I think the na2 armies are great. Gives you different ways to play your models, with limited purchases. I have nomads aleph and Ariadna. Any with only a few purchases I’m able to get a different feel from playing StarCo.. also building up my foreign company as I have Aristeia soldiers of fortune.
we generally attribute the concept of freedom to good, and the lack of to evil. I don't think its terribly hard to understand why we would see a controlling and murderous government machine as "evil". I don't think it's a stretch to say that a government that treats it's citizens as a disposable resource should be perceived as "evil". An authoritarian government is still pretty evil regardless of their stance on climate control or wealth inequality.
For me, NA2 is broken into two categories, major and minor. Major mercs get lots of model releases and are equivalent to sectorials in other armies. Minor mercs are mostly existing troops in new combinations, and perhaps some unique characters. Major: JSA, Spiral Corps Minor: DBS, StarCo, Ikari, Dashat, Foreign Company I think that the minor merc lists are getting pretty crowded and probably don’t need anything more. They don’t have every single factional crossover combo, but maybe that’s not necessary. There’s definitely room for more major merc factions, because those are by definition more fleshed out and unique.
Been reading your Machiavelli lately? Mercenary companies were how war was fought for a long stretch of European history. There was a wide range of ethics involved some, like Ikari, were brutal for effect, but those were generally exceptions. The companies knew that the people they fought against might be the ones hiring them next time around. Add to that the best way to make money in war was ransoming back after the battle and the likelyhood of "atrocities" was actually very small.
I was thinking about this earlier. Breaking NA2 up into political and apolitical/purely military groupings perhaps?
Exactly. The complete lack of any and all references to the culture of SE Asia/the Philippines/Indochina/etc. shows that in spades...
Yes, that's why atrocities against property of powerful men was small. Common people? Pfffft. Do what you will.
There's a distinct lack of Indonesian and Malaysian (and SEA Muslim) presence in the fluff, despite your attempts at sarcastic dismissal.
Tell that to the Gutar on Gotland who were all slaughtered to the last one when Visby closed their gates on them and let the Danish-hired mercenaries kill them and bury them in unmarked mass graves. However, this slaughter should probably primarily be blamed on the Danish prince commanding the soldiers. This was a hundred year later revised into "the ransacking of Visby" for propaganda purposes, no doubt, but I've heard it told from reliable historians that there were no signs of Visby ever having been ransacked (though the rest of Gotland was thoroughly pillaged, with all that implies). I think there's a reason why European countries (among others) have been fairly adamant about pushing for mercenaries to be made illegal combatants, it may not necessarily be about atrocities as their impact on the liberties they took in general, on the battlefield and off it, as well as their liabilities when it came to holding them to account for their actions - or more importantly holding their employer to account. That and that if anyone rich could hire an army, why those Bourgoise could raise an army to challenge the inherited leaders of the nation.
And you could stomach the other factions? That seems strange. "Stupid atrocities that serve no purpose" are part of the setting, though, at least as part of Uprising. But nobody was saying or implying that ALEPH would be doing that, so I don't know why you bring it up. Sure. It's also often the result of the deployment of regular militaries. And we know that ALEPH does plenty of horrific shit too, but it cares about its own PR. So if it's working with a mercenary company who has good PR, what's the problem? There isn't one, and your insistence that there is, in the face of all logic, is just making you look silly.
There's a big difference; other factions are clearly shown as doing the atrocities. Nomads are praised for doing them. "Oh, we're a tough guy ship so everyone has to do their work or we space them!", etc. Again, this has been discussed at length in other threads, not gonna repeat it. Having Aleph troops work as mercenaries is risking a stupid atrocity tied to Aleph. Not because Aleph troops will do it, but because mercenaries will and Aleph will be blamed. If you go back, you may notice this is what I was objecting to. Yes, but significantly less than mercenaries. One thing is hiring a mercenary company. Another is having its troops serve in a mercenary company. If you go back and read what I was saying, you may notice I say that Aleph would either hire a merc company to do its work, or send its own troops. Not mix the two. What's making me look silly is arguing with you. And logic isn't much what you're using.
Their influence not yet addressed in the fluff is an entirely different kettle of fish than a lack of knowledge about them... you're absolutely correct in noting that they've not yet been addressed, but go off the rails by assuming blanket ignorance about them. The wide ranging influences from other cultures in the area would more reasonably lead to the conclusion that the time hasn't been right yet to discuss the Muslim influence in the area, rather than conclude that the writer is unaware of them entirely.
I noted that there were those who took special pride in being the most ruthless guys out there, but they were, again, not the norm. Of course you yourself weaken the argument by stating that the blame should primarily be on the prince in command. A better example would be Charles V losing control of his Landsknecht (germanic mercenaries) and Tercio (Spanish) forces when taking Rome in 1527. That led to over 6 months of occupation by a force that he could not control. Of course he (well not Charles directly as he wasn't commanding) lost control due to not paying them so... Those liberties were taken by all military forces at the time, not jsut mercenary, and really even up to and through the last century. Being a mercenary had nothing to do with it. This happened frequently. The War of the Roses is a perfect example. Though there were societal powers that held this back a lot more than our modern mentality would think.
The important part is that these atrocities have been done by all military forces, not just mercenary. There are very few documented points when mercenaries behaved differently than standing armies. The modern agreements of how war is to be fought by nations is what has led to the difference currently. Add in that the majority of mercenary forces were normal people serving a campaign or two before taking their money and settling down back home or wherever. They had genuine interest in maintaining a less antagonistic approach than not.
...What? I have no idea where you are pulling this from. I guess their peaceful ways were why they are outlawed by Geneva convention and considered common criminals...
I specifically called out the difference due to modern agreement (i.e. Geneva convention). I was addressing historical aspects, which cover a whole lot more time than the last 100 years, because you initially called up "history tells us over and over" which is either ignorant of how war was fought for many centuries or intentionally misleading.
You mean Landsknechts, famous for 30 years war and a tourist visit to Rome? Or Condottieri, mentioned as worse than medieval armies?
