Having a city is horrible

Currently viewing this thread:

David9610

Recruit
In more than one game, with different patches, I have had to have a city and I the more and more I play, I am sure that it becomes an experience that limits the game.
I mean, you usually end up having as your first city a space that, probably, is not of your culture. So you already have a lot to lose with loyalty. On top of that, the food issue is the biggest problem, it becomes a cycle;

Since it is your first city (even if you have a castle) you will probably leave most of your army on foot as garrisons to maintain some protection. Now, if you take even a little while to get those soldiers back, you're never going to catch a break with looting. So your game is reduced to protecting those small villages over and over again, without rest. If your kingdom decides to make peace, at most you last 4 days in tranquility and then you go back to having a war with a neighbor. If you are lucky this war is going to be far from the border of those cities and you can recover and stabilize the region, if not... then the cycle returns.

In my case I almost never have that luck. On top of that the food issue is crazy... Because of prosperity and garrison (and probably because before conquering it some ally must have stolen the towns) you are going to be in negative in food. That reduces prosperity and loyalty, so if you leave a very small garrison to not consume so much food... then there is a revolt. Leaving a small garrison, on the other hand, makes the AI even more aggressive with your city. But having a medium garrison plus your army makes the game a cycle of spending money. Even fighting those small armies that are made to attack you in the long run your funds are reduced. When I started this cycle I had about 400k. and now I have 80k. and I have a hard time keeping it around.

It becomes a circle where your world, even though the map is so big, is reduced to 2-3 villages and a city. With fights in the same villages and some siege.
As a solution I decided to push the border of the kingdom; I conquered some castles and alternate cities. Surprise... the AI decided they were for me (even things I didn't conquer) I decided to leave those areas to their own devices and try to keep the border in that area. But if I don't actively defend it after 3 days I go back to the same cycle and if I try to push further on that the AI conquers behind my back.
This is something that in forum is well known; I just destroyed an army of 600 men and imprisoned before other 4 that was looting in the dungeon. I move to another zone to get recruits and surprise! Two assaulted in my villages and an army of 1000 besieging the same city. An allied army arrives, we don't manage and in 2 days another similar army appears...

Now, war is obviously a problem, but I understand why it is so active. Few wars are boring because the game doesn't have a system for trading entertaining enough, many turn into the madness we all know.
I know I can give the city to someone else in my clan, try to push the border, etc... but I like to give some "realism" and do things gradually. My wife died before I had a child and now that I can only devote myself to taking care of my lands I don't have time to court anyone. I would like to keep the space in my "family" for a roleplaying matter. Of course it can be done in other ways and I just put those chains on myself. But still, the major problem is that the food system of the cities takes up a significant swing.

Maybe the player can have more input into it. Use his own money to maintain loyalty by paying "bribes" "bread and circuses" or buying food and that he can make a fund of, at most, two days so that the city does not starve. Hire patrols or "mini mercenaries" (Perisno style) to guard the surroundings or use their management. I think that the use of money is very limited and giving it a use in the late part of the game would be the most logical thing to do.
I don't want to sound like a hater either, I know that balance is difficult and pleasing everyone is complicated. I enjoy the game and I think they are doing a great job little by little, but there is still a long way to go in these details.​
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Since it is your first city (even if you have a castle) you will probably leave most of your army on foot as garrisons to maintain some protection. Now, if you take even a little while to get those soldiers back, you're never going to catch a break with looting. So your game is reduced to protecting those small villages over and over again, without rest. If your kingdom decides to make peace, at most you last 4 days in tranquility and then you go back to having a war with a neighbor. If you are lucky this war is going to be far from the border of those cities and you can recover and stabilize the region, if not... then the cycle returns.
There isn't a big reason to give a damn about your villages unless they are also your only source of manpower. Just let them get burned and do whatever else.
 
Get a governer who is in the same culture as the city, gives +1 loyalty, you can buy food and sell it to the city and it will register in their food stocks. Build fairgrounds. You can stabilize a city fairly quickly doing these three things.
 
There isn't a big reason to give a damn about your villages unless they are also your only source of manpower. Just let them get burned and do whatever else.
They give you income and they help your city as far as food goes. This seems like bad advice lol.
 

murtega

Knight
Owning a city can be quite frustrating in the beginning for sure but pushing the border is the right path to break the cycle. If they grant the new ground to you, just give away and AI will keep losing/regaining them for a while until you build up granary and gardens in your city. After that starvation won't be an issue even if they loot all your villages. You just need to create easier targets for enemy to raid/siege, so they leave your fiefs alone.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
They give you income and they help your city as far as food goes. This seems like bad advice lol.
So?

The income is marginal, particularly if they have a low amount of hearths. Same with food. A full hearth (600+) village provides +18 passively, plus food delivery assuming it produces food. A town usually has three of those, so +54 food passively if you're a good protector. However 5400 prosperity (just an easy example for me to pull up) eats 136 food per day. That's baseline for the town, without garrisons or figuring in their specific consumption requirements.
WqNJzVe.png

Even at 2000 prosperity, a town's prosperity will eat three villages' worth of passive production. So you can't beat the racket just by being a protector of the villages themselves. You need to protect everything: villages, villager parties (who carry production into the town) and caravans (bringing in goods from elsewhere, including excess food production). It is impossible unless you establish a buffer zone -- i.e. go out and do something else: conquer more fiefs until your settlement isn't on the border anymore.

Sticking around to protect your economy will, in the final account, simply bring your town to the point of permanent starvation faster once prosperity increases, which has similar loyalty effects as raided villages, albeit it caps out at -2 total (-1 Starving and -1 if Security tanks to zero due to the -3 No Food penalty to Security).

The entire prosperity system is designed to act as a brake on growth, not reward players for protecting fiefs. You gain very little for doing so compared to simply going out and taking another fief (and another and another, etc.). The options for playing tall are limited and highly situational as it is nearly impossible to push prosperity high enough for certain towns.

So in short: ignore the villages and do something. Protecting them feels like a pointless treadmill because it is.
 
Last edited:

murtega

Knight
Sticking around to protect your economy will, in the final account, simply bring your town to the point of permanent starvation faster once prosperity increases, which has similar loyalty effects as raided villages, albeit it caps out at -2 total (-1 Starving and -1 if Security tanks to zero due to the -3 No Food penalty to Security).
Didn't housing cost solve this high prosperity issue? I can't play beta since I play on geforce now but mexxico said it's implemented on v1.5.10 and prevents this.

Now we have housing costs effect (since 1.5.10) to balance high prosperity. It should slow down and help balancing.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Didn't housing cost solve this high prosperity issue? I can't play beta since I play on geforce now but mexxico said it's implemented on v1.5.10 and prevents this.
It didn't.
JGoYh1s.png

Any number of effects can overcome the Housing Cost penalty, some quite easily.
 

murtega

Knight
It didn't.
JGoYh1s.png

Any number of effects can overcome the Housing Cost penalty, some quite easily.
Damn... And in one of the next patches, negative effect of Serfdom will be removed as well. Looks like this housing cost penalty should be buffed greatly.
 
So?

The income is marginal, particularly if they have a low amount of hearths. Same with food. A full hearth (600+) village provides +18 passively, plus food delivery assuming it produces food. A town usually has three of those, so +54 food passively if you're a good protector. However 5400 prosperity (just an easy example for me to pull up) eats 136 food per day. That's baseline for the town, without garrisons or figuring in their specific consumption requirements.
WqNJzVe.png

Even at 2000 prosperity, a town's prosperity will eat three villages' worth of passive production. So you can't beat the racket just by being a protector of the villages themselves. You need to protect everything: villages, villager parties (who carry production into the town) and caravans (bringing in goods from elsewhere, including excess food production). It is impossible unless you establish a buffer zone -- i.e. go out and do something else: conquer more fiefs until your settlement isn't on the border anymore.

Sticking around to protect your economy will, in the final account, simply bring your town to the point of permanent starvation faster once prosperity increases, which has similar loyalty effects as raided villages, albeit it caps out at -2 total (-1 Starving and -1 if Security tanks to zero due to the -3 No Food penalty to Security).

The entire prosperity system is designed to act as a brake on growth, not reward players for protecting fiefs. You gain very little for doing so compared to simply going out and taking another fief (and another and another, etc.). The options for playing tall are limited and highly situational as it is nearly impossible to push prosperity high enough for certain towns.

So in short: ignore the villages and do something. Protecting them feels like a pointless treadmill because it is.
The ultimate Black pill on towns and villages.💊 Too bad I want my town to be stable and happy.

Maybe the player can have more input into it. Use his own money to maintain loyalty by paying "bribes" "bread and circuses" or buying food and that he can make a fund of, at most, two days so that the city does not starve. Hire patrols or "mini mercenaries" (Perisno style) to guard the surroundings or use their management. I think that the use of money is very limited and giving it a use in the late part of the game would be the most logical thing to do.
I don't want to sound like a hater either, I know that balance is difficult and pleasing everyone is complicated. I enjoy the game and I think they are doing a great job little by little, but there is still a long way to go in these details.
You are throwing bibles at the choirs buddy! Yes please, patrols, extra food farms, armed escort food caravans, EVERYTHING I want it, I have no love for the cluster **** simulation they've made. I want a town, I want to use my recourses to improve and maintain it. I want it to reward me. Anything else is garbage. Just make it warband.

It can almost always be managed IF you've played before and made mistakes and learned some stuff. It's not very player friendly or fun though.
So if you're going to be a vassal mobility is important, so make all parties t3 khuzaits HA, don't like em? Yeah some people don't but they're economic and make you move fast on the map so when your faction gives you a town butt out in the middle of enemies you can race around defending it! Make a normal army.... yeah you can't catch everyone and they come right back, it really sucks.

If you join a faction that fight the faction you're heritage is you can hopefully get fiefs of your own culture and by pass the-loyalty hit. It help a lot, but most players wanna join the faction of thier heritage so yeah...bummer.

If you don't join a faction and either take a rebel town or save up money, attack a faction, take thier town and pay for peace (not for first game, rebels could be okay though), you can have peace and let you town recover! However some time the rebel towns are tuff to stabilize.

If you really can't get it sorted out (loyalty, food, security, giant army you can't fight) just pull you good troops out and let it go! If you're a vassal use the 'return fief' option in the clan menu, if you're solo just walk away.
 
Top Bottom