Using FMs as gorvernors or as army?

**ziegenpeter** · 10-01-2009, 10:48

Hi everyone! Whenever I play as Sweboz, I tend to leave my towns abandoned and take the FMs as units in my army. I do that for 2 reasons:
1. They are cheap and kick buttocks, so I dont have to spend money for other troops.
2. I got the feeling that governing towns is much less important for swe than for other factions.

What du you think about this espicially nr. 2?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Maybe you will notice that I posted a lot of new threads today. I dont want to spam, I recently collected all the questions I have about EB, and which I always forget when I am in the EB forum.

**Finn MacCumhail** · 10-01-2009, 14:29

Then you should have odds of FM in your campaign. They are really good like usual solders, but if a FM dies, his guard disbands, and that's a pity. Also they die from from assassins, floods, quakes, old age, so the army based on FM is not reliable one.

As for Sweboz - they are barbarians, the savage ones. Of cause managing cites is not their specialization. According to ancient historians (even G J Caesar) they didn't have cities.

But if you have Sweboz governor who is "languors" and the academy in the settlement, he will make extra Profit.

**bigmilt16** · 10-01-2009, 17:17

I had to same concern in my Roman campaign. While there are oodles of FM's available as the game progresses, going to war on a large scale typically dwindles down FM's quickly than anticipated, leaving towns abandoned.

I rely heavily on client rulers to ensure that newly conquered settlements are properly stable and managed. While expensive, having FM's in towns usually had great bonuses and stability in new settlements, and more importantly, free's my FM up to continue his battles instead of being bogged down in a newly conquered settlement.

**Zradha Pahlavan** · 10-01-2009, 17:49

Sometimes you need guys with a lot of influence (FMs) to keep the more rebellious cities in line, especially when you've expanded so far that you get the '-80 to public order' in some of your cities because of that 'distance from capital' stuff.

**Mister V** · 10-01-2009, 22:44

While it is true that governors matter for civilized factions (they're a matter of life and death, mostly), sometimes it helps as barbarians. Like having a governor with the Miner trait (or is it Good Miner?) in a settlement with mines, obviously, it helps your income tremendously. I'm not even talking about the large empires, where they're extremely useful against unrest.
Sometimes though, even with civilized factions, there's an excess of young ********, so I get them together and give 'em some factional troops, some mercs, and ship to another random coast of the Mediterranean to raep and slaughter their way through coastal cities. Last time I think it was the Roman Rave 200(BC) in the Levant... I'm pretty sure I had 9 young dumbasses in that army. Roleplay, I guess...

**DaciaJC** · 10-01-2009, 23:10

I actually tend to use the less capable FMs as governors, freeing my more gifted FMs to lead battles. In both of my Getai campaigns, I have grouped five to six FMs together in a stack (the other slots being occupied by horse-archers). Though this can lead to some rather impressive victories, it has also resulted in half of a generation being wiped out in a single battle (attacking one of those Eleutheroi supersettlements - destroyed one full-stack with very few casualties, was attacked by another, which I wiped out after a retreat, and then found myself facing a third superstack that appeared out of nowhere with no movement points left... manage to kill half of that stack, but six FMs were lost).