Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Instant training (not 1 turn) med-high cost, extremely high upkeep (they aren't getting land or any other benefits so they would be payed more for their loyalty).
Negative rather then angry populace could be an increased chance of assasination to the general in whoms army they are or an increased chance to succesful actions against city's they are garrisoned in.
- Instant recruit.
- High upkeep
- Normal or even less initial recruit cost.
I think they should still have the same public order effect as normal samurai.
It had more nuances than we typically give the term, and really, hiring ronin was more of an Edo Period thing than a Sengoku thing, if we want to be technical about it.
Probably a much better term for "ronin units" in the game would be akuto or (depending on region) wako.
But those terms don't have the familiarity or image that ronin has associated with it, so I can see why CA went with it.
Being a ronin didn't mean a guy was a "sell sword," or would even think about being one. Many ronin didn't have swords or weapons anyway because they sold them to get out of financial trouble subsequent to losing their master lol.
On the other hand, it was impossible to be considered akuto and to not be armed, and the idea was that akuto were always living by their arms, either by brigandage or by mercenary work.
This didn't stop people from accusing others who were not akuto from being akuto to slander them, or as a slur, but the slur worked because it carried that connotation.
But a ronin could be making his living in other ways, like teaching, craftsmanship, laboring or whatever.
So the connotation for ronin was different. It wasn't necessarily a slander to accuse someone of being ronin, because people knew that honorable and valuable men became ronin in various ways that didn't necessarily reflect on them, such as losing their master to disease or something.
It wasn't assumed if someone was samurai without a lord that he was looking for a new lord, let alone to serve a lord by fighting.
He might have been something else to his former master, like an estate manager or in charge of the clan's mint, but was samurai nonetheless.
Akuto were guys who lived by their swords, as opposed to samurai who carried 'swords in service' but didn't necessarily use them, or even know much about using them to begin with :D
I guess the best comparison I can come up with is thw European feudal sargent and the man at arms.
Samurai were like sergeants: they served for their pay or land, but it wasnt necessarily martial. A sargent who lost his overlord wouldn't necessarily seek out military service, and he might be poor at it anyway and not even be wanted for that kind of work.
A man at arms lived by fighting, or being ready to fight, so a group of masterless men at arms, like a "broken lance," was understood to be looking for one type of work: fighting.
Like akuto, they could resort to brigandage from time to time. I guess the European term villain, as used in the late Middle Age, would be pretty close to akuto.