When you siege a city do take one army as the main the assault force and bring along a second force as a garrison, then when you have the city garrison the second army and proceed to another city with the main assault force.
Printable View
When you siege a city do take one army as the main the assault force and bring along a second force as a garrison, then when you have the city garrison the second army and proceed to another city with the main assault force.
I would not think so.
Unless your attacking army was a full stack army I would have merged both armies and then just leave the "garrison army" behind after the battle.
Sure the second army may take some casualties but they are just for garrison anyway. Plus the extra number could come in handy if the battle goes a little "pear-shaped" as they sometimes do.
Even if the first army is a full one if you place the second one in the "redzone" around the ciry and you can use them as reinforcements if plans do not unfold as desired. (stray onager shot killing your general etc..:wall: )
The only time I would not use the garrison army with the attacking army is if it was a move behind the army. Thus you take over the town, on the next turn the garrison army makes it to the city and the attacking army heads off for plan "B" of the conquest/blitz.
I usually check for mercs rather than bring an army. In early conquests near your established area its easy to send a few extra town watch with or behind the main army to free them up from the town sooner. But as you get further away from home this isnt so easy and useful.
Just as a side note, I have my game modified so peasants are a zero turn recruitment (it's just a matter of pressing them into service without training, after all). So usually I just take the city, retrain any troops I can the following turn and fill up the balance of available slots with peasants, then move out leaving the peasants behind the turn after that.