Real speed run this time. (Finished - 162 days)

[bakters]

So I started again, since I don't feel burned out at all.  This time I thought a bit more about my starting character but I think I might still have made a mistake.  If I sacrificed a Student for something else which gives Riding +1, I might have managed without AGI 12, but I didn't.  I went for INT +2 and a book.  Don't know which is better, it needs either a bit more thinking or maybe testing.

Anyway, I tried to choose skill points which I will be using in the end, so nothing goes to waste.  I decided against Prisoner Management, as I don't really need it, and my CHA stat is only 5, so even lower Leadership than before.  After that I decided to stop pumping up my STR at 10, as that's all you need for Siege Crossbow.  I plan on doing the same for my companions.

As of now I'm soloing Sea Raiders.  I'm at level 10 atm, and generally doing fine.  I store decent loot in Rivacheg's chest and prepare for the future.

Now, since I'm going to be such a good medic myself, I plan of trying to do it all without Jeremus and Ymira crowd.  I will pump medical skills on my companions anyway, so I should have some backup, but no real medics to speak of for quite a while.  While it sure is a risky approach, I should have two more siege crossbows for range support.  It should be worth it, as long as I don't die too often.

So, in summary:

1.  STR-10/AGI-12/INT-Max build for all of us.
2.  CHA-5 and Leadership (hopefully...) 2 with the book for myself.
3.  No dedicated non-combat medics among my companions.
4.  And no voluntary restrictions on gameplay.  Speed all the way, and if I fail I have nothing to hide behind.

Beginning wasn't very lucky, no tournament in Praven, no decent affordable horses or weapons, but I just went forward.  We'll see how it goes.

 

[fragonard]

I'll be looking forward to your run report.
Don't obsess about the start specs; it's all trade-offs. For the least attributes, however, probably you want Nomad/Apprentice/Squire/forced out. This lets you start with 4 riding with only 7 AGI and 2 Leadership with 6 CHA, saving a total of 4 Attributes. You lose a few skills, maybe, but 4 extra levels of INT should more than cover. The downside is low WM and melee ability.

BTW: I like your original 12/12 build - a good balanced build for anything but maybe a speedrun (which I have a hard time getting my head around anyway )

 

[bakters]

Only 7 AGI, you say?  In that case I'm almost glad I didn't try to go for it.  I would be almost totally useless on foot, and even with AGI 4 I wasn't a powerhouse already.  It could prove a quite difficult build to play.

Now the only thing I sacrifice in regard to my former build is 2 points of strength and one point of powerstrike.  It should still give me roughly about the same damage output (one or two good hits per kill) and the same speed.

Thanks for expressing interest and I will try to write about some less obvious aspects of this playthrough as they will reveal themselves.  I'm not sure yet how I will try to play it, but I suspect that I will join a faction and go for mega-conquest, until they refuse me something. 

 

[Nikomakkos]

There are so many skills the player character wants to take and several that only he can cover, so I've always used companions for Int based party skills.  I don't feel like I need 14 Surgery, or 14 anything except Engineering might be nice.  It really changes a lot for that skill.  Generally I feel that all the skills are useful and usually I want my party to cover them all.

I totally agree that 10 Str and 12 Agi is enough, unless you're going for a bow.  Often I'm tempted to push Agi up to 15 or even 18 but that's for the fun of riding fast and it's not necessary.  15 is good for Looting 5 (+2 = 7).  Looting is something that benefits you a lot early in the game which is one reason it's better you take it than a companion.  Another reason is you don't contribute party skills when you're in the red and in my experience companions fall into the red a lot more than I do.  This hurts Looting (and First Aid) especially since it only kicks in after combat.

The rest goes to Int and Cha.  I almost always prioritize Cha since I like high Leadership, as high as possible, for morale just as much as wages.  I usually put 5 points in Trading myself, it's too pointless to raise a companions Cha solely for this skill.

Then I fill up the rest of what I need with remaining points. Inv Man, Persuasion (I really like that skill), a few points in Prisoner Man, what else is there...  combat skills.  Max PS, WM and at least 4 Riding.  What I have to spare goes to IF, Shield and Athletics.  Oh, and I try to have as much Trainer skill as I can.  Later when I'm really high level I start thinking about putting one point in things you can improve by reading a book, or keeping one in your inv., for the +1 party bonus.

As for companions, one for healer skills and Trainer, one for the scouting skills and Trainer, and one for Tactics, Engineer, Persuasion and Trainer (might be better to have the persuader take Tracking instead of Tactics since Tracking is the skill you can most go without for a few days imo).  Once I trained up a companion I wasn't using especially for Persuasion, and kept him as minister when he wasn't on errands.

The other 5 companions are pure combatants.  The best build, or at least the most convenient build, I've found for them is a knight (no lance) who carries a siege crossbow.  Then you don't have to switch equipment for sieges or bandit lairs, and they'll be more useful if their horse is killed.  And they don't waste time trying to do horse archery.  One or two handed is a matter of preference.  I prefer two handed.

I can't imagine why people feel it's good to have two healers or scouts.  In those battles when you really want your healer to stay up, just have him in a group by himself and tell him to retreat.  Simple as that, he'll never be knocked out.  For the other battles, I use him as a knight with his 10 Str and 12 Agi (same as the scout).

EDIT:  Just a little note, I put 4 points in Trading, not 5, and read the book for the fifth point (5 being a magic number).

 

[Nikomakkos]

Once I found a different build that I quite liked.  It involved picking all the first choice backgrounds (noble, page, squire, revenge) and covering Tactics and Engineering yourself.  This way you have a nice little head start and you don't start with any points in skills you're not gonna take.  You take no more than 10 Str, 12 Agi because you not only want to max Cha but also Int (or take it as high as possible).

With this build you might not be able to max anything until very very late in the game, but it's still a nice build and it frees up one companion to be a pure combatant.  One benefit of the higher Int is more skill points for all the other things, plus higher roof for Trainer and Persuasion.  Also, you have a chance of above 10 Engineering which is great.

Of course you could cover yourself any two Int party skills you like, this build uses Tactics and Engineering because my usual healer (Jeremus) and my usual scout (Deshavi) don't come with any points in those, there are books you can read for those and these background choices give me 1 Tactics.  Picking "father was a warrior" instead of noble would give a start without any party skills, but then you should pick 'forced' instead of 'revenge' for the last pick.

 

[bakters]

I'll be looking forward to your run report.
Don't obsess about the start specs; it's all trade-offs. For the least attributes, however, probably you want Nomad/Apprentice/Squire/forced out. This lets you start with 4 riding with only 7 AGI and 2 Leadership with 6 CHA, saving a total of 4 Attributes. You lose a few skills, maybe, but 4 extra levels of INT should more than cover. The downside is low WM and melee ability.

So more out of curiosity than anything else I started anew with this build.  I was much more lucky this time around, as I found Nizar quickly.  I hired him, robbed him and released him back.  Thanks to that I was lvl 9 by the end of day 3 instead of day 7.  So far it plays very well.  Starting with Riding 4 and finding a Courser early means that I could solo Sea Raiders very quickly.

Anyway, one comment about Prisoner Management.  For a quick run it doesn't seem to offer enough benefits with regard to points invested.  Yes, it gives you about a grand more per group, which mostly doubles your income, but at the cost of two skill points and additional hassle.  You will often find yourself dragging the prisoners around Calradia while trying to find those always disappearing Ransom Brokers, or camping the towns with depleted stores.

The way I play it now, all I care about is storing decent loot in Rivacheg, buying useful stuff and selling whatever I don't plan on using.  Simple and quick approach with minimal downtime. 

During later game prisoner management only slowed me down.  I didn't have the time (or reason) to search for ransom brokers, but I was dragging extra 10 people around all the time.  Now I have no choice but to remain quick. 

 

[deutrino]

Few points about charisma vs inteligence:
The idea that charisma is the most important skill comes from the old Mount&Blade. The reason was only one - not enought money. In the previous game some small but crucial gameplay changes didn't existed:

1. No enterprises - the only posibuility for semi-legal game was to tweak caravans, but they were very random anyway.

2. The price for all prisoners was the same - 50 gold.

3. No right to rule - the player is always considered to be an unlawfull rebel, and has no influence over the peace, or other diplomatic options. Good luck with trading when you are always at war. There is no time for this.

4. Taxes - the player can't collect all revenues from all of his holdings at once. He has to go to each and every village personaly, 150 gold here, 200 gold there... (I think Warband's income from taxes and trade runs is increased). When he is a ruler and owns half of the map, it takes about a weak to do it, and then he must start this stupid run again.

5. Lords don't leave their factions and don't join the player's kingdom. If a faction is destroyed, they go to the other kingdoms (IIRC). Meaning - in late game most of his villages will always be looted (no money), and no reinforcements of any kind. When the player face the combined enemy forces (and he is alone every single time) having five extra swadian knights for one point of leadership make a BIG differance.

(More on this topic - someone here posted an interesting read how it is posible to criple a faction simply by taking the same castle over and over, and never defending it. Every time when this catstle is lost, or given to another lord, the king will take a relationship hit with the previous owner and all of his friends. So he will not follow the king's orders and the king will expell him eventually.)

6. All of his towns and castles must be sufficiently stacked with troops, if he wants to prevent several sieges at the same time. There is a point in the game, when it is almost imposible to keep your ground and to conquer new castles.

When all these small annoying features are stacked together, the player is forced to put points in leadership, simply becouse, reducing all wages in half was a nesesety. It goes with more points on prison management and few on trade. Not for trade runs, but for better prices when selling the loot, becouse battles was the only reliable sourse of income. (Thus 1-2 points on inv. management.) I rarely had more than 20k in cash, but I see many casual youtube players running around with 160k gold. It was a tedious, relentless grinding, always on the edge of bankruptcy.

Long story short - to put points primarily on charisma is an old wisdom, but it is not valid anymore.

 

[bakters]

Re: Nikomakkos.

Let me address some of your concerns.

I take party skills on my character mostly due to bonuses.  Spotting at 14 covers several times more area than Spotting at 10.  Pathfinding gets quite ridiculous too.  I could catch up to routed enemies with an army of 150 in my last playthrough.  Surgery gets totally ridiculous, roughly 4 in 5 guys survives, and with maxed Wound Treatment is back in action very quickly.  First Aid brings back your Companions at 80% health.

It all kinda adds up.  To the point that you can afford losing several rounds of a pitched battle and coming up on top in the end, because all your "dead" companions are revived, while the enemy is constantly suffering casualties.  I've won battles against 1200 and 1300 enemies my last playthrough.  I wouldn't be able to do that without maxed medical skills.

Second reason why I go for party skills myself is plain and simply speed.  I'm much higher level than my companions, so my army will be up to snuff much quicker if I don't have to wait for my companions to level up.  In my three last playthroughs I managed to defend my own kingdom around day 100 in game.  My companions weren't leveled up enough to provide a competent support yet.  I had to cover at least Engineering, and I covered more than that often.

Now, why people play with two medics if one can do the job anyway?
I play with redundant medics because they heal each other and they defend each other.  I always tell the to go to the side of the map, but it isn't rare that some enemies wander there.  The two of them together often can take care of this enemy, but even if not and both of them go down, they will be back in action immediately.

I have seen it numerous times.  All of my medics went down, but surgery still applied during battle, because they were back up at say 60% of their health.  It works.

In this playthrough I decided to not go with dedicated non-combat medics, but all of my companions will be STR-10/AGI-12/INT-Max builds, and all of them will cover at least one medical skill and the Trainer skill. 

Regarding Charisma - you can live without it.  By the time you raise your Leadership high enough to make a serious difference for your expenses, you are flooded with money anyway, and if you fight all the time and carry all the foods available, morale is not a serious issue.  I'd rather have bonuses for all party skills, and have them quickly.

Edit: Fixed a botched up paste.

 

[Nikomakkos]

Now, why people play with two medics if one can do the job anyway?
I play with redundant medics because they heal each other and they defend each other.  I always tell the to go to the side of the map, but it isn't rare that some enemies wander there.  The two of them together often can take care of this enemy, but even if not and both of them go down, they will be back in action immediately.

I have seen it numerous times.  All of my medics went down, but surgery still applied during battle, because they were back up at say 60 in 5 guys survives, and with maxed Wound Treatment is back in action very quickly.  Fi% of their health.  It works.

You can tell your healer to retreat and he won't suffer a scratch with 100% certainty.

I actually have never tried maxing a party skill myself, so I guess I can't know.  10 has seemed sufficient for me.  But yeah, it takes a while to train the companions.  It's just that there's so many skills that I want to take and the companions can cover this.

There is indeed a lot of money, and Native does not have anything to sink it in.  But I like the morale from Leadership.  Maybe it isn't all that important, it could be that I'm still stuck in my earliest experiences of playing the game when it really hit me hard that I didn't have enough Leadership.

EDIT: Thinking about it, I can imagine 14 Spotting could be handy.

 

[bakters]

You can tell your healer to retreat and he won't suffer a scratch with 100% certainty.

I simply didn't know about that! 

That changes pretty much everything, I would play with one medic only if I knew you could do that.  And can you tell other units to retreat too?  Because if you can, that again changes everything.  I could get rid of archers after they run out of arrows instead of killing them off, for example. 

How about reinforcements?  I mean, do retreating units count towards your losses and trigger a reinforcement wave, or not?  Because this ability opens up quite a few possible strategies.  You could start a siege with 100% ranged units and dominate the defenders, then you could make your archers retreat and trigger a fresh reinforcements with full quivers or at least switch to melee troops for the final attack.

Damn, that I didn't know about it till now.

This time around I will still play according to my original plan, just to try it out if for no other reasons, but thanks for the info anyway. 

I actually have never tried maxing a party skill myself, so I guess I can't know.  10 has seemed sufficient for me.  But yeah, it takes a while to train the companions.  It's just that there's so many skills that I want to take and the companions can cover this.

It seems that there is almost enough points to cover everything of importance.  But I still plan on developing my companions as INT builds.  I need them for training, and Trainer depends on INT.  I will sink all the remaining points into medical skills for a lot of redundancy, but since they will have all those points anyway, what's the harm in it?

There is indeed a lot of money, and Native does not have anything to sink it in.  But I like the morale from Leadership.  Maybe it isn't all that important, it could be that I'm still stuck in my earliest experiences of playing the game when it really hit me hard that I didn't have enough Leadership.

Base morale = 50
All non-spoiling food ~ 60
Leadership 3 = 25 (iirc)

That gives you a sustainable party size of 135 without any "recent events", which means that I suffer no real restrictions on party size due to morale.  I pretty much always fight, or prepare for a fight by fighting bandits.  Once in a blue moon I garrison or even disband some guys.

I practically never fight a faction with their native units.  One big battle and morale modifier can go down to -150, which is quite impossible to overcome without a major hassle.  Although they will desert only during the night, so it's still possible to use them from time to time.

Well, it sure requires a bit more careful approach, but playing with low Leadership is definitely possible.

 

[Nikomakkos]

Base morale = 50
All non-spoiling food ~ 60
Leadership 3 = 25 (iirc)

That gives you a sustainable party size of 135 without any "recent events", which means that I suffer no real restrictions on party size due to morale.  I pretty much always fight, or prepare for a fight by fighting bandits.  Once in a blue moon I garrison or even disband some guys.

I practically never fight a faction with their native units.  One big battle and morale modifier can go down to -150, which is quite impossible to overcome without a major hassle.  Although they will desert only during the night, so it's still possible to use them from time to time.

Well, it sure requires a bit more careful approach, but playing with low Leadership is definitely possible.

Yeah this sounds like a lot of hassle and a bit limiting.  Especially when it comes to Rhodoks, I like to give them some taste of their own medicine.  This becomes more of an issue the larger your battle size.  With low battle size I guess Tactics becomes more important than Leadership.

You can tell your healer to retreat and he won't suffer a scratch with 100% certainty.

I simply didn't know about that! 

That changes pretty much everything, I would play with one medic only if I knew you could do that.  And can you tell other units to retreat too?  Because if you can, that again changes everything.  I could get rid of archers after they run out of arrows instead of killing them off, for example. 

How about reinforcements?  I mean, do retreating units count towards your losses and trigger a reinforcement wave, or not?  Because this ability opens up quite a few possible strategies.  You could start a siege with 100% ranged units and dominate the defenders, then you could make your archers retreat and trigger a fresh reinforcements with full quivers or at least switch to melee troops for the final attack.

Yes, you can tell any group to retreat.  I think it triggers a reinforcement wave but I'm not 100% sure.  Try it.  And I like your tactical ideas around this.  Might try some of that myself.  Like you could start field battles with all archers and infantry to defend them and then switch out the archers for cavalry.  Or start with cavalry to harass the enemy while the archers shoot and then bring on the infrantry.  Or simply, like you said, get rid of your archers when they're out of ammo and get some fresh troops of whatever kind.

 

[bakters]

Yeah this sounds like a lot of hassle and a bit limiting.  Especially when it comes to Rhodoks, I like to give them some taste of their own medicine.  This becomes more of an issue the larger your battle size.  With low battle size I guess Tactics becomes more important than Leadership.

  Well, a bit of a hassle, but it's part of the game for me.  Pumping up Charisma eats loads of points, so either that or everything else.

Edit: Regarding fighting Rhodoks with Rhodoks.  It's not going to work with my playstyle even with maxed Leadership.  My morale modifiers go down to -300 at times.  I tend to finish factions within weeks.  You can still use those troops if you garrison them for the night in a nearby castle, but this is a major hassle.

Anyway, how Leadership is supposed to make this game easier on smaller battle size?  It doesn't affect anything during battle, and I pump my renown so high, that I rarely every run around with a full army.  I can check where I ended up recently, but waay above 3K renown, with an army of 215.  I was using 160ish and the rest were simply free slots for rescued prisoners, which I immediately put into the garrison anyway.

Up to now I didn't max Tactics.  Early on it simply eats your renown, and later the game becomes quite easy anyway, but this time around I will try to boost it from mid-game up.  Winning in the field takes much less time than waiting for assaults.

Yes, you can tell any group to retreat.

  I didn't feel so stupid for a very long time.

People - F1-F5 gets rid of unwanted troops from the battlefield.  They just route.

Thanks again for this comment.  It changes so much, that I must think carefully how I'm going to use it.

 

[deutrino]

Just be carefull. Sometimes in offensive siege battles if player's troops are too close to the walls they may start going up on the ladders instead going back to edge of the map. I think the AI just goes mindlessly to the nearest spawn point.
This command also reduce the extra casualties that the player gets as a penalty if he retreats from the battle with the Tab key (the small pop-up window, they are not combat casualties).
I don't know more becouse I don't have Warband, but for those two features I am sure.

What happens if the player retreats his archers, but the rest of his troops die? Will they come as reinforcement at the end of the round? Will there be another last round with the archers only? Or they aren't counted at all in this battle?

 

[bakters]

Thanks for the warning, and I will surely test this feature.  Probably with cheats on an alternative save.  While I don't think it will totally change the way I play, it will surely become useful at times.

I can keep a small number of infantry as arrow sponges.  Once they start losing shields, I can tell them to go home.  Small number of archers can last me a long time.  Now I didn't even use them, because I had to send them into melee where they died uselessly, so I just played with full cav.  Now I can use some support and not lose it.  I can spare the health bar of my companions, so they spawn at full during "storming the keep" stages, for another example.

It will surely open some options. 

 

[Nikomakkos]

Don't obsess about the start specs; it's all trade-offs. For the least attributes, however, probably you want Nomad/Apprentice/Squire/forced out. This lets you start with 4 riding with only 7 AGI and 2 Leadership with 6 CHA, saving a total of 4 Attributes. You lose a few skills, maybe [...]

All the origin choices have equal number of attributes and skills.  Just thought I'd point that out quickly.

EDIT: Although since you're probably not going to be a horse archer or use a bow at all, two points will be wasted from the Nomad choice.  But it's still worth noting that in an absolute sense, each choice is equal.

EDIT: Unless you're playing a woman.  Then no bow related points are wasted.

EDIT: Considering your playing style you might possibly benefit from playing a woman.

 

[fragonard]

Don't obsess about the start specs; it's all trade-offs. For the least attributes, however, probably you want Nomad/Apprentice/Squire/forced out. This lets you start with 4 riding with only 7 AGI and 2 Leadership with 6 CHA, saving a total of 4 Attributes. You lose a few skills, maybe [...]

All the origin choices have equal number of attributes and skills.  Just thought I'd point that out quickly.

EDIT: Although since you're probably not going to be a horse archer or use a bow at all, two points will be wasted from the Nomad choice.  But it's still worth noting that in an absolute sense, each choice is equal.

EDIT: Unless you're playing a woman.  Then no bow related points are wasted.

EDIT: Considering your playing style you might possibly benefit from playing a woman.

Right, I should have said wasted a few skills rather than losing them. Seemed the same to me at the time.

 

[bakters]

All the origin choices have equal number of attributes and skills.  Just thought I'd point that out quickly.

EDIT: Although since you're probably not going to be a horse archer or use a bow at all, two points will be wasted from the Nomad choice.  But it's still worth noting that in an absolute sense, each choice is equal.

EDIT: Unless you're playing a woman.  Then no bow related points are wasted.

EDIT: Considering your playing style you might possibly benefit from playing a woman.

  Oh, the irony!  I always played a female, but when I tried this nomad build I went with the male, it all looked OK and I don't want to start over again.  I always played female archers with two exceptions, last run and a trial long time ago, when I didn't even start a kingdom, because I decided that crossbow(wo)men were boring.

But I learned that I have to simply keep on going forward if I want to finish.  Obsessing about mistakes leads to constant restarts and a burnout.

隐藏

Few points about charisma vs inteligence:
The idea that charisma is the most important skill comes from the old Mount&Blade. The reason was only one - not enought money. In the previous game some small but crucial gameplay changes didn't existed:

1. No enterprises - the only posibuility for semi-legal game was to tweak caravans, but they were very random anyway.

2. The price for all prisoners was the same - 50 gold.

3. No right to rule - the player is always considered to be an unlawfull rebel, and has no influence over the peace, or other diplomatic options. Good luck with trading when you are always at war. There is no time for this.

4. Taxes - the player can't collect all revenues from all of his holdings at once. He has to go to each and every village personaly, 150 gold here, 200 gold there... (I think Warband's income from taxes and trade runs is increased). When he is a ruler and owns half of the map, it takes about a weak to do it, and then he must start this stupid run again.

5. Lords don't leave their factions and don't join the player's kingdom. If a faction is destroyed, they go to the other kingdoms (IIRC). Meaning - in late game most of his villages will always be looted (no money), and no reinforcements of any kind. When the player face the combined enemy forces (and he is alone every single time) having five extra swadian knights for one point of leadership make a BIG differance.

(More on this topic - someone here posted an interesting read how it is posible to criple a faction simply by taking the same castle over and over, and never defending it. Every time when this catstle is lost, or given to another lord, the king will take a relationship hit with the previous owner and all of his friends. So he will not follow the king's orders and the king will expell him eventually.)

6. All of his towns and castles must be sufficiently stacked with troops, if he wants to prevent several sieges at the same time. There is a point in the game, when it is almost imposible to keep your ground and to conquer new castles.

When all these small annoying features are stacked together, the player is forced to put points in leadership, simply becouse, reducing all wages in half was a nesesety. It goes with more points on prison management and few on trade. Not for trade runs, but for better prices when selling the loot, becouse battles was the only reliable sourse of income. (Thus 1-2 points on inv. management.) I rarely had more than 20k in cash, but I see many casual youtube players running around with 160k gold. It was a tedious, relentless grinding, always on the edge of bankruptcy.

Long story short - to put points primarily on charisma is an old wisdom, but it is not valid anymore.

I totally missed your post, because it appeared at the same time I posted mine, and I never looked up.  You raise valid points.  I never played original M&B for any length of time, but it all seems to add up nicely and makes sense.  I did end up with a rebel faction in With Fire and Sword, though.  It was quite a painful experience...

Anyway, actually it was me who proposed to repeatedly attack a bunch of castles without bothering with their defense.  I figured it out when I was playing with a faction.  I couldn't spare troops for defense, so some castles changed hands quite often and it destroyed the cohesion of both factions involved.  Enemies got it worse, though, because the were beaten more often, so we came up on top.

 

[fragonard]

Oh, the irony!  I always played a female, but when I tried this nomad build I went with the male, it all looked OK and I don't want to start over again.

The other good thing about being female in your build (which I just figured out) is that you can start with a Spirited Courser as a Lady in Waiting. It's almost worth it just for that.

 

[Filou]

Base morale = 50
All non-spoiling food ~ 60
Leadership 3 = 25 (iirc)

That gives you a sustainable party size of 135 without any "recent events", which means that I suffer no real restrictions on party size due to morale.  I pretty much always fight, or prepare for a fight by fighting bandits.  Once in a blue moon I garrison or even disband some guys.

With these numbers, a party of 135 will have 0 morale.  Seeing that desertions start when you go below 50, the effective party size is rather 85, no?

I guess fighting very often is the key to counteract it, but still.... Don't you see an impact of troop efficiency in battle if morale is too low?

 

[bakters]

The other good thing about being female in your build (which I just figured out) is that you can start with a Spirited Courser as a Lady in Waiting. It's almost worth it just for that.

That will learn me... (yeah, like I don't already know myself)

Base morale = 50
All non-spoiling food ~ 60
Leadership 3 = 25 (iirc)

That gives you a sustainable party size of 135 without any "recent events", which means that I suffer no real restrictions on party size due to morale.  I pretty much always fight, or prepare for a fight by fighting bandits.  Once in a blue moon I garrison or even disband some guys.

With these numbers, a party of 135 will have 0 morale.  Seeing that desertions start when you go below 50, the effective party size is rather 85, no?

I guess fighting very often is the key to counteract it, but still.... Don't you see an impact of troop efficiency in battle if morale is too low?

  Actually, you are probably right.  But with bigger army I tend to stock up on some spoiling food too, and I gather all the variety there is in my household, in case I need it.  However it goes, I didn't have a single desertion for a long time, and I don't ever remember seeing troops routing during battle. 

All I do (beside food) is that if I take a big army with me, I fight.  When I don't fight much, I transfer troops to some garrison and take just my companions for a bandit lair or bandit hunt.  My "recent events' tend to stay high, and even if I train recruits, I tend to fight quite a lot.  They level up faster this way.

Anyway, I'm at day 30, level 20ish and it all feels very slow.  My companions gather levels quick enough, but they suck at combat, unfortunately.  The same with me.  I get levels all right, but I'm bad at fighting.  I seriously started doubting if skimping on agility for me and on strength for my companions is going to be worth it in the long run...

I suck at fighting, because I'm slow and my weapon proficiency is mediocre at best.  Weapon Master 2 seems like a great deal, but when you can't hit a broad side of an industrial complex it stops being such an interesting powergaming gamble...

And I'm poor.  That's probably why my companions disappoint a little.  They don't have the kit I used to give them by this time in game, and they don't have the kit, because I don't earn a living by selling prisoners.  And I can't really support a real army neither.

To some extent it's simply expected.  I will join a faction soon-ish, and I'll see how real fighting will go, but I'm prepared to chuck it all out as a failed attempt.

I seriously dread the idea of facing several high level units defending the keep.  I'm just to slow to deal with them.