EirikrRaudi的最近内容

Occam 说:

First Aid 10+4 will help your companions but if you get knocked out it won't help you. You'll only get the heal from whatever First Aid skill the companion left standing with the next highest has...so 10, at best.

点击展开...

It's still useful to heal you in between the "sub-battles"; when the amount of soldiers is real great, and the battle is done in several stages, you get healed in between.

Maximus, yes, I almost always use 4 skillers and 4-6 fighters. Prisonners can be nice for money, I know many people use them that way, but in my games, money is never really a problem. In early game, I fill Calradia with enterprises, and then, denars just flow. That way, it's kind of a pity to use skillpoints in Prisonner Management.

Hmm to be honest, your question about 120 sea raiders really depends too much on my and my companions lvl, on difficulty settings, on the type of soldiers... If you really want to, you could solo them: run in circles around them (clockwise) at larger distance, let them run out of missiles, then circle closer to them and take them out 1 by 1 using a long range 2h weapon. But I wouldn't have the patience I like to play safe, I hate to get knocked out and let autocalc decimate my precious troops, it boundlessly frustrates me. I'd typically take no less than 25% or 33% of the enemy's amount of troops; would make the balance too bad.

LeChat 说:

All my companions have : Horse, 1h (sword, min 99 speed), Shield (min 100 speed), Bow, Arrows.

点击展开...

Well, I must say: although bows are my favourite ranged weapons, which I mostly use myself and also give to my fighters, I prefer to give crossbows to my skillers. Why? Because it needs no power draw there more skillpoints elsewhere.

Also, although I agree with Maximus that a doctor maxes out all 3 healing skills anyway, I think the First Aid skill is underrated. In end game, when very large battles happen, I don't mind losing a few soldiers, got enough money and Trainer anyway, but what pisses me out is to die myself. If you're wounded before the battle ends, autocalc decimates your army... Autocalc would kill a few of your 50 Swadian Knights when fighting 6 bandits. Hence, if you like large battles, First Aid 10+4 is a must. Wound Treatment is actually the least important medic skill in my eyes.

OK, maybe you and I have a different definition of super soldier. The person I got my strategy from made a lot of sense when he said there's little point in going beyond level 4 for combat skills. He said training combat skills to a high level isn't really worth it because, ultimately, each companion is only 1 soldier. I think that makes a lot of sense. So I get everyone to level 4, and outfitted as I described, before the mid-game. He said at that point they were super soldiers. So I'm using the term in the same way. I'm guessing that when you use the term, you mean combat skills are 10.

点击展开...

I don't agree with this. In some situations, especially sieges, it can be more important to have a few very fast and very strong soldiers rather than many decent ones. If you quickly breach the first line and let more soldiers land on the city wall, you're likely to win the siege without the defender being able to deploy all its men. If you kill them too slowly, you will be stuck in that eternal 4 vs. 2 fight at the top of the ladder, and you will have to bleed out the defender's whole garrison before you can win. That's why I'd rather advocate a pure skill monkeys and pure elite fighters distribution.

More importantly, I think 2h hammers a poor choice of weapon. Companions should definitely be protected by shields. Especially in harder difficulty level, without a shield, they will be very quickly taken out by a lost arrow shot from across the map... Also, I prefer fast hitting 1h weapons over strong slow weapons, as taking a hit interrupts your own attack. Theoretically, in a duel, a fast hitting recruit defeats a slow elite fighter this way. Think of the noob training in an arena: what do you most like to spawn with? Polearm? 2h sword? Or 1h + shield? Even without a shield, I'd rather go with a 1h sword than a 2h one.

Last, I personally think the conflicts between companions are not very dissuasive, as food and fights keep morale high enough anyway. As long as each companion has at most 1 enemy in your party, it's all fine, so, I think there's no need to be so strict about compatibility groups. Mostly, I end up with 8-10 companions chosen according to my mood, so long as I have 2 doctors (Ymira/Jeremus), an engineer(Artimenner et al.) and a scout(Deshavi/Borcha).

You could try and ask relatives of the prisoner lord for quests. Maybe they will give you the "Free a Prisoner" quest, which will give you his location. If nobody can or wants to give you his location, you would have to find that lord by yourself. Note that he can be held captive in a town or a city, as well as in a vassal's party. If I'm not mistaken, if the prisoner is held in a fief's prison, you should be able to attack the prison guard and get the lord out of there, just like for the quest. Even though it's your own faction.

Just 1 should be enough:
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?topic=115519.0

A rebel faction is not an own kingdom... Possibly, none of these "recruit lords" features are available to rebel factions. It would make sense, as in real life, no lord would side with a guy that is in the middle of a civil war. Defeat Sarranids, it might actually solve your problem.

It should also be mentioned that when you award a fief to a lord that has personality X, then lords with any other personality will be pissed off... but not those who also are X. Even cooler: for each X, there exists a personality Y such that those are also pissed, but a bit less than the others. Follow me?

This means that you want lords of same personality so as to suffer minimal relation losses when awarding fiefs. What this personality exactly is doesn't matter, though. Could be all good-natured or all martial guys, as long as they all are the same, it's ok. That's an extra argument that speaks for always telling the same argument; those who are not convinced by it would be pissed at you when you award fiefs anyway...

Yes they are exactly like a companion. Note that they'll leave your party again after the rebellion. Also, no worries about skills; they start at such high level that you barely get the chance to do anything. Mostly, in my case, they only got 2-3 levels before I finish the rebellion. Since those party skills are of no use after they left you, I usually give them combat skills.

1) As many as possible. 6 is a good start but I would strongly advise to recruit more. When you have lots of lords, some of them they may leave your faction, but at least, they fight your enemies during the time they are loyal to you.

2) The higher your relationship, the more chance you have that they will accept to join you. And the longer they stay with you. How high should you aim? Depends on what stage of the game you are at, and how much RTR and persuasion you have, and of course on how badly you need lords, but usually I try to convince lords when I have 70+ with them.

3) No. Questing villages only weakly impacts (+0, +1 or -1) your relations with lords. The automatic boost is due to your honor rating. And yes, it makes great sense to try convince those who already like you.

4) "Friends" just mean your relationship is higher than some constant (I believe 20?). It's just a label. If I'm not mistaken, I believe any lord that has positive relations with you might consider joining you. And they start considering to leave you at -30 (correct me if I'm wrong there)

It doesn't really matter, just read it whenever you want. The moment when you read it only matters for the skills (like surgery, trainer...), since they have requirements in attributes (INT). Since for the attributes themselves there are no requirements, you can just read Essays on Logics now. And yes, it will give you a skill point too, if I recall correctly.

You're supposed to scale the numbers with the wages, if you want a fair comparison. For the same wages as 40 Swadian Knights you can align 80 Rhodok Sergeants, and in a direct fight, 80 RS would defeat 40 SK. And Swadian Knights are a terrible choice for sieges as well. That's the reason why saying "this unit is best" or "this faction is best" is nonsense...

I'd even be ready to state: for each composition of an army you can name, there exists another composition of equal wages that would defeat the army you named.

fuzzracer 说:

Women are both physically and mentally unsuited to war fighting or waging.

点击展开...

Not that obvious to me, sorry. Mentally unsuited? Like, less than men? Could you explain why?

hruza 说:

Man fighting a woman is considered unacceptable behaviour in most of the societies, including modern one. Men are not allowed to hit a woman. Under most circumstances. It's not honourable.

点击展开...

Note that in most societies (at least in mine), man fighting a man is also unacceptable. People are not allowed to hit people. Under most circumstances. It's not honourable.    Not aiming this post at anybody, just thought it's worth mentioning.

NPC99 说:

We know very little about the past

点击展开...

True, especially about medieval-past. But that is not what matters here... This is a game. What matters is the present: what Taleworlds and the players prefer, as well as what the effects of the choices that are made are.

hruza 说:

Orion 说:

There are instances of women fighting & leading before recent times, they're just not as common.

点击展开...

Leading yes. Fighting ...no. Take the most famous instance of Joan of Arc. There's no mention anywhere that she ever actually fought in the battle. As in physically fought herself.

The closest thing I can recall that can be called "woman fighting" that is reliably recorded and not just some legendary Amazon stuff is when a Spartan woman threw rooftop tile from a window on to a Pyrhos of Epirus during storming of Sparta and killed him.

Come to think about it, I am surprised that we did not see "unit of women rooftop tile throwers" in some of the Total War games yet.

点击展开...

1) Since you bring up the example of Jeanne d'Arc: there is evidence that she personally used to lead the charges, and that she also was wounded multiple times in battle. I believe this is enough to be considered "physically fighting herself". She was in the midst of combat. This makes it irrelevant whether she did or didn't happen to kill enemies with her own sword. When an army aligns 10000 troops on battle, and the enemy suffers 2000 casualties, would you say that at most 2000 people of that army were "fighting"? Only because the other 8000 obviously did not wound or kill any enemy?

2) The debate whether or not it is realistic that women fight is off-topic. Obviously, computer games, including Warband in particular, do not aim to be as close as possible to historical reality. If it were so, then sieges would last months, troop amounts would be greater, disease would kill many men, and of course, no character or hero would be immortal. I think it is much more interesting and relevant to discuss the effect that representations in computer games have on people's way of seeing the world. Giving women an active role in entertainment stuff might actually help to persuade people to give women an active role in society. Or not. That's the main question for me.