Development Priorities

Users who are viewing this thread

I think for all this combat tests the once planed alpha branch would be nice so the players who want to be labrats can do this and devs get more date in a shorter time. BEta would be to test crashes and larger new stuff.
 
I forgot to specify multinational power gamey armies. NPCs don't really go around picking and choosing the obvious best units the way players do. Again, more of a player side thing.


I don't think making all units useful and viable means making them all the same. Sorry if I didn't make that point clear. I think we can still have unique units that aren't straight up inferior to other units in every aspect.

Sure, a combination of stats and equipment could make a unit the most ideal for a role, but that doesn't mean they're good at everything. A legionary can be heavily armoured and carry maces and a fearsome pila, but are the slowest and lack a good spear to fight cavalry with. In contrast, an Aserai Veteran Infantry man can be skilled in spears, javelins and a variety of one handed weaponry, but lack in that legionary's insane armour. The legionary will be the better infantry grinder, but that doesn't make them straight up superior to the Aserai Veteran Infantry man. See what I'm getting at?

In this sort of equation, I would say that yeah, Sturgia should get infantry that can outslug other infantry in head to head fights.

Still, an objectively worse archer would be fine as long as they make up in a different way. Like maybe they use a weak bow, but they make up for it by carrying a shield and a variety of melee weapons they can use well. They are still the worst archer, but at least they will hold their own in close combat. They'd make terrific siege units.
Idk I guess we just look at things differently. I like variety and I like the idea that the player can make the ideal army out of the best of the best, It always seemed to me to be the main thrust behind this game. It's to united the shattered empire and the best way to do that is to incorporate the best units that you can get to beat everyone else. As long as one faction isn't completely overpowered (Khurzait I'm looking at you) then I'm ok with strengths and weakness in factions.
 
Greetings,

First of all, thank you for taking the time for writing about these topics.

1. Archers had always been an important aspect of warfare. Although we do not think a massive balancing is needed, we are always keeping an eye on what could change and how possible changes effects the game in simulations. We will be making further armor and balance changes within troop trees. Before making any more changes we would like to see how it will be received within the player base. If we feel that there is an imbalance towards archer heavy parties, I can assure you that we will take necessary actions.

2. We are trying to focus on the strengths of each faction and show them in a meaningful way. This, of course, does not mean that they would demolish the battlefield their special units. If players somehow make their parties/armies based on these units to some extent of the game it is good enough for us.

There will be a big armor value and equipment change we are working on ( Still needs to be thoroughly tested before it is good for the public builds) and we may make some more changes on troop weapons and troops if it is necessary but each change requires heavy testing to see how they synergize with every element of the game.

3. We are aware of the crafting system is being used for making easy money as of now. The crafting system will see some changes and pricing changes on weapons are also being worked on. I can't get into details but hopefully, it will turn out in a way where it will satisfy both crafters and traders.

4. Khuzait's being too dominant in the early stages (ergo snowball) of the game is something we know of. Our design team is doing some changes and testing to balance it out.


If I am to give a more general reply since they are more or less about the game balance, it is an extremely demanding task to balance out a game with so many different aspects into it. We do not want the community to do the testing for us that is why we are working so hard to find and examine each outcome of every small touch and change that we can possibly do. At the same time, we are keeping a close eye on player feedback as well. Hopefully the outcome will be able the please as many players as possible :smile:
Thanks for answering! Looking forward to see armor changes
 
I guess it depends how you define important, but historically archers have not been the dominant on the battlefield. From Ancient Greece through the Roman Empire through the middle ages and into modern times, with a few notable exceptions, infantry is the core of any army. The majority of cavalry was light cavalry, used for scouting and skirmishing, and the riders dismounted before battle. Heavy cavalry was dominant, but also expensive and rare for most of history, and was almost always used to support a larger infantry force.

Archers were considered harassment units throughout all of these periods. It wasn’t until the 1200s when armies composed mostly of archers dominated. This is when the Mongols obliterated everything with horse archers. Not long after, massed archers on foot armed with the English Longbow repeatedly defeated heavy cavalry, but again with support from infantry and cavalry, or a significant terrain advantage.

For a GAME, I would think that you’d aim for none of the troops types to be strictly dominant, and from a historic perspective, archers least of all.

that's some eurocentric hot take.
 
This makes a lot of sense. Maybe at some point an alpha version can be released for those of us willing to be lab rats :wink: , I know it was discussed having an alpha early on, has this idea officially changed?

Also if you don't mind what areas of the game are your focus? This will help us direct questions to you that you'll be able to answer (like campaign map/ai related issues/idea for Mexxico).

I am working as a game designer. I mainly work on game balance, quest design, and upcoming features/content. I do check a daily balancing Issues forums every morning, the best way to reach me or my fellow employees would be writing through there. Of course I am still watching pm's and mentions.


If this includes changes to the armour formula that would be amazing.

There are a lot of systems that seem good but just plain old arent working. Like all the high tier armours being unavailable. As items can only be made in a town within a certain multiple of town prosperity, however due to a change in item price calculations this system broke. Why hasnt it been fixed so people can better test these high level armours and give the best assestment of the current system before it gets changed?

Obviously there is a need for internal QA but if you were to bring larger balance changes into the beta and just let people know you are looking for their feed back on those changes, you would get it in spades. Obviously you wouldn't be able to avoid an individual having a meltdown over their particular thing getting nerfed even if it is just in the beta branch. It still seems far more productive though to engage in that process. As long as you are not afraid to completely with draw certain changes and maybe implement them later or not at all.

High tier armors are also being looked at as far as I know but I am afraid I won't be able to give many details in it because I am not working on that personally.

Larger changes will always be on beta. The cases that we can solve internally is so to say changing a weapon on troop and seeing how he fares against a certain faction or making a unit move a little faster et cetera. Such things we can always see through countless simulations and trials. Same things go with some economy changes and tryouts. Before sending those to steam beta, we have to make sure that there is a solid foundation to talk about and have a constructive conversation with. What we change always goes to the community for testing but only after it is worth speaking of :smile:
 
Last edited:
Idk I guess we just look at things differently. I like variety and I like the idea that the player can make the ideal army out of the best of the best, It always seemed to me to be the main thrust behind this game. It's to united the shattered empire and the best way to do that is to incorporate the best units that you can get to beat everyone else. As long as one faction isn't completely overpowered (Khurzait I'm looking at you) then I'm ok with strengths and weakness in factions.
I always thought that was the intended way to play ever since hearing Lezalit talk about his idea of the perfect army.

"If anyone were to unify this little land of ours, I'd sign up to serve them, free of charge. I'd put together an army of Rhodok spear with Nord footmen on the flanks and Vaegir archers in front, take along some Khergit scouts to find and fix the enemies, and some Swadian lancers and Sarranid mamlukes to finish them off. I'd take that army over the mountains and make the whole world kneel to Calradia.... Of course, that's what the Emperors thought, and in the end the tribes took away their Empire."
 
I am working as a game designer. I mainly work on game balance, quest design, and upcoming features/content. I do check a daily balancing Issues forums every morning, the best way to reach me or my fellow employees would be writing through there. Of course I am still watching pm's and mentions.




High tier armors are also being looked at as far as I know but I am afraid I won't be able to give many details in it because I am not working on that personally.

Larger changes will always be on beta. The cases that we can solve internally is so to say changing a weapon on troop and seeing how he fares against a certain faction or making a unit move a little faster et cetera. Such things we can always see through countless simulations and trials. Same things go with some economy changes and tryouts. Before sending those to steam beta, we have to make sure that there is a solid foundation to talk about and have a constructive conversation with. What we change always goes to the community for testing but only after it is worth speaking of :smile:
Thanks for the info. It's nice to have another dev active on the forums. I think at this point most people are dying for any scrap of info and any interaction between players and developers is seen as a good thing by the player base. :party:
 
that's some eurocentric hot take.

True, I almost started with "From a Western perspective...", but I didn't. The Persian empire used a lot of archers (and infantry, and cavalry) and was dominant around the time I began my hot take. And the Persians got slaughtered twice by Greece's heavy infantry (and navy) while trying to invade. Within a generation, heavy infantry and cavalry out of Macedonia (Greece's neighbor) had marched through Persian territory and carved out its own empire. This type of warfare dominated the battlefield until the Mongols took over. They pushed all the way into Eastern Europe. Within a couple of generations, Turkey and the Ottoman Empire took over from there, and lasted into the 1900s. Early on the Ottoman's utilized a lot of horse archers and cavalry, but for most of that time their highly disciplined force had a large contingent of infantry, and also guns.

Outside of Ancient times, foot archers were not the dominant force on most battlefields. For this game, I would treat them like glass cannons. If you allow infantry and cavalry to reach your archers, your archers should be shattered.
 
I always thought that was the intended way to play ever since hearing Lezalit talk about his idea of the perfect army.

"If anyone were to unify this little land of ours, I'd sign up to serve them, free of charge. I'd put together an army of Rhodok spear with Nord footmen on the flanks and Vaegir archers in front, take along some Khergit scouts to find and fix the enemies, and some Swadian lancers and Sarranid mamlukes to finish them off. I'd take that army over the mountains and make the whole world kneel to Calradia.... Of course, that's what the Emperors thought, and in the end the tribes took away their Empire."
Yes I feel like it's kind of a given and it's TW way of saying yep use what you can to win. Imho one of the cool things about WB was that you were literally an outsider. You were from outside of Calradia and you had no allegiances or prejudices and could side with anyone and it's one of the things I dislike about BL is now you have to pick a faction background and had an instant family. To me this is where BL fails as a sandbox because they already shoehorn you into a role before you've even started playing. This is progress I guess. :unsure:
 
Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not make weapon crafting significantly worse for money making unless we're going to see new sources of income added, or workshops and caravans buffed. There's no reasonable source of income in the early to mid game right now.
 
@Signalize seeing that you wanted to add Barbers in town means you're trying to give players more things to do in towns, can we expect more things to find in towns that give value to immersion or side activities? Are guys aware some part of this community doesn't feel entirely conected to the world?
 
Please, for the love of all that is holy, do not make weapon crafting significantly worse for money making unless we're going to see new sources of income added, or workshops and caravans buffed. There's no reasonable source of income in the early to mid game right now.
I disagree with this, income generation is fine if you play appropriately (i refuse to smith).

Your army needs to consist of lower tier troops until you can afford high tier troops, also if you want to be a financial power house you need to take a town. You also need more caravans, as you've already identified they are your best source of income. I normally have 1 caravan for every party I have out (balance each other out).
If you get this going early enough in the game the risk is minimal, my first companion is always running a caravan (trader if they are any in the first set of companions, if not get the best party leader). If you don't join up as a merc then you wont be at war with anyone so your caravans will almost certainly pay for themselves and for the creation of others. Now that we have siblings I don't use companions as party leaders anymore, so they either end up a caravan runner or my scout/healer/engineer. My last player kingdom playthrough i had 5 caravans going compared to my 4 total parties. Even in multiple wars I was able to have at least 2-3 caravans up the whole time and I was a multi-millionaire at that point.

My #1 advice is to get rich before you start your kingdom and always make sure you have at least 1 town before going independent, makes it a lot easier. Also spread out your caravans or else they will eat each others profits. And remember caravan profits can be anywhere between 0 - 1000 (even higher although not often), depending on what they buy and sell.

After trying caravans and workshops to see what works and what doesn't here's my advice.
Caravans:
1. Make sure you have someone with a trader background (it makes a big difference overtime).
2. Make sure you go for the upgraded caravan, they are much less likely to loses battles, in general they'll be around much much longer.
3. Make sure you spread your caravans out, in other words make sure they are at least 1 if not 2 towns apart when you make them.

Workshops:
1. Look for towns that are profitable, my minimum level of prosperity is 4000 but 4500+ is preferable and also a town that is unlikely to be attacked at least within a few months.

-My go to towns will often include (but not always): Poros, Vostrum, Sanala, Razih, Ocs Hall, Epicrota, Chaikand.
-The following towns can be good depending on whose battling who and whose winning: Makeb, Syronea, Lycaron, Zeronica.
-The following towns can work out but it's risky because they often are captured or the villages are often raided but if you're lucky they can also be profitable: Ortysia, Pen Cannoc, Jalmarys, Diathma.
The best thing to do is look at your encyclopedia to see what towns are prosperous and then look at the factions who are doing well.

2. Look for towns that have villages that produce 2 of an item such as two grain producing villages can pretty much assure that costs of production will stay as low as possible those towns will almost always turn a profit.

3. Always make sure that the starting product has a relatively low price and the end product is relatively high. This will fluctuate but should stay around the same price, check back if you think something is amiss.

4. If for example you want to start a brewery and there is one there then buy that one out instead of buying another shop and competing with them. I know that sounds pretty self evident but I've done it more than once and it definitely cuts into your profits.
 
Last edited:
Greetings,

First of all, thank you for taking the time for writing about these topics.

1. Archers had always been an important aspect of warfare. Although we do not think a massive balancing is needed, we are always keeping an eye on what could change and how possible changes effects the game in simulations. We will be making further armor and balance changes within troop trees. Before making any more changes we would like to see how it will be received within the player base. If we feel that there is an imbalance towards archer heavy parties, I can assure you that we will take necessary actions.

2. We are trying to focus on the strengths of each faction and show them in a meaningful way. This, of course, does not mean that they would demolish the battlefield their special units. If players somehow make their parties/armies based on these units to some extent of the game it is good enough for us.

There will be a big armor value and equipment change we are working on ( Still needs to be thoroughly tested before it is good for the public builds) and we may make some more changes on troop weapons and troops if it is necessary but each change requires heavy testing to see how they synergize with every element of the game.

3. We are aware of the crafting system is being used for making easy money as of now. The crafting system will see some changes and pricing changes on weapons are also being worked on. I can't get into details but hopefully, it will turn out in a way where it will satisfy both crafters and traders.

4. Khuzait's being too dominant in the early stages (ergo snowball) of the game is something we know of. Our design team is doing some changes and testing to balance it out.


If I am to give a more general reply since they are more or less about the game balance, it is an extremely demanding task to balance out a game with so many different aspects into it. We do not want the community to do the testing for us that is why we are working so hard to find and examine each outcome of every small touch and change that we can possibly do. At the same time, we are keeping a close eye on player feedback as well. Hopefully the outcome will be able the please as many players as possible :smile:

@Signalize nice post! Thanks for outlining some of the things the team is working on, these are great focus areas.

I want to share some (hopefully brief) thoughts on the archer topic and some feedback relevant to my limited experiences.

  1. Archers (bowmen specifically). Foot archers are definitely too strong in my experience, and based on the feedback in this forum so are horse archers. I personally limit my use of foot archers because they are too good, and make the game too easy and less engaging on even the hardest settings. Some ideas in no particular order:
    • Improved enemy AI. Making changes to how the enemy AI deals with the players archers will greatly affect their utility. I'm sure people much smarter than me are working on this and can figure out what is practical & possible so I won't waste time with my suggestions.
    • Re-balance their melee skills. A cursory examination of the archers melee combat skills and athletics skills will tell you these are on par with their infantry counterparts. Why does a Tier 1-6 Archer have the same combat ability as their Tier 1-6 Infantry counterpart? Fight an archer in the Arena and watch them be a bad ass with all variety of equipment. It makes no sense. As a general rule Tier 6 archers should have no more than 30 in any melee combat skill and lower Tier archers should just have 0 skill in melee. Every archer being able to go toe-to-toe with an Imperial Elite Menavliaton is silly.
    • Re-balance their athletics and equipped armor. Archers should have 50 athletics and if they are given heavy armor (which they should not have) they will move like a turtle. If Archers are given a higher athletics score, it should first and foremost still be significantly lower than the infantry, but coupled with much lighter armor their movement speed will still be higher than the infantry. All Archers, especially the Tier 6, should have their armor removed and replaced with much lower armor values. The units that should rarely die to arrow fire are heavy infantry/cavalry. The units that should always die to arrow fire are the archers and to a lesser degree lighter infantry and light cavalry and their mounts. Currently archer on archer battles with the AI result in 0 casualties for the player because the Tier 6 archers are so heavily armored. Archer on Archer battles should ALWAYS result in heavy casualties with winner being decided by the unit with 1) better range 2) better bow skill 3) higher rate of fire. Crossbowmen can be the exception to the armor and melee combat rules to some degree as they are expected to only fire 1-2 volleys before the infantry close and they are in hand-to-hand combat. A bowmen should be able to empty their quiver before the Infantry close and then their only defense is to run.
  2. Faction Troop Strength. There is a forum post that discusses Faction Troop Trees and has many thoughts including my own. I think the troop tree for every faction would feel much more diverse if every faction didn't have access to a Tier 6 of of every troop type. Give every faction 1 troop type that goes to Tier 7 and is better than any other faction's version of that troop and then give every faction 1 or 2 troop weaknesses and cap those troops at Tier 2 or 3. The rest of the troops would be Tier 5. For example:
    • Sturgia: Tier 7 Infantry and Tier 2 archers.
    • Battania: Tier 7 Bowmen and Tier 2 cavalry.
    • Khuzait: Tier 7 Horse Archers and Tier 2 infantry.
    • Aserai: Tier 7 missile cavalry and Tier 2 something else.
  3. Crafting. Economic balancing for blacksmiths will be a welcome change. Being a blacksmith is like having a cheat code for infinite Denar.
Thanks again for the great summary post. I'm looking forward to whatever changes the Devs bring as it sounds like you guys are working on some good stuff.
 
Within a generation, heavy infantry and cavalry out of Macedonia (Greece's neighbor) had marched through Persian territory and carved out its own empire. This type of warfare dominated the battlefield until the Mongols took over.

That would have been a surprise to the Eastern Romans by time of the 6th century. They invested in and maintained a mostly-mounted army with the expectation that any professional soldier be able to loose arrows, in any direction, from horseback.
 
That would have been a surprise to the Eastern Romans by time of the 6th century. They invested in and maintained a mostly-mounted army with the expectation that any professional soldier be able to loose arrows, in any direction, from horseback.

You're right, I've overlooked the Eastern Romans and Byzantine Empire. Add on about 600 extra years of horse archer dominance then.
 
I disagree with this, income generation is fine if you play appropriately (i refuse to smith).
If you don't smith, then there aren't any problems with the smithing system. My fear is that, knowing Taleworlds, they'll "fix" crafting by simply adding a punitively massive trade penalty on all crafted items so that you can't make any money at all from it. They'll bring the price of javelins down to a reasonable sum and things like 1-handers or maces will sell for 1 denar.
 
If you don't smith, then there aren't any problems with the smithing system. My fear is that, knowing Taleworlds, they'll "fix" crafting by simply adding a punitively massive trade penalty on all crafted items so that you can't make any money at all from it. They'll bring the price of javelins down to a reasonable sum and things like 1-handers or maces will sell for 1 denar.
This was not me trying to say there are no problems with the smithing system, I don't use it because it IS a problem, so much that i consider it an exploitation. I don't think they will put a blanket % reduction on all items lol
 
LOL when no one talking about crafted weapons I was advising players -who asking how to make money fast- to craft and sell javelins, I even shared most profitable and easy to craft combination once or twice. Even better, I said them to use javelins to barter with lords, it is like most valuable secret currency to barter and turn every lord to your side :smile: This is better than selling because even at late game you can only sell 2-3 pieces per day to a settlement since they have limited denars which depends on their prosperity but there is no limit when bartering with lords. (If they are faction leaders or filthy rich lords, you can even take nice sum of denars from them and give javelins instead while bartering.)

Anyway now I see everyone complaining about this like a plague instead of exploiting it. Weird, but somehow I understand...
 
LOL when no one talking about crafted weapons I was advising players -who asking how to make money fast- to craft and sell javelins, I even shared most profitable and easy to craft combination once or twice. Even better, I said them to use javelins to barter with lords, it is like most valuable secret currency to barter and turn every lord to your side :smile: This is better than selling because even at late game you can only sell 2-3 pieces per day to a settlement since they have limited denars which depends on their prosperity but there is no limit when bartering with lords. (If they are faction leaders or filthy rich lords, you can even take nice sum of denars from them and give javelins instead while bartering.)

Anyway now I see everyone complaining about this like a plague instead of exploiting it. Weird, but somehow I understand...
Some of us don't like to just cheese things and want to use these mechanics without feeling like its cheating.
 
Back
Top Bottom