I have concerns over the Mid and Late Game in v1.1.0 Beta and feel the gameplay has been degraded from previous versions.

[Drizzti]

I honestly never been so dissapointed in a game studio and normally I wouldn’t believe that they would need the AI because console. But console won the race, every game which is getting sold on console (but is kinda a PC game) is getting dumped down.
I dont even know why I still sometimes come here to check updates. Everytime Im here I want to write some useless **** against Talesworld.
They coulda just stopped one year ago and let modders do the rest. Instead alot of the modders have left and probably wont return and the game is getting worse not better and it never feels like any ‘community’ manager is actually reading posts and the replies they do give are some small questions about a bug.

RIP this game. Gl to those who can enjoy it and still have hope

 

[danEN]

I honestly never been so dissapointed in a game studio and normally I wouldn’t believe that they would need the AI because console. But console won the race, every game which is getting sold on console (but is kinda a PC game) is getting dumped down.
I dont even know why I still sometimes come here to check updates. Everytime Im here I want to write some useless **** against Talesworld.
They coulda just stopped one year ago and let modders do the rest. Instead alot of the modders have left and probably wont return and the game is getting worse not better and it never feels like any ‘community’ manager is actually reading posts and the replies they do give are some small questions about a bug.

RIP this game. Gl to those who can enjoy it and still have hope

honestly, it's sad to see them become like so many other trash AAA game company's who design games with the focus of max profit


no longer are they that small indie company that wants to make fun games but some corporate .

 

[guiskj]

There is but it's not campaign AI, it's combat AI and I don't even think it does anything. Like does the AI fight even worse if you turn it down? I don't know but I can't imagine what they would do to be worse.

If I remember correctly from when I was toying with modding this very thing WAY BACK during EA, a unit's skills affect its combat AI rating.
This difficulty setting changes how much skill affects it, so that One Handed value of 100 can either be a imbecile or decent.

Funny thing is that, again based in how it used to be, the best unit AI possible is with a skill at 350, making it so that you never experience it. Kind stupid, imo.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

If I remember correctly from when I was toying with modding this very thing WAY BACK during EA, a unit's skills affect its combat AI rating.
This difficulty setting changes how much skill affects it, so that One Handed value of 100 can either be a imbecile or decent.

Funny thing is that, again based in how it used to be, the best unit AI possible is with a skill at 350, making it so that you never experience it. Kind stupid, imo.

Yeah and I can only think they must have downgraded it since. If you do a tournament, all the units and lords do the same behaviors. Only a slight swing speed+ can be perceived, but not enough to change anything.

 

[mujadaddy]

Yeah and I can only think they must have downgraded it since. If you do a tournament, all the units and lords do the same behaviors. Only a slight swing speed+ can be perceived, but not enough to change anything.

Nah, there's definitely a difference between wanderers, combat wanderers, ladies, & combat ladies besides swing speed. 1h+shield can get pretty annoying at high levels whereas there's rng reducing the lowbies' skills. Not saying there is a wide variety of tactics they use, just that they are smarter about their decision trees.

alot of the modders have left and probably wont return

Yeah well we don't have to concern ourselves with quitters

 

[NPC99]

As far as I can see, the maximum number of armies per faction doesn't appear to flex late game for territorial changes. My faction only ever has a maximum of 4 armies in the field (sometimes only one) whether it controls 10 towns or 40. Equally, defeated factions with minimal towns still raise up to 4 armies each, resulting in broken factions collectively fielding many more armies than any conquering faction. This makes unrealistic and immersion destroying late gameplay. IMO the maximum number of armies that a faction can field should be cut back to two if they control less than six towns and down to one if they only control castles.
Sieges are too easy for the attacker whether it be the player or AI, resulting in excessive turnovers. The only real protection is relieving armies attacking and driving off the besiegers. Defenders need to be given more of an advantage to rebalance outcomes. IMO stronger defences that take longer to overcome are a better safeguard against steam-rolling than unrealistic ratios of armies to supporting populations/resources.

 

[Brano]

IMO there should be only one army per kingdom led by the king. The king should have possibility to make detachments out of the army. As example, fast cavalry group to chase/harras smaller enemy groups, scout the area, do foraging => pillaging of settlements would get a reason to exist => we pillage to get our army fed. Could be done in a way player has it. Either by force or by persuasion/business.
On top of it, each army needs a war goal/target. What should be the target must be decided by war council. Another reason to have army camps in the game.
When player is a part of an army, he should receive orders from army commander. Not to relay/wait on rng ad-hoc blue exclamation mark that may or may not appear. This game needs more interaction of NPCs towards player.

 

[nyarlathotep1975]

IMO there should be only one army per kingdom led by the king. The king should have possibility to make detachments out of the army. As example, fast cavalry group to chase/harras smaller enemy groups, scout the area, do foraging => pillaging of settlements would get a reason to exist => we pillage to get our army fed. Could be done in a way player has it. Either by force or by persuasion/business.
On top of it, each army needs a war goal/target. What should be the target must be decided by war council. Another reason to have army camps in the game.
When player is a part of an army, he should receive orders from army commander. Not to relay/wait on rng ad-hoc blue exclamation mark that may or may not appear. This game needs more interaction of NPCs towards player.

That would mean more player controll. Not what TW likes.

 

[NPC99]

IMO there should be only one army per kingdom led by the king.

Would be worse IMO. Armies can co-operate, which is a good feature.