Idibil said:
overtyped said:
Would anyone know which trigger is used for ai lord and town/castle troop experience?
There is a guide for the native on how to change it, however brytenwalda is a total conversion.
I thought it would be cool to make ai lords and castles to only start with recruits, but the exp rate currently is not sufficient.
You can change this as native
yes.. anything can be changed, even the rent income from fiefs and towns.
What I currently do to make up for the slow recruit upgrades on npcs is giving them a ton more troops. So instead of like 200 decent troops on an npc, he will have like 500 fodder troops.
Same goes for towns. They upgrade even slower than npcs do.
They have like a garrison of 800-1000. I like that it's more realistic, but fights take forever. But if you enjoy huge bloodbaths like I do, then it isn't such a big deal.
Edit: I gotta say it's entertaining fighting colossal armies of pure fodder recruits. If an army has not fought in a long time, he would have some stronger units. So the way this system works, the longer they don't fight the stronger they get. It reminds me of something I heard some time ago. 3 starving lions in a cage won't fight, because they know if two fight each other and wear down their strength, then the third lion will be the victor. So they sit and wait.
-
There is so much amazing things that could be done with warband that people don't even think about.
Like what about basing ai lords upgrade rate for their troops to the amount of income they gain. There can be balancing problems, like one nation getting out of control and taking out all others, but you can counter that by making countries more likely to war with larger nations to stifle their growth, and when they shrink, they are more inclined to make peace. However one nation could still take out all others, and isn't that fun in and of itself?
-
The way the system works currently, npcs armies stay stagnant at around the same size, because they don't gain renown like the player does. So eventually the player can overpower all lords by ending up with 2000 troops, when they can only field armies of like 300. This kind of ending leaves me with an empty feeling.
But what if .... Lords gain a certain amount of renown a week based on their total income. Like say... 10 renown a week for a fief, 15 for a castle and 25 for a town. If a lord takes over several cities and holds them for a long period of time, why should he stay at the same power as every other lord?
What if.. player renown scales down based on how much you have. For example when you are just starting with 1 renown you have a 1-2 party size to renown ratio. Then eventually ending up around 2000 renown being 100-1 ratio.
This would make it feel like you aren't just brute force grinding your way to beating the game. The game would shift from grinding to holding castles to reap the renown and bonus party size benefits from holding them, and since getting bigger would make more nations want to stunt your growth, then that would push the game in an even a cooler direction.
Lets think bigger though. Population has been implemented some time ago for a few mods, where you can see the population of a town.
What if we made use of that. You could have demographics of men- women- children- and the elderly. When you recruit from a town, then the amount of men in a town goes down. However in order for that to be relevant, you would first have to bind yourself to a nation at the start of the game, where you can only recruit from them. So you would think twice before sending all the men off to battle. You could damage your own nations work force economy, perhaps increasing how much it costs to recruit, because of supply and demand.
Anyways, I ranted off there a bit.. You probably won't read all this though XD It's just the game seems so short sighted to me, and no coders seem to care at all about warband, so i always seem to have a lot to say about it's short comings >.>
