I'm Strugling with settlement management :(

[SGT-Snail]

I have had to restart my campaign several times now just out of frustration with the settlement management system. I like to play as Scipii, and I usually take Sciccily without too many hiccups. but as the game progresses tiny little empire just crumbles in on itself due to recession and being un able to provide adequate troops and troops types to defeat the carthaginians.

I always massacre each settlement I take over to reduce the cultural difference and curb the squalor down etc. I try to build nearly every turn, I build sewers, baths etc etc however it's only a matter of time untill the squalor sky rockets and most of my cities fall into the recession and I am unable to progress my military efficiently. For me the settlement manage is just ruining the game for me. I find it very frustrating and is ultimately putting me off playing the game completely. What am I doing wrong?

:(

[Darth Feather]

what difficulty setting are you playing on?

I suppose you are referring to the large squalor mostely in Carthage.
In my opinion, sometimes the solution might be: break down the baracks, put tax on very high, evacuate your army, and let the settlement rebel. Then the senate will probably give you the message to take it back in exchage for something like a minor exotic unit and then you can exterminate it again, the squalor is often caused by too large population count.

Hope this helped

[rickinator9]

If you mean low income with your recession, I bet the low income is caused by high troop upkeep. Don't garrison those cities with troops who should be in the field, garrison them with cheap units, in Scipii's case, the town guard and the peasants. The boost caused by a garrison is calculated by numbers, not skill.

I have to say I find the Scipii the most boring of the Roman factions. You will have a nice campaign in the beginning, but once you have taken Carthage(the city), you'll have to walk through the desert for like 20 turns. The remaining Carthaginians will just keep harassing you unless you take the desert provinces.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I always massacre each settlement I take over to reduce the cultural difference and curb the squalor down etc.

Except in a few rare instances, this is a mistake, IMHO. Why, you might ask? More people=more tax income. Yes you get a quick shot of income from looting, but in the long run you hurt yourself by extermination. I've linked to a discussion in another thread about a topic that concerns ZPG (Zero Population Growth). This is what you strive for. If you look at the screenies I provided in that link, you'll see that it's quite possible to achieve ZPG even in Carthage.

Post a screen shot or two and we can go from there......

[ReluctantSamurai]

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?132595-Population-Loyalty

This is the main discussion...the other concerns family members with huge amounts of money in the coffers.

Look in the "I'm having trouble" thread for the other.

[Vincent Butler]

The Scipii are interesting, and I believe the worst of the Romans to play as, a campaign can very quickly bog down, too little settlements and not money-making ones at that. If you take the other towns very quickly there should be no need to exterminate, you can move the screen and see their current happiness level. That is what I use, typically, to determine what I do with a settlement. If it is a town or small town I almost never exterminate. Destroying their temples helps, especially if you exterminate, and then building your own. You might see a temporary shift downward in happiness, but as you improve the temples that should change. I usually only take the coastal towns as the Scipii, leaving Dimmidi and Nepti for later, and I head toward Egypt. Dimmidi riots pretty quickly, and Nepti grows slloooowwwwllllyyyy. I will either use mercenary armies or all-cav armies to deal with the small bands of enemies. Carthage usually boils for a while, then stays in the blue happiness mode. Also, they may have a spy. Many times if a settlement is unhappy I train a spy, and the next turn I kick an enemy spy out of the settlement and they are happy again.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The Scipii are interesting, and I believe the worst of the Romans to play as, a campaign can very quickly bog down, too little settlements and not money-making ones at that.

You might want to rethink that if you use a different approach than the standard. Once you secure all of Sicily, kick Carthage out of Thapsus and Carthage itself, cut the heart out of the Numidians by taking their capital of Cirta, don't bother with any other desert settlement except Lepcis Magna. In other words, forget all those piss-poor desert settlements like Dimmidi, Nepte, etc. They simply aren't worth the effort. Tingi is too far away to effectively control, and heading east to the Nile comes later. Instead....

......send an army into Greece:idea2: Cut into Brutii domain before they overrun the whole place. Come civil war time, you will be grateful for the easier task eliminating the boys in green (Romans in green are an abomination, anyways:laugh4:)

You play the Scipii to make the Med your "pond" and the Decere Quinquereme does just that. With an Awesome Temple of Neptune and a dockyard, you have a chance for a 5-star admiral from the start....2 stars from the Priest of Neptune, 2 from being a Seamaster, and the 5th as a Shipwright. You'd be amazed at how many ships you sink outright in Naval battles the first go-around......

The Scipii also get the Temple of Vulcan which allows for gold-level weapons and armor at Pantheon level combined with a Forge.

The Scipii are the best Roman faction to play, IMHO....excellent temples, central starting location, and the coolest quinquereme (the Decere) in the game.

:bow:

[Vincent Butler]

I do like trying to get into Greece, and if the opportunity presents itself, I do. Money situation is awesome, for Scipii it makes enough more money to take it than to trade with Greece to be worth the attack, and I like limiting the Brutii's advance; though then they go north till they Campus Sarmatia, then they stop expansion east, or so it seems. As far as the naval units go, Scipii ships do own on the seas. I have actually taken Capua with Large or Awesome, I forget which one, Temple of Neptune, as Brutii, and was able to build Corvus Quinquiremes. Doesn't work as a non-Roman faction, though, at least not Greece. The temples are great as well, don't they all give gold sword/shield with Foundry?

[ReluctantSamurai]

don't they all give gold sword/shield with Foundry?

No. Only the "forge" temples like the Scipii Vulcan, the Armenian Vahagan, the Seleucid Hephaestus, or the Egyptian Horus (even though it's classified as a 'Law' temple) when combined with a foundry, will do that. Some, like the Macedonian Artemis or Zeus, or the Gallic/Spanish Abnoba, will grant gold status to missile weapons only.

[Vincent Butler]

It seems I can remember using Saturn to get it as well, though I could be wrong. Do the others only give gold shield? When combined with foundry, Sacred Circle of Zalmoxis (can't remember if that is Scythian or Dacian) will give gold shield at least, obviously you have to capture it, as neither Scythia nor Dacia can get to Foundry.

[ReluctantSamurai]

The entire temple guide (in PDF format) can still be found here:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/downloads.php?do=file&id=107

There used to be an Excel version (much better format, IMO) but it doesn't seem to be available anymore. Many temples at pantheon level when combined with a forge will give you gold armor/silver weapon/silver missile status. Forge-type temples get you gold weapon status as well, and do it at the "large" level when combined with a forge. The only temples that will get you to gold status for missile weapons (including javelins) are the Temple of Artemis (Macedon), Temple of Zeus (Macedon at pantheon lvl), Gallic/Spanish Temple of Abnoba, and the Temple of Horus (Egypt at temple city level, although this is not documented....I found this out after capturing one).

[Vincent Butler]

It has been too long since I really played the RTW, I am hooked on the EB units. In a way, it is annoying as I am Rome, and have not yet reached Marian reforms, so I have to rely on levy units. At least in RTW I could retrain my troops. Maybe not realistic, but very convenient. And you could get an army really good really quickly, now, I have several good armies, but it has taken a while to get them there since they have to go back to Italy for retraining. Since this thread is about city management anyway, does the financial burden for units fall solely on the city where they are trained, or the city where they are stationed, or is it something else?

For wisdom is a defence, and money is a defence: but the excellency of knowledge is, that wisdom giveth life to them that have it. Ecclesiastes 7:12 KJV

[ReluctantSamurai]

Since this thread is about city management anyway, does the financial burden for units fall solely on the city where they are trained, or the city where they are stationed, or is it something else?

Are you referring to RTW or EB?

[Vincent Butler]

Mainly EB. I won't be playing RTW for a while, I don't think. Maybe if I feel like taking it easy.

[williamsiddell]

After taking a town with less than 2000 population:

To reduce culture penalties delete the barracks immediately (it will only allow you to build poor units anyway). Immediately delete the trader (you'll have plenty of time to build your own before 2000 is reached). Immediately delete the temple and build your temple that gives the best happiness boost (if deleting the temple takes status below 70% you have a choice - go ahead and allow one turn of revolt, taking your units out first, or wait til unrest reduces). Check your generals and ensure the one with the highest influence is in fact governor (often this is not the case if the AI is left to choose).

After taking a town with more than 2000 population:

It's usually not a good idea to delete second level buildings to reduce culture penalty (much better to wait until you can improve them). Exceptions being military buildings (only kept until your army can't benefit from their presence) and temples. The temple should be replaced by your own as soon as possible. Build peasants as required and ensure the right general is left behind. Prioritise buildings that reduce the chance of revolt.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Immediately delete the trader

Not necessary. When you upgrade to the next level in this slot, the building will reflect your faction and the culture penalty will disappear then.

[williamsiddell]

Not necessary but handy if your struggling to avoid revolt. I am thinking from the point of view of population boost to 2000+ (which I try to do ASAP) where that extra penalty removal is useful. Lack of cash might persuade me to keep it.

[ReluctantSamurai]

If the population is that small (<2k), you aren't going to have problems with unrest anyways, particularly if a general is present in the garrison. Better to keep the trade route open than not:shrug:

If you are overly concerned with revolts, check the link I provided above about how to achieve ZPG (Zero Population Growth). By mid-game, most of my cities don't even require a city manager, even unruly places like Carthage, Jerusalem, Tarsus, and Patavium.

[williamsiddell]

OK I admit it - I often leave the trader in place (I was just trying to keep it straightforward for newbies - those most likely to view this thread). The thing about ZPG is it takes time and manipulation, the trader thing is to help solve an immediate problem. On top of that I like population growth :)

[ReluctantSamurai]

On top of that I like population growth

Population growth is essential from beginning to about mid-game. When populations start to hit the 16-18k mark (much sooner for barbarian cultures who don't get very good law-and-order temples), things start to get dicey. When populations get over 24k, there is no longer a need for growth, and management becomes a huge problem. This is where ZPG kicks in and reduces your headaches. I've had cities like Carthage and Memphis with populations well in excess of 30k and no governor, be permanently below the revolt threshhold.

If you play a full campaign, ZPG should be a big part of your planning.....unless, of course, you like aggravation:laugh4:

[williamsiddell]

Aggravation I can handle :)

I agree with most of what you say. I like to play conquering the entire known world so I end up with many cities well over 24k (my record is 42k with that city on turkey's north coast - not the pain in the neck one). I also use very few governors except in distant newly conquered places.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Aggravation I can handle

I rarely play a campaign to the bitter end, anymore. If I get aggravated, I usually start another game....


Then step out and allow to revolt and enslave again

This is rarely a good idea unless you are looking for experience. Don't ever do this with a post-Marian Roman city where the faction is still alive. You will be looking at nothing but Praetorian/Urban Cohorts and Cavalry with all kinds of weapon/armor upgrades and experience chevrons to go with it....:sweatdrop: The last time I played Egypt (many, many moons ago and before I figured out how to ensure ZPG), I did this to a Greek city that had been held for a long time by the Brutii. Had my faction leader and most of my best troops. Lost over half my army, damn near got my young faction leader killed, and there were still enough elite Roman units left in the city that I had to come back later to recapture it.

In reality, you lose income when you allow a city to revolt and then exterminate the rebellion. Less people=less taxes. Yes you free up temporary funds from the looting factor, but the city income will fall drastically and won't recover until the city population does. If you really don't want to learn how to manage ZPG, at least crank out peasants every turn and send them to cities that need population, or put them on a boat and get them sunk:creep:

[williamsiddell]

Aye, it's difficult to keep going when your just going through the motions and it's clear you've won easily.

I should have added the caveat (as you point out) that this should only be done when the original owning faction has been destroyed (otherwise they come back). If I am using the technique I usually reserve it for the likes of Tanais (large city, high growth and built in unrest). Even after exterminating it soon becomes a problem. Maybe I'm attracted by the aggravation but I enjoy trying to control the city.

I'll pass on ZPG (more population means more income) because I usually end up with a lot more gold than I can spend. I use the double enslave as a nice population boost for other cities that need it.

p.s. I presume people are still playing this game a decade on because it is so good, and Rome 2 doesn't add much?

[Vincent Butler]

I should have added the caveat (as you point out) that this should only be done when the original owning faction has been destroyed (otherwise they come back).

So that is why some of my uprisings simply go rebel, the town started the game rebel or an eliminated faction? Sometimes it might be worth it to remove a coliseum, though I usually don't, if you leave that in place and get kicked out, you get a gladiator uprising. Situation depending, could be good, usually they are all peasants and Velite and Samnite Gladiators, in other words, no missile units. If you can set a phalanx up at a bridge, those rebels can't do much. That said, not all Gladiator Uprisings are of that kind, some are weird units, such as Amazon Chariots, Yubtseb Elephants, and other exotic units. The vast majority of the Gladiator Uprisings just seem to involve only peasants and gladiators. About half of those seem to be the really good armies, two gold chevron, silver sword, gold shield.~:mad

[williamsiddell]

if you leave that in place and get kicked out, you get a gladiator uprising.

Sounds like you have a really tough time with all those weird units :) I can't remember seeing those types myself, but I'll expect them now. I think you're right - if they rebel to rebel they started the game like that, or are eliminated faction.

[Vincent Butler]

Very rarely will you see an exotic unit Gladiator Uprising, I would say only about 5% at max, and usually in cities that the Scipii owned or took over, and even then only rarely. Especially as I said, if I have a phalanx and can withdraw to a bridge, provided there are not a lot of missile units(and in a standard Gladiator Uprising there are none) I just pull out and wait for them to revolt and attack my army. If I have siege weapons, so much the better. If a revolt will lead to the town going to Egypt or Rome, definitely have an onager in the city, most of the times a revolting-to-Rome or Egypt army will have some siege weapons in them, and they can really hurt a phalanx. Their siege weapons won't target your onagers, though enemy archers might.

if they rebel to rebel they started the game like that, or are eliminated faction.
I will have to pay attention to confirm that.

[ReluctantSamurai]

So that is why some of my uprisings simply go rebel, the town started the game rebel or an eliminated faction?

Depends on who the original town was assigned to (you'd have to check in the .txt files). For instance, Cyrene starts the game as a rebel settlement. If another faction captures it (usually Egypt or Numidia) and it rebels on them, kicking out the garrison, there's a strong possibility it goes over to Macedon, who is the original "owning" faction stated in the descr_.txt file covering settlements. Palmyra is a Parthian owner even though it starts as a rebel settlement. Had it happen to me in a Parthian campaign...the town went rebel on the Big E and it came over to me. Got me into a war with Egypt when I wasn't ready for them:furious3:

[Vincent Butler]

there's a strong possibility it goes over to Macedon, who is the original "owning" faction stated in the descr_.txt file covering settlements. Palmyra is a Parthian owner even though it starts as a rebel settlement. Had it happen to me in a Parthian campaign...the town went rebel on the Big E and it came over to me. Got me into a war with Egypt when I wasn't ready for them:furious3:

I have had Cyrene go to me even when it did not belong to anybody, at least not that I knew of. Could be I just did not know it was owned, I typically don't pay attention to the end-of-turn diplomacy announcements, so I could have gone to war with Egypt and not noticed it. Good to know about Palmyra, though I will almost never try Parthia, and I don't like playing as Egypt either.

[ReluctantSamurai]

so I could have gone to war with Egypt and not noticed it.

You'd have noticed it pretty quick when several stacks of 'Nile Gold' suddenly descend on your poor desert settlement, and Egyptian fleets appear outside your ports on 'search-and-destroy' missions....~D

[Vincent Butler]

I try to fortify Cyrene against Egypt anyway. Numidian Cav and militia/merc hoplites for starters, but I try to get some pikemen down pretty quickly. In town, their chariot archers will not be very effective. If I border an enemy (or an ally, except as Roman bordering Roman), I like to keep a garrison that I feel can hold out against most attacks that would get thrown against it. Only when preparing for civil war do I fortify my Roman towns bordering Roman allies. Rome is a horrible ally if you are not already Roman, they love to backstab you. Ditto for Britannia. Egypt is probably one of the best for keeping alliances when both are powerful, at least from what I have experienced.

[ReluctantSamurai]

But there's nothing you can do to stop the 'toga' army.:no: Egypt always has several spies...err... I mean diplomats hanging around Cyrene, and often they can and will bribe it to their side. I had it happen to me in a Macedon campaign....more than once:embarassed:

[Vincent Butler]

Britain is my bane when it comes to bribes. I normally give diplomats "diplomatic immunity", meaning I don't assassinate them. Once a faction has bribed a unit or city of mine, their diplomats are fair game for my assassins. Speaking of agents, and back to settlement management, do my own spies help public order in my cities, or are they only good for revealing enemy spies causing problems, or would you know about that? Many times it seems that they mainly just expose enemy spies. If my garrison is what I consider sufficient, I train a spy in a troubled city, and many times the next turn an enemy spy is kicked out. Typically public order below about 50% is signs that a spy is involved.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I never give diplomats a free pass unless they are from a good trading partner or an ally. Best to kill them before they become virtually untouchable (usually above 5 laurettes).

Your own spies do nothing to raise loyalty, but if they're good enough, they can keep it from being lowered. If the enemy spy has a high subterfuge skill, more than one spy will be needed. Also, some family members have a high security trait, particularly your faction leader and faction heir. If you have a city where you strongly suspect the presence of an enemy spy, move a family member with personal security traits there, and combined with one or more spies, you have a good chance to kick the !@#$% out.

And don't forget the assassin. You have to kill the sneak before he reenters the city.~D

:creep:

[Vincent Butler]

At least assassins are easy to kill, and a good way to improve your own assassins. Egypt and Rome seem to make the most. If your assassin is good enough, he can even nail enemy spies, I have done it before, must have been a worthless spy anyway. Does the level of market affect the ability of your agents, it seems to me that it does.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Does the level of market affect the ability of your agents, it seems to me that it does.

No, it does not. In Shogun 1, for instance, the level of your ninja barracks does give you better assassins up to a starting skill of +2. But not the case in RTW. An oversight by the devs, IMHO:shrug:

Although I have never done any empirical testing, it's the level of Academy that seems to give you a better chance at a "Subterfuge Genius". And if you have a faction leader with the Agents special (acquired by attaining a certain level of successful subterfuge attempts), then you stand a pretty good chance at getting good spies and assassins from the get-go. At least that's been my experience.....

[williamsiddell]

Am I correct in thinking the AI only creates spies and diplomats in the enemy capital? It seems to me that they only approach from that direction. In that case a judicially placed assassin would do the trick.

Nice one about the .txt file and original owner. It's a while since I lost a city to rebellion I didn't want to lose. Maybe I don't take enough chances :) The AI is pretty predictable. You get to know the cities a particular faction likes sending spies to, so you can help reduce rebellion by stationing a spy or two in those cities. I think it is easy to spot cities that have enemy spies present. After a few turns, unrest should be zero (higher if the city has built-in unrest or has a duff general as governor).

Vincent - 'Egypt army will have some siege weapons in them, and they can really hurt a phalanx'

I like watching the effect of onagers etc. but because they are inaccurate I think they have little effect on battle outcomes. A present surgeon reduces losses, and you can use loose formation (provided you are not under direct attack - and if you are, they are just as likely to hit the enemy). I've only played as Egypt once, but crazy chariots in cities and population issues mean I won't play them - no need to mention ZPG again RS :)

[ReluctantSamurai]

but because they are inaccurate I think they have little effect on battle outcomes.

Aye, inaccurate they are, but did you notice their knack for killing enemy generals? There have been several threads around here about that, and the overall experience was that onager projectiles are drawn to general units like moths to a flame:shrug:


After a few turns, unrest should be zero

Unrest can persist for many turns for several reasons...some cities have a permanent, built-in unrest; there are culture and distance-to-capital issues; your governor can have traits that promote unrest; and the one that persists if none of the above holds...devastation. There will always be unrest as long as devastation is present, which slowly decreases over time as the devastation clears up.

[williamsiddell]

but did you notice their knack for killing enemy generals?

The answer is no. Mind you I usually line up my generals at the back of the formation and my phalanx usually takes most of the hits. If that's the prevailing view I'll go along with it.




There will always be unrest as long as devastation is present, which slowly decreases over time as the devastation clears up.

That's new to me also. I presume the devastation doesn't need to completely go before order is gained. This is asking a lot - is it possible to clear devastation up quicker?

[Vincent Butler]

If the onagers are not on flaming projectile, they actually don't cause that much problems for my phalanx, because of the sheer size of the units, a hit only causes one or two casualties, and I usually have at least four units of phalanx. Archers are more deadly. Flaming onager projectiles are very deadly, as I found out from my own friendly fire. I turned on flame, fired, the first shot hit the unit right in front of the onager and took out eighteen men. I don't use flame anymore, at least from onagers.

it's the level of Academy that seems to give you a better chance at a "Subterfuge Genius"
Makes sense, towns that have that level of Market will also have an academy. I will watch with my Britons to see what happens. And no, I have not noticed how onagers target generals, have only seen that happen once, but I usually target my onagers on easier targets, enemy siege weapons or infantry.

[ReluctantSamurai]

If that's the prevailing view I'll go along with it.

I don't believe anyone ever did tests on this. There were a couple of discussions about it some years ago, and more people noticed that onagers have an uncanny knack for hitting enemy generals than not. I am one that believes they do....I've seen their very first shot hit an opposing general and his bodyguard more than once.....and I've been on the receiving end, as well:shrug:


I presume the devastation doesn't need to completely go before order is gained. This is asking a lot - is it possible to clear devastation up quicker?

As long as any devastation remains, it contributes to unrest. I've never bothered to do the math to figure out how much x amount of devastation = y amount of unrest. You can check the level of devastation in the city information folder. The rate devastation clears is a function of how bad it was to begin with. More armies tromping around the cropland= higher devastation=longer recovery time. It's one of the reasons I stopped having a support army for one that's laying siege...unless, of course, that army is under distinct threat from the outside. Also one reason I began to autocalc most sieges after building all the appropriate siege equipment. Rather than take 10 turns to assault a huge city, for instance, I take 2-3 turns to build equipment and assault immediately.

There is nothing you can do to hasten the progress of recovery. The game has its own internal formula for it. You can, however, limit the amount of damage preceding a siege.

[williamsiddell]

I too have taken hits on a general's bodyguard but never had a general killed by an onager. It would be easy to believe generals are targeted.

It's a shame upgrading a farm doesn't reduce devastation. Just goes to show how people do things differently. I charge in right away if the gates are open and only wait the one turn before assaulting otherwise. The AI seems to leave even huge cities with small garrisons.

[williamsiddell]

I turned on flame, fired, the first shot hit the unit right in front of the onager and took out eighteen men.

That sounds like a painful experience - especially for your phalanx. Maybe your onager was too close up, or was it on a reverse slope? I think they work best on high ground.

I only ever have one academy. What bothers me is being forced to make a general hang around for several turns.

[Vincent Butler]

Was not reverse slope, was on flat ground. It is just the inaccuracy of flaming projectiles, the unit couldn't have been more than two or three onager lengths in front (laying the onager lengthwise). Reverse slope does not really seem to help, it seems onagers can hit me on the reverse slope anyway. Academy is one of the last things I build. I hate playing as Egypt, they get mad really quickly, and frankly, the units are not very good until you hit Pharoah's Guard, I guess Nile Spearmen can hold a line, and Egypt's cav STINKS. Chariots in cities is very annoying and except for the intimidation factor, very ineffective. Even regular cav is not very good in a city.

[williamsiddell]

By reverse slope I mean set up on ground lower than your front line. I remember once chasing the enemy up a mountainside I stopped to give my missile units time to soften them up before applying the coup-de-grace. Then I started wondering why the enemy didn't appear to be taking casualties. Turned out my archers and slingers were firing into the ground :)


the units are not very good until you hit Pharoah's Guard

Pharoahs guards and archers are some of the best units in the game aint they. I don't like facing either of them. The guards are a match for armoured hoplites and where archers are present I have to sally forth to destroy them (exposing my cavalry and maybe even some generals) before they do too much damage.


Even regular cav is not very good in a city

Aye. Especially generals, because attack with those before the enemy is wavering can be suicide. Sometimes though it has to be done - and I keep my fingers crossed.

[Vincent Butler]

I typically only send my general on the attack when the battle hits a critical point, or to chase down routing enemies. The problem with Egypt is if you try to deal with their archers, ie with cav, their chariots wipe out your cav. Talking about that rebel army that spawns where you can't reach them, there is a place in Spain like that as well. Does anyone know why in a battle with regular stone walls, many times the enemy with ladders will stop for a long time before putting the ladders up, all the while being attacked by the towers and missile troops? I have had it happen a lot, the enemy will just stop right in front of the walls. After a while, they finally put the ladders up, after having taken heavy casualties?

[williamsiddell]

many times the enemy with ladders will stop for a long time before putting the ladders up

All I can think of is something you've probably seen in your own army. The entire unit moves up except for one that is going round in circles in the distance :)

[ReluctantSamurai]

The entire unit moves up except for one that is going round in circles in the distance

Bingo.


Flaming onager projectiles are very deadly, as I found out from my own friendly fire.

Never, ever put units directly in front of your onagers. They will hit your own troops at some point:oops:
I always put them in the center of my line with no fronting units and back them up with a couple of cav units. AI cavalry just can't seem to resist such an easy target, so you need to intercept them quickly (and turn off fire-at-will briefly so you don't toast your own cavalry...)

[Vincent Butler]

Never, ever put units directly in front of your onagers. They will hit your own troops at some point:oops:
I always put them in the center of my line with no fronting units and back them up with a couple of cav units. AI cavalry just can't seem to resist such an easy target, so you need to intercept them quickly (and turn off fire-at-will briefly so you don't toast your own cavalry...)
Been a while since this thread has been updated, so I figured to go with some of my own experiences on the onagers issue.
I will use onagers with flame in an army. I put them right behind (literally touching) a unit in my front line, they seem to be safe that close. Without flame I will have them farther back. Ballista I have in the front, and when the enemy get close I hit the white flag unit with them, then tell them to stop. When the coast is clear, I order them back to the ballista. Quicker and safer than turning the ballista around and moving them behind your line. Or I move my lines in front of the ballista and take them off fire at will. All depends on the situation.
I have actually decided to take advantage of the supposed tendency for onagers to take out generals. I can't say that they target the leader any more than any other unit, they seem pretty random in what part of the formation they hit so I think hitting the general is random. I have seen it happen multiple times, but again, I think that is random.
I actually had my Greek archers nail a Cataphract Armenian General, actually the faction leader, as he was coming up. I was focused on another army coming up and was wondering who my archers were firing at. Then it showed the enemy general getting killed. He was the only man in the unit they dropped, out of a 40+ bodyguard. I was happy about that.

[ReluctantSamurai]

when the enemy get close I hit the white flag unit with them, then tell them to stop. When the coast is clear, I order them back to the ballista. Quicker and safer than turning the ballista around and moving them behind your line

Pretty slick trick, there:yes: Have to admit I've never thought of that one...though it probably requires a general with above average leadership/morale skills because the rally button doesn't always halt fleeing units with reliability:shrug:

[Vincent Butler]

Pretty slick trick, there:yes: Have to admit I've never thought of that one...though it probably requires a general with above average leadership/morale skills because the rally button doesn't always halt fleeing units with reliability:shrug:
Actually, I don't use the rally. When you hit the white flag button, those units are still in your control, it is not as if they are routing. If you don't do anything, they run off the battlefield, but you can order them to stop just by using the halt button or selecting them and telling them to move somewhere. They typically don't get to fire again anyway, because the enemy has engaged your troops by then.