Cruger
That he doesn't have enough troops..
Just some general advise: Stay away from making your own kingdom, its quite bugged..
Just some general advise: Stay away from making your own kingdom, its quite bugged..
Users who are viewing this thread
Mangoodeye
Recruit
Is there a list of companions and their relationships?
Cruger
Nope, however we will put one up for the next version.
Darth Ellutador
Knight
TIDM2 said:
If it's not in the development thread, then no. Maybe in a next, next version.
Pistoldreng
Veteran
Good question! I think that the only point, is to put the lords in prison as they cannot be sold (instead you will receive a ransom offer), so you might as well leave them in a castle so they don't fill up prisoner-space in your army.
That would be my guess!
That would be my guess!
Knight0815
Sergeant at Arms
hello
fisrt i wanna thank u guys 4 this great mod. im looking forward to the next release.
i have one questions about the next version
will there be the siege and letter projekt or a different siege system cause i just hate normal sieges. can u guys do there soething? perhaps just a battle outside the town bzw castle ect.
and which graphic addon do u guys prefer for this mod? i ask cause im a noob in these things. are they also compatible with all mods or are they just working with native game?
fisrt i wanna thank u guys 4 this great mod. im looking forward to the next release.
i have one questions about the next version
will there be the siege and letter projekt or a different siege system cause i just hate normal sieges. can u guys do there soething? perhaps just a battle outside the town bzw castle ect.
and which graphic addon do u guys prefer for this mod? i ask cause im a noob in these things. are they also compatible with all mods or are they just working with native game?
Knight0815 said:
For the first question, not as far as I know. It's not among the list of things we intended to do within this version, and if you want it done, it'll take more time to release it, because the two-three ladder system is quite time-consuming.
And, well, you hate sieges, but that's what you have. Sieges were the most common way to make war until Napoleon, no that's the point. The problem is that sieges used to end because the sieged castle surrendered, which can hardly be represented ingame (the lords that come with you leaving after some enemy, abandoning the siege, and it's boring to be there for 30 days...) in a satisfactory manner. I really don't enjoy sieges as much as regular battles, but just because something is hard does not mean that we must turn it into easier. No way. That would be cheating.
About graphic improvement, we're using none by now. And I suppose that most of them work well, except those that change the models or the scenes (the polite buildings one does not work, I think...).
Take care!
Darth Ellutador
Knight
Ephdel said:
You need to take a castle/town without being a vassal of any other kingdom. However, the kingdom management is very buggy right now, I recomend you to wait for the next version, which is going to be a lot better.
BTW, Your english is good enough for anyone to understand
Painkiller_Rider
Veteran
I don't like the sieges in M&B too much either, they are quite simplistic and unrealistic. As you said, that's not exactly how things were happening - usually a castle had, indeed, a small garrison and a limited supply of food and water. If there was no relief army expected, then the town/castle would surrender after a reasonable time, under decent conditions, or risk to be overwhelmed by the larger besieging army (and subsequently sacked).Cèsar de Quart said:
In the vanilla game, besieging a town with a garrison of 300+ is ridiculous, it's honestly slowing down the gameplay, forcing the player into waiting until the late stages of the game, to the point he/she can marshal a few armies and add them to the siege. Historically, this was never really true, see for instance the fall of Antioch in 1098 (really a typical commando action, after unsuccessfully besieging the town in traditional ways for more than half a year), or the fall of Acre during the Third Crusade, a long and tedious siege story, ended by literary having the walls dismantled by the crusaders... None of these are possible in M&B, although they should (ie. the classic "spy opens the gate" from TW games, or the goody sappers).
However, you can do this in your mod: some towns/castles have gates which can probably be modded open (send a "spy" there in advance, have a "bribing" mechanism in place, etc.); also more emphasis should be put on castle surrendering terms: if the besieging army is much larger than the garrison and there is no relief army in sight, then the garrison shouldn't almost invariably say "we can hold these walls until we die of old age" or whatever (sure, there is the example of resistance at castle of Eger, Hungary in the 16th century, where a handful of people held the citadel in spite of 2 Ottoman armies)... However, food supplies should not be the only factor a castle is holding or surrendering... Sieges should be, indeed, hard as hell, but also should have a more subtle approach. I think...
Cheers,
PKR.
blowcrapup
Sergeant at Arms
Does Graphic Enhancement 2.5 work with Europe 1200?
Or maybe like the Peloponnesian War mod where you could cut off the City/Castle supply, however that was a cost of 20000 Denars and there was 25% chance.... So just saying this was a great feature...Painkiller_Rider said:I don't like the sieges in M&B too much either, they are quite simplistic and unrealistic. As you said, that's not exactly how things were happening - usually a castle had, indeed, a small garrison and a limited supply of food and water. If there was no relief army expected, then the town/castle would surrender after a reasonable time, under decent conditions, or risk to be overwhelmed by the larger besieging army (and subsequently sacked).Cèsar de Quart said:
In the vanilla game, besieging a town with a garrison of 300+ is ridiculous, it's honestly slowing down the gameplay, forcing the player into waiting until the late stages of the game, to the point he/she can marshal a few armies and add them to the siege. Historically, this was never really true, see for instance the fall of Antioch in 1098 (really a typical commando action, after unsuccessfully besieging the town in traditional ways for more than half a year), or the fall of Acre during the Third Crusade, a long and tedious siege story, ended by literary having the walls dismantled by the crusaders... None of these are possible in M&B, although they should (ie. the classic "spy opens the gate" from TW games, or the goody sappers).
However, you can do this in your mod: some towns/castles have gates which can probably be modded open (send a "spy" there in advance, have a "bribing" mechanism in place, etc.); also more emphasis should be put on castle surrendering terms: if the besieging army is much larger than the garrison and there is no relief army in sight, then the garrison shouldn't almost invariably say "we can hold these walls until we die of old age" or whatever (sure, there is the example of resistance at castle of Eger, Hungary in the 16th century, where a handful of people held the citadel in spite of 2 Ottoman armies)... However, food supplies should not be the only factor a castle is holding or surrendering... Sieges should be, indeed, hard as hell, but also should have a more subtle approach. I think...
Cheers,
PKR.
Painkiller_Rider said:I don't like the sieges in M&B too much either, they are quite simplistic and unrealistic. As you said, that's not exactly how things were happening - usually a castle had, indeed, a small garrison and a limited supply of food and water. If there was no relief army expected, then the town/castle would surrender after a reasonable time, under decent conditions, or risk to be overwhelmed by the larger besieging army (and subsequently sacked).Cèsar de Quart said:
In the vanilla game, besieging a town with a garrison of 300+ is ridiculous, it's honestly slowing down the gameplay, forcing the player into waiting until the late stages of the game, to the point he/she can marshal a few armies and add them to the siege. Historically, this was never really true, see for instance the fall of Antioch in 1098 (really a typical commando action, after unsuccessfully besieging the town in traditional ways for more than half a year), or the fall of Acre during the Third Crusade, a long and tedious siege story, ended by literary having the walls dismantled by the crusaders... None of these are possible in M&B, although they should (ie. the classic "spy opens the gate" from TW games, or the goody sappers).
However, you can do this in your mod: some towns/castles have gates which can probably be modded open (send a "spy" there in advance, have a "bribing" mechanism in place, etc.); also more emphasis should be put on castle surrendering terms: if the besieging army is much larger than the garrison and there is no relief army in sight, then the garrison shouldn't almost invariably say "we can hold these walls until we die of old age" or whatever (sure, there is the example of resistance at castle of Eger, Hungary in the 16th century, where a handful of people held the citadel in spite of 2 Ottoman armies)... However, food supplies should not be the only factor a castle is holding or surrendering... Sieges should be, indeed, hard as hell, but also should have a more subtle approach. I think...
Cheers,
PKR.
I like your thinking. It gave me an idea: sieges should be hard, but also more or less fun. Besiege a large city would take months, but during those months you would be able to do something more than just looking at the screen. Missions, infiltrations (the leader of the siege asking some of your best soldiers to infiltrate, and you can choose to lead them or not. Then going into a dungeon with enemy guards, to represent a secret passage, etc) to poison their water supply, to steal their food or to open the gates, the enemy could be able to make small exits for surprise attacks (in the middle of the night, while waiting, you get the message "¡A group of enemies is attacking part of the camp! ¡Defend yourself!", and you would fight with just some of your soldiers (or companions) against some of their troops...
Maybe (like 20% chance) you could recieve a message from the Guildmaster, saying that he will help you make peace with the leader of the city if you promise not to sack it.
Also, you could be able to sack a city or castle if you conquer it by the force of arms. Also if they surrender, earning lots of infamy. Sacking of a city/castle would be quite profitous for you, and would raise the troops morale to the top. You spend a day or two sacking and then it's done. The city is impovireshed, the population does not like you, but you have earned a lot of money and you have lots of food. A sacking always should take honiour from you, but if you conquered the city by the fight, you'll only loose 2 points, let's say. If you sack it after a surrender, you loose 10.
Painkiller_Rider
Veteran
Yup, any of these would make things more interesting (not to mention realistic!). Actually, any action while besieging would be welcome - I hate that you actually have to "leave the siege" to do anything at all! A siege was rarely just a "tower to the walls" kind of deal - for both sides it was rather about a battle of morale, starvation, alliances and betrayals...Cèsar de Quart said:
Same thing for when being besieged: all you can do is run away or sally - there is also some talking with the enemy, but there's a lot more to achieve there (for instance, if there are multiple lords attending the siege, you can try to bribe one of them to leave the siege). Also, like you said, mini-sallies would really be very interesting - skirmishes were a great part of some sieges. Night warfare was a great way to demoralize the enemy and it makes me think of one of my favorite war episodes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_Attack...
Also, a very much encountered situation in medieval warfare - the Guildmaster or Mayor would lead separate negotiations with the besiegers, usually ended in surrendering the city for a fee and sometimes having a handful of knights disagreeing and locking themselves up in the keep...
Very, very good idea!As sacking was part of any successful siege - unless negotiated differently - I don't think you should necessarily lose honor if you sack it after having to fight for it. This was a very normal mechanism back in the old days (even today, look at the modern wars), since the army payment was usually kept to a minimum, while the soldiers were promised booty. No sacking meant no booty, so the morale of the army would go down following such a decision. Like you said, and so you can balance things quite well, if you decide to sack a city/castle, then you lose indeed some honor, lose some popularity with the city, maybe even have something destroyed in the process (see the fires of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade), but your army gets a major bonus morale (as contrary to the tiny morale boost which happens in the vanilla game when conquering a city!); if you don't sack it, then you may actually gain some honor, get an increase in popularity, etc., but the army morale founders... Also, this decision should contribute to having the city/castle attributed to you by the king - maybe a connection can be done between the popularity score and the king's decision...
Cheers,
PKR.
Painkiller_Rider said:Yup, any of these would make things more interesting (not to mention realistic!). Actually, any action while besieging would be welcome - I hate that you actually have to "leave the siege" to do anything at all! A siege was rarely just a "tower to the walls" kind of deal - for both sides it was rather about a battle of morale, starvation, alliances and betrayals...Cèsar de Quart said:
Same thing for when being besieged: all you can do is run away or sally - there is also some talking with the enemy, but there's a lot more to achieve there (for instance, if there are multiple lords attending the siege, you can try to bribe one of them to leave the siege). Also, like you said, mini-sallies would really be very interesting - skirmishes were a great part of some sieges. Night warfare was a great way to demoralize the enemy and it makes me think of one of my favorite war episodes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Night_Attack...
Also, a very much encountered situation in medieval warfare - the Guildmaster or Mayor would lead separate negotiations with the besiegers, usually ended in surrendering the city for a fee and sometimes having a handful of knights disagreeing and locking themselves up in the keep...
As sacking was part of any successful siege - unless negotiated differently - I don't think you should necessarily lose honor if you sack it after having to fight for it. This was a very normal mechanism back in the old days (even today, look at the modern wars), since the army payment was usually kept to a minimum, while the soldiers were promised booty. No sacking meant no booty, so the morale of the army would go down following such a decision. Like you said, and so you can balance things quite well, if you decide to sack a city/castle, then you lose indeed some honor, lose some popularity with the city, maybe even have something destroyed in the process (see the fires of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade), but your army gets a major bonus morale (as contrary to the tiny morale boost which happens in the vanilla game when conquering a city!); if you don't sack it, then you may actually gain some honor, get an increase in popularity, etc., but the army morale founders... Also, this decision should contribute to having the city/castle attributed to you by the king - maybe a connection can be done between the popularity score and the king's decision...
Cheers,
PKR.
Great ideas here, I will think of more. Cruger already said that many of those can be in theory easily done. I especially like the knights locking themselves in the keep.
Take care!
