Have there been any developments regarding executions and broader late game mechanics for the full-release?

[Totalgarbage]

Executions are terrible because just 2 or 3 of them make the whole map hate you even if you executed one of the clan's arch-nemeses. Just tone the relationship loss down quite significantly, and maybe make executions help increase relations with cruel lords and enemy clans to the deceased.

On the other hand, being a king or vassal is plain boring because there are no inner kingdom politics. Lords don't consciously start votes for policies and they most of the time don't vote for what's in their clan's best material interest or according to their traits. Votes for seizing fiefs or kicking clans out of your kingdom never happen. Unhappy clans with money don't secede from the kingdom. You can't even start a vote for making the king abdicate, which I imagine would be beyond easy to implement. Your character is selected the ruler of the faction 99% of the time even if you're a landless tier 2 clan that joined the faction 5 days ago. The king doesn't suffer any relation penalties for overturning a majority vote. Don't even get me started on clans voting for newer wars for no reason while you're already fighting in 1-2 fronts already.

Honestly, one of the worst parts of the game has consistently been the late game precisely because these systems are not fleshed out or straight up broken. I honestly believe most of the community would be satisfied with what I've written above being fixed + landline messengers + non-aggression pacts and trade agreements (not even alliances) being implemented for late game. It obviously wouldn't be perfect but just these additions would make the game so incredibly much better.

@Duh_TaleWorlds, are there any improvements on the late game for the release?

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

I doubt that there really is all that much scope for improvement given the system.

What can the AI do?

- vote for laws you dont want
- vote to abolish laws that you want to keep
- vote for wars you dont want
- vote for a peace that you dont want

The harsh reality is that any kind of political activity by the AI will be an inconvinience/annoyance for the player.

 

[Totalgarbage]

I kinda agree with your sentiment, but IF the AI could make somewhat logical decisions, even if it would make the game more tedious, I would be alright with it. Let's be honest, unless the lords adore you and/or don't have enough influence to oppose you, there should be no chance in hell for them to accept sacred majesty.

Things like the AI opposing policies beneficial to only the king or higher tier clans can (but potentially not) encourage kingdom building over replacing the current king. The downside would be obviously having no clans (or weak and poor T2 clans that you promote) supporting your new faction. IF they only added the possibility of forcing the king to abdicate (and fix the ruler election by having the top 3 clans by influence or number of fiefs on the ballot), this alone would make strides for bringing any semblance of diplomacy to the game.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

The problem with most good ideas are that they only really going to be good in theory. In practise, it is just fare more likely that it is something you are going to work around instead of embracing. There is always a risk in generalising (and being alitte too cynical perhaps) but

If we take something like the ability for companions to die as an example. If I had to make a guess then it is fare more likely that players work around it rather than actually embracing it. Maybe by placing them well to the rear, maybe by ordering them to retreat at the start of a battle or perhaps as a reason to take those skills personally. The number of players who actually just let things flow as they may, is probably very very small.

Another example. There has been plenty of posts over time arguing that traits should play a bigger role. But there is one place where it does actually play a role and that is for sieges (cruel/merciful). So what do (I) do? Work around it. First line of defence is to avoid hiring merciless lords and the second is to just not call them. Management by excel when you start getting too many.. Does it really add anything?

The culture penalty. Best course of action, work around it.

The "political system". Best course of action, work around it.

And the list probably goes on and on.

 

[Totalgarbage]

Yes you are right, and some of the systems you've listed definitely do need further work. Of course, I do think that the concepts that I'm proposing have a near perfect chance of being bad in practice if implemented without any further tweaking.

But imo some of the systems do need to be obstacles of some kind to make the game more challenging and enjoyable. For example, it's too easy to become the most influential clan in a kingdom even if you're not the ruler by passing laws that may or may not be opposed by the lords due to voting ai in policies being mostly random (save for some effect of relations). A bad obstacle I would say is lords of your own faction declaring war on a faction you're collecting tribute from while you're already in a war. It lengthens the game by masking the bad AI kingdom management.

There is also the issue of some laws being objectively good (e.g. Forgiveness of the debts and castle charters) for little or no downside. There should be no reason for the AI to not enact Forgiveness of debts asap.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

But imo some of the systems do need to be obstacles of some kind to make the game more challenging and enjoyable. For example, it's too easy to become the most influential clan in a kingdom even if you're not the ruler by passing laws that may or may not be opposed by the lords due to voting ai in policies being mostly random (save for some effect of relations). A bad obstacle I would say is lords of your own faction declaring war on a faction you're collecting tribute from while you're already in a war. It lengthens the game by masking the bad AI kingdom management.

Yes, it is inconvient for your lords to decide that now is a perfect time to go to war with faction B while you are busy finishing off faction A. So, what are our options?

A- Accept it, an view it as (what it is probably intended to be) a challenge
B- Go to the forums and complain about how insanely stupid the AI is
C- Bleed them dry of influence so they cannot vote it through

This is fundamentally what the political system is. There is just nothing that the AI might suggest that we would want, if we wanted it we would already have voted it through.

 

[Totalgarbage]

I do understand and do agree with you. At the end of the day, even with mods, the politics in the game will be lacklustre due to the reason a, it is probably a way of stopping the player from steamrolling. And yes, you're right that there are workarounds that the player can do that are cheesy. The game will never be perfect, and other aspects such as bad AI decisions will have to mask the worse parts of the game (such as having little to do during peace). While we can of course cry for feasts and poems and whatever on the forums, one mechanic will have to overshadow another, meaning battles being prioritised over politics.

However, what I heavily disagree with is the AI voting against its own interests even if they don't have that high a relation with the player. The lower tier clans should propose and vote for policies that increase their influence (& decrease others' influence) and vice-versa for high tier clans. A cautious clan leader should oppose a war declaration with a neighbouring faction while a valorous and/or greedy one should vote for it. Or one of my biggest gripes, some no name player with a t2 clan, no relations or holdings shouldn't even be considered for the position of the ruler. The game should either stop lying about relation loss for voting against as a king, or actually cause relation loss for overturning a majority vote. Etc. etc.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

However, what I heavily disagree with is the AI voting against its own interests even if they don't have that high a relation with the player. The lower tier clans should propose and vote for policies that increase their influence (& decrease others' influence) and vice-versa for high tier clans. A cautious clan leader should oppose a war declaration with a neighbouring faction while a valorous and/or greedy one should vote for it. Or one of my biggest gripes, some no name player with a t2 clan, no relations or holdings shouldn't even be considered for the position of the ruler. The game should either stop lying about relation loss for voting against as a king, or actually cause relation loss for overturning a majority vote. Etc. etc.

If the goal is to put obstacles/challenges in the way of the player, you dont really need the AI to make sensible proposals. But ok, it might be more digestive/immersive if there were some alignment.

 

[Totalgarbage]

I should've specified obstacles that make sense game vise I suppose. Like idk a T4 clan leader not agreeing their daughter marrying a T1 clan without a heavy cost even after a chat check or something for example, not the AI respawning with 50 tier 5 & 6 troops to artificially increase the difficulty (couldn't really think of a good example). Weird difficult is why I personally hate RBM, with tournaments being inhumanely hard and heavy cav doing ungodly damage with near to no counter, etc.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

I should've specified obstacles that make sense game vise I suppose. Like idk a T4 clan leader not agreeing their daughter marrying a T1 clan without a heavy cost even after a chat check or something for example, not the AI respawning with 50 tier 5 & 6 troops to artificially increase the difficulty (couldn't really think of a good example). Weird difficult is why I personally hate RBM, with tournaments being inhumanely hard and heavy cav doing ungodly damage with near to no counter, etc.

You can have more expensive wifes if you want. Just dont take away respawning AI parties, I wouldnt know how to play the game if I didnt have a constant stream of enemies to hunt

 

[xdj1nn]

The problem with most good ideas are that they only really going to be good in theory. In practise, it is just fare more likely that it is something you are going to work around instead of embracing. There is always a risk in generalising (and being alitte too cynical perhaps) but

If we take something like the ability for companions to die as an example. If I had to make a guess then it is fare more likely that players work around it rather than actually embracing it. Maybe by placing them well to the rear, maybe by ordering them to retreat at the start of a battle or perhaps as a reason to take those skills personally. The number of players who actually just let things flow as they may, is probably very very small.

Another example. There has been plenty of posts over time arguing that traits should play a bigger role. But there is one place where it does actually play a role and that is for sieges (cruel/merciful). So what do (I) do? Work around it. First line of defence is to avoid hiring merciless lords and the second is to just not call them. Management by excel when you start getting too many.. Does it really add anything?

The culture penalty. Best course of action, work around it.

The "political system". Best course of action, work around it.

And the list probably goes on and on.

so you believe you hold the best insight as to how people should play their singleplayer, and as such you oppose anything that some may or may not try to avoid because reasons? Makes absolutely no sense.

More is more, always better if it's regarding depth and wider roleplaying ability. The real question here is, why do you oppose something that won't make a difference to you because you will "work around" anyway (and if it's optional as in "options menu" choice you'll simply disable it), or if you'd embrace it (quite unlikely considering your line of reasoning) you'd deny yourself enriching the experience because "people would work around it"? Are you competing with other people playing their singleplayer? How does that work?!?!
Summing up your arguments and where you're coming from the game must have less because you say so... Incredible reasoning.

Executions are terrible because just 2 or 3 of them make the whole map hate you even if you executed one of the clan's arch-nemeses. Just tone the relationship loss down quite significantly, and maybe make executions help increase relations with cruel lords and enemy clans to the deceased.

On the other hand, being a king or vassal is plain boring because there are no inner kingdom politics. Lords don't consciously start votes for policies and they most of the time don't vote for what's in their clan's best material interest or according to their traits. Votes for seizing fiefs or kicking clans out of your kingdom never happen. Unhappy clans with money don't secede from the kingdom. You can't even start a vote for making the king abdicate, which I imagine would be beyond easy to implement. Your character is selected the ruler of the faction 99% of the time even if you're a landless tier 2 clan that joined the faction 5 days ago. The king doesn't suffer any relation penalties for overturning a majority vote. Don't even get me started on clans voting for newer wars for no reason while you're already fighting in 1-2 fronts already.

Honestly, one of the worst parts of the game has consistently been the late game precisely because these systems are not fleshed out or straight up broken. I honestly believe most of the community would be satisfied with what I've written above being fixed + landline messengers + non-aggression pacts and trade agreements (not even alliances) being implemented for late game. It obviously wouldn't be perfect but just these additions would make the game so incredibly much better.

@Duh_TaleWorlds, are there any improvements on the late game for the release?

I never oppose any ideas that may give the game more depth, but I also doubt TW will do anything more advanced than what we're seeing right now. All cheese will be punished severely in-game, relations are likely to remain as shallow as they currently are and NPC's will most likely remain playing the role of bots / numbers. I don't think they've ever intended for the game to have a strong RPing possibility, which's odd because without it the game becomes exceptionally boring overtime... As is I suspect they want to DLC all the fun stuff and just let the community make good games out of their skeleton barebones while they cash-in as much as possible from it.
What ticks to me is that they've given a lot of attention towards numbing the experience and turning every efficient strategy into "non-viable" through their odd balancing, this made me suspect they intend to make the base-game excrutiatingly annoying so they can "sell the solution to the problem they've created" through DLC (I hope I'm wrong) while also inflating playtime numbers artificially to claim success

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

so you believe you hold the best insight as to how people should play their singleplayer, and as such you oppose anything that some may or may not try to avoid because reasons? Makes absolutely no sense.

More is more, always better if it's regarding depth and wider roleplaying ability. The real question here is, why do you oppose something that won't make a difference to you because you will "work around" anyway (and if it's optional as in "options menu" choice you'll simply disable it), or if you'd embrace it (quite unlikely considering your line of reasoning) you'd deny yourself enriching the experience because "people would work around it"? Are you competing with other people playing their singleplayer? How does that work?!?!
Summing up your arguments and where you're coming from the game must have less because you say so... Incredible reasoning.

It doesnt add more "depth". Is adds more tedium.

 

[xdj1nn]

It doesnt add more "depth". Is adds more tedium.

to you maybe, to ppl RPing who aren't "power-gaming" like teenagers, it adds depth

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

to you maybe, to ppl RPing who aren't "power-gaming" like teenagers, it adds depth

Wow, congratulation.

 

[xdj1nn]

Wow, congratulation.

for what? bringing up that RPers don't care about losing? I'd tell you to steer clear from games focused on RPing that are built as sandboxes, like avoid CK games, they are meant for that kind of play mentality (RPing where you actually have a chance to lose and the game isn't necessarily over for it)

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

for what? bringing up that RPers don't care about losing? I'd tell you to steer clear from games focused on RPing that are built as sandboxes, like avoid CK games, they are meant for that kind of play mentality (RPing where you actually have a chance to lose and the game isn't necessarily over for it)

For your rhetorical provess ofcourse.

Most impressive.

 

[xdj1nn]

For your rhetorical provess ofcourse.

Most impressive.

If you don't have anymore juice to counter an argument, the smartest move's to keep quiet, otherwise you start looking like a fool...

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

If you don't have anymore juice to counter an argument, the smartest move's to keep quiet, otherwise you start looking like a fool...

I know!
But then again, you could also just go "like teenagers" in your post instead.

 

[Bluko88]

Executions are terrible because just 2 or 3 of them make the whole map hate you even if you executed one of the clan's arch-nemeses. Just tone the relationship loss down quite significantly, and maybe make executions help increase relations with cruel lords and enemy clans to the deceased.

On the other hand, being a king or vassal is plain boring because there are no inner kingdom politics. Lords don't consciously start votes for policies and they most of the time don't vote for what's in their clan's best material interest or according to their traits. Votes for seizing fiefs or kicking clans out of your kingdom never happen. Unhappy clans with money don't secede from the kingdom. You can't even start a vote for making the king abdicate, which I imagine would be beyond easy to implement. Your character is selected the ruler of the faction 99% of the time even if you're a landless tier 2 clan that joined the faction 5 days ago. The king doesn't suffer any relation penalties for overturning a majority vote. Don't even get me started on clans voting for newer wars for no reason while you're already fighting in 1-2 fronts already.

Honestly, one of the worst parts of the game has consistently been the late game precisely because these systems are not fleshed out or straight up broken. I honestly believe most of the community would be satisfied with what I've written above being fixed + landline messengers + non-aggression pacts and trade agreements (not even alliances) being implemented for late game. It obviously wouldn't be perfect but just these additions would make the game so incredibly much better.

@Duh_TaleWorlds, are there any improvements on the late game for the release?

They seemed to have been improved a bit, at least in some cases:

(Seems really odd his own clan dey Valant literally doesn't care)

The problem is the relationship hits are all so random (after a bit of my own testing), so sometimes you do still get like -60 relation hits with Clans/Factions when the executed isn't even really affiliated with them. If I recall most of the relationship penalties are determined by who the executed friends are, but those lists are so large and random they don't make any sense. It may still be random for the relationship hits too, think it was that way at one point. Like how how would a Vlandian noble be friends with a Khuzait noble when they don't even share borders?


I get there needs to be some discouragement for executions, otherwise it's all too simple just to execute all the Lords you capture. The way relationships is gained/lost currently is pretty poor overall though. Do a quest for someone and you might only improve your standing by +3, dump a half dozen prisoners in a Lords dungeon and now your +100 having become their best friend forever?

The other glaring problem is A.I. never executes anyone themselves (except Rebels sometimes?) Obviously you don't expect a Honest/Merciful Lord to execute anyone, but what about Dishonest/Cruel Lords? If you're constantly raiding their villages and you reach -100 with them, why wouldn't they execute you or a fellow clan member when captured?

But relationship strength doesn't matter much outside of trying to convert Lords. Well and you can get locked out of Castles.

Tweaking my earlier post, maybe this would be more reasonable?
Clan of executed: -75 relations
Fellow Kingdom vassals of executed: -15 relations
Friends of executed: -10 relations
Merciful/Honest/Valor Nobles: -5 relations
Cruel/Dishonest/Cowardly Nobles: +5 relations
Enemies of executed: +10 relations

Of course Friends/Enemies need to be more logically defined. Ideally they would develop organically over course of a game session.

The trait system drive me nuts, it's literally right here and could add so much dynamism to the game. But TW doesn't seem to being doing anything with it at all other then a select few checks (like when you loot a fief).

 

[xdj1nn]

They seemed to have been improved a bit, at least in some cases:

(Seems really odd his own clan dey Valant literally doesn't care)

The problem is the relationship hits are all so random (after a bit of my own testing), so sometimes you do still get like -60 relation hits with Clans/Factions when the executed isn't even really affiliated with them. If I recall most of the relationship penalties are determined by who the executed friends are, but those lists are so large and random they don't make any sense. It may still be random for the relationship hits too, think it was that way at one point. Like how how would a Vlandian noble be friends with a Khuzait noble when they don't even share borders?


I get there needs to be some discouragement for executions, otherwise it's all too simple just to execute all the Lords you capture. The way relationships is gained/lost currently is pretty poor overall though. Do a quest for someone and you might only improve your standing by +3, dump a half dozen prisoners in a Lords dungeon and now your +100 having become their best friend forever?

The other glaring problem is A.I. never executes anyone themselves (except Rebels sometimes?) Obviously you don't expect a Honest/Merciful Lord to execute anyone, but what about Dishonest/Cruel Lords? If you're constantly raiding their villages and you reach -100 with them, why wouldn't they execute you or a fellow clan member when captured?

But relationship strength doesn't matter much outside of trying to convert Lords. Well and you can get locked out of Castles.

Tweaking my earlier post, maybe this would be more reasonable?
Clan of executed: -75 relations
Fellow Kingdom vassals of executed: -15 relations
Friends of executed: -10 relations
Merciful/Honest/Valor Nobles: -5 relations
Cruel/Dishonest/Cowardly Nobles: +5 relations
Enemies of executed: +10 relations

Of course Friends/Enemies need to be more logically defined. Ideally they would develop organically over course of a game session.

The trait system drive me nuts, it's literally right here and could add so much dynamism to the game. But TW doesn't seem to being doing anything with it at all other then a select few checks (like when you loot a fief).

a sound suggestion, pretty logical and makes executions into a viable path either gameplay-wise or as a RPing tool (like killing those who raid your villages). That means we ain't getting it because that's how TW rolls:

Spoiler: suggestion box

"OH! GREAT SUGGESTION! DENIED! IT DOESNT FOLLOW OUR VISION™!" ::