A Mercenary Team anyone?

[Octavian X]

Count me in! I think that the Merc concept can work out well, though I'll have to sign on as a lurker initially (at least until after all my college applications are in and first semester finals are over).

[UnOrthOdOx]

Welcome aboard.

With any luck, we'll actually be allowed to play.

[Jon Miller]

I am not going to tell you how to play (if you are allowed to)

but I think your static cost is unballancing and not the best idea for you either (to succeed as a mercenary team, I would think your ideal would be for an infinite duration war to exist)

basically the problem with a static cost, is that it is positive feedback for the stronger nation

basically the stronger nation can afford more mercenaries (Besides being stronger militarily)), and so get their power increased as a greater percentage compared to the other civs..

now maybe that is your intent, but a mercenary team with a static cost would basically just end the game sooner, as it would strengthen any civ that got a decent advantage

(I thought you would be wheeling and dealing, trying to sell yourselves for the most overall gold as possible (which would mean to sell for more to stronger civs, desperate civs, and peaceful civs))

Jon Miller

[UnOrthOdOx]

As is said in the first post.

Team Mercenary will ALWAYS entertain offers of lower cost, alternative payment, and etc. We will not, however, deny a team paying 'full price' if we have the capability to meet their need.

Yes the stronger nation (A) can technically 'afford' more Mercs. However, they also are less likely to divert gold to hiring troops than the 'weaker civ' (B). Not to mention what Hypothetical Civ (C) not involved in the war might hire to stay out of the war, yet still help A.

We simply CANNOT get involved in negotiating for the best price, though.

First and foremost, ANY REQUEST for troops is ABSOLUTELY confidential. This is essential to harboring ANY kind of trust as mercenaries.

You are planning an attack of Civ B, they don't know yet, you sure as hell don't want us go and tell them, "Hey, civ A is offering us X gold to attack you, care to make a better offer?"

That WILL NOT HAPPEN. Period. End of story.

All talks with us are private, and will always be. If you want the hiring of us to remain private, though...now that's going to cost ya.

[Jon Miller]

where did I ever say I Thought you would be public about such things?

where di dI ever say deny a team...

I was saying that I would imagine you would have some discussion about it, some wheeling and dealing.. not you being a walmart and having a lot of different options sitting arround available

IMNSHO I think the way you are discussing doing it now, is a lot less interesting then how I imagined you doing it.. and limits you

JM

[Jon Miller]

modifying cost based on whther the unit is higher tech (or lower tech) then the hiring civ also makes sense..

JM

[UnOrthOdOx]

Standard cost has to be made so teams can plan ahead for the price impact.

Our original design was probably more to your liking:

Originally, we were hired out for jobs. Cost was split up by a down payment up front plus a cost for each successfull action we took towards the goal.

In this instance, you would hire us to sack city A:

You paid us X as a down payment.
You paid us Y for each unit we killed
You paid us Z for taking the city
You then paid us X again if you wanted the city given to you.

Price of each went up depending on the era the civ we were taking action against was in.

This format was scrapped for not being well received by the public, public wanting more control over hired units, and public not being able to predict the cost to them. How many units would we NEED to kill? etc.

Hence, renting of units was designed along with a standard price.

All teams are treated equally in everything we do. This is needed to maintain any form of relations with any team. We are, after all, striving to be neutral here, not to play favorites.

Price does go up depending on the level of unit you hire, as it's based on the hammer cost.

[Jon Miller]

yeah..

but then you are walmart, not a civ of mercenaries for hire

mercenaries would want to maximise income, you just have a product you are selling

much more boring

JM

[Jon Miller]

sorry, I was sort of entertained by the idea of a mercenary civ RP wise

JM

[UnOrthOdOx]

I don't see how charging everyone the same price does anything but inspire more trust, and thus more business, and thus more profit, frankly.

[Arrian]

basically the stronger nation can afford more mercenaries (Besides being stronger militarily)), and so get their power increased as a greater percentage compared to the other civs

A stronger nation is not necessarily a richer nation in CIV. Financial civs who are perhaps a bit short on production or who have spent their production building wonders might find the ability to purchase or rent units quite useful...

-Arrian

[ormuzd]

I think there is a great potential behind the mercenary team and it should be allowed to play.

After all this is just a team as any one else.

[Addled Platypus]

TEAM BANANA is pretty much split about this issue

speaking for myself only: I hope your team is in

[UnOrthOdOx]

Well folks.

We need to decide on a few things ourselves. Just in case we're actually allowed in the game. I think that's looking favorable at present.

Civgroup icon being first and foremost.

Now, I'm no graphics designer, so bear with my.

The two ideas that come immediately to mind an icon for money, or piracy.

I couldn't make any money related icon lood decent that small in a (admittedly very limited) short time.

However, here is 3 min worth of trying a jolly roger:



Also, we should begin discussion on which leader/civ we want to be.

[Beta]

Uno - can you check out my question here, please. Thx.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=4190250&t=2326#post4190250