Recent content by Cerber
-
Discussion + Suggestions
I remember a few versions ago (maybe 0.8 and upto/or 1.0) each faction had a lot of troops in cities and castles. After a capture by AI, they would replenish some respectable number, but nowhere near the initial amount. Once they lost a war and depleted most of their manpower, the recovery was poor, no lord was ever the same past his first total defeat.
Same thing is happening and has been happening. The initial lords that are better organized or luckier in their fight choices just snowball over the rest. I suspect this is a common cause for a lot of problems- hard-to-survive minor factions, easy steamroll of major ones. I understand there's a code to force a lord to be passive until he trains up troops.
Suggestion: tweak that code to require full recovery of each lord and their walled fiefs if in peace, the monarch to refrain from war if his faction is not around full recovery, not just replenished numbers by peasants.
Suggestion 2: minor factions to have higher normalized number of garrisons and party sizes. They are smaller factions, so for them to even hope to stay independent, they have to be like porcupines and not get steamrolled.
Note: in an old update, the at the time single castle was easy to takeover, given the gate was wide open. I have not yet checked if this is the case still, but a bottleneck is an absolute must, just for balance reasons. A gate is not a comparable bottleneck to a ladder or two, where two units can't stand side by side.- Cerber
- Post #3,355
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Discussion + Suggestions
This I so agree with. Would definitely be a used too by all who don't wish to have a map of just 2-3 dominant factions after some IG months of gameplay. Should also be valuable for all fans of minor factions. For example I'd love to utilize this to rekindle Sut and Cretas after I take hold of the neighbouring lands (which by the time I have a stable army and hold, they are certainly wiped).
No longer would I need to babysit useful factions that get ganged up on and never recover. Could we get a reply on this?- Cerber
- Post #3,306
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Perisno Q&A + FAQ
This thread is linked under Perisno 1.0 thread/useful links
And specifically:
"2) Tax inefficiency only applies to money that has to travel (and therefore get stolen/lost/etc. somewhere on the way), e.g.:
- your walled fief lacks money to pay for garrisoned troops and therefore this money is taken from your cash
- you avoided activating AM mode and all the profits are delivered to you instead of accumulating
Tax inefficiency depends on the distance."- Cerber
- Post #6,111
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Perisno Mod Bug Reports
I assumed something like this was the case, but mostly am pointing at the bear as making no sense, thus considering it a bug per the choice.- Cerber
- Post #2,870
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Perisno Mod Bug Reports
After completing Khivachis' quests and she joins my party, she is on a black bear, not a wyvern. Bears being Aurolo mounts, I assume this is a bug. I had to give her the reward wyvern, thus leaving none extra for me or another companion.- Cerber
- Post #2,868
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Discussion + Suggestions
A player can observe the various amounts of acres developed, population, the levels of rent, upkeep, costs of buying/developing land. The max-prosperity towns (very rich status) top off at a rounded size of population (can't remember number), which always leads to the above mentioned 50 acres limit.
A general rule of thumb is never to develop land, just buy up what's already there. The only purpose is if developing it now makes it cheaper than buying it when the town is prosperous, but I haven't cared to look for- or analyze the trade-off. I suspect it's minimal, unless the town's prosperity can be significantly boosted for a short amount of time.
Free tip for anyone not digging in gameplay mechanics and patch-logs: set your taxes to accumulate in fiefs to avoid suffering tax inefficiency for said fiefs.- Cerber
- Post #3,294
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Discussion + Suggestions
It's quite an old mechanic and it's been discussed here already. Income from land is dependent on population (linked to prosperity). If you:
1)develop more land than the maximum population of the town(amounting to 50 acres max IIRC) or
2)the economy shrinks drastically and you had the maximum land plots
This means your upkeep is higher than the profit from the land.
I'm going to guess you developed more land beyond the maximum.- Cerber
- Post #3,292
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Perisno Mod Bug Reports
I imagine you have a lot on your plate, so wouldn't expect you to see everything. My prisoner-based strategy is to fill skill-boosting specialists through captured enemies, which means I'd hunt for exact prisoners, not caring so much for overall prisoner pool size. I've extremely rarely seen paries in the thousands in my playthroughs over the years, so the screenshot is not of something I've lived through. Given this subjectivity, I wouldn't rely on prisoner pool fertility as a justification to ignore the impossibility of this party-build tactic.
The 50% K.O. rate and prisoner recruitment restrictions introduced in 0.9 effectively destroy the effectiveness of capturing troops by directly attacking their parties. I get the measures weren't aimed at that, but the effect to this strategy is purely destructive.
The only alternative is to rescue captured prisoners, which this (what I assume is a bug either in the game or the mod) discounts.
So attacking a party with (e.g)13 desired prisoners and getting (e.g)5, with the more direct tactic rendered impossible, it takes a magnitude of more effort to maintain skilled troops from varying cultures if I am to wage frequent wars, that simply gets me stuck having to focus almost exclusively on this.
P.S. with the 100% K.O. tweak you kindly provided, I no longer would be significantly affected by this, as I have an alternative now. Once more, thank you!
New notes:
Bug 1: Removing the tracking bonus on mounts and specialist troops is fine, but should be updated in the game for mounts. I overlooked that change, so only realized the change after searching in the board before posting just now.
Bug 2: On Meadbrewer quest, at the point where you find the contact in a random town. If there is an active large bounty tavern quest, the random questgiver says: "Ha! Just got the message. This problem decided patrol" - and no further quest is started, while the last one is completed, killing this quest. There should be a warning or a chance to take the quest form that person once the tavern quest is completed. Also the dialog should be fixed, as what I quoted means nothing. Minor additional bug: The "Beehouse" location upon entry says "You enter the salt mine"- no mention of a salt mine in the quest. Nor a "Beehouse", IIRC (could be wrong on this last part).
(Made this a new post to avoid double post, yet to notify about the additions.)- Cerber
- Post #2,643
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Perisno is Recruiting
Seeing some of the English dialog appearing... strange or clumsy at times, I'd be happy to help improving the English version. I have a Cambridge certificate at level C1 and am doing a Master's degree in the language. If needed, I'd prefer it if I'm pointed to dialog that is known to need improvement, as I suspect full analysis of all dialog would be a bit too high of a workload for my free time.- Cerber
- Post #21
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Discussion + Suggestions
Meadbrewer quest definitely could use dialog clarifications (drinking a little and not to the bottom doesn't tell me in any way I'd stop the quest there, or that I wouldn't like it and not proceed for example).
Dialog could use english language improvement. ("I circuited the town", "Meadbrewer is a retired mercenary guild of adventurers"). If the dev team needs minor help there, I could help, but can't commit as a full-time contributor, as I expect I won't manage to handle a lot of work.
Will also drop a comment on the recruitment post in case there's need of me.- Cerber
- Post #3,218
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Discussion + Suggestions
Thank you very much! That enables my preferred playstyle again.- Cerber
- Post #3,215
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Discussion + Suggestions
Cerber said:
Re-voicing my question. I hope it can be edited within a text file. Surely there's someone with the knowledge kind enough to to let me make a personal change.- Cerber
- Post #3,213
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Perisno Mod Bug Reports
Cerber said:Sure, I'll try. Just need to remember to track it before a battle and test it out. I'll keep a lookout when I engage single parties. For group parties it would be too hard to track. Once I remember to check for and capture a case with screenshots before and after, I'll upload here and will have a save/stats report ready if needed.
On a side note: My current playthrough has a lot of diplomacy. It's to the point that a single war declaration would lead to a cascade of 11 to follow. This is given. While it is incredibly interesting, it is highly unnatural for the game and diverts too much attention towards diplomacy just to have a war against one faction without being overrun by so many others at bad odds.
From the perspective of Elintor, they ended up from having 2 wars (vs Tolrania and Sut) to waging war against a total of 8 factions, out of 14 possible. World war Perisno is nothing I've seen around notes, so is it a unique low-chance development or the new standard? Just being a Tolranian lord to preserve their lands before the Zann invasion, I found they've been easily beaten without my help just because of a maintained alliance with Maccavia and the two factions constantly sandwiching the poor reds. I believe the previous versions (if anything has changed) were much more balanced, where alliances would be temporary and almost never long enough to lead to coordinated wars. Perhaps a check on renegotiating friendly terms is in order?
Update: found an almost defeated lord with a large prisoner train for me to test out my observations and the companion experiment:
Picture pre-battle:
Maths:
Result: I should be able to recruit all knights of the Eagle any any eagle troops below them.Relationship with Eagle minor faction: -15
Player level: 31
Persuasion: 7
Eagle retainer lvl : 26
Knight of the eagle lvl: 42
Demon worshipper lvl: 25
Checking calculation for knights: -15 + 3*7 > 0. Relation check positive. Recruitability: 31+ 2*7 > 42
Yet:
Picture post-battle with companions:Post-battle without companions:
Character sheet:
Renown:
Game version:1.174
Results: Didn't get as many Eagle pilgrims as were in the prisoner train, without companions- 1 eagle retainer disappeared. In both cases, demon units would disappear, notably less without companions.
Let me know if you need more input. The losses are potential neutral party recruits and profits.
3rd point: If Bakhal giants are defeated and since their lords refuse to serve puny humans, why don't they seek service under the Sut? Shame to disable lords like that... Is this intended? I feel like it's not, hence why I write this here.
Was the disappearing prisoners bug looked into? I didn't receive a reply for quite a while and dropped my playthrough back in 2018 as my strategy was effectively ruined due to what appears as meaningless hardship. Would test it in the new version, as I am starting a new playthrough, but will take time. Until then I hope I get some feedback. Will update once I test it again.
P.S. I am sure I will appreciate the calmer diplomacy that I also expressed as a side note in this post back then. Thank you!- Cerber
- Post #2,641
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Perisno Mod Bug Reports
Appreciate your help. I post here to ask for a fix and sadly don't have the time to run such excessive testing. I'm using the original + HF3, never got the CTD issue apart form the vanilla alt+tab crash.- Cerber
- Post #2,468
- Forum: Perisno [S]
-
Perisno Mod Bug Reports
Sure, I'll try. Just need to remember to track it before a battle and test it out. I'll keep a lookout when I engage single parties. For group parties it would be too hard to track. Once I remember to check for and capture a case with screenshots before and after, I'll upload here and will have a save/stats report ready if needed.
On a side note: My current playthrough has a lot of diplomacy. It's to the point that a single war declaration would lead to a cascade of 11 to follow. This is given. While it is incredibly interesting, it is highly unnatural for the game and diverts too much attention towards diplomacy just to have a war against one faction without being overrun by so many others at bad odds.
From the perspective of Elintor, they ended up from having 2 wars (vs Tolrania and Sut) to waging war against a total of 8 factions, out of 14 possible. World war Perisno is nothing I've seen around notes, so is it a unique low-chance development or the new standard? Just being a Tolranian lord to preserve their lands before the Zann invasion, I found they've been easily beaten without my help just because of a maintained alliance with Maccavia and the two factions constantly sandwiching the poor reds. I believe the previous versions (if anything has changed) were much more balanced, where alliances would be temporary and almost never long enough to lead to coordinated wars. Perhaps a check on renegotiating friendly terms is in order?
Update: found an almost defeated lord with a large prisoner train for me to test out my observations and the companion experiment:
Picture pre-battle:
Maths:
Result: I should be able to recruit all knights of the Eagle any any eagle troops below them.Relationship with Eagle minor faction: -15
Player level: 31
Persuasion: 7
Eagle retainer lvl : 26
Knight of the eagle lvl: 42
Demon worshipper lvl: 25
Checking calculation for knights: -15 + 3*7 > 0. Relation check positive. Recruitability: 31+ 2*7 > 42
Yet:
Picture post-battle with companions:Post-battle without companions:
Character sheet:
Renown:
Game version:1.174
Results: Didn't get as many Eagle pilgrims as were in the prisoner train, without companions- 1 eagle retainer disappeared. In both cases, demon units would disappear, notably less without companions.
Let me know if you need more input. The losses are potential neutral party recruits and profits.
3rd point: If Bakhal giants are defeated and since their lords refuse to serve puny humans, why don't they seek service under the Sut? Shame to disable lords like that... Is this intended? I feel like it's not, hence why I write this here.- Cerber
- Post #2,466
- Forum: Perisno [S]