Mercenary for hire?

Sheogorath wrote: 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

I didnt know one could make unlimited votes! 

Sloter wrote: 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.

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.

Ander wrote: tallica wrote:   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. 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).

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.

Rill wrote: 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.

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.