Is your money decreasing and will you be in the red soon? If so then maybe not. You never want to be at full capacity unless you really need the troops and are about to invade/be invaded.
Is your money decreasing and will you be in the red soon? If so then maybe not. You never want to be at full capacity unless you really need the troops and are about to invade/be invaded.
Many thanks to the good folks down at the Graphics Workshop for the sig.
Short answer - Yes.
If possible, I like to keep my garrison forces of a high quality. High quality troops are more useful than low quality ones (Duh) and if you aren't paying for the upkeep, it makes sense to keep them.
Don't go overboard. Armoured Sergeants in every castle is a little too much.
But keeping a garrison in your home regions is very useful.
Look at Songs. I can pull high-quality stacks out of nowhere from my garrison troops.
If I need to activate my reserves, then either:
1) I am facing a rebellion (Brigands)
2) I am in serious trouble and my first tier forces need backup (So increase upkeep doesn't matter)
3) I have been stabbed in the back (See 2)
Also, I like to keep a 'Capital Division' available. Usually I keep my cavalry in reserve in my home regions.
My experience in Songs and Youngbloods (My most successful hotseats where my economy is flatlining but I have/had huge power) thus says to keep a strong reserve, but don't go overboard.
Remember, you need money for forts.
What does "overboard" mean? Not to pay upkeep for reserve units?
I was thinking usefull in the case of defending de coast from sea attacks. Having capable army around + good quality garrisons with free upkeep
Overboard = too much, excessive.
As long as you do not need that money elsewhere, then go for it.
Make sure to also put your cities onto maximum taxation.
Last edited by Badger-dude; April 21, 2013 at 03:21 PM.
Does it make sense to bring two able commanders with a full stack army? Or is it a waste?
And what about having two commanders when conquering a settlement?
Because, I have noticed, that although you can give a man more than one Lord ancilliary, he wont gain the one of the settlement he conquers, unless you take away all the ones he already has and give it to another general.
I have a question, how does hiding in forests work? I assume it would be foolish to split one's stacks to hide them in different forests. If they managed to ambush an enemy, then that enemy would just reload now knowing where you are, correct?
My understanding of hotseats is that one keeps enemies back with forts to buy time, and that one should aim to keep their army together and aim to attack rather than defend with it.
Thanks for any answers.
Ambushing in hotseats is useless, you should hide your armies in woods that are outside the enemy's reach so he may move near you and you can attack him next turn. You can hide troops in the enemy's range too but that is a big risk and good players will never fall for it, or players who are patient enough to check all the woods.
It is very risky. Ambushing does not always work and I often see kneeling armies that should be invisible but arn't. I do know it works with the Ironborn in enhanced, and also Mudd in the old KoRaH. When it does work it is very worthwhile though. In one hotseat I am able to terrorize the Vale because at the end of each turn I can hide and the player fails to check the trees.
Many thanks to the good folks down at the Graphics Workshop for the sig.
New question:What is more convenient after capturin prisioners in a HS: Executing or Ransoming? (supposing that the ransom is accepted)
Executing.
Unless you need the money VERY desperately.
The player does not get a choice, the game automatically choses a response.
Unliek in singleplayer, nobody cares about you executing fellow Andals/Southrons/Northmen so go ahead.
Nope.
Without going into the script details.
Everytime the turn ends, it checks if a character is in that settlement. If there is, it checks if there is a lord of xxxx in your factions. If there is not a lord of xxxx, the lead character in that settlement will gain the lordship.
You can transfer lordships around, and have multiple lordships on one character.
Nope.
Without going into the script details.
Everytime the turn ends, it checks if a character is in that settlement. If there is, it checks if there is a lord of xxxx in your factions. If there is not a lord of xxxx, the lead character in that settlement will gain the lordship.
You can transfer lordships around, and have multiple lordships on one character.
Dang Badger. TWC really jacked you up on that one.
The one exception is heirs. Since they are scripted to receive the factions capital settlement once they become King they will never receive a lordship when empty unless you manually give them one.
Many thanks to the good folks down at the Graphics Workshop for the sig.
Yes, although it is possible for one character to give his lordship to another and so forth. I think the limit is 7 or 8 at most as that is the max amount of ancillaries one can get.
Many thanks to the good folks down at the Graphics Workshop for the sig.