"Game balance literally exists so that gameplay content doesn't get underused" No it does not.
Alright genius, tell us why game balance exists in singleplayer games if not that.
In every game some things remain central, and others remain peripheral. There is no such thing as every element in the game being "equally used."
Overly reductive, fallacious argument (nirvana fallacy). Just because a lot of games fail to be balanced or don't bother trying, doesn't mean it isn't a good thing to attempt to balance a game.
Mercenaries are there as an option for those who may need it
Already explained why you almost never do. Only 1% of the time you drop into a town would it be worth hiring overpriced, underpowered mercs.
By your own (flawed) logic every troop upgrade in the game is already inherently a problem because nobody wants to stay with just t1 troops, and always upgrades to higher tiers
No, because my logic is that mercs are bad because they never get used by smart players outside of a very rare circumstance. Whereas T1 troops absolutely do get used all the time by all players. Therefore, that argument doesn't work at all.
People stay at t1 or t2 troops upon NEED. Same with mercs.
A smart player frequently needs T1/T2 troops.
A smart player very rarely needs merc troops, in fact most of the time it would actively be a BAD thing to get them due to their lower performance and higher cost.
It doesn't matter the situation is "rare" or not. It maybe a sub-standard option, but that's better than having no option.
Let me show you two games as an example.
In game A, Option 1 is the best choice 99% of the time, and Option 2 is the best choice 1% of the time.
In game B, Option 1 is the best choice 75% of the time, and Option 2 is the best choice 25% of the time.
With all else equal, Game B is the objectively superior game because it has more variety. The player experiences more different gameplay content and makes more different choices. It reduces repetitiveness and overall makes for a more fun game.
This is why gameplay balance exists.
you're complaining every option in the game needs to be at exact same efficacy as others
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I am saying that different troop options of the same tier should be at least comparable in efficacy as others, instead of the existing situation where they are almost never useful.
Right now generic mercs are a good option to a smart player 1% of the time, I would be happy even if it was just 25% of the time that I came across taverns I would say, "yes actually I do think these mercenaries are worth hiring".
Is there some rule you have to fight t5 troops against t5 troops in the game? Is that what "usually happens" in the game?
Who cares if they're not as good as other t5 troops, when nobody is obligated to fight t5s with t5s?
Please don't play dumb. You asked why generic mercs are considered weak. I showed you why they are weak. If they perform badly against all other T5 troops, then they will obviously perform worse against all other troops in the game than other T5 troops would, too. Hence, they are weak.
These are mercs without land, without a stable source of maintenance costs, drifting around without a kingdom backing up their training or discipline. If these were the more experienced, professional types, they'd ALREADY BE IN A MERC BAND -- which, obviously, they're not. Very apparently as we see in the game, these aren't the types you go to hire in major wars like, for example, the Grand Company in history. These are just better, more experienced thugs for hire.
Many of the historical mercenary companies I cited were drifters too, and you don't need a kingdom backing up your training by any means to be an experienced and skilled combat veteran.
It is entirely possible that the mercenaries available for hire in taverns are veterans who have left an army as it's not stated one way or the other, so there's no need for you to construct an elaborate headcanon you pulled out of your ass to justify their current underpowered state. They can just be buffed and the game will be more fun and varied as a result.
In fact, the opposite has proof, their tier is indication that they are meant to be experienced and as strong as other troops. That's what tier is meant to mean.
The tiers in this game, an arbitrary number slapped on to a stage of progression which has no direct comparative relationship to the tiers of other troops
Actually in the extremely vast number of cases it does. You are cherry picking the very small number of exceptions to pretend it's arbitrary when it isn't in the vast majority of cases.
Or, do you complain the t1 looters aren't as strong as forest bandit t1s?
If anything, I would like to have a "tier 0" for looters and farmers.
Do you usually complain steppe bandit t1s are so much faster than other bandits?
You are confusing overall balance with a single stat, and no I don't, because I don't do bandit playstyles (because they are underpowered!) and so rarely use such troops and don't know their comparative viability, though I would like that to be fixed too, ideally. We are complaining about merc troops being very overpriced and underpowered because it is meant to be an option for the player and this is a thread about that.