Negative security because of the garrison "question"'

[kisstraszi]

I got negative security bonus for garrison units, when the city/keep has a different culture than me. Is this how it suppose to work? I even tried to match the defending troops culture to the city culture with native governor.

 

[AJAJP_Juan]

Pretty sure your security penalty is not from garrisons culture but their low number. Try to man it up.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I think it doesn't display properly when you have zero garrison, so it appears that putting in a few troops gives you a -security, but put in enough and it will be positive. Leaving it empty will be much much worse.

Pretty sure your security penalty is not from garrisons culture but their low number. Try to man it up.

I agree, unit culture doesn't matter.

 

[Antaeus]

If your city is in a different culture you're literally begging to have a rebellion if you cheapen out on the garrison.

 

[kisstraszi]

Damn, a big garrision cost an arm and a leg at least. Mabye i should use cheap units.

 

[kisstraszi]

Try to man it up.

It works. Still expensive tho.

 

[clovis_sangrail]

You do not need top tier troops to boost security. Entry level T1 is fine.

 

[Apocal]

Damn, a big garrision cost an arm and a leg at least. Mabye i should use cheap units.

There is no point to ever using T4 or higher units in garrison. There probably isn't much reason beyond using T2, except you want to overmatch the militia in case of low loyalty.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Well, you get their tier in security so depending on food issues you can kinda choose the trade off , but beyond t3 the cost goes up much more.
You just want to reach the point where your security starts to go up and you don't have -loyalty (for long) from not enough security.

 

[Midnitewolf]

There is no point to ever using T4 or higher units in garrison. There probably isn't much reason beyond using T2, except you want to overmatch the militia in case of low loyalty.

I am not so sure. I mean in a siege, wouldn't the higher quality troops give you a higher chance of winning the battle in simulation?

On the other hand, if I am not mistaken, your fief being targeted by the enemy faction is 100% dependent on the total number of troops and I don't think that calculation takes into account quality.

Basically if your garrison isn't large enough compared to the other fiefs your factions owns, it will always be a war target of the enemy, near constantly. The only way to prevent this is to have a large number of troops in the city.

 

[Apocal]

I am not so sure. I mean in a siege, wouldn't the higher quality troops give you a higher chance of winning the battle in simulation?

On the other hand, if I am not mistaken, your fief being targeted by the enemy faction is 100% dependent on the total number of troops and I don't think that calculation takes into account quality.

Basically if your garrison isn't large enough compared to the other fiefs your factions owns, it will always be a war target of the enemy, near constantly. The only way to prevent this is to have a large number of troops in the city.

Yes, that is still the way it works with higher tier troops giving better results in autocalc. But now, in practice, the AI is a lot less likely to target player settlements due to the rebalance to their targeting priorities. Before it was heavily weighted towards going after weak garrisons and now it is more weighted towards distance. So you can no longer count on a strong garrison as a defense if you have a border castle but you also don't need to give a damn about your garrison's strength if you have a fief that is deep in your territory. The AI does consider quality because it uses the same GetPower method that accounts for troop tier in autocalc but you can afford four or five tier 2 troops for every tier 5, with some coin to spare, and those do better in autocalc.

The priority thing is a change I don't really agree with (precisely because it opens the AI to a lot of cheese tactics, like taking a weak interior holding and dumping units inside to create Fort Doom that the AI continuously welps armies against) but it seems like the majority of players want it, so here it is.

 

[Midnitewolf]

Yes, that is still the way it works with higher tier troops giving better results in autocalc. But now, in practice, the AI is a lot less likely to target player settlements due to the rebalance to their targeting priorities. Before it was heavily weighted towards going after weak garrisons and now it is more weighted towards distance. So you can no longer count on a strong garrison as a defense if you have a border castle but you also don't need to give a damn about your garrison's strength if you have a fief that is deep in your territory. The AI does consider quality because it uses the same GetPower method that accounts for troop tier in autocalc but you can afford four or five tier 2 troops for every tier 5, with some coin to spare, and those do better in autocalc.

The priority thing is a change I don't really agree with (precisely because it opens the AI to a lot of cheese tactics, like taking a weak interior holding and dumping units inside to create Fort Doom that the AI continuously welps armies against) but it seems like the majority of players want it, so here it is.

What patch did the priority thing change in? The reason I ask is that I am holding at 1.5.6 because I didn't want the new patch to break my mods and thus break my save and have to start all over. In 1.5.6 I am not seeing them prioritize based on distance in fact my first fief was in the deep interior of my factions lands that the enemy taken and I re-took because it had a small garrison. Also for quite some time while I was building up the garrison, it was one of the major targets for them to raid and try to re-capture despite them having to bypass a ton of other closer castles, towns and villages to get there. I thought it was because my garrison was small.

Also I am seeing an instance where Battania took over Charas despite it being about as far away from its territory as you can get. Actually now that I think of it, Battania actually took deep interior territories from my faction, Vlandia, on 4 separate occasions. 3 castles and Charas and in about all cases they had to travel to nearly the ends of Vlandian territory to get them.

Oh and to be honest, I have to disagree about the priority changes. The AI shouldn't be looking deep into the interior just because it is a weaker fief because it honestly isn't very realistic if you ask me. I mean in real life, there is no way you could hold territory that deep inside another factions lands. Your supply lines would be completely cut and the distance that reinforcements would have to travel would mean you could never rely on support. I know it is just a game but I would prefer the AI perform realistic behaviors just for the immersion factor. Also, when I as the player want to expand, I generally don't run over and look at the castle completely on the opposite side of enemy lands and try to take it because it has 100 less troops in the garrison. I expand naturally, into territory that borders my factions lands.

As far as using cheese tactics, well it is a single player game and you get to define what is cheese or not. If if feels cheesy and you don't like cheesy, don't use the tactic. I mean you don't have to do something just because you can and if you know what your doing is an exploit, just don't do it. That is why I refuse to use smiting to exploit money and expand my kingdom naturally even if that might be harder. The again I run a lot of mods and settings that I consider cheats but hey that is the beauty of a single player game. As long as I am having fun nothing else matters.

 

[Apocal]

What patch did the priority thing change in? The reason I ask is that I am holding at 1.5.6 because I didn't want the new patch to break my mods and thus break my save and have to start all over.

1.5.7