Recent content by ChiefGameMinister

They need to create a universal death algorithm that, has realistic randoms, inclusive of the player battle and all battle, the type of battle, the age, the medicine factors, outnumbered battle, yes or no, how many lives of the cat? For each lord and noble. Were they wounded recently? Did they come into battle wounded? Many things.

This is simply one long calculation, based on +1, -1, +.5, to then impact the random calculator.

This then applies to all real-time and simulations. Then they need to run a total game simulation, and ensure over the total, the sandbox remains alive, and clans still functioning, and only in rare events, do clans get wiped out, but it should happen on occasion.

--> This requires about twenty or so factors, to contribute to a Noble receiving a greater chance of death, or less.

The current state of the death in player only battle, I would classify as very bad design idea, or a bug. That makes the player a death bringer, and of course, the lop sided clans.

Example: When a player is battling 500* vs 50, death should be .15 percent chance, yet still a chance. This chance should then increase to .45, if a character comes into battle 90% wounded.
In the reverse situation, 50* vs 500, the death chance, is .25 percent chance. This chance should then increase or decrease, per co-factor.

(my calculations might be out of line here in these percentages, though it is not the point of accuracy, only a basework programming of how the function should work -- the chance of each battle, should fit within the greater wheel of the death target in battle for the entire map)

This is all fitting within a reverse engineer goal macro-total goal, of the total average death rate of all Kingdoms. First create the target rate on average for the total worldwide map of <death in battle>. Then reverse to find the micro of those instances with the inducing factors, so that it simulates the average, of long-time sandbox play (death in battle per hours of real clocked gameplay time), the extremes coming into play, but not affecting ten individual game distinct average.

The death calculation on the whole, needs to be redone, and reworked. It ought to be not too realistic, but include the fun factor of play. If there is to be a custom death slider, that can bring total realism, this could cause most clans to be wiped out, as this is a game of war, and not total reality, where war and battle is always happening.

So in this case of the game, fun factor, I would create a mean, or a average death rate goal, for all clans, to die in battle. This is the goal.
This would be, for example, 1 Noble die in battle per 3 month [3 months is only my rough balance assumption] per kingdom, on average.
This would allow the sandbox to continue. This average can be taken to some extremes, based on unlikely coinciding factors.

These factors might superficially be, above age 45 and in battle, bad medicine skill in the party, then you might at the extreme have two Nobles die per 3 months in the Kingdom via battle, and no more than 3 at most, from differing clans.

This algorithm must work through total simulation of all activity in the map, so that about 1 Noble is dying per time, as per a realism in battle, yet not randomly chosen, it must be as per the many factors that allow it. It could also be the inverse, that no nobles die per a length of time because of those factors. Though, these extreme factors, must be come within a ten game average, for ten distinct game simulated results.

Then, the same code, should apply to the real-time battle, and the real-time battle should have nothing to do with the death rate.
So the beginning, is to create target, of How many nobles do we want to die in battle on average when we totally simulate the game? How does this work with the longevity of the sandbox, and this should also include the possibility of weaker clans completely getting wiped out.

It is supposed to inflect a realism of warfare, including death in battle, yet also perseverance of the sandbox.

It is not working properly, or how it should. Some things here:

- They might be getting xp, but the upgrade option might only come when you move them to your party
- and/or it happens slowly, or might not be working fully, or two slow (most likely)*
* Because some people have observed upgrades when transferring from garrison to the party.
- If having a training field level 3, and basic recruits are not upgrading at all, even when you transfer to party, then it appears it is not working as it should at all

Ought to happen:

- The upgrades should be visible within the garrison
- Then, once that is working, check to see if the xp per day, is working adequately

How should it work is also the question:
- Are troops in party getting xp per day, simply from time? In Warband this was tactics based? Now is stewardship? (not sure)
- In this case, in my view of design, garrison daily xp should be 50% slower than Party gain xp, with training fields III
- Then training fields I, and II, are simply the same ratio difference as they are already.

My own party does not upgrade much at all just by time motion, and no battle experience.

If we could see the upgrades in the garrison window, this would be the beginning. Let me go to my other castle, and check. I have had some recruits their for aeons. Let me transfer them to my party, and see.

I have one upgradeable sturgeon woodsman after transferring all of them to my party, from my castle garrison.
-- This should signify that it is working, since I never give over upgraded troops to the garrison.

However, then I have transferred over 59 sturgeon recruits, and not one upgrade. And this is questionable then that tier one recruits are getting no training, or perhaps no troops at all, and that one woodsman was already in upgrade mode.

The garrison in my idea of how it should work, should be upgrading troops within, and showing those upgrades possible, when you visit the holding. I will now travel to Omor. And check there to see if garrison troops can upgrade, by transferring to my party, as I have a training field there. I also have tried many governors at times, with some xp addition to troops.

79 sturgeon recruits in Omor, Some have existed for about 2 years, since my children are born after I own Omor.

Transferred to my party, and no upgrades possible. This shows to me:

1/ the daily xp as should work, is not working as it should, by my tests
2/ The garrison should be showing these upgrades, and the player ought to be able to upgrade within the garrison when visiting ^

Therefore, this is definitely something Taleworlds needs to get working, and yes, it should be a simple thing, I would imagine, only one day of programming. However, I am not sure how they manage their resources there. Assumably, you would have an AI programmer, and another programmer to do the Time motion of economy/garrison training/fief incomes/quest generation other such things.

?‍

Zerofive said:

call me an optimist, but i still believe in the great game that is still ahead of us...it will just take longer than we all want to. Just thinking about the modding community, even if these siege bugs will be present in the final version, im betting 20 denars that some talented individual will have this fixed within weeks

Click to expand...

Optimists are rare on the internet.

paladinx333 said:

The ladders themselves seem to work just fine. You can literally shove a soldier onto the ladder and if their feet touch it, they will climb up. The interaction between the ladder and ai agent seems good.

The problem that I have observed is one of queuing. The men standing about the ladders are waiting for something. You can often run through them, bumping them around. This sometimes stimulates a few of them to climb the ladders. Giving them orders to charge doesn't seem to do anything.

Whatever type of "controller" is running the siege is not giving proper instruction to the soldiers that should be climbing the ladders. This leaves most of them in a perpetual wait state. They are given instructions to run to the ladders, but only some of them seem to get the instruction to begin climbing.

The ladder climbing is better in some scenes. There are two battanian castles and the town of Revyl where non-tower ladder climbing seems to work better. Some of the ladder climbing issues are scene specific.

Those siege towers are pretty crazy. In one siege, my men would not climb up the siege ladders, but the defenders began climbing DOWN the ladders. I stood at the bottom of the tower, shooting the defenders in the ass as they attempted to climb down. And they were using all three ladders!

This seems like it should be easily fixable. I would make the ladder and siege towers themselves give climb-up instructions to the men nearest their base. The soldiers have no trouble getting to the ladders, they just need some help on deciding when to start climbing.

Click to expand...

Sometimes they are waiting for a command, Sometimes they are attempting to go somewhere, and it is because of the collisions around the ladder, and how the troops work together with the same command.

For example, say you also have 50 troops with the same command to attack the final two units on the battlefield. They all swarm towards the units all attempting to attack.

Saying to 50 units, attack two units, can sometimes make those two units harder to hit, because of the collisions, and sometimes those two units, at first get more attacks in, before finally they do go down, because of the collisions. Battle is not exactly the swan lake of real battle.

Thus, there is an issue

1/ The program loop of command - Some units are not trying to climb the ladders at all in the grounded base ladder
--- The only time that they do try to climb again, is when the defender knocks the ladder down, and they get a climb order when the ladder is put to the wall again
2/ Siege tower - Collisions of units, that you as the player can bump the units up the siege ladder

And obviously, the programmer is having problems solving this, or else it would be solved. So we are then waiting on the programmer to solve his problem. Perhaps another programmer would solve it more quickly. Yet I am not in charge of human resources at that company, or how they do things.

I can only imagine, eventually, they will solve their problem, or the programmer having the issue, will solve it.