Nomadic Governments

**Cantu** · 04-06-2007, 18:09

Hi! I'vw been playing the mod for a while and I find it really great, I just need a little help with nomadic governments, pastoralism and nomadism, I remember seeing a chart about this somewhere but I've been looking for it for a while now and I can't find it anymore

I'd really thank you if someone could point me out to this chart or otherwise explain what is the difference. Thanks

**The Errant** · 04-07-2007, 13:18

https://img474.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nomad7fp.jpg

Here is the chart. And here is the link on the chart:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=74103

The nomadic and pastoral system differs mostly in recruitment. One allows you to recruit infantry and elite cavalry while the other allows the recruitment of "raider" type nomadic cavalry.

Pastoralism also allows more city improvements while nomadism restricts this.
Both types of government will affect your family members traits and happiness depending on their preferred lifestyles.

**Watchman** · 04-07-2007, 13:22

Although "Lives On The Move" family members are better kept off cities altogether far as I can tell seeing as how they totally suck at adminstrating anything, and given what the nomads' economies and settlements tend to be like you really can do without the trade and farming penalties. Makes the way Nomadism benefits them a bit redunant IMO.

**vonsch** · 04-07-2007, 16:18

Originally Posted by Watchman

Although "Lives On The Move" family members are better kept off cities altogether far as I can tell seeing as how they totally suck at adminstrating anything, and given what the nomads' economies and settlements tend to be like you really can do without the trade and farming penalties. Makes the way Nomadism benefits them a bit redunant IMO.

Based on my current game, I don't think they "totally suck" at governing. I have a couple pretty good governors with the trait "Lives on the Move." They do tend to start out more slowly in that role. And they never will be AS good as the best without the trait, but "totally suck" is not exactly accurate. I'd say they are penalized in the role, yes, but not crippled. I've had many a governor without the trait who was equally far from superb.

Of course, ideally it would be better to have those Movers out there moving so they can become the trully superb raiders they were born to be. But sometimes there's no choice. All I have so far are Movers.

**Watchman** · 04-07-2007, 17:26

I've seen Pahlava "Movers" lose that trait after spending some years sitting around in settlements, mind you (although in none of the cases were they the governors). Dunno how it works with the "pure" nomads, but I'd hazard a guess they're not going to drop the habit from sitting around in settlements with Nomadism...

**vonsch** · 04-07-2007, 19:58

Yes, I think it would have to be pastoralism or allied state to see the Mover trait vanish. I'm all nomadism still, so the trait is sticking.

But I was hoping to see some adoptions without it. No luck so far, mostly because no adoptions in a decade. Still trying to grow enough economy to finance a decent raiding force that can actually tackle a full stack of anything other than horse archers.

So I'll learn more in a few more decades of play. But these Movers aren't bad as governors with some time learning. It's hard to move them out of the towns now. Have to adjust taxes WAY down if I do. That influence makes a large difference on population orderliness. And I don't exactly have much garrison beyond the bodyguards at this stage

.

Playing the Saka feels like a tightrope act. A very thin rope, a very large void below. Should I poke that cute little Baktrian kitty-kat? It may have claws. But those minor cities and that capital suuuure do look tasty!

Gee, no sooner do I say it than I'm proven wrong:

He's been governor for a long time there, and it's been nomadic the whole time. About to switch it to pastoralism though.