jknemesis
Recruit
First I want to say how great I think this game is. The gameplay is pretty damn innovative on the battlefield, especially with regards to the dynamics of horse mounted combat. Hopefully, this game will become increasingly popular as it gets better. I hopped on the Counter-Strike train early in its beta testing and was very pleased to see it grow into online phenomenon that it is today. I admit I haven't bought the entire game yet for performance reasons (http://taleworlds.com/v-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3358), but from what I've experienced, I still think this game has a bit of tweaking/rebalancing to go, and it would benefit from features that would prevent the game from getting boring, increasing replayability.
First, the minor tweaks/rebalances:
- LEADERSHIP and CHARISTMA ought to have a greater effect on the number of troop stacks a character can have, though the quantity of troops hireable need not change. Either this, or, it would be nice to see a party single stack dedicated to companions/heroes only (they could take up the same stack as your hero).
Why?
Because right now it is annoying to promote some of your party up to mercenary to find that you can't promote your mercenaries to hired blade due to the fact that you still have a few goddamn peasants who've decided to sit back and watch everyone else get slaughtered during all your battles. Simply put, it is somewhat of a chore to deal with the problem of not having slots to promote your units, and this discourages you from bringing heroes into your party and frustrates the experience.
If this game feature is in place to prevent low level characters from having high level mercenaries in their party, then low charisma/leadership ought to simply prevent henchmen from reaching a certain level.
Last, some major changes that might be considered:
-STATS/SKILLS:
The stats tree could use some more skills, more specifically, a subset of skills relating to those already in beta 0.643. (i.e. in just the way that Strength has power strike/throw and ironskin associated with it, weapon skill points and skills like horse riding could include specific battlefield abilities that would make the hero stand out a little more from your run-of-the-mill troops)
Why?
1) Straight combat gets a little boring after a while. The skillset offered right now is not dynamic enough, and not diverse enough to offer the great replayability that today's gaming industry demands as a minimal standard. Remember that this game isn't necessarily just competing for gamers' money, but also their time.
2) Heroes on the battlefield aren't a significiant presence, at least, up to level 6. They may never die, and they might be able to carry whatever items you give them, but they still don't do enough to compete with the 15 hired blades that you could have in your party instead.
So:
Consider spicing things up a little bit, not too much to make the game ridiculous like Diablo II, but give small abilities to the heroes that make it worth players' time to have NPC's in the party (and prevent the game from getting old too soon).
Add realistic battlefield skills that great soldiers of the middle ages might've had. These skills could be associated with the passive 'weapon proficiencies', with more skills available as characters gain levels:
Consider giving heroes:
~ the ability to execute an attack to bash through shields, or, with high enough level, splinter shields completely. Implement a damage multiplier that might do x3, x5, x10 damage to shields when an enemy blocks your attack and a small, but increasing, chance (3%, 5%,10%) of outright destroying a shield, a probability that could be modified based on the number of 'hit points' a shield has.
~ the ability to execute fast attacks in succession against an enemy
~ the ability to disarm or dismount targets with specific polarms (not spears necessarily, but bills/bec-de-corbin/halberd type weapons which have parts that are specifically meant for unhorsing or dismounting enemies.
~ more options for giving orders as their tactics / leadership levels go up. Enable them to order specifically armed groups (archers, calvarymen, footsoldiers) to attack individually in waves, or enable heroes to order their troops to fight back to back when they are outnumbered or order flanking attacks against multiple sides of a group of enemies when the opportunity presents itself.
- DIFFERENT UNIT TYPES
So far I've only seen low level foot soldiers get promoted to mounted soldiers and then get promoted to better mounted soldiers. It would be nice to have the ability to select a basic weapon 'class' when you promote basic peasant/townsperson units, giving them, say, a crossbow. Then that crossbow man would become a better crossbow man, then perhaps a mounted crossbowman. Or, somewhere along the way, there could be an option to promote that better crossbow man to just an even better one, instead of forcing him onto a horse.
This suggestion might already be in the works, but it seemed like a good idea, since this also leads into my next suggestion.
- ORGANIZED REGIMENTS & PRE-BATTLE TACTICS
It would be nice if characters could steadily improve their tactics skill and gain, well, tactics. I was thinking it would be nice if players could organize their troops into squads, determine who would be initially in battle and who would come later as reinforcements.
Medieval troops didn't just charge forward or follow their commander around on the battlefield or sit still and wait for the enemy to come to them. They would have battle plans in their heads and be organized into small regiments with soldier units that had complementary weapons.
For instance, Swiss mercenaries often fought in tight pikeman phalanxes with crossbowmen at the center. The pikemen would fend off cavalry and footsoldiers with less reach, while crossbowmen would pick off enemies that approached from farther away. Since crossbowmen were bane of medieval battlefields during small scale feudal battles, this tactic forced enemies to deal with the crossbowmen, even when having to confront a bristle of pikes on the way. And swiss mercenaries became reknowned for this.
If players could choose specific stacks and place them together, they could experiment with weapon combinations and such. Archers could pair up with soldiers who use a large shield and longsword.
Also, troop movements and strategy could be determined before battle and changed during the battle if things didn't go as planned. Players could order a flanking tactic before battle, sending in horse archers behind the enemy while heavy cavalry wait for the enemy to turn their backs and then charge with lances. Or players could order the standard hail of archer arrows, followed by infantry and then cavalry, but make things interesting by taking a small group of horsemen around to the side to smash the enemy.
~~
I haven't been able to finish this list yet, but I'll add from what I had in mind as time allows.
First, the minor tweaks/rebalances:
- LEADERSHIP and CHARISTMA ought to have a greater effect on the number of troop stacks a character can have, though the quantity of troops hireable need not change. Either this, or, it would be nice to see a party single stack dedicated to companions/heroes only (they could take up the same stack as your hero).
Why?
Because right now it is annoying to promote some of your party up to mercenary to find that you can't promote your mercenaries to hired blade due to the fact that you still have a few goddamn peasants who've decided to sit back and watch everyone else get slaughtered during all your battles. Simply put, it is somewhat of a chore to deal with the problem of not having slots to promote your units, and this discourages you from bringing heroes into your party and frustrates the experience.
If this game feature is in place to prevent low level characters from having high level mercenaries in their party, then low charisma/leadership ought to simply prevent henchmen from reaching a certain level.
Last, some major changes that might be considered:
-STATS/SKILLS:
The stats tree could use some more skills, more specifically, a subset of skills relating to those already in beta 0.643. (i.e. in just the way that Strength has power strike/throw and ironskin associated with it, weapon skill points and skills like horse riding could include specific battlefield abilities that would make the hero stand out a little more from your run-of-the-mill troops)
Why?
1) Straight combat gets a little boring after a while. The skillset offered right now is not dynamic enough, and not diverse enough to offer the great replayability that today's gaming industry demands as a minimal standard. Remember that this game isn't necessarily just competing for gamers' money, but also their time.
2) Heroes on the battlefield aren't a significiant presence, at least, up to level 6. They may never die, and they might be able to carry whatever items you give them, but they still don't do enough to compete with the 15 hired blades that you could have in your party instead.
So:
Consider spicing things up a little bit, not too much to make the game ridiculous like Diablo II, but give small abilities to the heroes that make it worth players' time to have NPC's in the party (and prevent the game from getting old too soon).
Add realistic battlefield skills that great soldiers of the middle ages might've had. These skills could be associated with the passive 'weapon proficiencies', with more skills available as characters gain levels:
Consider giving heroes:
~ the ability to execute an attack to bash through shields, or, with high enough level, splinter shields completely. Implement a damage multiplier that might do x3, x5, x10 damage to shields when an enemy blocks your attack and a small, but increasing, chance (3%, 5%,10%) of outright destroying a shield, a probability that could be modified based on the number of 'hit points' a shield has.
~ the ability to execute fast attacks in succession against an enemy
~ the ability to disarm or dismount targets with specific polarms (not spears necessarily, but bills/bec-de-corbin/halberd type weapons which have parts that are specifically meant for unhorsing or dismounting enemies.
~ more options for giving orders as their tactics / leadership levels go up. Enable them to order specifically armed groups (archers, calvarymen, footsoldiers) to attack individually in waves, or enable heroes to order their troops to fight back to back when they are outnumbered or order flanking attacks against multiple sides of a group of enemies when the opportunity presents itself.
- DIFFERENT UNIT TYPES
So far I've only seen low level foot soldiers get promoted to mounted soldiers and then get promoted to better mounted soldiers. It would be nice to have the ability to select a basic weapon 'class' when you promote basic peasant/townsperson units, giving them, say, a crossbow. Then that crossbow man would become a better crossbow man, then perhaps a mounted crossbowman. Or, somewhere along the way, there could be an option to promote that better crossbow man to just an even better one, instead of forcing him onto a horse.
This suggestion might already be in the works, but it seemed like a good idea, since this also leads into my next suggestion.
- ORGANIZED REGIMENTS & PRE-BATTLE TACTICS
It would be nice if characters could steadily improve their tactics skill and gain, well, tactics. I was thinking it would be nice if players could organize their troops into squads, determine who would be initially in battle and who would come later as reinforcements.
Medieval troops didn't just charge forward or follow their commander around on the battlefield or sit still and wait for the enemy to come to them. They would have battle plans in their heads and be organized into small regiments with soldier units that had complementary weapons.
For instance, Swiss mercenaries often fought in tight pikeman phalanxes with crossbowmen at the center. The pikemen would fend off cavalry and footsoldiers with less reach, while crossbowmen would pick off enemies that approached from farther away. Since crossbowmen were bane of medieval battlefields during small scale feudal battles, this tactic forced enemies to deal with the crossbowmen, even when having to confront a bristle of pikes on the way. And swiss mercenaries became reknowned for this.
If players could choose specific stacks and place them together, they could experiment with weapon combinations and such. Archers could pair up with soldiers who use a large shield and longsword.
Also, troop movements and strategy could be determined before battle and changed during the battle if things didn't go as planned. Players could order a flanking tactic before battle, sending in horse archers behind the enemy while heavy cavalry wait for the enemy to turn their backs and then charge with lances. Or players could order the standard hail of archer arrows, followed by infantry and then cavalry, but make things interesting by taking a small group of horsemen around to the side to smash the enemy.
~~
I haven't been able to finish this list yet, but I'll add from what I had in mind as time allows.
) that it simple can't be done without better leadership. It sucks having to disband a bunch of soldiers because you need wiggle room to upgrade other troops. ("I'm sorry, all you militia people, you know we really could use you on the field, but Bob here really wants to become a sharpshooter, so..")
