as the title says, is it a good idea to keep my troops inside or outside of my cities?
Printable View
as the title says, is it a good idea to keep my troops inside or outside of my cities?
Welcome :bow:
Not sure what the intention of your question is but I'll give it a go.
If you stay in city/settlement >
Enemy armies that sit in territory boundary of settlement cause unrest to your population and affect income of the settlement.
There is a drain on the settlements income to support army. However Amry ensures hardly any unrest unless there are other factors involved ( enemy spies, public growth/health buildings required etc).
Settlements can fall to enemy army without a fight if your settlement is sieged long enough and you don't attempt to attack (sally forth) and break the siege.
That particular garrisoned Army also isn't contributing to the expansion of your faction, or gaining experience unless it is holding a part of your overall territory against the tide or invasion of an enemy faction.
An example for you would be my little Greek Cities campaign where I have sat a medium sized army of hoplites mostly, in Apollonia holding off the Romans for nearly 100 years now. In the meantime while the Romans have been concentrating on that settlement and dealing with my Navies pestering them everywhere, I have been eliminating Pontus and Egypt.
Armies outside cities reduce the presence/frequency of rebels and hold off enemy armies from sieging your settlements.
Also expanding your territory = Army experience = Gained Settlements = Income = More Armies.
Hope this helped : )
thanyou kind sir ~:cheers:
As SomeNick said, an army in a settlement is not being particularly useful in an expansionist way, the only benefits being suppressing unrest and defending a frontline city against repeated enemy assaults.
In general then, I would only keep a combat army in a settlement if it's only just been conquered and hence needs the garrison to quell unrest and fight off any retaliation, until enough peasants and suchlike have been trained to keep the place in order, allowing your field army to wander off and beat some more settlements into submission. Interior settlements need little more than peasants, maybe one or two proper units - just in case something sneaks by. Or if you have a frontier town that you don't intend to expand beyond for a while - a decent army there should be able to hold off most incursions by the AI (well, in BI anyway, as they now seem to like conducting assaults).
Basically, field armies - keep in the field. Garrisons, keep in towns. Field armies would (assuming basic common sense) be your enemy bashing strongmen, garrisons would be cheap peasant types, and incompetant family members (though, they're usually better as a handy dandy heavy cavalry force to go with your lead general).
It's important to keep your family members in cities part of the time in order for them to reproduce.
I was wondering about that.
Do family members breed/get married faster if there in a city?
They don´t get any children if kept outside the cities all the time. The trigger for a birth is only activated when a family member ends his turn in a settlement. Marriage however can happen anytime.
Once in an Armenian campaign, I kept my whole royal family in the field for some decades as a mobile defense force and was wondering, why the gods cursed me as I got no new children ... ~:rolleyes:
Tnx Bastard.
You're always there when I need you~:cheers:
Another question.
Is it best to keep most of you’re royal family inside the most expanded city?
Cause most of my members are bad at governing.
Best developed city gives the most traits/Ancillarie?
Well, it depends on what you expect a family member to do. A governor will learn his trade only when he is in charge of a settlement (the small scroll icon in his portrait). When he constructs some buildings while taxes are very high then he will get positive administration traits, foe example. A commanding general learns by winning battles. However the "redundant" family members do not get benefits. A character who is under the command of another (higher qualified) family member in a settlement (or army stack) gains no traits for successful mangement/fighting.
Some (though not all) ancillaries can only be gained in settlements, when the proper buildings (temples, academies, ... ) are present, regardless to any other family members. Here you can get the priests and the chirurgeon, for examples.
If you want more details I recommend to read the execellent guide from Aesculapius, "On the feeding and breeding of governors" in the guides section.
I´m not entirely sure about this, but to me, it seems as if the population over time gets used to a big garrison.
So, a city may be happy with two peasant units as garrison in the beginning, but then you decide to build up an army in this city, enlarging the garrison more and more. Then, when you draw out the army you´ve been building, leaving only the two initial peasants the city´s happiness suddenly plunges down.
Ciaran, as far as I know, the population is not really getting used to a big garrison. It is probably because of the way the public order bonus for garrisons is calculated: In a city of 2000 people a garrison of 200 or 300 men is sufficient for the maximum of 80 % public order bonus. However if the growing population reaches for example the number of 4000, then the same garrison will only provide a bonus of 40 %. The public order bonus somehow depends on the relation of inhabitants per soldier in the settlement. I guess the reason for your observation is that the population has grown quite a lot while you trained your large army.
Bastard Operator
I'm not sure, but doesn't that give the gourmet of life trait and others like it?Quote:
When he constructs some buildings while taxes are very high then he will get positive administration traits
And that's not a real good govern trait.
Is everybody else experiencing how hard it is to get some stars for a general?
For example:
I have 1 commander who captured the entire English island plus some other large/huge cities of the WRE.
Plus he has a couple of heroic battles on his name.
I always made sure the strength/number ratio was equal or worse.
He has no negative commander traits of any kind.
And still, 2 stars is the only thing the poor bastard has to his name.
About the governors: I mean what I said ~;) If your taxes are very high there is a chance for the "administrator trait", while low taxes work in the other direction. If you´re interested, open the export_descr_character_traits.txt file the Data folder of your RTW installation and search for the triggers named "governing4" and "governing17". The "gourmet of life" trait can however also be caused by certain temples, greek theaters and city plumbings. So under these circumstances your governor can get this trait even in spite of very high taxes.
About the generals: It is true that ten-star-generals are much more seldom than before RTW version 1.3. Even more so in Barbarian Invasion. The key to this problem is also hidden in the txt-file I mentioned above. Right at the begining of the file you´ll find the "good commander" trait´s description. If you think your generals aren´t getting better quick enough, feel free to change the number behind the word "threshold" to make it a bit lower.
The system works as following: For almost every victory your general is getting a point for his "good commander" trait. However it takes more than one point to reach the higher levels of this trait. The number of points needed is equal to the "threshold".
Bastard Operator
Tnx mate, you’re proving to be a great help indeed.
When I change this will the AI controlled generals promote quicker to?
Of course they will ~D
By the way: I didn´t exactly know if you were talking about RTW 1.3 or BI. If you want to change BI, you must have to make your changes in the Data folder INSIDE the BI folder.
Theodoric's very sweet and charming wife just gave birth to a beautiful baby boy.Quote:
The trigger for a birth is only activated when a family member ends his turn in a settlement
He's been named after he's uncle Burkhard.
What's so special about this you ask?
Well, not much.
Just that this little man was conceived in a fort :)
Wow, so game engine seems to consider forts as "settlements", too. Good observation, Upxl.
.
As a side note, if you want that sweet, consistent for 20 turns and at times life saving slave trade income, you'll need to pack even the most incompetent family number in a town, if you run out of better ones. ~;)
.
I live to serve :bow:Quote:
Good observation, Upxl.
I've putted almost all my generals in fort's,and guess what...
They're breeding like bunnies.