Michael Gladius 7 Posted February 21 In the base game, mercs were super-expensive, and only really useful for the nation-specific units. Otherwise, it was easier to just build an organic army. This is the inverse of history: standing armies were far more expensive than mercs. So how can this be reflected in a balanced manner? Simple: mercs are cheaper than their build-able counterparts, but have wages like marshals. IRL, mercenaries were very useful in the short-term, and typically jettisoned once the war was over. Having them cost wages like marshals would incentivize players to get rid of them in the long run. They additionally would not be able to replenish their numbers like organically-raised units. So there's a trade-off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lighthope 38 Posted February 21 16 hours ago, Michael Gladius said: In the base game, mercs were super-expensive, and only really useful for the nation-specific units. Otherwise, it was easier to just build an organic army. Mercenaries in the base game were generally used to build up an army very quickly, especially if you were looking at an invasion. I think they served their purpose well enough as is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
