Recent content by CalenLoki

I'm glad someone is doing PW-like mod for BL. I'll probably make a map for it at some point, like in the good old days.

All those years that TW took to release BL gave me time to think how PW general idea could be improved.
My vision may be a bit to far from original for those who prefer "proven good" from "maybe better", and I'd gladly read your opinions.
It embrace combat, economy and politics, while neglecting RP a bit.
It's a wall of text, but I hope someone will find it interesting read. I just have to write down those ideas, otherwise they clog my head.

I can divide it into 4 main parts:

1. Locations
As map maker I'd love bigger part of what I design to play active role in power struggles. So I'd suggest adding a lot of capturable points that affect strategy, tactics and economy. By a lot I mean ~2-4 per village, ~6-10 per castle, ~10-15 per town and some in-between settlements. So Around 100 for big map. Things like keep, barracks, main gate, granary, stables, water-mill outside city walls, bandit camp, ect.

Locations would be linked with each other (when they have direct road connection)
Each location would be capturable. But kingdom could capture only those directly linked to their land. So i.e. besieging enemy castle would require taking all locations on the way one after another. No sneaky castle capture possible.
You could spawn at any of your faction location that is not at the frontline (not linked with enemy location). So defenders would be able to spawn closer to contested location (1 link) then attackers (2 links).

Each location would have 3 in-game objects: spawn point, capture point and goods terminal. Because you'd never capture and spawn the single location at the same time (capture only frontline, spawn only behind frontline) those could be placed very close to each other.

Some locations would be available only to start-ups. So newly created kingdoms, bandits, ect. If your kingdom owns any valid spawn location, those locations will reset it's ownership after 5 minutes. Also each kingdom can have only one of these.
I.e. you can clear a lair from bandits, capture it, withdraw all the resources, then let it reset (thus let bandits back in without weapons).

2. Economy
Unlike PW, where economy is grindy peasant work (i.e. holding LMB at tree/log/anvil, ect.) IMO it's better to focus on managing (decision making) and transporting (risk of moving from one place to another).

So player job would be taking goods from locations where they are not needed to those that can use or store them. Load pack horse/cart/wagon with goods from one location and ship them to other through dangerous roads full of potential encounters.
None of the goods would be carry-able by players.

Goods would be generalised (i.e. 1h weapons) instead of specific (short sword of virginity +2.5).

Each location constantly produce goods, based on permanent characteristics and current resources.
I.e. production of grains is based on field size, population and tools. Population requires food and clothes. Weapons or tools: workshops, population, tools, processed iron, charcoal, wood. And so on.

Each location also stores what it produced and/or received. But there is deterioration that scales exponentially: unnoticeable at lower levels, but hitting harder the more you hoarded. Some locations would be better or worse at storing specific type of goods: armoury, granary, treasure, warehouse, stable, barrack, ect.
It's to preventing players from mindlessly hoarding. And to allow economy to gradually reset when left unattended.

I though about 29 resources. But if it feels like too much complexity, that number could be halved by merging some of them.
5 raw resources: flax, gold ore, iron ore, wood
5 processed resources: linen fabric, woollen fabric, gold, charcoal, iron bars
10 equipment resources: clothes, tools, armour, weapons <1h, 2h, pa, bow, x-bow, throwing, shield> (or merged into melee, ranged, shield, but I feel locations would feel more unique with wider choice)
5 food types: grains, meat, fish, veggies, fruit. They could be alternatively merged into just "food", but separating may reward people with wide connections (bonus for diversity).
4 live resources: population, soldiers, horses, sheep

Location characteristics, set by map maker, would be production multiplayer and storage soft-limit for each of mentioned resources.
Preferably theses should scale with current server population, to prevent high-pop scarcity and low pop-overabundance on the same map.

3. Feudalism
I always find democratic or totalitarian "factions" unfitting for medieval setting. I'd much rather see feudal system. It allows richer internal politics, provides chain of command and visual distinctions between elites and commoners.

Simple principle: vassal pledge loyalty to his liege. His liege pledge to yet someone else. The guy on top of the ladder, who doesn't subject to anyone, becomes faction leader. At any point anyone can change his pledge. I.e. lord can declare independence, and he takes all his vassals with him.
For simplicity sake max 4 levels would be allowed (king, lords, knights, commoners).
Or it could scale with amount of players to keep on average 3 vassals for each liege. (i.e. 3 kings, each with 3 lords, each with 3 knights, each with 3 commoners). So up to 3 players 1 level, 4-12p 2 levels, 13-39 3 levels, 40-120 4 levels, 121+ 5 levels.

Locations would be owned privately. So they'd belong to specific person, rather than to entire faction. Only the owner and his lieges can withdraw goods without any limits. So it's important to share them between multiple faction members, to make management easier.

Newly captured location belongs to the player with the most vassals who participated in the assault.

4. Player character
I much prefer wider choice of playstyles, with a lot of equally viable choices. So perfect system for me would be cless-less system where character skills would be based on equipment choice and available resources.

Player would fill his character with generic equipment, within a limit of 10 points. I.e. 1h sword (3 points), shield (2p), medium armour (3p), throwing axe (1p), horse (1p). Character statistics would then be generated by multiplying those with available resource (sqrt of population + 5x sqrt of soldiers), then applying to an formula. Some items would affect multiple skills (i.e. throwing axe is also an 1h weapon), some would have negative effects (archery/xbow reduces athletics to prevent kiting).
Of course 2x more used resources doesn't mean

Weapon and armour would be generated in similar way (chosen points*sqrt of available resources).

You could upgrade equipment by visiting better equipped locations (i.e. visit armoury and stables after spawning in barracks). Still within your limits, but some locations can have better stuff for specific purpose.

Personally I'd force players to always spawn at closes available spawn point. Just to increase manpower distribution across the map. They could update their equipment and skills by visiting appropriate locations afterwards.

Owner of location and his lieges would get 2x more than everyone else in their faction.

It also gives potential tool for gameplay balancing in favour of smaller factions over zergs. I.e. your resource use could by reduced by your faction size (faction that contains 37% of server population has -37% lower stats).
Or it could create bigger distinction between nobles and commoners: resource usage multiplier equal to 50%+% of your faction that are your vassals (directly or indirectly). So king has always 150%, nobles 50%+(100%*(their vassals+1)/kingdom size) and commoners have 50%+(100%/kingdom size)


I hope you enjoy the read.
I'd love to hear your opinion.
If anyone is interested in more detailed formulas, I think in math-language.
I'll plug it in the discord-suggestions-bot-thingie later. Better to refine it first.

I don't like 0/1 systems, and locking gameplay behind grind walls.

However, I like the idea of trained troops cooperating better.

I'd make it more gradual: you can always order them to stay in certain formation, and they'll always try to fulfil those orders.
But they'll have random deviation from the position you gave them, delay in applying your orders, breaking off from the line to attack enemies or to retreat from the more intimidating, ect. The lower your and their tactic skill, the more noticeable the effect.

IMO it should be based on the amount of damage received in the last blow. In other words how much below 0 hp dropped.
Then depending on damage type and commander abilities, troop will live or not.
That would naturally keep high tier troop alive, due to their superior armour.

I.e. threshold for dying:
Blunt -60hp
Pierce - 30hp
Cut -20hp

I know in theory pierce should be more deadly than cut (it penetrates deeper), but death from infection is more likely than damaging internal organs. Also what game consider as "dead" can mean "permanently crippled, incapable of ever serving in military". Cut wounds can cause it more easily than relatively small pierce wound.

Nah.
But I wouldn't mind import/export buttons, so I don't have to repeat it again every time I start new campaign.

It's an good idea.

However, I'd rather have it as part of larger minor nobles/companions system.
Basically allow both player, other clans and maybe also settlement notables to have much more members (named characters). But most of them should have lower/different skills than main "general" nobles.
Their job would be recruiting troops, replenishing garrisons, training troops, bringing supplies to armies and castles, fighting bandits, trading ect. So all the things you were doing when you were tier 2 clan (except joining armies).
Player should be able to give them quite specific orders.
i.e. "take care of castle X and surrounding villages". Or "prepare troops for incoming campaign". Or "trade within our kingdom". Ect.

Some more ideas, mostly regarding formation AI:

Current health should affect position in formation as well, with wounded troops going into rear rows. It should also affect offence/defence ratio, with fresh troops being more aggressive. Maybe morale should do the same?

Position in formation should affect weapon choice (if troop has multiple melee weapons available). Those in first row should switch to shield if available, and those in back rows should switch to longer weapon. It means that group consisting of troops with exactly same loadout (i.e. shield+spear+sword) will switch to sword in the first row, and to spear in back rows.

I'll update first post.

I'd tie it also to food prices. Nothing pushes people to stealing as much as the fear of starvation.

And also relations between the lord and notables of his fief. Higher relations - less banditry. That will mostly hit newly conquered lands, where lords didn't manage to establish their rule and cooperate with local population.

Lord Claus said:

I'd prefer 2-handed to stay behind shielded troops while idle and only go forward in formation while formation is engaged in melee.

Click to expand...

Oh. My mistake. Of course I mean weapon length decrease it, pushing 2h and polearms to back lines.
Good catch.

Lord Claus said:

I wouldn't like my men crouching without orders, I like to see them standing. I know it is better if they crouched more often so they are smaller targets for missiles, but this is my personal visual preference.

Click to expand...

Main reason why I'd like them standing is to allow ranged units to shoot from behind them. It could be tied to stances (crouching only if you set to defensive. Or stand up only in aggressive) or their ranged weapon preferences ("hold fire" forces melee infantry to stand up).

I'll update first post.

I'd rather see that swarm joining siege battle on your back.

And/or allow leaving siege camp with some of the troops without dismantling the camp to get rid of the swarm before the assault.

And/or allow those small parties to try sneaking into the castle and join defenders.

Also from logical point of view your troops are indeed already on the walls, but your baggage train (all the horses, loot, wounded troops and prisoners) is still outside.

TheWitchIzalith said:

Yes, they are still retreating until they phase out of the map. You are just cleaning up stragglers. It happened in warband as well, and am 99% sure is intended.

Very few people ever just let armies route, and most casualties were inflicting WHILE they were retreating.

Click to expand...

He's talking about killing allies after the battle is over.

@ironiccookies there is thread somewhere suggesting relation penalty for friendly fire, especially after battle is over.

I see that balancing work is being done, even if with ups and downs. But I have just 2c to add:
1. When creating caravan, inform the player that it's very risky in the time of war. So they're aware that it's a gamble.
2. Never push such changes into stable before testing it in beta. We're here ready to take the first wave of issues after all.

Having their own parties? Don't think so. After all we employ them when they are broke.
Walking alone is also not an option, given how dangerous and full of bandits the game world is.

But I could see them joining trade caravans and travelling this way, rather than teleporting.

Good ideas.

Although patrolling troops should just level up from battles and their leader trainer skill (represented by tactics/leadership/steward/perks).
Also I don't see a reason to limit them to 1 season. Just make them come back home when they are low on food/troops/morale or too high on prisoners/loot. Then sleep few nights in bed and off to work again, until you tell them to stop. Renewing their orders is just unnecessary tedious.

In general I'd like to see more "minor nobles" that do all tasks like that (patrol, recruiting, trading, bring food from villages if it's running short, ect.) rather than anonymous groups without named commander.

*arenas
It took me until you mentioned tournament that I understood you're not talking about town size itself.
Also capitalisation of every single word is in general bad idea. Even in titles.

More on topic: I don't mind their size. Each culture has it slightly different.
What I do mind is the equipment choice. It uses t4 or t5 bow. That ting is extremely deadly, accurate, fast and impossible to dodge.
Archers in tournaments and practice are the most annoying already, when they quietly spawn behind you and shoot without any reaction chance for defence. But in Aserai arenas they almost never miss, and kill in 2 hits...