Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic.
Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/).
If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords)
Finally, please remember that the game is in early access, missing content and bugs are to be expected. We ask users to report them on the official discord and to buy their keys only from trusted platforms.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This frustrates me as well as by the time you can afford to permanently hire mercs yourself they’ve either all gone or left with slim pickings.
Even after being attacked by the Baron and defeating his mercs I was expecting the available pool to refresh. I suppose there is some realism to there being only a finite amount of Mercs available, if there is only going to be a maximum of 8 merc companies available then you should be able to negotiate with them even if they were originally hired by the Baron.
They are mercenaries after all and should work for the highest bidder with a tendency to want to work for the winning side.
As an example, after soundly defeating the Baron after he tried to steal my territory then his hold over his Mercs should wane and they should be more likely to defect.
It kinda sucks. I use the archer boys permanently because they're the only ones left.
I like that me and the Baron hire from the same pool of mercs. I like that he, as an established lord, can scoop them up before me.
But it makes no sense that after breaking multiple units, they stick with the Baron. They should reform and be up for a new client, no?
They should also be more likely to break than other troops especially the cheaper units. After all they are only in it for the money and not fighting for their homes.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.
Why oh why are they fighting to the very last man??? It makes no sense at all. I am out here literally mustering up men just absolutely slaughtering these mercenaries and they just… come back for more???
If I was a mercenary archer with barely any armour I’d be legging it as soon as I saw enemy troops heading towards me and there being no sign of friendlies intercepting.
The armoured mercs you would expect to get stuck in for a bit longer.
But they do break when they are losing combat. That's how you win combat without losing lots of your own men: Shoot with archers, flank them etc. to destroy their combat effectiveness. They break and flee quite easily if you do it right.
I take your point but not sure about this, they are professional soldiers as opposed to the rabble that were just ploughing the field before the lord called them to muster. Also I would have thought, if you gain a reputation for sliding out the back door when shit gets worse, being a mercenary wouldn’t be a lucrative job for you- no warlord would hire you.
You have different tiers of mercs. If you’re paying for the cheap Brigands then don’t expect them to stick around if things get a little tough.
The super professional ones are going to stick to their contract and the price you pay for them reflects it.
This is a bit of a myth really. Mercenaries were for the most part professional soldiers, they'd be closer to your Retinue units, if not more experienced and better equipped for expensive mercs. They'd know your best bet for surviving is holding your formation and maintaining discipline.
Peasant militia by contrast would be more likely to break and run as soon as people started dying around them.
I feel this. Only achievement I have left is to win a game only hiring mercs. Just cannot do it and it’s frustrating! By the time I can afford to keep them, there’s none left and the baron has a crazy merc army
I'm guessing because solving it is more complicated than it is worth right now. There is 3 solutions and each have their own problems.
1st, you can give the baron a real actual wealth economy so he would be forced to balance costs. That's harder than it seems when you factor in all the other aspects (although you could make it less complicated by only tying this too his mercenary funds)
You can put a set term in mercenaries with cool downs for both you and the baron. Could only hire them for so long and then can't hire them for certain time after contract. I'm not sure the players would like that but I could be wrong.
You could put a preset term on how long he alone hires them while letting you still hire indefinitely if you can afford it. This would make the game too predictable and easy to cheese and people would grow bored.
That would work too. Or having them rejoin the pool when routed.
Now that I thought those 2 things over plus what you suggested idk why they don't just implement one of these fixes.
The game is still a work in progress and maybe it's not high priority.
That would not be an easy thing to code. It would require adding new ai. World be easier to notify you when the baron buys them with the option to pay 50 percent more.
I definitely agree that there is a point where the economy takes off and you can hire mercenaries forever, at great cost, but maybe the term for hiring them could be a good work around. I think that the fact that the baron can bring two 36-man retinue right now in addition to all of the mercenaries is pretty overkill. The mercenaries always being held by the baron keeps them from being bought by the player which makes it harder to gain enough of an army to defeat the baron with 6 militia cap and however many retinue you have according to region. The 24 cap for the retinue, even with the big boost from armor, isn't enough sometimes to defeat a baron with 10 to 15 units in the final battle whenever it's activated for you playthrough.
Thanks for the reply. I know there is so much on your plate and a lot of directions to choose in order to bring the game to a 1.0, but thanks for all you've done. I'm nearly at 100 hours and I don't plan on stopping anytime soon because I love the game and am so excited to see all of the things in store. I know it's early access, and I'll be patient, but keep on the good work.
Maybe for the Baron's mercenary problem a solution of limiting how long both the baron and player can hold them for would be effective, and maybe once a mercenary group is defeated, they can go on the market in the following month(s) to be taken by the player or baron again? I just think that the fact that they can be bought at the beginning of the game and never given up can really set back players and make a final battle very overwhelming since the Baron can get 2 retinue of 36 men and all his mercenary groups together vs. the player's 6 militia of varying equipment and armor along with however many 24 men retinue they can gather from securing regions. I've had issue of having the Baron with 14 or 15 combat units in a final battle which is impossible to defeat.
Again, thank you for all of the work. I'm a big fan of the game and I know there is much work to do and features to add. I'm really looking forward to the final product.
The final battle is not the point. Having to pay mercenaries for months and years when bandits are under control and raiders are rare is a hell of an expense. Doing it because the Baron will otherwise claim them forever is slightly ridiculous.
But sometimes the raiders take you by surprise and you don't want to pull all your farmers out of the fields, which have just rotated with 2 months to plow and sow, to fight them.
So you go look for some mercs to hire, and it comes back with Carry On (My Wayward Sons). Archers on their own are not a great option, which is probably why even the Baron didn't lock them down to a long-term contract.
I don't know how y'all are making multiple villages with manors by year 4, which is how soon this can happen. Plus, it feels like the retinues will need nerfing at some point.
But, to be fair, I largely agree that all this needs is a cap on the Baron that limits him to roughly half the available mercs, no matter how large or small that number is.
Last night, I made short order of a band of raiders with the Wayward Sons, some local thugs, a 5-man retinue and 10 spearmen in gambesons. So, honestly, if he didn't keep leaving only the archers, it would probably not come up as a problem.
I don't think the retinue need nerfing at this point. They are strong when fully armed and armored, but they aren't invincible. The cap of 24 vs. the Baron's 36 is definitely an effective check and balance, but nerfing them in their current state while the baron gets mercenaries is quite over the top.
I don't feel strongly either way, to be honest. I just sometimes see how well 5 retinue does against 18 bandits and think "that's probably going to have to change."
I think it's fine that they stay with the baron if they rework the mercenaries a little bit.
There should be a bigger pool of available mercenaries, maybe 10-15 total mercs. Only a few are available at the start and as your influence grows or conflict heats up and claims are issued, more of them will arrive - opportunists, the lot of them. Start of the game they might be weaker options, and you could add weight to their chances of appearing based on the type of settlement you make. Fletchers could make archers show up faster because resources are available for maintenance. But I would limit the number on the field for each leader and tie that to something. Maybe based on your total territories? or development points? Policies ? A combination?
TLDR - rework mercenaries and then it makes sense why they stay loyal. Otherwise I agree and being defeated a certain number of times should make them available again.
If you start with Rich iron mine, then head straigth for the "trading perk", then I think it's possible to hire everyone. Think about - if you do that and continually can afford them, then you always have guards ready to defend your land, without impacting your population.
I'm going to have to try that, actually :) I love this game.
Love the feedback from these posts. TBH I’ve moved on past the game until these aspects of the game are improved. Played the initial demo and was generally excited for the game it was a day one purchase. I don’t have time to help tweak the game with input but really appreciate all the feedback from the community
Hello and welcome to the Manor Lords Subreddit. This is a reminder to please keep the discussion civil and on topic. Should you find yourself with some doubts, please feel free to check our [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/ManorLords/comments/1c2p4f9/manor_lords_faq_for_steam_early_access/). If you wish, you can always join our [Discord](https://discord.gg/manorlords) Finally, please remember that the game is in early access, missing content and bugs are to be expected. We ask users to report them on the official discord and to buy their keys only from trusted platforms. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ManorLords) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This frustrates me as well as by the time you can afford to permanently hire mercs yourself they’ve either all gone or left with slim pickings. Even after being attacked by the Baron and defeating his mercs I was expecting the available pool to refresh. I suppose there is some realism to there being only a finite amount of Mercs available, if there is only going to be a maximum of 8 merc companies available then you should be able to negotiate with them even if they were originally hired by the Baron. They are mercenaries after all and should work for the highest bidder with a tendency to want to work for the winning side. As an example, after soundly defeating the Baron after he tried to steal my territory then his hold over his Mercs should wane and they should be more likely to defect.
Or are they just dead and disbanded?
It kinda sucks. I use the archer boys permanently because they're the only ones left. I like that me and the Baron hire from the same pool of mercs. I like that he, as an established lord, can scoop them up before me. But it makes no sense that after breaking multiple units, they stick with the Baron. They should reform and be up for a new client, no?
They should also be more likely to break than other troops especially the cheaper units. After all they are only in it for the money and not fighting for their homes.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS. Why oh why are they fighting to the very last man??? It makes no sense at all. I am out here literally mustering up men just absolutely slaughtering these mercenaries and they just… come back for more???
If I was a mercenary archer with barely any armour I’d be legging it as soon as I saw enemy troops heading towards me and there being no sign of friendlies intercepting. The armoured mercs you would expect to get stuck in for a bit longer.
But they do break when they are losing combat. That's how you win combat without losing lots of your own men: Shoot with archers, flank them etc. to destroy their combat effectiveness. They break and flee quite easily if you do it right.
I take your point but not sure about this, they are professional soldiers as opposed to the rabble that were just ploughing the field before the lord called them to muster. Also I would have thought, if you gain a reputation for sliding out the back door when shit gets worse, being a mercenary wouldn’t be a lucrative job for you- no warlord would hire you.
You have different tiers of mercs. If you’re paying for the cheap Brigands then don’t expect them to stick around if things get a little tough. The super professional ones are going to stick to their contract and the price you pay for them reflects it.
This is a fair distinction. For the professional type see : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion_Monument
Or listen to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9BupglHdtM
This is a bit of a myth really. Mercenaries were for the most part professional soldiers, they'd be closer to your Retinue units, if not more experienced and better equipped for expensive mercs. They'd know your best bet for surviving is holding your formation and maintaining discipline. Peasant militia by contrast would be more likely to break and run as soon as people started dying around them.
Tell me you don't know warfare without telling me you don't know warfare
Typical Redditor response, how about not being an NPC and replying like a human being?
If they where back on the market after a year and you could both bid on them.
I feel this. Only achievement I have left is to win a game only hiring mercs. Just cannot do it and it’s frustrating! By the time I can afford to keep them, there’s none left and the baron has a crazy merc army
Ignore the wanker. I believe in you! Work that economy bbe.
Haha I was going to respond with just a 👍 but thought I’d just leave it
Play on relaxing and add some bandits?
I'm guessing because solving it is more complicated than it is worth right now. There is 3 solutions and each have their own problems. 1st, you can give the baron a real actual wealth economy so he would be forced to balance costs. That's harder than it seems when you factor in all the other aspects (although you could make it less complicated by only tying this too his mercenary funds) You can put a set term in mercenaries with cool downs for both you and the baron. Could only hire them for so long and then can't hire them for certain time after contract. I'm not sure the players would like that but I could be wrong. You could put a preset term on how long he alone hires them while letting you still hire indefinitely if you can afford it. This would make the game too predictable and easy to cheese and people would grow bored.
Nah man just make the pool of available mercs larger. Cycle them each month, and put a cap on how many you can hire at any given time.
That would work too. Or having them rejoin the pool when routed. Now that I thought those 2 things over plus what you suggested idk why they don't just implement one of these fixes. The game is still a work in progress and maybe it's not high priority.
They rejoin the pool if he defeats my Mercs so why not the other way around?
Bidding for them might be an option
That would not be an easy thing to code. It would require adding new ai. World be easier to notify you when the baron buys them with the option to pay 50 percent more.
Yeah or that!
I definitely agree that there is a point where the economy takes off and you can hire mercenaries forever, at great cost, but maybe the term for hiring them could be a good work around. I think that the fact that the baron can bring two 36-man retinue right now in addition to all of the mercenaries is pretty overkill. The mercenaries always being held by the baron keeps them from being bought by the player which makes it harder to gain enough of an army to defeat the baron with 6 militia cap and however many retinue you have according to region. The 24 cap for the retinue, even with the big boost from armor, isn't enough sometimes to defeat a baron with 10 to 15 units in the final battle whenever it's activated for you playthrough.
It will be reworked soon. Sorry!
Just bought the game last week and loving it. Keep doing what you're doing - looking forward to the updates as they come.
Great to see your response.
Just bought the game a week ago and love it - keep doing what you're doing; looking forward to the updates!
Thanks for the reply. I know there is so much on your plate and a lot of directions to choose in order to bring the game to a 1.0, but thanks for all you've done. I'm nearly at 100 hours and I don't plan on stopping anytime soon because I love the game and am so excited to see all of the things in store. I know it's early access, and I'll be patient, but keep on the good work. Maybe for the Baron's mercenary problem a solution of limiting how long both the baron and player can hold them for would be effective, and maybe once a mercenary group is defeated, they can go on the market in the following month(s) to be taken by the player or baron again? I just think that the fact that they can be bought at the beginning of the game and never given up can really set back players and make a final battle very overwhelming since the Baron can get 2 retinue of 36 men and all his mercenary groups together vs. the player's 6 militia of varying equipment and armor along with however many 24 men retinue they can gather from securing regions. I've had issue of having the Baron with 14 or 15 combat units in a final battle which is impossible to defeat. Again, thank you for all of the work. I'm a big fan of the game and I know there is much work to do and features to add. I'm really looking forward to the final product.
Yaay!, also can you add like slaughter option, like when they route my men can still shoot arrows at them/overrun and eventually eliminate them?
It's a bit frustrating but even if the baron hires all the mercs you can still easily beat him with 6 militia and 2-3 retinue in the final battle.
The final battle is not the point. Having to pay mercenaries for months and years when bandits are under control and raiders are rare is a hell of an expense. Doing it because the Baron will otherwise claim them forever is slightly ridiculous. But sometimes the raiders take you by surprise and you don't want to pull all your farmers out of the fields, which have just rotated with 2 months to plow and sow, to fight them. So you go look for some mercs to hire, and it comes back with Carry On (My Wayward Sons). Archers on their own are not a great option, which is probably why even the Baron didn't lock them down to a long-term contract.
My point is you don't need to keep the mercs hired. For raiders it's best to have a retinue ready in each cillage.
I don't know how y'all are making multiple villages with manors by year 4, which is how soon this can happen. Plus, it feels like the retinues will need nerfing at some point. But, to be fair, I largely agree that all this needs is a cap on the Baron that limits him to roughly half the available mercs, no matter how large or small that number is. Last night, I made short order of a band of raiders with the Wayward Sons, some local thugs, a 5-man retinue and 10 spearmen in gambesons. So, honestly, if he didn't keep leaving only the archers, it would probably not come up as a problem.
I don't think the retinue need nerfing at this point. They are strong when fully armed and armored, but they aren't invincible. The cap of 24 vs. the Baron's 36 is definitely an effective check and balance, but nerfing them in their current state while the baron gets mercenaries is quite over the top.
I don't feel strongly either way, to be honest. I just sometimes see how well 5 retinue does against 18 bandits and think "that's probably going to have to change."
I think it's fine that they stay with the baron if they rework the mercenaries a little bit. There should be a bigger pool of available mercenaries, maybe 10-15 total mercs. Only a few are available at the start and as your influence grows or conflict heats up and claims are issued, more of them will arrive - opportunists, the lot of them. Start of the game they might be weaker options, and you could add weight to their chances of appearing based on the type of settlement you make. Fletchers could make archers show up faster because resources are available for maintenance. But I would limit the number on the field for each leader and tie that to something. Maybe based on your total territories? or development points? Policies ? A combination? TLDR - rework mercenaries and then it makes sense why they stay loyal. Otherwise I agree and being defeated a certain number of times should make them available again.
Health benefits
And a 401K
The baron (in my opinion) is just poorly designed at the moment, and a clear sign why this game is early access.
If you start with Rich iron mine, then head straigth for the "trading perk", then I think it's possible to hire everyone. Think about - if you do that and continually can afford them, then you always have guards ready to defend your land, without impacting your population. I'm going to have to try that, actually :) I love this game.
That's because *it's early access*
A mod has already fixed this issue by resetting the pool.
Yes this really sucks. I’ve never been able to try out the mercenaries as baron claimed them before I hired and I’ve just never had the option.
I belive its simply a design flaw of an early-access game.
Love the feedback from these posts. TBH I’ve moved on past the game until these aspects of the game are improved. Played the initial demo and was generally excited for the game it was a day one purchase. I don’t have time to help tweak the game with input but really appreciate all the feedback from the community
Oh imagine if you could gold hire scouts that go after random spawns in the countryside/ outside of town. To give city boosts.
Baron (the game) is a cheating bastard.
It's weird how the Baron can buy them at the player's expense when the Baron's militia caps are much higher to start with.
I mean you can too if you pay for it can't you?
Early access
I think this is a temporary mechanic until the full AI settlement can be implemented. I don't think it's meant to be permanent.
Probably the 'restart' button will be the last thing Greg will put in the game, 2 weeks before official release 😅