Author Topic: Viking Conquest Reforged Edition Female Char Power Gaming Guide(minor spoilers)  (Read 6570 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dirty Norseman

  • Recruit
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Father’s occupation: noble; Learned as a child: oratory. Both options give the most skill points.
Vocation: hunter (chose whatever you like, since this char won’t be using bows anyways)
Religion: pagan (saves you trouble at beginning of story line, but otherwise no effect on build)
Father's occupation: outlaw; learned as a child: farming - gives you decent p/finding, spotting, tracking and looting for early game. For pagan roleplaying I never recruit Christian heroes, thus only ever have 4 in my party (Dwywei, Asbjorn, Solveig & Helgi). Of those only Dwywei has p/finding and she's pretty average (2 points from memory) so until she levels up as my p/finder I take on the role. But I never put more than 10 points into AGI as INT & CHA are the focus.
Quote
Vocation: hunter (chose whatever you like, since this char won’t be using bows anyways)
Vocation: traveler - you begin with an axe, which fits my play-style. I usually grind bandit lairs early game for the sweet loot, peningas and good relations with quest givers. That axe helps...a lot...with the first lair you do; veteran renegades if you start in Northvegr, robber's den if you start in Danmark.
Quote
Choice effect on end attributes: 8 STR, 8 AGI, 15 INT, 15 CHA.
After adding 5 points: 10 STR, 10 AGI, 15 INT, 16 CHA.
My start build ends up: 12 STR, 10 AGI, 14 INT, 15 CHA. I boost strength to 12 to get 6 ironflesh, powerstrike, powerthrow & inventory management.

Getting inventory management high as possible early game is crucial as trade is so important to having a successful early game.
Quote
- My favorite choice of weaponry is size 85 shield + Nad (or some other legendary sword) + horseman javelins + balanced Ray on champion horseback. You can 1 v 50 with this equipment, just like you would in a warrior build game.
I usually go for painted shield (size 85), pict axe (29 damage /shield bonus). I hardly ever use a sword for one handed. Horseman javelins are sweet cos you get 12, but heavy javelins (carried by Irish warriors) are also good, though you only get 8. I don't usually fight on horse but if using a spear I go for war spear (29 damage, 163 reach) and upgrade it to balanced which gives 32 damage. I really like fighting with a spear and don't know why so many players think it sucks. Spears are pretty lethal (especially in tournaments) once you work out the timing for parry / thrust etc.
Quote
1. Grind villages, buy cheap goods, especially wool, and sell wool to Dorestad for 2x+ profit. Buy jewelry, wine, and salt from Dorestad to sell in any other town for 2-5x profit. Buy furs and smoked fish from Ribe to sell in any other town for 2x profit.
Yip, easy money grinding villages. The Dorestad wool run is ridiculously profitable. But even buying food in villages (honey, pork, chickens, dried meat) and selling in nearest town can net good profit. I usually stop at most villages I pass by for a little food trading, cos the peningas add up and hey it's on my way.
Quote
2. Invest in productive enterprises, before buying yourself that fancy champion horse.
Wool enterprise in Dorestad makes about 1700 peningas a week. Tool maker in Ribe makes about 1800 peningas a week. But generally both return decent income regardless of which town you build them. Only problem is it can become a grind mid-game keeping them stocked. To make it easier on yourself you need to stockpile raw materials as you do trade runs. Use the iventory space of your first enterprise to stock the raw material for your next enterprise.

I usually build wool enterprise in Dorestad > once built I stockpile iron (and wool obviously) in it > then build tool-maker in Ribe > once that's built I have X amount of iron already stockpiled to put in it. Doing this mean you maximize profits for you enterprises. Basically rinse / repeat as you do trade runs.

Alternatively, you could just build breweries which return less income but don't require raw materials as max profit is minimal, usually only 100 -200 peningas per week.
Quote
3. Choose the location of your refuge wisely (I set it up in the middle of the map near Jorvik).
I never build my refuge inland, always on the coast near a town. But I don't usually build my refuge until day 50ish. By that stage I have enterprises and can store timber / tools in them for upgrading refuge, cos that s**t ain't light and carrying 5 tools / 5 timber in your inventory (+ any trade goods) can really slow you down on the map.
Quote
This build, with high INT, high CHA, and decent STR makes troop management and maintenance a breeze. Your soldier’s death rate will be so low, and recovery rate so high, that you can find yourself fighting multiple battles consecutively in a short spam of time. Also I forgot to mention, engage the AI factions diplomatically...
As far as pagan heroes go, Asbjorn is the man. His starting skills as a medic and his low level mean you can use him for most of the INT party skills if you don't want to invest in them personally. The only INT party skills I spend points on are navigation and tactics, then let Asbjorn do the rest. Dwywei becomes my pathfinder, Solveig my diplomat & trader (due to her high persuasion and CHA) and Helgi becomes my main bodyguard just cos I love the way he swings an axe. He's so passionate about killing Christians :D

Great advice in the OP but it really comes down to play style. My personal preference is trader / commander as opposed to frontline warrior...but that can be a lot of fun too!

synchronicity

  • Recruit
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral


Choice effect on end attributes: 8 STR, 8 AGI, 15 INT, 15 CHA.
After adding 5 points: 10 STR, 10 AGI, 15 INT, 16 CHA.
Target: 14 STR(as high as possible), 10 AGI, 18 INT, 16 CHA.



How in the world did you obtain 5 starting stat points? I'm only getting 4?

Tingyun

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
  • Hooded Horse Inc., an Indie Game Studio in Texas
    • Steam - hoodedhorse
    • Twitter - @HoodedHorseInc
    • View Profile
    • Hooded Horse
  • Faction: Neutral
Not sure about the 5 instead of 4 discretionary points, maybe they are counting the fixed effect of some choices in that? VC character creation choices are not balanced against each other. Despite attribute points being absolutely precious in VC, you can end up starting with as many as 5 less attribute points compared to a character that made optimal choices: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=356134613

There are also undocumented effects, like if you pick justice, you will have a negative modifier to forced religious conversions, but if you pick fortitude, you will have a positive modifier (the other two provide smaller modifiers).

Or maybe they are counting the druid sacrifice attribute bonus? There are 4 attribute bonuses possible after character creation, ignoring level gain:

- Druid sacrifice, 4/7 chance of attribute gain (100% chance in VC Balance Mod 4.1)

- An event with towns: +1 to 2 attributes if you knew to be walking around carrying a lot of gold so you could build both buildings (a clear trap for new players, as unless you know to walk around with tons of cash waiting for this after you get a town you are likely to miss it)

- a book that gives +1 intelligence

For VC Balance Mod in a future version I'll probably balance the starting choices to be equal in attribute bonuses. The only shame is it will be the first change that isn't save compatible, so current characters won't benefit. Skill bonus differences are fine, but atttribute bonuses are too precious and rare in VC. The only exception is probably character age--where the game text warns the player that the middle choice is the most optimal (and it reflects reality).

I got rid of the chance of the Druid sacrifice bonus sometimes not giving the attribute boost for the same reason.  Will probably do the same to make the town event bonus not missable as well.
« Last Edit: February 04, 2018, 06:02:54 PM by Tingyun »

unity100

  • Veteran
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
I wanted to chime in in this very interesting topic as it relates to realism and the possibilities of the roles we play in VC

In particular, i agree with the proposition that lone superhero play does not lend to realism and the reality of the times.

Such superhuman feats were not possible, and even if they were, someone doing such feats would meet a very swift and untimely death in battle as a stray or a well placed projectile or spear or a random hit would skewer him out of earthly existence.

There was a reason why kingdoms, allegiances and politics were so fluid in periods depicted in Brytenwalda and VC - because top nobility still fought directly in battles and frequently died, politics and governance could never be stable.

Most important example of this is how Kingdom of Mercia practically ended after ~800 Mercians got slaughtered in one of the later wars, not only killing practically entire top governing nobility caste, but also ~2 generations of warriors (ie the present warrior nobles and the warrior sons they were raising), therefore ending Mercian power.

The opposite, you see in Alfred I's act with Wessex - he didnt fight in wars, he created a militia system which provided a steady supply of able warrior stock, which not only prevented risking losing the king and top nobility and resulting instability, but also the lower risk of losing your entire warrior population in one battle and getting ended.

For those reasons, i also started to prefer more likely playstyles in any game as i learned more about history. MB, VC included.

As for the other argument:

How can a random landless nobody suddenly raise giant armies and become a powerful king in a year? And then potentially Brytenwalda of all England within a couple of years?

The thing is, the whole game is terribly unrealistic from that perspective.

Thats incorrect - That era was the era of ambitious nobodies who could speedily raise masses of armies depending on their reputation and skills.

Today we have a nation called France, and actually almost every other major nation in Europe, merely because among the many small time tribal/local warlord leaders/personas dotting the post Roman landscape, one guy in Northern Gaul was more generous than others when dividing the plunder. This made masses of warriors and warlords to flock to his banner, starting the Frankish power.

And to top that, as far as i know, one of the original expeditions which colonized Vinland was organized in between a few men and women in a village in Scandinavia, with one particular, very ambitious and aggressive women playing a leading role - in the establishment of the colony and its demise.

You could raise armies, raid, and even set up kingdoms and more, if you only knew what to give to people - promises of riches, plunder, glory, and even mere land to farm were held in very high regard in that era.

Quote
Self-handicapping combat performance is sort of like making a rule for yourself where your army can't exceed 40 men, or you can't declare yourself as a king.

Nope, that would make you someone like Alfred I, who was a more intellectual type, not even regarded then as someone who could fight well according to standards of his time.

................

Its not like i dont like myself some good old carnage and mayhem delivered first hand. But more knowledge of history calls the person to pursue more realistic routes. Doing superheroics in a ~20-30 man battle? Pretty realistic. Doing it over and over? Unrealistic. Doing such things in 500-1000 man battles? Someone random would shove a javelin or spear up your *** and that would be it... He possibly wouldnt have been aiming it at you and wouldnt even know he was the one who hit you...

Tingyun

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
  • Hooded Horse Inc., an Indie Game Studio in Texas
    • Steam - hoodedhorse
    • Twitter - @HoodedHorseInc
    • View Profile
    • Hooded Horse
  • Faction: Neutral
You are necroing a 6 month old thread to revive a debate that went on for several pages, so naturally the 3 sentences you quote of my past posts don’t capture the argument at all. For example, to your argument that a Warband hero going from peasant to king within a year is realistic, I said the below:

“What I'm saying is that seeing that happen in the context of Dark Ages Britain in rapid time through the mechanism of lords everywhere letting you recruit armies from their lands and march them through with nary a word of protest, and because mayors who have no reason to trust you hand you kidnapped daughter money with full confidence, and because riskfree trading of some wine brings huge profits out of all proportion to the effort and capital involved, etc etc, is completely unrealistic.

Every bit as unrealistic as a skilled player, wearing top of the line armor, slaying many enemies in personal combat. Indeed, that feels like the least unrealistic path to power for the player, as it requires only one unrealistic assumption (godlike talent for the player) vs many constant unrealistic assumptions (this mayor is crazy, these trade prices make no sense, this lord is insanely permissive, etc).”

If you are interested in starting a new debate over the relative realism of different playstyles, there are several very active forums. In particular, the Reddit Warband community is always up for a good discussion and debate: https://www.reddit.com/r/mountandblade/

It’s also worth pointing out that my argument was that the mechanics themselves are the proper place to limit the player towards realism. I did that actually, in VC Balance Mod, as much of the unrealistic things discussed were changed for both playstyles. For example:

On the unrealistic player combat rise:

- Balance Mod integrates a modified version of Diplomacy’s horse slowing from damage which limits player cavalry a great deal

- Balance Mod increases damage for low-tier swords and spears, making the average unit less of helpless fodder compared to the player

- Player-only armor buffs are limitied (for example, Balance Mod removes hardening for gloves, and nerfs orms lorrica) so that the player achieves armor ratings more comparable to what AI units can achieve, and becomes less of a unique walking tank.

On the unrealistic player leadership/economic rise:

- Balance Mod also has slower realistic travel speeds as the default option, which makes the total timeframe of the player rise, and the economic profit vs cost and time balance between activities like trading, much more reasonable

- Balance Mod has AI lords recruit better armies that are more comparable to the player, reducing mid-late game steamrolling

- I removed some silly exploits mentioned in the discussion, like for example mayors offering 1000 peningas ransom money to unknown players (I added a renown minimum to that quest)

So VC Balance Mod is partly inspired by old discussions like this—adding realism (where fun and immersive) to both playstyles. :)
« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 06:34:17 PM by Tingyun »

unity100

  • Veteran
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
You are necroing a 6 month old thread to revive a debate that went on for several pages, so naturally the 3 sentences you quote of my past posts don’t capture the argument at all. For example, to your argument that a Warband hero going from peasant to king within a year is realistic, I said the below:

“What I'm saying is that seeing that happen in the context of Dark Ages Britain in rapid time through the mechanism of lords everywhere letting you recruit armies from their lands and march them through with nary a word of protest, and because mayors who have no reason to trust you hand you kidnapped daughter money with full confidence, and because riskfree trading of some wine brings huge profits out of all proportion to the effort and capital involved, etc etc, is completely unrealistic.

There is no need to continue the discussion, for this is just a historic curiosity. However, i will respond:

Actually, what you describe is totally realistic, as the rule of the times was who had the biggest proverbial axe.

From last ~100 years of Roman Empire until mid 900s when feudalism settled in Western europe, especially in these zones, this was the reality of life. Countless kings, king wannabees, warlords, have come and passed, some have been successful, some not. And a year's timeframe is not even far fetched for that.

As for mayors, npcs etc be a strongman with enough brutes in your command in the region, and a lot of people would treat you a whole lot differently, mayors, priests etc not excluded. Even if there is a lord that is stronger than you who owns the region, you are still the one who has the axe handy right now and you are immediately nearby.

You cant imagine how things are still the same even today, in regions where there are conflicts. The mayor could behave totally differently when he has the backing of the lord immediately handy so that you cant hack him down with your axe, and he would behave totally differently in the opposite scenario. Alternatingly, even.

............

Other than that, i dont intend to engage in a lengthy debate, so therefore thanks for the discussion and have a nice evening. Thanks for the VC balance mod also, even though i wasnt able to use it. (Im with Dark age full now, with its own balance changes).
« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 09:21:35 PM by unity100 »

Tingyun

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
  • Hooded Horse Inc., an Indie Game Studio in Texas
    • Steam - hoodedhorse
    • Twitter - @HoodedHorseInc
    • View Profile
    • Hooded Horse
  • Faction: Neutral
Countless kings, king wannabees, warlords, have come and passed, some have been successful, some not. And a year's timeframe is not even far fetched for that.

Then name 3 historical examples from dark ages europe of someone rising from unknown peasant to powerful king in a year's time.

It didn't happen.

There are cultures and time periods where there have been metoric rises. There are a decent number of examples that involved large-scale peasant revolutions (ie, Imperial China), or a powerful institution (ie, the Roman Army). Dark Ages Europe didn't have much of that, and frankly, even in those cases the climb took many, many years--nothing at all like the timeframe of Warband.

You can make Warband's timeframe a little more realistic by picking the noble background, and make it much much more realistic by the VC special lordly and royal sandbox starts, but the core start-from-nothing sandbox game remains deeply unrealistic (but lots of fun :) )

As for mayors, npcs etc be a strongman with enough brutes in your command in the region

You seem to be misunderstanding--I described how a level 1, lone player character can approach a mayor and be handed 1000+ pengingas to pay a ransom because the mayor blindly trusts him. The player has no army or reputation at that point.

That is part of a broader category of unrealistic mechanics Warband offers the player to achieve success on a far shortened timetable from anything remotely realistic. Tax collection quests for new players, huge profits from trading relative to investment and time, incredibly cheap hiring price for an endless stream of new recruits--there is nothing realistic about any way by which the player progresses from early game to mid game, whether done by personal combat, trading, or recruiting.

VC improves realism in several ways (recruiting for example), and VC Balance Mod adds even more realism features (horse slowing with damage for example). But I don't think the point is ever truly realism itself--which is impossible in Warband--it is instead about creating a subjective sense of realism that aids in historical immersion (for example, Balance Mod makes travel times realistic because of the sense of immersion that creates, and because of how it helps better balance player economic mechanics vs AI, not because of realism itself).

Warband just isn't a realistic game. It is a game where logistics considerations are nearly entirely absent, where sieges are over in days, where battles are over in minutes, where lords are content to have the player march armies back and forth across their lands, where standing armies are maintained year-round, etc etc. Arguments that all of that is more realistic than a player solo killing 20-30 men on a horse are nonsensical--it is like arguing about whether leprechauns or unicorns are more realistic.
« Last Edit: August 30, 2018, 10:56:31 PM by Tingyun »

unity100

  • Veteran
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
Countless kings, king wannabees, warlords, have come and passed, some have been successful, some not. And a year's timeframe is not even far fetched for that.

Then name 3 historical examples from dark ages europe of someone rising from unknown peasant to powerful king in a year's time.

It didn't happen.

You mentioned you didnt want to discuss, yet you seem to continue. I dont have any intention, but out of courtesy and for potential benefit of those who may be interested in history, i will reply one last time.

Foremost, i advise you to do more reading in history, lest you wont need to risk your argument by doing grandstanding statements like 'it didnt happen'.

Merely the incident of great heathen army is enough to demonstrate the reality of what you are objecting, and contest various of your earlier arguments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heathen_Army

Great heathen army was led by 3 nobodies history has not heard before, who had no titles to mention, other than later claims to be related to an earlier viking named Ragnar, whom historians today think to possibly not have existed. It was common to claim descendancy from famous figures to get followers or assert claims in those days anyway. And as almost every norsemen in Scandinavia was at that date, they would be farmer/warriors, or raider/warriors of equal status with anyone else - since they were not able to even claim any minor nobility or kingship even at their time or in their inflated sagas.

They promptly beat and executed numerous anglo saxon kings, conquered numerous regions, including major cities like York, multiple times. From their landing in east anglia to their conquest of york, barely a year passed. Other cities followed in quick succession, along with anglo saxon kings being captured and killed swiftly.

At the moment they got York, they were already a kingdom and a faction by the game's terms - MB, Brytenwalda, or VC, whichever you pick. So this is more than demonstrative of what you object. However it goes far beyond that.

From among these 3 previously unknown nobodies leading this army,  Ivar the boneless...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_the_Boneless

...was not only hated, but also had a genetic disorder which caused him to be physically feeble and ridiculed for this in his time. Not only that, but also it was a noticeably important genetic disorder that affected bone structure and joins, as you will find out if you check out the reference.

Sagas praise his wisdom, intelligence and other traits. He was the person who demanded York, or according to a younger legend, London for his own from the anglosaxon kings. Its not that they had the power to object, since they already had it, but for terms for peace, not unlike in the game.

He is considered the founder of the dynasty that ruled Northumbria for ~100 years from York. He is also considered identical to the King of Dublin, Ivar, in which he becomes its king at the point he leaves the army.

So basically this previously unknown nobody had not only organized a great heathen army, possibly as his principal leader, but also ended up as a king according to our games' terms within a year.

Then there is Halfdan...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halfdan_Ragnarsson

... who is the commander of the army after Ivar left, and who invades Wessex, and captures London. Not withstanding being effective king of Northumbria, he also tries to claim Ivar's Kingdom of Dublin after Ivar's death, and gets killed while battling with earlier Norsemen who settled in Dublin area. So he got two kingdom to his name, or, if you would prefer to be precise, one kingdom and one claim to his name at the point he died.

The last leader of the army after him, Guthrum, who is another nobody other than being a warlord who came from nowhere, has become de facto king of entire Danelaw.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guthrum

I wouldnt need to tell what Danelaw signifies to any average reader of history.

However...

The most significant part of this entire deal is that that entire 'Great' heathen army is estimated to be no more than ~1000 people today. So it took an army of ~1000 collected, assorted men, under the leadership of ~3-4 previously unknown nobodies which kept changing, to bring norse rule to entire north england and even parts of Ireland, leave aside creating petty kings ruling over small kingdom-lets like in Wales.

.............

This example itself is descriptive and easily researchable enough, but reading to actual early dark ages like the times of Brytenwalda, one can easily see a worse quagmire which is indeed accurately portrayed by the Brytenwalda mold. When anybody could claim to be somebody and rise with enough wit, cunning or reputation, even through lying. The historical record of the period even shows a king in north britain who has a Gaelic name but claimed to have descended from Odin.

Quote
There are cultures and time periods where there have been metoric rises. There are a decent number of examples that involved large-scale peasant revolutions (ie, Imperial China), or a powerful institution (ie, the Roman Army). Dark Ages Europe didn't have much of that, and frankly, even in those cases the climb took many, many years--nothing at all like the timeframe of Warband.

Your perception of kingdom, king, empire seems to be quite out of place for the time period. Time period of Brytenwalda or VC have nothing to do with any of these. Some small strong armed warlord owning a small city or town could name himself a king, and he would be a king. For it was the power of owning, which made a king.

Precisely the lack of any institution is what enabled such kingdoms and such kings.

And as to your specific argument on farmers rising to that status - aside from the fact that almost every norseman raiding around were farmers or traders of equal status, who returned to their earlier professions after raiding even, what separates a farmer of a place like Britain and Scandinavia was nothing more than the earlier being prevented from military training (until Alfred I, at least), expensive equipment which they couldnt afford, and a measure of bravery. Simply because it doesnt take too much training to hack at people with an axe and show a shield to protect yourself, or push people in a shield wall with a spear due to the backwardness of dark age technology.

................

In any case, this is long historical talk, and i dont have time or desire to impart large chunks of information. I recommend doing more reading on the history of that time period, especially the lives of ordinary people, and staying away from grand-standing accounts of 'magnificient kings', which were merely strongmen with an axe/sword and a shield who happened to be among a few hundred other strongmen like themselves.

I wont participate in further discussion, so good evening to you...

Tingyun

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
  • Hooded Horse Inc., an Indie Game Studio in Texas
    • Steam - hoodedhorse
    • Twitter - @HoodedHorseInc
    • View Profile
    • Hooded Horse
  • Faction: Neutral
Merely the incident of great heathen army is enough to demonstrate the reality of what you are objecting
...
Great heathen army was led by 3 nobodies

No, the leaders of the Great Heathen Army were certainly not unknown peasants a year before. They were leaders who had ships and men that they brought to the invasion.

"Nobodies" don't have ships and armed men under their command.

history has not heard before

Their background not being recorded is obviously a result of a lack of contemporary historical records from their own culture, and the limited perspective of the writers of the Anglo Saxon Chronicle. That is not any kind of proof that they lacked a high status background.

We don't know whether they were sons of kings, influential nobles, or minor chieftains that had increased their power and influence through raiding or otherwise. But we do know that they were not unknown peasants, because peasants don't have ships and armed men under their command.

Time period of Brytenwalda or VC have nothing to do with any of these.

Exactly--the whole point is that time periods where we do see commoner to king meteoric rises look very different than this one.


And as almost every norsemen in Scandinavia was at that date, they would be farmer/warriors, or raider/warriors of equal status with anyone else
...
aside from the fact that almost every norseman raiding around were farmers or traders of equal status

Norse society had plenty of hierarchy, and a poor farmer who goes viking does not become king a year later.

Foremost, i advise you to do more reading in history,

i dont have time or desire to impart large chunks of information. I recommend doing more reading on the history of that time period

Two condescending comments. ;)

I'd suggest in all the extensive reading you describe, you pay attention to the use of historical sources, specifically, what implications can and cannot be drawn from the absence of historical records. Because there is no chance the leaders of the Great Heathen Army were unknown peasants a year before, and concluding that they were because we don't have contemporary written records of their prior backgrounds is a mistake.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2018, 10:51:20 AM by Tingyun »

Arnulf Floyd

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
  • Baron Adrian von Blackstein
    • Steam - Arnulf Floyd
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Nord
Games not must be historical-accurated and realistically, they are make for our fun. If want to know about period, read historical sources and even novels about Viking Invasion
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,379533.msg9034700.html#new

Read my new brand AAR about rise of Frankish Empire in late 4th Century in a world decimated by famine, plague and chaos. Dark Ages are coming...

Victory loves prudence - Latin proverb

It is better live one day as a lion than hundred years as a sheep - Italian proverb

If a man does not strike first, he will be the first struck - Athenogoras of Syracuse

Ballard

  • Recruit
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • WBNWVCWF&S
This is necroing old thread but thought i'd post it in case someone else would be interested : There's also other pretty efficient build for female character with
a very low agi from trying to avoid any points to it, but decent weapon mastery and athletics due to the starting bonuses.

Norse
Tall
Adult
Choleric
Fortitude
Noble
Crafts
Vocation doesn't matter really, i like to pick priest just so i can read.

13STR
7AGI but with 5 weapon mastery and 6 athletics due to the bonuses female gets
11int
18CHA

You can then dump all level up points to STR to eventually become a very charismatic leader who is also very mean in combat, especially if you save scum to get the +1str
from sacrifice at the celtic circles. Book bonuses and so forth get your leadership, persuasion and trade to 10 at higher levels, one of my older saves ended up at
16/7/17/18 but of course you could opt to keep int lower and just go for massive str, i just found 16 to be more than enough to wreck stuff in combat.

PS* If there's one damn thing low agi does cause is missing out on some rare gear like horseman javelins, even with Ailchu and Morgant doing looting those things just elude
me, even if i choose to get first call for loot.

Tingyun

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
  • Hooded Horse Inc., an Indie Game Studio in Texas
    • Steam - hoodedhorse
    • Twitter - @HoodedHorseInc
    • View Profile
    • Hooded Horse
  • Faction: Neutral
Ballard: that inability to find rare loot might be partially the result of the Warband kill order loot glitch, if you tend to hunt in smaller parties. If so, then high looting skill, or using the “see all loot” option, would both counterintuitively make you less likely to find the loot you want.

You can read the full details here if you are interested: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,377788.0.html

But the short summary is, Warband has a problem where if a numerous kind of low level unit died first in battle, the loot from all units like it can crowd out the loot from better units by filling up the loot buffer. Note that, for example, if a single farmer dies first, then all farmer units in the enemy army will be looted first, even if the rest of them died late in the battle.

In base Warband it didn’t come up much unless you hunted with a small party or went solo, but the VC “see all loot” option makes it far more likely to be an issue, as it multiplies the loot from the low level units and often leaves no room for the better loot.

I posted a fix at that link which a few VC related mods have implemented (AWOIF, VC Balance Mod) that makes sure you always loot the best units regardless of kill order, but if you play vanilla VC and want to get loot from a specific unit, the best advice is to either kill the unit first in battle (ie, make sure 1 unit with horseman javilins dies before a single peasant enemy dies) and then use “see all loot”, or if even a single peasant unit dies before your intended looting target then do not use “see all loot” option.
« Last Edit: September 21, 2019, 11:01:07 PM by Tingyun »