Defury的最近内容

Moton 说:

I think that instead of making the whole game based on cavalry we maybe should discuss another way the autocalc and such works. I mean if we follow this path every faction has to be a cav faction wich is super boring.

点击展开...

Sounds like a good way to improve the game. There are two ideas in my mind, how to tackle the autocalc:

Terrain influence:
Instead giving horses a flat bonus everywhere, give out a terrain base bonus:
- you fight in flat, open terrain? => bonus to cav.
- you fight in hills or defend walls? => bonus to archers
- you fight in thick forrests? => bonus to infantry.
- cant decide which terrain suits? => no one gets a bonus.

Army composition bonus:
Think of a form of "rock-paper-scicors". Like
- Cav beats archers
- archers beats infantry
- infantry beats cav
Can be different, but you get the idea.

Then, when two armies fight, you check the most common soldier type per army.
Army 1 has more infantry than anything else, it is an infantry army. Army 2 has more cav than anything else, it is an cav army. Hence Army 2 gets a bonus in this battle.

Obviously, you can go way more into detail about army compositon than "most common soldier" (especially since i suppose that "mostly archer"-armys are rare?). But you get the idea.

Tryvenyal 说:

Flaverwice they are lower nobility, not wanderers.

点击展开...

Well, one could also justify story-wise in the following ways:
- Clan is empty, no heir in sight. So the Clan leader adopts a child (new npc generated) to save his clan/legacy.
- Some Clanmember had a bastard child and has chosen/is forced to legimate the child.

But don't make it completly deterministic, like you roll a dice each month with probabilities:
- Chance of 0, when there is at least one clan member under 40. Otherwise (Average Clan Age - 40) % for adoption/bastard child.
- Double Chance for Adoption / Seduction when "Brave" or similar
- Half Chance when "cruel" or similar

Numbers subject to balancing. By using percentages / dice rolls, some clans will die out and some others will save their legacy by the means above. But not all clans will always adopt some one.


Second Idea:
When a Clan Member isnt married till the age of 30, he/she will consider marring a "lesser person" (new npc-spousse generated).

sniparsexe 说:

Target kingdom holds one of your castles / cities

点击展开...

Make that "target kingdom holds castles / cities of your culture". Then all (civil War) Empire factions have always valid Casus Belli against the other Empire Factions.

darkmanx23 说:

i havent crashed in months

点击展开...

Well, depends. Are you playing stable or beta branch?

The Version is rather important on this topic. I think in 1.5.2 or 1.5.3. they changed the rules of lords defecting because players had trouble keeping their lords. So, for 1.5.1 this might be a bug. But i dont know for sure. Maybe check old threads / patch notes.

At least in the current Versions 1.5.3/1.5.4 Lords will mostly only defect when they are somewhat poor.

TheFirstMaul 说:

so i have 2 towns and 3 castle's, iv lead my guys to almost 40% of the map, and taken 4 citys and 3 castles since i was last awarded a castle/city and yet i can not even vote for myself, its never an option.

点击展开...

Regarding this part, have a look at my Post here on a similiar question.

benefactr 说:

Not really sure but looks like the AI tries to give fiefs to the same person that has other fiefs in the area. That is what has happened to me once we took over the Aserai I pretty much got the bulk of their castles and towns in that area. Now if they capture something else far away no I never get the option.

点击展开...

Somewhere in this forum is a thread, where someone presented the factors used in the code. Here is what i remember from the top of my head:

- Distance between the new fief and your closest two fiefs matter. The closer, the better for you. If you only have one, it will only use this one for calculating the distance. If you don't have a fief, the game will treat you as if you have a fief right next to the new one. (This is why clans without fiefs often get the very remote castles deep inside enemy territory.)
- Clan strength relative to the amount of fiefs owned matters, i.e. number and quality of the troups in your party, your other clan parties (i think) and the garrisons relative to the amount of your fiefs. (I think, it also factors in the prosperity of the owned fiefs. Can't remember how though.)
- Clan Rank matters. The higher, the better.
- The Kind and the Conquerer get a bonus.

These rules apply to every clan in the kingdom. Also, this was for a previous version of the game, so there might have been tweaks. And also probably some minor stuff i don't remember.

So, in conclusion, to increase your odds of getting a fief / be included in the vote for ownership:
- Conquer new fiefs close to your previous ones
- Increase / improve your garrisons and personal army
- Increase your Clan Rank (if you are not rank 6 already. Should be max, i think).
- Be the Conquerer


Edit:

Big_Bitter_Bear 说:

i sieged and won the same castle 5 TIMES in a 1-hour period playing, never being a nominee for ownership.

点击展开...

You could estimate the distance from this castle to your holdings (just by eyeballing) and compare it with the clans, who usually appear in the votes for this castle. I would reckon, the holdings of the other clans are closer and hence they score higher in the priority for this castle.

Within the timeframe of 1 hour, there propably wouldn't be many changes in the variables influencing who ends up on the vote. Since you were not in the right position to be in the vote for this specific castle the first time, you consequently were not in the right position the next four times.

Thanks for the code analysis guys, love it.

Dabos37 说:

- The top dog score sounds great on papper, but It is not working as good as It should.

点击展开...

If the top dog faction is calculating by comparing kingdom strength at the moment of the "should i declare war"-decision, there will probably be some volatily about who is the top dog, especially in the early game. Consider this scenario:

Day 1: Vlandia and Sturgia are at war, Vlandia is the top dog.
Day 2: Vlandia and Sturgia fight a huge battle. Both lose a lot of man. This drops the strength of both factions and hence Aserai becomes top dog for some days. So Sturgia loses the "fighting top dog protection".
Day 4: Mongols (forgot the name, you know who) declare war at Stugia.
Day 6: Vlandia recovers from battle and is top dog again.

I don't know the numbers, so this is just made up. But i think, this could be possible. Maybe one could use a moving average for calculating the kingdom strength score?

zenDzee 说:

This explains why everyone in Calradia gang banging weak factions.

点击展开...

Well, it's also somewhat realistic, isn't it? When you see a kingdom being beaten up badly, everyone will try to get a piece of that cake. A kind of "low risk / possibly high reward" situation. Although i get, it's not so desirable balancing wise.