Bandit Hideouts

[blainedeyoung]

I almost always leave the hideouts alone

I don't know how much that guildmaster quest is worth, but destroying bandit hideouts is worth a bunch.  That's all I've been doing this game, aside from rescuing prisoners and winning tournaments.  It's good money and experience, and it's a good way to make friendly with several Lords.

 

[Ibo]

Lairs are also an good way to train up your support companions (eg. Jeremus) , I find.  You don't normally want them running about in a real fight, so lairs are a perfect way to give them some target practise and a bit of experience...

Good way to get /yourself/ some nice ranged proficiency too, when first starting out, since the bandits tend to just sit at the spawns until you come into range or are hit with something.

Me, I always go after the lairs as soon as I can get the quest for'em.  It just feels a bit too gamey not to.

 

[DogSoldieR]

Just to clarify, you do mean the travelling villagers who wander out of villages right? As in how towns are affected by its villages. Towns I can understand, but castles?? How do you derive this assumption?

The dependance between villages and towns is pretty well described in the manual (this Forum).

The dependance between a Castle and ist Village is a little mistery, but I think that the prosperity of a castle equals prosperity of its village (even if there is no visual communication between them).
I mean if the village is Rich, the castle should be also Rich, if the village is Poor the castle should be Poor - I never had a proof that I am wrong.

Castles, by code, are simply given the same prosperity as their attached village.

I've been doing a bit of code reading and I came across this to reinforce your points.

隐藏

  #script_calculate_castle_prosperities_by_using_its_villages
(
"calculate_castle_prosperities_by_using_its_villages", #This is called from within decide_faction_ai, or from
[
  (try_for_range, ":cur_castle", castles_begin, castles_end),
    (assign, ":total_prosperity", 0),
    (assign, ":total_villages", 0),

    (try_for_range, ":cur_village", villages_begin, villages_end),
      (party_get_slot, ":bound_center", ":cur_village", slot_village_bound_center),
      (eq, ":cur_castle", ":bound_center"),

      (party_get_slot, ":village_prosperity", ":cur_village", slot_town_prosperity),

      (val_add, ":total_prosperity", ":village_prosperity"),
      (val_add, ":total_villages", 1),
    (try_end),

    (try_begin),
      (store_div, ":castle_prosperity", ":total_prosperity", ":total_villages"),
    (else_try),
      (assign, ":castle_prosperity", 50),
    (try_end),

    (party_set_slot, ":cur_castle", slot_town_prosperity, ":castle_prosperity"),
  (try_end),
]),

So yes, they are so correct as proven by the game code. Castle prosperity depends on its satelite village.