|
|
|
|
September 27th, 2005, 02:30 AM
|
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Defense Issue
In a non fortified square does defense have any additional value over say Patrol and if a unit is searching for magic sites is that the same effect as being on defense.
I ask the question because I am awaiting an attack and whilst I wait it would appear to be worthwhile searching for magic sites, patrolling,building etc - however ultimately the main aim is to defend and I don't want to detract from that. So does doing any other instruction detract from defense.
Tals
|
September 27th, 2005, 02:37 AM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3,603
Thanks: 0
Thanked 22 Times in 22 Posts
|
|
Re: Defense Issue
Defend means "just don't do anything, okay?", and not actually "spend the month defending the whole thing". If there is no fort, everyone will protect the province when attacked, so feel free to cast spells and some such. When there is a fort, defend means "hide behind the walls", so even then it really doesn't have much use.
Renaming the Defend order to something a bit closer might be a good idea ("Idle", or something to that effect).
|
September 27th, 2005, 02:47 AM
|
|
Corporal
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 114
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Defense Issue
That clarification helps a lot - I think the idle actually clarifies it better Defend in a fortified area I guess allows you to control units that may survive an initial onslaught so the defense naming is apt - although defend castle could be better
Many thanks for the quick response - orders changed accordingly.
Tals
|
September 27th, 2005, 11:58 AM
|
|
Major
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,007
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
|
|
Re: Defense Issue
defense in a castle is usefull for those few units that recieve a bonus to castle defense...
Ptrolling is better in that patrolling armies might find scouts/spies/assassins/etc, and they kill unrestful citizens (raising the tax returns and increasing corpse #s.)
on the downside, if you prefer to lower taxes and maintain population numbers then patrrolling will not be the better option.
the best thing to do to defend that province is to invest in its local militia
|
September 27th, 2005, 12:01 PM
|
|
National Security Advisor
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Eastern Finland
Posts: 7,110
Thanks: 145
Thanked 153 Times in 101 Posts
|
|
Re: Defense Issue
Local militia can be awfully weak. As an example, Mictlan gets some slaves, and Pythium unarmoured militia. Jotunheim's and Ulm's pd can often be worthwhile, but I still prefer real troops in borders. However, when playing Ulm, I only have to bring infantry, and with Jotunheim, archers. The pd is the other half.
|
September 27th, 2005, 02:24 PM
|
|
Sergeant
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Carolina, USA
Posts: 276
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Defense Issue
When you plan to have a strong army in a province for a while, not having a fort may be the better choice. In a no-fort province, everyone who isn't hidden will fight against an invasion. In a province with a fort, only patrolling units and PD defend against an initial invasion.
|
September 27th, 2005, 06:06 PM
|
|
Lieutenant General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Albuquerque New Mexico
Posts: 2,997
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: Defense Issue
In the late game, you have to be careful that your patrolling forces are strong enough to deal with multiple castings of ghost riders (or strong forces teleporting / astral traveling in).
__________________
Wormwood and wine, and the bitter taste of ashes.
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|