Mercenary for hire?
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Strategies, Guides & Help
Forum Name: General Questions
Forum Description: If your gameplay question isn't answered in the help files, please post it here.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=2570
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 18:53
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Mercenary for hire?
Posted By: tallica
Subject: Mercenary for hire?
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:13
|
If there was an faction set up to function as a mercenary group, would you use it? Let's say, for a price in gold, you could hire a mercenary to attack someone you don't like, in an unbiased way. You pay this person money, tell them who to hit and how (ie diplo, attack, siege) and they go and do that for you. NOTE: in the above poll you can choose multiple options (or you should be able to). Please let me know which options above you would most use. If you choose 'Other' please list what else you would like as an option. This is a hypothetical question to see how you all feel about this. |
Replies:
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:20
| How about mercenary factions reinforcing a city? Relatively peaceful alliances could "hire" mercenaries to defend their members. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:20
| Mercenary faction stats could be posted, with a competitive bidding process of some kind. |
Posted By: tallica
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:23
|
Yes, of course, defensive armies are possible as well, i just ran out of room, that option can go under "other". Is it letting you vote multiple times? |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:23
|
well the game ALREADY has true mercenary factions... to list some, taggars's crows Beyne's Irregulars Crimson down .. the hassasshin are lampshaded to be assassin to hire... -------------  my words on this forum are from me alone. DLords official words only come from HighKing Belargyle |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:24
| I haven't decided how to vote yet, lol |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:25
seems so lol having a lot of fun! ------------- my words on this forum are from me alone. DLords official words only come from HighKing Belargyle |
tallica wrote:Posted By: StJude
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:41
Voted other, +5347 to that idea above. Being a trade alliance and being able to spend your considerable wealth on defense is a FANTASTIC idea and would make this game hella more fun. Would be awesome if defense included breaking sieges and blockades too on yourself or your alliance (Not on confeds, would be game breaking imo) but not allowing direct attacks.
|
Posted By: tallica
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:43
You also have to factor in movement time, the armies will still have to march out of towns and, depending on your location in regards to the merc town, it could take days for the army to get to you. On that note, would you prefer to have "Merc Hubs" randomly placed across the map, in the different regions? |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:45
|
hey, you will actually be able to BUY units later on..
------------- my words on this forum are from me alone. DLords official words only come from HighKing Belargyle |
Posted By: Huxley
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 19:52
|
Trading players/alliances could use mercenaries to guard caravans. This would be a good addition for your own troops as well, but for those who do not wish to use resources building armies the caravan guard would be a good alternative. ------------- In the land of the blind the man with one eye is king. |
Posted By: The_Dude
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 20:18
| Please use the General Questions topic area for questions about how to play Illy. This poll is not appropriate for this topic area and should either be in Suggestions or The Caravanserai. But it asks NO question about how to currently play Illy which is the purpose of this topic section. |
Posted By: Manannan
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 21:11
This poll is pretty pointless as you can vote multiple times and manipulate the result to be whatever you want.  ------------- Doesn't look good... doesn't look bad either! "Manananananananananan, so long Sir, and thanks for all the fish." ~ St.Jude |
Posted By: tallica
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 21:27
I was just trying to get a sense of what everyone was thinking, i don't like that people can vote for the same item more than once, but i do want people to vote for more than one item, since in this case there is more than one choice that people would like to choose. I'm also looking more at what people are saying than what the votes are. Soon enough I'll have a new post with much more detail on how it will all work, hypothetically. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 07 Oct 2011 at 21:37
|
I like the idea of being able to hire DEFENSIVE diplos scouts, spies, sabs, assassins, etc. What an awesome bonus for new players if their alliance could hire such things for them! Be a great way to protect smaller players in times of war. Cost for "mercenary" defensive diplos would be higher than for the ones you build. And maybe they have limited contracts?
|
Posted By: Sheogorath
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 00:02
|
I see only one problem, unless the battle, or diplo report clearly stated who hired the mercenaries, It would be a way for people to attack new or low population players without anyone finding out who sent them, other than that I love the idea ------------- =Colonialism At Its Finest= |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 03:57
| good point Sheo -- contracts should be posted -- or possible military contracts should be posted and diplos not? |
Posted By: Sheogorath
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 15:46
|
True, I guess it would eliminate the point of espionage if it was posted who hired them. Other than that Mercenaries would liven the game up considerably: Bigger battles, Faster mobilization for players/alliances during times of war, and an extra reason to spend gold ;), etc. ------------- =Colonialism At Its Finest= |
Posted By: dendarkus
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 20:05
| I think mercenaries would mostly be useful for defense. Then the time/distance issue would be less critical. |
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 08 Oct 2011 at 20:46
i think the opposite way. mercs are disposable living bullets. to send on suicide missions against impossible odds. its all about how many i can afford to hire. then if a merc wants cash in function of an hourly upkeep, i would want to use him to maximum effect. now, it depends if hired troops have their own commanders or if i have to use mine. using mine would kinda suck to send on suicide missions.... ------------- my words on this forum are from me alone. DLords official words only come from HighKing Belargyle |
Posted By: dspn23
Date Posted: 25 Nov 2011 at 23:18
wat is the objective of attacking/stealing a low population city? just to get resorces or improve comanders well using mercenaries it would not either be good for you're coomanders once are not them the ones fighting and once mercenaries would not give you wat they stole instead would charge you for the service. however i think they are very usefull for diplomatic missions such as send a messenger without having the lvl6 consulate or assasins without the 19 consulate... |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2011 at 02:59
| Congrats... You're poll has been trolled. (123 "that's dumb" votes)--(that's the problem with unlimited voting). Just ignore them... |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2011 at 08:11
|
I didnt know one could make unlimited votes! Voted for Scouts and Assassins.
|
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2011 at 15:07
| I made some 10-15 votes, mostly for scouting/spying.I always thought it is major pain to keep large number of scouts and diplo units when those gold could be used for armies instead.So i would gladly pay someone for scouting and using other diplo units (for exmpl "i want new scout report on that city every 10hrs forwarded to me") so who ever is doing that needs to be activ and to have large number of all sorts of diplos.It is great poll ,dont get discouraged tallica cos of voting problem, you have started interesting discusion. |
Posted By: tallica
Date Posted: 26 Nov 2011 at 21:15
I'm not discouraged, and was just more looking at the overall communities opinion. I was hoping that "multiple voting" would allow people to vote for multiple options, but only once per option. It seems that there is a lot of desire to have mercenaries (either alliance based or faction based), but there is also some strong opposition. The real problem (with this being alliance based) is that those who don't like the idea would choose to annihilate the mercenary alliance if they happened to be targetted... Very touchy subject in the end, and if it does end up happening sometime in the future, the alliance leader(s) need to keep everything *very* organized, unbiased and professional. |
Posted By: Ander
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2011 at 11:09
One thing I observed from some of the recent wars is that siege is the first and only response of many big alliances. There was even a strange view that attacking a siege camp on your confederate city is an act of offense. (which conversely makes the laying of siege a very defensive act) Even the celebrated snuggle pots of our community seemed to endorse this view, so the chances of a 'professional' merc ally to survive are near to nil. An easier option will be to provide only scout/spy services. Since the chances for detection are low, you have more chances to survive. But once detected, you could be pressurized to divulge the information as to whom you were working for (thereby compensating your credibility). |
Posted By: tallica
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2011 at 19:32
On the other hand, a mercenary based alliance would (obviously) be very heavily military based, and would be a pretty formidable opponent. Also, if run properly, they would all work together very efficiently. I would think a mercenary alliance would be tough to take down, especially since they would focus all armies on defense. A mercenary alliance built of 5-10 strong players wouldn't work, it would have to be a large group of heavily military based players. |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2011 at 20:28
|
For the record, I regard attacking siege camps on one's own cities or those of one's alliance to be an act of self defense. Attacking siege camps of players with whom one is NOT at war on cities of one's non-confed allies or friends is a more difficult area and might be classified as an act of aggression depending on context. In either case, attacking a siege camp would identify a person as an active combatant in a war, which may be relevant to peace settlements where lines are drawn between combatants and noncombatants. Whether a distinction between combatants and noncombatants should be made in a peace treaty is probably for those who are involved in a war to decide. I don't have a sense of any community consensus around this issue, and I myself have not formed an opinion. Sorry for taking this thread down a side trail, please carry on with the discussion of mercenary alliances.
|
Posted By: tallica
Date Posted: 27 Nov 2011 at 20:48
I think that breaking up siege camps at your own (or your alliance/confederations) towns is a defensive move. However, if 2 alliances are at war with each other (for whatever reasons) and any outside alliances get involved offensively or defensively, they are openly declaring that they are participating in the war. Am I saying to abandon your friends when they are being killed? No, but just be ready to join in their fate if you wish to help them out. If your goal (and that of your friends) is peace, then by acting defensively and asking for peace terms is the proper path to take. Of course war is always a touchy subject and will always have people taking sides. |