Increasing the death rate of characters

[Red_Moth]

I have this question: Has your opponent ever given up? ((Lords, except marauders) Why don't the lords give up, even if they fight 1 in 100, they still fight instead of giving up. I've had the same lord fight 5 times, and I've wounded him 5 times, but he never died and never gave up, even though he never had a chance.

Well. I have such a proposal: To increase the mortality of the lords and the character for which the player plays, so that he does not go headlong, make the mortality rate, say, 50-50, but takes care of his life and gives up if he has no chance of winning, because what is the point then of those dialogues that the developers added before the battle. You can make a separate level of difficulty.

p.s. sorry for bad english

 

[Emperor1997]

Yes, they should increase the hero death chance in battle to 30% - 50%,
Because battles are deadly.

And lords should surrender, if they have no chance of winning this battle

 

[Antaeus]

Yes, they should increase the hero death chance in battle to 30% - 50%,
Because battles are deadly.

And lords should surrender, if they have no chance of winning this battle

If we're going to do it right...

Perhaps it should be either culturally specific or based on the character traits...

Some cultures/traits should be more likely to take hostages and ransom prisoners... Therefore more likely to surrender expecting the same.

Some cultures/traits should be more likely to execute prisoners and fight to the death...

 

[BigFat]

I would be fine with a higher death rate if time moved faster. As it is, I've had games where my faction and the ones they fight become functionally extinct before their children come of age to take over. As it is, I would rather them lower it to the 2%. Having them surrender when extremely outmatched would be nice though.

 

[Stromming]

Increasing death rate without increasing the ageing speed of kids would cause a de-population of all lords.

I do agree however that lords should be able to negotiate their surrender.

 

[Fahai Nolove]

Like this idea.

Besides, there is a mod called "AI Values Life" doing this feature, but it could be incompatible with some updates.

 

[Rivus]

Like this idea.

Besides, there is a mod called "AI Values Life" doing this feature, but it could be incompatible with some updates.

I use this mod. It's the only mod I use besides the mod that increases campaign time speeds. I also think it allows you to adjust how often lords can actually die in battle. It's pretty cool when you go into a battle and you actually end up killing the opposing lord in battle, versus executing him.

Have any of you guys played Romance of the Three Kingdoms? In those games, if you were to execute a lord or kill them, the rest of his family would declare you their sworn enemy and try to assassinate you or kill you on occasion.

 

[Tryvenyal]

Battle-death needs to apply to all battles equally or none.

And in player battles:
- Hero/companion AI needs to prioritice survival!
- Good Armour should not only help you stand up but also help you survive wounds.
- Earlygame: Grace-period for player´s familly and companions. Not fun to see my first companion die in one of his/her first 5 battles.
- Tactical unit that spawns last, that can be assigned only to non-troops. In easy battles they don't participate. They spawn fleeing.

 

[murtega]

This will very likely result in with a lot of surrenders from AI or many dead AI lords unless it's given more advantages (cheats?) in order to have stronger and bigger parties. AI parties don't mean to have too many choices when player forces a battle. They're usually slower, so they can't escape. Their win/lose ratio is much lower than player so they usually have low tier units mostly. There's not enough peace period for them to build up either. After reaching Tier3, player party is pretty much capable of taking any AI party on 1on1 and faster than those they can't. Hence it all comes down to having one sided field battles versus having no field battles.

I'd appreciate TW to somehow implement either longer peace periods, so AI can build up stronger parties or give some more abilities to those idle lords like training their own parties while hanging around in towns so when they (or their clan members) spawn, they'll come out stronger. Whatever cheats they have now apparently aren't enough to prevent them having too many recruits and being beaten almost instantly.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

This is like a mountain of stuff they need to do to make this part of the game good.
1 I agree, same death chance for all lords, not just player related battles
2 Yes, babies take way too long to become clan members, it's really obnoxious and out of sync with the rest of the game. If you're okay with a year being 88 days you can have baby grow up in 18seasons, why not?
3 Medicine and perks revisions to effect survivability
4 armor and damage formula revisions, no more "get hit gotta quit", want reasonable damage and combat play if we risk death more, I want this anyways
5 Personalities and grudges! There seems to be some shallow vestigial stuff related to this in game, but if you kill somebody family on battle some lords should want revenge, some will just hate you, some will scheme to undermine you indirectly or assignat you ,some will understand out of honor for warriors and such. It's not good enough to just have "npc deleted, the end".
6 Child adoptions and clan resurgence, in case all adult do die, the children and clans aren't gone forever!

There's just so much!

 

[AndrewArt]

I think smaller death chance for lords is good. People have been complaining about even the 10% death rate, and even at that rate lords were dropping like flies. Even with the now lowered death chance I've had 2 enemy lords die in one battle (out of 3 total lords in battle), so it can still happen. If anything, if you want to make this low death chance justifiable, then make armor tiers actually impact death chance. So heavy armor (which lords are wearing) is very low death chance and maybe lower clan tiers which will have less effective armor will have higher death chances. Same principle could apply to regular troops, companions, and the player.

For what is suggested here (very high lord death chance), It would be very easy for the player to just ignore the lord's surrender pleas and still go in battle and simply kill them. Kill all lords win the game. Unless you make children age super fast (which would really break immersion), there is no chance this would work.

Even in battles with equal fighting power (which are easily winnable) a LOT of lords would die. At this point no lord would go over age 20.

Promoting less battles in a game about fighting where battles are pretty much the best thing we have, is a bit anti-climatic, even if it would make sense in some cases. At most, they should increase the attempt of surrendering when severely outnumbered and when severely outmatched (the more you beat on the same lord the more he learns and the more he is likely to surrender to you. The same way, if a lord beats you a lot (which will never happen let's be honest) but you outnumber him then he will be less likely to want to surrender.

Personally I like the finally lower death chance in battle. As long as it will happen between lord vs lord without player interaction as well (and it will, still, will be a rare occurance), that's good. You have the choice to execute a lord if you really want to so it's not like we're stuck fighting the same lord forever with no options presented to us.

 

[Lesbosisles]

Duh said that in 1.6.1-1.6.2 they may enable death in battle for AI vs AI battles, so there will be more overall deaths in the game world. If this will work as intended, I wouldn't set the death rate higher than 15-20%. 50% is way too much, I suppose, considering that children grow up quite slow, so clans may not be able to recover if too many adults will die.

 

[Red_Moth]

I think smaller death chance for lords is good. People have been complaining about even the 10% death rate, and even at that rate lords were dropping like flies. Even with the now lowered death chance I've had 2 enemy lords die in one battle (out of 3 total lords in battle), so it can still happen. If anything, if you want to make this low death chance justifiable, then make armor tiers actually impact death chance. So heavy armor (which lords are wearing) is very low death chance and maybe lower clan tiers which will have less effective armor will have higher death chances. Same principle could apply to regular troops, companions, and the player.

For what is suggested here (very high lord death chance), It would be very easy for the player to just ignore the lord's surrender pleas and still go in battle and simply kill them. Kill all lords win the game. Unless you make children age super fast (which would really break immersion), there is no chance this would work.

Even in battles with equal fighting power (which are easily winnable) a LOT of lords would die. At this point no lord would go over age 20.

Promoting less battles in a game about fighting where battles are pretty much the best thing we have, is a bit anti-climatic, even if it would make sense in some cases. At most, they should increase the attempt of surrendering when severely outnumbered and when severely outmatched (the more you beat on the same lord the more he learns and the more he is likely to surrender to you. The same way, if a lord beats you a lot (which will never happen let's be honest) but you outnumber him then he will be less likely to want to surrender.

Personally I like the finally lower death chance in battle. As long as it will happen between lord vs lord without player interaction as well (and it will, still, will be a rare occurance), that's good. You have the choice to execute a lord if you really want to so it's not like we're stuck fighting the same lord forever with no options presented to us.

To avoid this, the lords must take care of their lives during the battle, as it has always been in life, not to go to the front of the army like Rimbaud for hundreds of spears, but to stand conditionally behind the army and command, in case of defeat, simply run away or surrender, thereby not dying in vain in battle. Do you know how it works now? Even if he fights 10 against 100, he does not retreat, although when at least 1 soldier from his army dies, they all start to run, except for the general, he does not retreat, as a result of which he must be killed, but each time he just survives.

 

[AndrewArt]

To avoid this, the lords must take care of their lives during the battle, as it has always been in life, not to go to the front of the army like Rimbaud for hundreds of spears, but to stand conditionally behind the army and command, in case of defeat, simply run away or surrender, thereby not dying in vain in battle. Do you know how it works now? Even if he fights 10 against 100, he does not retreat, although when at least 1 soldier from his army dies, they all start to run, except for the general, he does not retreat, as a result of which he must be killed, but each time he just survives.

I do agree that the lord should have better survivability in battle, but not sure that making every lord a spectator in every battle is the coolest idea in that sense. And for one, if the lord stands behind his army, won't the player know this and still be able to go straight for him to kill him? The only way I imagine to protect a lord from the player (which is the biggest threat) would be to have his soldiers in circle formation around him. Some sort of bodyguards. keep in mind that defeating the lord imposes great morale penalties, so the best thing for the player is to go straight for the lord). Or, a better solution would be if the lord would charge behind or at the middle of a cavalry formation (sometimes a good attack is the better defense. But for that cavalry AI needs to prioritize targets such as archers, and should prefer to flank after the infantry has already charged in, so we need better tactics for the AI). Also, retreating while in a losing battle makes sense, so they should do that more often when the outcome is clearly a loss. Also high end lordly armor should be more effective at tanking hits as well. Plenty of improvements to be made in that area from what I can see.

 

[Red_Moth]

I have read all that the amiable lords have written above, and can counter-argue almost everything.

In the screenshot below, I broke the Aserai and also broke them a lot later in battle, but instead of dying or surrendering, they constantly took 10-15 people as in the screenshot and survived and annoyed me by looting my villages. I was very upset that I couldn't finish them in any way. That's why I propose to increase the death rate of the lords.

Many people write about the fact that if you increase the mortality of the lords, then there will be absolutely no ones who could fight, but this is not true. I'll explain why: If the lords put their lives first and don't go headlong hundreds of spears ahead of the army, they won't die. If they stand at the back of the army, as they did in real life, and give up if necessary ( you can't do that in the game mechanics, but they can just run away from the battlefield), then they won't die in vain.

For example, if there is a battle of equal, 200 vs 200 soldiers, then if defeated, the lord does not have to go himself and be wounded, instead he can leave and get a morale debuff in the following battles, and if he goes, he will either be wounded or die 50-50. And in battles where the lord has no chance, for example, 200 against 1000, then he just has to give up, so as not to die, this is much more reasonable than going to the battlefield and dying. It may be technically very difficult to do this, because you will need to improve the behavior of the AI, but as an option, I think it would be not bad to do it, maybe modders can do this? What do you think, gentlemen?

 

[froggyluv]

If we're going to do it right...

Perhaps it should be either culturally specific or based on the character traits...

Some cultures/traits should be more likely to take hostages and ransom prisoners... Therefore more likely to surrender expecting the same.

Some cultures/traits should be more likely to execute prisoners and fight to the death...

I would find it a whole lot more interesting if personality traits played into this having both some positive aspect as well as negative. Such as some Meglo-maniac leader would inspire his troops through sheer delusion so they got a bonus on the auto calc, a buff in skills on the 3D battlefield (frenzied soldiers) but would be prone to believe his own immortality and would fight to the death -thereby increasing his liklihood for death

Seems abit more interesting than a blanket 15-20% chance of death for lords across the board -boring

 

[Red_Moth]

I do agree that the lord should have better survivability in battle, but not sure that making every lord a spectator in every battle is the coolest idea in that sense. And for one, if the lord stands behind his army, won't the player know this and still be able to go straight for him to kill him? The only way I imagine to protect a lord from the player (which is the biggest threat) would be to have his soldiers in circle formation around him. Some sort of bodyguards. keep in mind that defeating the lord imposes great morale penalties, so the best thing for the player is to go straight for the lord). Or, a better solution would be if the lord would charge behind or at the middle of a cavalry formation (sometimes a good attack is the better defense. But for that cavalry AI needs to prioritize targets such as archers, and should prefer to flank after the infantry has already charged in, so we need better tactics for the AI). Also, retreating while in a losing battle makes sense, so they should do that more often when the outcome is clearly a loss. Also high end lordly armor should be more effective at tanking hits as well. Plenty of improvements to be made in that area from what I can see.

I agree that if he just stands behind the army, it will not be the best solution. You are right, you can add a guard to it, but at the same time it is not necessary to just stand, it can go behind the infantry / together with the cavalry and attack or play from the defense, so that if the player tries to kill it, the infantry or cavalry will cover it. But again, you need to improve the AI, which is not so easy. As for the armor, I also agree that it can be improved

 

[Red_Moth]

I would find it a whole lot more interesting if personality traits played into this having both some positive aspect as well as negative. Such as some Meglo-maniac leader would inspire his troops through sheer delusion so they got a bonus on the auto calc, a buff in skills on the 3D battlefield (frenzied soldiers) but would be prone to believe his own immortality and would fight to the death -thereby increasing his liklihood for death

Seems abit more interesting than a blanket 15-20% chance of death for lords across the board -boring

+++

or on the contrary inspire your troops to stand up to the last with a positive trait as an honor or add some more character traits for the characters

 

[Red_Moth]

Obviously, if you leave things as they are now and just increase the death rate of the lords, then in a short period of time, they will all die.

Therefore, it is necessary to change the behavior of the AI, as I wrote above. What do you think, gentlemen?

 

[BigFat]

I think you might still end up with a similar problem as your picture because eventually you would end up with a bunch of weak surviving lords who would just surrender immediately every time.