Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
What I usually do, if I can afford it, is to either park that lord out to sea or simply dismiss the army+lord and get a new one, who's not suffering from rat aids.
Each time it spreads back to the army, it resets it's duration to 5 turns. The patrol buildings merely make it less likely to spread towards that city, it does nothing to prevent it spreading to armies.
send them on a suicidal charge into the enemy
capture all what they can
yes those places will also be plagued, but a city can wait things out better then an army
just dont recruit from there
Sounds a wrong move tbh.
You're giving the enemy exp and gold by sending your army into a suicide. He did state he lost 90% of his units.
And no a city actually gets more damage from the plague then a army. A city cannot get attrition resistance unless it's siege. Armies can.
A new army that's not plagued, will not spread a plague to a nearly captured settlement, unlike your suicide run idea.