-- Official Unofficial 'Ask Questions About Warband Singleplayer Here' Thread --
- Thread starter RobustTurd
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Firehusary
Recruit
Hey.
Does anybody know "that mod"? I can't recall it's name, maybe those things will help you got what's it's name ;(
So, there were 3/4(?) versions of it, one was Basic and it just improved sounds, then Extended and sometinhg else. And the full version of it was 10 GB. So, can anybody help me with this?
EDIT: Nevermind, it seems like that's Floris Mod Pack. I'll see if that's that.
Does anybody know "that mod"? I can't recall it's name, maybe those things will help you got what's it's name ;(
So, there were 3/4(?) versions of it, one was Basic and it just improved sounds, then Extended and sometinhg else. And the full version of it was 10 GB. So, can anybody help me with this?
EDIT: Nevermind, it seems like that's Floris Mod Pack. I'll see if that's that.
Does having a high Trade skill improve the quality of goods offered in stores?
Biggiesized
Regular
No, it only affects prices of goods bought and sold.blainedeyoung said:
Item quality found in stores is reflected by the prosperity of the city (Poor, Average, Rich, etc.).
Ever since 1.150 all the changes have been to under-the-hood coding changes that allow more flexibility for modders. There were a few inbetween changes to troops iirc, but it's mostly been stuff that you wouldn't notice or care about unless you were planning on making a complex overhaul mod.
Jake the cool dude10
Recruit
BHunterSEAL said:
hey there, quick question regarding raiding. Does raiding effect a villages prosperity if the raid is not successful? also is there a visual indication as to whether a raid was successful or not, or is the "looted" descriptor the indication. My villages are getting attempts at raiding but not successfully, but they still seem to have low prosperity. its likely that i just have to wait longer, but I'm curious.
Raiding only lowers prosperity if the village is completely looted. The icon of the burning village isn't refreshed that often so even if the raiders are gone, the village will still appear to be burning and will still say "being raided".
Your low prosperity could be caused by it being a frontier settlement. If it's getting raided then villagers from the town are probably getting attacked, which lowers prosperity.
Your low prosperity could be caused by it being a frontier settlement. If it's getting raided then villagers from the town are probably getting attacked, which lowers prosperity.
Watsiro
Recruit
Is late game at all realistic without cheating?
I have just recently started playing. To my great shame I have fallen back on cheats, at first promising myself to it was just to get through the more boring (to me) grindy bits and getting to the fun "build your kingdom" bit... but now it seems hard to see that ever happening.
So a maximum high level character can field an army of less than 200 if heavily specced for it... yet all around the world, any army has at least that number, cities and castles easily field 400+ 600 troops, the occasional roaming war band has even more
Now obviously an entire kingdom should not be easy to conquer, but the whole process of finding enough recruits, training them up to a reasonable level on smaller battles, and finally having to recoup your losses after a single big battle just seems ridiculously long for a sandbox game. Having a kingdom to defend on top of that just seems impossible.
There are two other options I might be missing here,
1. Raising my reputation with your vassal kingdoms lords, I assume so that you can ask them to back you up/defend your holdings
2.Start my own kingdom early. As far as I know you can appoint your own lords/companion to fiefdoms and towns. Will they generate their own armies? Is there some other way to raise troops other than freeing prisoners and recruiting from villages?
I have just recently started playing. To my great shame I have fallen back on cheats, at first promising myself to it was just to get through the more boring (to me) grindy bits and getting to the fun "build your kingdom" bit... but now it seems hard to see that ever happening.
So a maximum high level character can field an army of less than 200 if heavily specced for it... yet all around the world, any army has at least that number, cities and castles easily field 400+ 600 troops, the occasional roaming war band has even more
Now obviously an entire kingdom should not be easy to conquer, but the whole process of finding enough recruits, training them up to a reasonable level on smaller battles, and finally having to recoup your losses after a single big battle just seems ridiculously long for a sandbox game. Having a kingdom to defend on top of that just seems impossible.
There are two other options I might be missing here,
1. Raising my reputation with your vassal kingdoms lords, I assume so that you can ask them to back you up/defend your holdings
2.Start my own kingdom early. As far as I know you can appoint your own lords/companion to fiefdoms and towns. Will they generate their own armies? Is there some other way to raise troops other than freeing prisoners and recruiting from villages?
Lords and companions do generate their own armies and are usually functional within a week. Most sieges can be done without them however, even if it requires you making multiple assaults on the same city.
In my opinion the late game isn't much fun in native. It's grindy and you'll be fighting something like 100 sieges that are all exactly the same and not much fun or challenge. It's entirely possible to defeat conquer most of a kingdom alone if you avoid campaigning armies, but not very entertaining.
You might want to make a judgement call as to whether continuing to conquer calradia is worth your time, since all you get at the end is a single sentence menu saying you've won, or nothing if the factions decide to bug out.
In my opinion the late game isn't much fun in native. It's grindy and you'll be fighting something like 100 sieges that are all exactly the same and not much fun or challenge. It's entirely possible to defeat conquer most of a kingdom alone if you avoid campaigning armies, but not very entertaining.
You might want to make a judgement call as to whether continuing to conquer calradia is worth your time, since all you get at the end is a single sentence menu saying you've won, or nothing if the factions decide to bug out.
Watsiro, that's why I use the Diplomacy mod. The Native late game is all running around from village-to-village recruiting which makes trying to defend yourself difficult. With the Dip mod, you can hire recruiters at each of your towns and castles who will go get men for you. I think they made it a little too easy. Basically once you have a town or castle, you never need to go to a village to recruit men again. But you still need to be careful about it because enemies will attack your recruiters.
Grossen
Recruit
Probably questions that have been asked before but this thread has an insane amount of pages:
I want to know everything about factors that affect your troop strength, I have been fighting a lot of battles and my troops seem to obliterate equal or stronger forces with little losses (knocked out/killed). I play with Normal Damage and Good Troop AI.
- Does morale affect troops strength?
- Are basic tactics that good against the enemy?
- Could this be due to my troop composition? Elite troops up front that can overwhelm the enemy army from the start?
- Are there skills that affect your troop strength? Tactics and Leadership for example?
I want to know everything about factors that affect your troop strength, I have been fighting a lot of battles and my troops seem to obliterate equal or stronger forces with little losses (knocked out/killed). I play with Normal Damage and Good Troop AI.
- Does morale affect troops strength?
- Are basic tactics that good against the enemy?
- Could this be due to my troop composition? Elite troops up front that can overwhelm the enemy army from the start?
- Are there skills that affect your troop strength? Tactics and Leadership for example?
In native, the answer is no, no, no, and no. 
1. Morale supposedly affects how easily troops flee from the battlefield, but in native, a part of the morale code is very poorly written and doesn't really work.
Morale also affects the chances of desertion.
2. Basic tactics are pointless in native because you start so close to the enemy, cavalry is stupidly overpowered, and simply charging gives the best results in almost every situation. In mods like 1257 or Gekokujo however, using tactics is essential because the AI is better and doesn't just head-on charge without assessing the situation.
3. I've never tested this, but I can't imagine any advantage to reorganising the order of your troops. It's semi-random anyway, and in the battles large enough where reinforcement waves matter, your blob of troops either beat the enemy blob or they don't. Beating them harder in the first wave doesn't make the second wave any stronger/weaker.
It's usually not a good idea to put peasants at the beginning of the stack though.
4. Tactics affects the ratio of enemy/ally troops that spawn on a battlefield, leadership affects party size and troop wages.
1. Morale supposedly affects how easily troops flee from the battlefield, but in native, a part of the morale code is very poorly written and doesn't really work.
Morale also affects the chances of desertion.
2. Basic tactics are pointless in native because you start so close to the enemy, cavalry is stupidly overpowered, and simply charging gives the best results in almost every situation. In mods like 1257 or Gekokujo however, using tactics is essential because the AI is better and doesn't just head-on charge without assessing the situation.
3. I've never tested this, but I can't imagine any advantage to reorganising the order of your troops. It's semi-random anyway, and in the battles large enough where reinforcement waves matter, your blob of troops either beat the enemy blob or they don't. Beating them harder in the first wave doesn't make the second wave any stronger/weaker.
It's usually not a good idea to put peasants at the beginning of the stack though.
4. Tactics affects the ratio of enemy/ally troops that spawn on a battlefield, leadership affects party size and troop wages.
Grossen
Recruit
Thank you for your answers, I was expecting some sort of influence on these factors on how well your troops fight. I am surprised to find that the answer to all of them is no.
Maybe my archers in the back, infantry up front and cavalry flanking with me from behind is just that good
Maybe my archers in the back, infantry up front and cavalry flanking with me from behind is just that good
Grossen, troop composition matters a lot. If you're taking out equally-sized forces with few or no casualties, I'm guessing you've got all or almost all top-tier men. AI Lords only get large groups of top-tier men if their country hasn't been to war for a long time. With a top-tier force you can take down a low-tier force many, many times as large as yours with minimal casualties.
The nationality of the force matters too. Rhodoks have the best archers and very good infantry. Nords are arguably the best infantry. Swadians have the best cavalry with Sarranids right behind.
jacobhinds is underestimating the value of tactics. Isn't necessary most of the time. If you have a force composed entirely of swadian knights, you might as well just let them charge. In virtually all fights, they'll obliterate the opposition. But if you're badly outnumbered or you're up against a top-tier force, I've found it advantageous to keep them together. They won't charge in a line, but you can get them in a line and then tell them to charge. Most people think this is a weakness of the game. I think it reflects reality. If your force is vastly superior to the enemy's in terms of armor, weapons, and training, you don't need tactics. But if you want to beat a superior force, then you need to think about what you're doing.
The nationality of the force matters too. Rhodoks have the best archers and very good infantry. Nords are arguably the best infantry. Swadians have the best cavalry with Sarranids right behind.
jacobhinds is underestimating the value of tactics. Isn't necessary most of the time. If you have a force composed entirely of swadian knights, you might as well just let them charge. In virtually all fights, they'll obliterate the opposition. But if you're badly outnumbered or you're up against a top-tier force, I've found it advantageous to keep them together. They won't charge in a line, but you can get them in a line and then tell them to charge. Most people think this is a weakness of the game. I think it reflects reality. If your force is vastly superior to the enemy's in terms of armor, weapons, and training, you don't need tactics. But if you want to beat a superior force, then you need to think about what you're doing.
