Losing prestige because of "unraised men-at-arms" and "raised armies"

[HolyMolyOllyPoly]

I'm playing as a tribal king of Sweden and this is starting to get pretty damn infuriating. If I disband all my soldiers, I lose prestige because my men-at-arms aren't raised. If I raise my men-at-arms, I lose prestige because I have raised armies. I CAN'T WIN! This game hates me! Why is it like this? What can I do to stop losing prestige every month?

Also, why isn't there a button to just raise your MAA? It's so annoying having to raise all my levies, grouping them into one army, separating the levy units from my MAA, and then disbanding the levy army. A "raise men-at-arms" button should have been such an obvious thing to have.

[Elenjo [Ger]]

you can build the Longhouses they give Prestige per month, you can create titel they give flat prestige, you can get married or seduce your wife for prestige (if its succeed) in the Diplomacy Tree you can get a lifestyle with +1Prestige per month, and the middle tree of diplo for a big amount of prestige for some requierements.
the Warfare Tree gives you prestige with the " galant" trait on the right tree.

going into war and or just battle with other armies give Prestige too.

there are many ways to get prestige. if its a flat amount or per month

[HolyMolyOllyPoly]

Thank you for your feedback, but I was hoping for a way to get rid of either the "raised armies" or "unraised MAA" malus.

[Storm Runner]

youve over expanded your maa core they also cost less if there full power and not reinforceing but the unrased maa is there upkeep

[Elenjo [Ger]]

Originally posted by HolyMolyOllyPolly:

Thank you for your feedback, but I was hoping for a way to get rid of either the "raised armies" or "unraised MAA" malus.

you cant get rid of this malus.
if you would be Feudal you would need to pay them with gold.

just do some as i described and youre perfectly fine, manly it should be enough to just buy the Longhouses and some kind of marriage and or your koncubines.

as the king of sweden you sit on a holy site, if youre feudal at some point you can build the building and i think you get prestige bonus

[CrUsHeR]

Note that the "unraised" cost also applies while troops are replenishing while not raised.

So if you hire new MAA, the costs look exorbitant at first, but goes back to the actual unraised cost once they reach their max strength.

[CyberEagle]

You seem to misunderstand something. As tribal you ALWAYS pay prestige for your Men At Arms, the same way feudals ALWAYS pay gold. It specifically says "unraised Men a Arms" to differentiate it from the HIGHER cost the have when raised.

[ottomanstamper]

Originally posted by HolyMolyOllyPolly:

I'm playing as a tribal king of Sweden and this is starting to get pretty damn infuriating. If I disband all my soldiers, I lose prestige because my men-at-arms aren't raised. If I raise my men-at-arms, I lose prestige because I have raised armies. I CAN'T WIN! This game hates me! Why is it like this? What can I do to stop losing prestige every month?

Also, why isn't there a button to just raise your MAA? It's so annoying having to raise all my levies, grouping them into one army, separating the levy units from my MAA, and then disbanding the levy army. A "raise men-at-arms" button should have been such an obvious thing to have.

The reason you can't raise MaA separate from levies is because the idiotic developers did not think that it was necessary to give us that option!

Before the 1.3 update MaA used to raise instantly which meant that even though there wasn't a way of raising them separately, when you "raised all" the MaA arrived first and then you could stop raising the rest.

I can understand why they might have wanted to stop MaA raising instantly, however it seems that between them all they didn't even have that one brain cell, to realise that they were creating a situation where in some cases you have to raise 200,000 levies (when you need zero) in order to raise your siege weapons(this took over 7 months in my game)!!

[Kvinden]

Yes, due to the levies it takes so long the ennemy has time to capture your capital before your army is ready to retaliate. And raising the levies to invade a foreign country should not even exist.
The fyrd Harold used against Harald in Yorkshire didn't travel to Hastings, it was another local levy, it was raised in some days and worth nothing on the battle field. And Harold was under attack in England. There were no levies in the norvegian or normand army.

But it is true that during the war of Flanders the count of Foix travelled with his army to Vincennes and it took several monthes. Often, like at Crecy, several armies arrived too late for the battle.

To my knowledge, only Jean II raised levies before Poitiers because he could extort the money he needed to the council for not reaching the requirements. But he didn't use them in the battle.

The black prince ( Or king edward) never besieged a fortress able to resist more than some days. Sieges of 12 or 15 monthes are ridiculous. Only Calais and La Reole lasted more than one year because Edward III wanted Calais as a permanent base and it was one of the conditions the parliament had fixed and La Reole because Jean II was a fool.

Same for the muslims during the crusades. Nurredin and Saladin were wise and patient generals, negociated and reunited the emirs that were previously divided. Each one came with his own army for a total of around 35000. Renaud de Chatillon, Guy de Lusignan and the templars formed an alliance, totalizing 2000 knights (Including the templars) and 30000 mercenaries. No levies at all on any side.

For a permanent army we must wait the 15th century, after the end of the game.
And in Europe the war stopped during winter. Always. No war ever lasted 3 years without iterruptions. And when you win a war of conquest it is idiot to sign a 5 years break with your ennemy instead of pressing your advantage. In real life the Mongols would still be in China in 2021 if they had to wait 5 years to conquer the next county. When you have crushed your worst ennemy and left him without defenses you finish him, you don't patiently wait until he has recovered and signed many alliances to reconquer what you just won.
I don't understand what the devs thought here.

[Evilgenius]

Originally posted by Kvinden:

I don't understand what the devs thought here.

Because realism isn't great for engaging and fun gameplay.