Does patrolling with 0 unrest kill population too?

[tinkthank]

I think the terminus technicus is "kill filthy trouble makers": it means what you do when you try to get rid of unrest in a province by patrolling.

[Endoperez]

If there is unrest in province, patrolling forces look out for the troublemakers and kill them, reducing unrest. Population is lowered by a certain number (5?) for every point of unrest removed.

The question in this thread was whether patrolling reduces unrest if there is no unrest present. It doesn't, and because of this you have no reason not to patrol with your armies when they are in your fortress: if there is a surprise attack, your forces will catch the attackers.

[tinkthank]

Originally posted by Endoperez:

The question in this thread was whether patrolling reduces unrest if there is no unrest present. It doesn't, and because of this you have no reason not to patrol with your armies when they are in your fortress: if there is a surprise attack, your forces will catch the attackers.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, the question was whether patrolling reduces *population* if there is no unrest present (*not*: "reduces unrest").
Oh, and there are still plenty of reasons not to patrol with your armies...

[Endoperez]

Originally posted by tinkthank:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Endoperez:

The question in this thread was whether patrolling reduces unrest if there is no unrest present.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, the question was whether patrolling reduces *population* if there is no unrest present (*not*: "reduces unrest").
Oh, and there are still plenty of reasons not to patrol with your armies...

---

Doh! Thanks for correction.
And yes, there are some reasons, but most of the time if there nothing else to do it is better to patrol than not to.

[Yossar]

If you're in a castle, there are many times you don't want to patrol since that army is no longer safe. If there's no fortress and no unrest I don't think there's any reason to pick defend over patrol, though.

[tinkthank]

Originally posted by Yossar:
If you're in a castle, there are many times you don't want to patrol since that army is no longer safe. If there's no fortress and no unrest I don't think there's any reason to pick defend over patrol, though.

Actually, if there is *no* fortress I sometimes defend instead of patrol in later game situations simply because I will find that commander with "n" again, and he might just get lost and forgotten without it.

[LintMan]

Originally posted by Yossar:
If you're in a castle, there are many times you don't want to patrol since that army is no longer safe. If there's no fortress and no unrest I don't think there's any reason to pick defend over patrol, though.

Unless I need the patrolling, I tend to leave them on defend. My theory is that while you might have your regular armies out patrolling, you'll probably have your priests preaching and your mages researching/forging. Then, if your castle province is surprise attacked, the priests/mages stay in the castle (I think), while the rest of your army is left to fight without priest/mage support (and without any summoned units that your mages might be commanding). Without that support, you army may not be tough enough to repel the attacker, and then you end up with a scattered/destroyed army and all your priests/mages under seige in the castle. It seems less risky to keep all your amry in the castle, and just leave it to your (hopefully high) pd to repel most minor invaders. For major invaders, you lose your pd, but your full army with all support priests and mages has no losses and is available to break the seige the next turn (or to better defend/repair the castle until further help can arrive).

Just my 2 cents.