Recent content by Damnas

Understood. And I hope you'll understand, but I won't delete my own post. Considering that the whole point I'm making is that I haven't *actually* said anything that warrants offense, it's important for me not to delete so much as a word from my posts

--Edit: this post was a response to another post which has since been deleted. Feel free to skip it. Really ain't very interesting. But I will be leaving it on here as my defense, because it seems at least one moderator has decided I am an evil fascist with a particular hatred for rainbows.

JunKeteer said:

But on the point with the archers being OP, besides upcoming tweaks most of us desire, the fact that they have a finite amount of arrows should balance that out? Archers should be OP to unarmored horses and all shield-less troops, few solutions to counter balance is:

• TBD damage/armor protection improvements;
• quantity of arrows adjusted;
• and/or accuracy toned down slightly (even just 3 or 4 points vs 100 acc. on noble bows - a la Fians and AI computing 'aim' accuracy

Click to expand...

I like the damage reduction best, perhaps with some reduced accuracy thrown in. I'm no expert on balance, but what about increasing costs across the board for archers? Historically, training and equipping archers was notorious for being lengthy, expensive, and difficult, but worth it due to the incredible advantage they brought to the battlefield. It's also what made crossbows so popular in some countries like France due to the relatively shorter training times for large units, and from what I understand, bolts tend to be less expensive to make due to them requiring less materials. Perhaps that could be translated into game terms?

Also, correct me if I'm wrong (can't be bothered to launch the game to check), but I think cavalry units have the same cost and wages as infantry units of the same tier. I don't understand that. I think cavalry should be paid higher wages, if only to simulate the maintenance of the horse.

HalfMetalJacket said:

Well in fairness, I don't really consider foot archers to be an actual counter to horse archers, so much as a necessity to stand a fighting chance against them. From what I know in real life, the only truly effective counter for horse archers was more horse archers. Otherwise its having a lot spearmen and archers capable of holding ground and keeping it.

Click to expand...

Technically, foot archers wouldn't have met horse archers on open fields. Or at least not if they had the option not to. The idea was to use archers, combined with fortifications, to counter the horse archers. Foot archers have an advantage, as was mentioned previously, when it comes to range, accuracy, reload speed, stronger bows, and so on. The only advantage the horse archer has, is his speed and mobility. Throw in a fortified position to the mix, and the foot archers win.

Problem is that from a gaming perspective, it means that foot archers would only be useful against mounted archers during sieges. Unless we were able to set up palisades, or some other form of obstacles and defenses onto the battlefield prior to field battles.

That said, horse archer-heavy armies would rarely just meet someone on an open field either. They had a clear preference for running battles and making their enemies chase them across the countryside for days in order to spread them out before going on a killing spree. Which the game doesn't let you reproduce either, unless you stupidly decide to retreat and re-engage every five minutes after a battle starts. So... yeah...

Reading this thread I'm starting to think that perhaps a rock-paper-scissors formula is the lesser evil. Can't say I'm a fan, though.

No offense, but this whole "just wait for mods, dude" attitude is beyond me. And I kind of resent the implied notion that the above suggestions are an impossible wish-list stemming from a frustrated player who just greedily wants the whole arm when he's offered a hand by the benevolent company that is after all, only a poor victim of its own success...

That's like paying full market price for a car that ends up being a carcass without even wheels, but telling yourself that you can just go to a garage later on because the poor car salesman never expected to actually make a sale and asking for a functioning car would be unreasonable.

Perhaps the wall of text is what makes the ideas detailed above seem more complex than they actually are. Let me summarize:

1.1 - Giving a dynamic "Baron" title to lords owning castles.
1.2 - Giving a dynamic "Count" title to lords owning towns.
1.3 - Giving a dynamic "Duke" title to lords who own both the town, and the attached castl- (Okay, fine. This one might be far too complex for an experienced coder to pull off. Maybe we should start a crowdfunding campaign to recruit a NASA engineer...)
2.1 - Wars that aren't snip.. 2.2 - Adding actual objectives to wars [...to make them less snip.]

Spoiler

[edit: insert politically correct term to depict something of excruciatingly low intellect. Even though typing the previously used term in the search engine results in 20 pages of posts where it's being used without issue, sometimes even as a personal insult at someone, but that seems to be acceptable, apparently.]

3 - Adding the possibility of assigning clan members to a village.
4 - Giving nobles relationships that aren't... you guessed it, snip..

Spoiler

[edit: insert politically correct term to depict something of excruciatingly low intellect. Even though typing the previously used term in the search engine results in 20 pages of posts where it's being used without issue, sometimes even as a personal insult at someone, but that seems to be acceptable, apparently.]

5 - Adding restrictions to marriages. Because I'm tired of seeing Ira getting married off to Caladog or the random thrice-removed distant cousin of some insignificant, landless lordling in the middle of nowhere. Which is... snip..

Spoiler

[edit: insert politically correct term to depict something of excruciatingly low intellect. Even though typing the previously used term in the search engine results in 20 pages of posts where it's being used without issue, sometimes even as a personal insult at someone, but that seems to be acceptable, apparently.]

6 - Adding a succession system to the already existing dynastic system. Because not having included it in the first place was... say it with me, snip.. 6.1 - Adding a succession system to factions. Which I actually wouldn't care about if TW hadn't made such a fuss about the entire Calradic civil war being a succession crisis. snip..

Spoiler

[edit: insert politically correct term to depict something of excruciatingly low intellect. Even though typing the previously used term in the search engine results in 20 pages of posts where it's being used without issue, sometimes even as a personal insult at someone, but that seems to be acceptable, apparently.]

7 - Gender roles. Again. Don't really care. Except it seems to me TW has made the decision to bend the knee to woke interests so as to stay under the radar. And when even a Turkish video game company bends to the hordes of wokistan, it's a sign the world is well and truly ****ed. Therefore I'm against. I'm a simple guy like that. And an ***hole.

Spoiler

[edit: no snip. The mod presumably agrees with my premise that I'm an ***hole. It's important to find common ground during a dispute. One more and I'll buy him a beer.]

No defense, your honour. But hey, maybe Anita Sarkeesian will give you guys a trophy.

Spoiler

[edit: You didn't remove this one, but we both know you consider it... what's the word? Oh yeah, 'problematic.' And fine, this one is out of place. Might be worth mentioning that arguments of that nature, ie, exaggerated and overflowing with irony and sarcasm, are usually tongue in cheek. But maybe that doesn't come across very well via text. I'm willing to recognize that, and therefore take my share of responsibility. Nonetheless, to equate that particular comment as "right-wing hate speech against women" is... reta... false. I mean, in the first post, I made a comment about "special operations to liberate and demilitari-" which is an obvious tongue in cheek reference to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but no one was foolish enough to interpret it as a statement of support for Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, were they?]

8 - Diplomatic relations. Diplomacy was seen as an essential Warband mod. Why on earth would you not include its functionality? I mean... jesus... c'mon... seriously?
9 - Trade. Fine. I'll be the first to admit that the proposed changes to trading might be balance breaking and really screw with the economy.

The very first reply in this thread mentions some of these features have been discussed since 2016. Mods that include these features have been created. And then abandoned because the game structure kept changing.

Regarding your claim that players just want a vanilla version with all and more possible content than even Warband with mods never had... well... broadly speaking, yes. That's the point of a sequel - to expand on the original product. And to include the functionality from mods that players enjoyed the most (ie, Diplomacy, Freelancer, VC systems, amongst others...). That would seem like a sound business strategy.
snip.

Spoiler

[edit: insert politically correct way of describing the act of the no-pants-dance with a person possessing a predatory attitude and who favours a particular part of the human anatomy located between the upper thighs and the lower back, and has no qualms about taking advantage of others in vulnerable positions regardless of their comfort, along with the implication that it is the attitude being taken towards the customers who bought the game. But yeah, okay, fine. This one was over the line. And the wording could lend to confusion. Mea culpa maxima.
That said, there was not one mention of the LGBT community. Not one. There was however, a mention of "fluffy handcuffs" which I suspect is why the offended parties made the assumption that I was referring to homosexual men. Thereby projecting their own stereotypes regarding gender identity onto me, and accusing me of intolerance and discrimination, when in fact, I was the more open-minded one since I don't equate "fluffy handcuffs" as automatically having to belong to gay men. Women are not allowed to possess fluffy handcuffs? Straight men can't have fluffy handcuffs? How am I the one who's discriminating against people, when in fact, I'm the one who's not sticking labels on them? However, the comment was unnecessarily vulgar and rude, for which I take full responsibility and will accept the warning points.
But I will not accept being publicly accused as a homophobe by a moderator who's communications with me were essentially limited to an automated-response email bot.]

Otherwise just remake Warband's graphics, expand the map, and voila. It's not like Taleworlds could have ****ed it up any worst than Blizzard did with Wc3.

That's besides the point anyway. I'm, for the most part, not proposing to add new systems to the game. I'm proposing to expand actually finish existing systems. Or systems that were advertised by the company. And even then, I thought I was being relatively reasonable. Notice how I didn't make a single mention of the criminal enterprises players were supposed to be able to- oh... wait... oops... it just slipped out. Then again, perhaps they've been added to the game, but the Calradic Mafia is just so secretive and good at what they do that no one's noticed.

It's not like I'm asking for a technological progress bar that goes from the stone age to gunpowder. Or to add naval combat. Or zeppelins, for that matter. Or mages able to raise zombie hordes. Or dragons. Or whatever.

But an empire locked in civil war over a succession crisis... with no succession?

A political system that is reduced to the binary interactions of war and peace? That only works if your name is Tolstoy.

A dynastic system with no inheritance? How is that complete or even workable? Why should we wait for modders to fix what is obviously a gaping hole in the game's... logic? And since I'm not into sloppy seconds, I'd prefer the hole in question be filled by the person who made it rather than having to stick it in myself. And yes, I'm aware the analogy is completely tasteless. I trust it conveys the point effectively.

While I'm certainly not opposed to this kind of expansion, it's worth remember that Viking Conquest was originally made as a mod, and not an expansion. This kind of thing will be created by modders, not the company, though they may choose to formalize it as they did VC.
Which is not a bad thing. Taleworlds needs to focus on finishing this game and expand upon existing systems before launching new big ass projects.

On a purely academic note and for the sake of interest in the subject matter:

You have reason to doubt the existence of bandits, anywhere in the world at any point in history?
Name me a time and place, any, on earth, where bandits weren't a legit threat.

Click to expand...

While you're right on the surface, how do you define a bandit? An outlaw? Ie, someone who is outside of established law? That could just be someone living outside of the constraints of society. Someone who uses violence to take other people's possessions? How does one differentiate between a raider from tribe X, and a bandit? Or maybe escaped slaves? Therefore forced to live in hiding on the outskirts of society?

My point is that Roman society tended to name anyone who didn't fit in their political hierarchy as a bandit. If the members of an annexed tribe refused their defeat and continued fighting, they would be branded as bandits by the Romans, even though they would technically be closer to a proto-independence/nationalist movement.

In fact, even the source posted above specifies that:

"Some rebels might be classified as bandits so as to be more easily dismissed. Tacfarinas was a deserter from the Roman auxiliaries, who belonged to a nomadic Berber tribe from what is now modern Algeria. This tribe had rebelled in 5/6 CE, and then rebelled a second time in 17 CE under Tacfarinas, who managed to almost wipe out part of a Roman legion in 18 CE."

In modern terms, bandit means someone who violates the constraints of the law for financial gain. To the Romans, it applied to political dissidents and revolutionaries as much as it did to criminals.

It was essentially a form of state propaganda. In the same manner that in the modern day we refer to independence movements we approve of as "Freedom Fighters" and "Revolutionaries" but those we don't like, are "Terrorists" and "Criminals".

The escaped slaves who revolted during the three serville wars, were branded as bandits by the Romans, even though they are more comparable to an international freedom fighter movement. In the case of Spartacus' revolt, there were even alliances with Cilician pirates, Gallic tribes, and even plans for an alliance with some Roman officials such as Quintus Sertorius who was in Spain at the time and had essentially seceded from the Republic. Now that's some high level banditry, right there...

I'm pretty sure Jesus was branded as a bandit and was essentially executed for causing trouble amongst the more independence-minded Jews.

Roman legionaries and auxiliaries who had served under a defeated general during the many civil wars of the empire, would usually be given the opportunity to join the victor's banners, but would just as frequently end up being outcasts and therefore, branded as bandits.

Even goat herders generally had a reputation of being semi-bandits due to their lifestyle. And were as a result, prized recruits for skirmishing units amongst all nations of the time.

My point is that 'bandit' doesn't mean the same thing now as it did then. As a matter of fact, bandits of all stripes were disparagingly referred to as 'latrones' which I'm sure you'll notice, is amusingly close to 'latrinea.' Which is admitedly a linguistic coincidence, but does give a good indication of how bandits were perceived at the time.

But yes, you're right about the fact that Rome itself was a bandit-infested nest. As are all urban centers with high population density. So nothing new there...

The 'law' being seen as something inalienable from an individual, is a concept that only rose to prominence with the advent of nationalist movements during the 1800s. Meaning, in many nations today, you can't strip someone's rights before the law - which is not to say that it doesn't happen, but it is considered against the 'rules' and an abuse of power. Before that, in all countries, throughout time, the 'law' was as much a shield, as it was a sword of Damocles. If you were a team player, you would be afforded the protection of the law. If you rocked the boat, all rights and privileges could easily be stripped from you. In which case, you were pretty much ****ed.

While the Roman Empire gives us the impression of "a better age of a more civilized time", it really was not. Sure, when it comes to art that is the case, and when it comes to the army as well. Soldiers were in equal measure builders to the point where these jobs were undistinguishable. Build a camp from Mount&Blade? How about build a fort.

But the social element was pretty much the same as in Medieval Europe. Rome had more civil wars than pretty much any state I read about, and I read about a lot.

Click to expand...

Arguably, there is no Roman Empire. It doesn't exist. There are Roman EmpireS. Plural. The early imperial period has nothing in common with the late imperial period, and it's practically a different country - in the words of historian L.P. Hartley, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." That is as true for us compared to Romans, as it is to a late period Roman when compared to an early period Roman citizen.

The time periods mentioned in the source you posted, are for the most part dated within the vicinity of 100 AD. Which is a particular time period of the empire.

The social element was, as you say, indeed pretty much the same as in Medieval Europe, but only after the crisis of the third century, during which... I believe it was Emperor Diocletian, but I could be wrong... essentially established the foundations of the feudal system by binding local populations to their regional governor. It was the hybridization of that particular iteration of the Roman societal system, along with the social structures of Germanic migrants, particularly the Franks, that resulted in the feudal system of the medieval period.

Prior to that, the claim of a "better age of a more civilized time" was arguably true in terms of technological advancements and scientific progress. The problem is that for a number of reasons, the Romans were - like the Greeks - utterly incapable of applying their knowledge to practical pursuits. They had technically discovered (or rather stole from the Greeks) steam engines, railways, proto-computers, theorized the existence of the atom, et cetera... but did nothing with those inventions and discoveries.

It was only shortly prior to, during, and after the crisis of the third century, that everything went tits up.



Not that any of this matters anyway, since should a mod/dlc be made for this time period, most of the historical accuracy will have to be tossed out the window for the sake of game mechanics and playability. Like I said, I only bring this up purely out of interest in the subject matter.

And here I thought I was being all original

I'm not very active on forums in general so I must have missed those discussions.

Is this design concept/vision detailed anywhere? I've seen lots of posts on the forums and the website with updates and patches and so on, but nothing resembling a long-term roadmap for the game, and I wouldn't mind seeing what the devs have planned for the politics aspect of the game because right now it's just too bare bones...

Busted Yep, I'm on mac.

I've tried the settings you recommended and played around a bit in the options, but no changes unfortunately.

Ah well, thanks anyway.

P.S: Don't know if you can do much about it, but while I was testing the mod I saw whole herds of cattle peacefully walking around underwater in rivers. Gave me a bit of a laugh, but it would be weird if enemy parties start doing it too.

Hi there, this is a really great mod I hadn't even imagined this would be possible using the WB engine...

Problem is I played previous versions of Explorer which worked really great, but this latest version doesn't work for some reason. Actually, everything does work, except all the textures are white except for the characters and the occasional rock or barrel or somesuch.

Maybe I installed it wrong? Any ideas on how to fix it?

Apologies for posting in the wrong thread. I'll go to the right place in future.

Thanks for pointing out the syntax error, I very much appreciate it. I realize it's a bit on the trivial side but to someone who's only starting out, it can be the source of endless annoyance and frustration...

There were two more errors that reared their nose in after I moved the code into the brackets, but I managed to figure those out.

Thank you again for your time

Edit: actually there's one thing I don't understand. All three additions to the code were outside of the brackets. But WRECK only identified that last one to me. If it had told me about how there was a syntax error in all three, I would probably have figured it out, but since it only pointed out the 'indentation error' in the last script, I thought there was something wrong with that one in particular.

Is that just the way WRECK works, or am I missing something?