name, my point is there’s no reason to have them as a separate class from normal mercs. Just having them as expensive and cost-inefficient early mercs is enough.
I’d prefer to make Mongol Scout a trainable unit (up to 5) in Chinese TCs by default like how the Native Scout is in French TCs.
1 Like
They need the outlaw tag for the card that reduces their pop cost.
We also had a pup once, were outlaws benefited from mercenary upgrades to imperial age and their stats were just insane. Its was a lot of fun, but also very broken ^^
I think its good, that outlaws are a separate thing
1 Like
Tbh not all outlaws and mercs need to be viable in a game. Some are there just for casual game enjoyers, and that should be ok. It is just like team 2 pets shipment, no one will use it, but it is a cool card and fun card for a beginner.
Outlaws are supposed to be armed groups outside the law, while mercenaries are well-trained soldiers waiting to be hired.
To be fair, if native sites are removed, then 70% of competitive games would probably develop the same way as well. However, they are there for fun, out-of-the-box strategies, and something to keep the games interesting. In the same way, outlaws should really be considered part of the map, instead of integral to the civs. Basically, they should be a nice-to-have, instead of something civ should consistently base their strategy around.
I would go one step further, in that mercenaries should not be trainable (at least without cards or techs) from Taverns, and only outlaws can be trained (with a unit limit). Logically, If I am settling in Sonora (map), then the only “mercenaries” I should realistically hire from the on-map Tavern are the local bandits (Pistolero, Comanchero, Renegado). If I want to hire Old World mercenaries, then I should do this through home city shipments.
In general, I think if something is in the game, then it should be viable to some extent. To make outlaws viable, their stats could have their pop cost reduced and a unit limit implemented. This way, outlaws are still niche due to the unit limit, but can offer out-of-the-box opening (rush/defense), making the game more interesting.
In the late game, the Tavern could provide some outlaw-specific technologies, giving stealth ability, kill bounty bonuses, reduced pop count, etc. This relegate outlaws to a more guerilla role while still ensuring that they are weaker to standard units.
I feel like an inherent issue with outlaws is that they perform more or less on par with their stats per cost while also having an excessive pop count. I think a way to make them actually interesting would be to drop the cost, not just turn them into a normal unit essentially. Not a huge drop but if Pistoleros were 65 or 70 coin maybe the pop cost would be justified occasionally.
4 Likes
The outlaws are actually quite good in age2, they are supposed to be some sort of panic button since they are cheap and very effective in combat in age 2.
However, the meta is to stay as little as possible in age2, so their window of opportunity is gone. They need a rework, probably some tech to make them scale up or something, to continue to be relevant in age 3. In that case, outlaw tag would be necessary to differentiate them from the rest of the mercs.
But they should be mercs and any upgrade affecting mercs should also affect them.
Yeah, I kinda think back in the day the pop costs were higher and there were still a few good builds. I think lowering the cost is good, but frankly any attempt to make Outlaws viable late game is a horrible move that goes directly against their core design.
Late game they should fall off hard despite being insanely cost effective because of the pop inefficiency. At that point, even having the merc contractor upgrade them would be fine. Insanely good stats that look great until you check the pop cost would be fine.
1 Like
when USA could get gunslingers for 1 pop they where straight up 1 of the strongest musks in the game in treaty, low price, great stats.