Tribute factions should only be able to declare war against their overlord, if they have a threshold of their overlord's power.I've been recently reaching the late game with my newly created kingdom. Observed the same problems as many YouTubers and people here on the forum. There is a point of your existence as a kingdom when it started to be unbearable to withstand all the attacks and defend your kingdom accurately. This has become hopeless at some point and the game has become meaningless from this moment on. Your enemies start to farm recruits and more and more factions want to take a piece of the pie.
I just wonder if there is an option to somehow generate truces that either do not kill our economy (tributes) or bleeds out the country entirely. I have a couple suggestions that may help in solving this issue:
1st) If attacked - we could use the influence points to extend the peace in our kingdom spending them on the tribute screen the same way we spent money. It would work similarly to opposing the urge for war from our own vassals. I know those points usually work within our own kingdom but in this exceptional case may be the ruler's alternative to spending money.
2nd) Let us imagine we have already been in a war with someone. We pay tribute to the faction (
eitherin gold o r in influence points). This might be very profitable for the faction we wanted to peace out (money). Same time other factions want to attack us. Could be an informal alliance, so whenever we are attacked then the attacker goes to war with the other faction? That might be a big factor in choosing money over influence points.
What do you think guys?
+1Instead of flat 2% chance of death in battle, I think there's a better way to determine the chance so extreme amounts of damage like couch lancing someone to the face or planting a javelin in their skull are more likely to kill them.
We could adjust chance of death depending on how much damage you take from the final blow that sends you falling to the ground, but there should be a base threshold so people don't die from small blows, let's say if you were hit for less than, say, 50 HP (or 1/2 of your max health) you will always be wounded. If you get killed by more than 50, death chance should quadratically increase until you reach 500 damage. If you take 100 damage (~10% of the way to max) you have a ~1% chance of dying. If you take 225 (50% of the way to max), you have a 25% chance of dying, and that seems reasonable because that's a really big wallop. If you take 500 or more, you should ALWAYS die. These numbers aren't final but just an example of how this system could work.
I always found wounding people in Warband by slamming a huge ass great hammer down on their head or crushing their ribs to be... hilarious, so although it would be nice to add lethality for ridiculous amounts of blunt damage (100% chance of death at 1000 damage instead of 500 to make it less lethal than cut and pierce), I think it's better for it to just consistently always wound enemies, at least in vanilla.
Their culture malus decrease tax income by 25%This has happened in 5 different campaigns in a row so I'm convinced that it's not coincidence but rather intended.
Since a few updates ago, Khuzaits started to go bankrupt after a few in game years. Their parties contain just 40-50 soldiers, all high tier, their garrisons almost completely emptied (30-40 men in castles, 60-70 in cities) and they can't even field sizeable armies to conquer anywhere or put a challenge while being conquered. They were quite irritating to fight against before but now they're ridiculously weak that it's not even fun.
My guess is either the cultural bonus change or villages spawning high tier and noble recruits completely screwed up their economy but might be something else. Whatever it is, Taleworlds please fix this.
It's not a necessary feature to prevent factions from snowballing.They do.
Back before this change, when players made their kingdoms starting out they basically had no where but their starting fiefs to recruit so it was basically impossible to raise troops at any capacity. Your Ai parties would just cycle through the few villages you had and you literally had no one to recruit. So basically the second you got in a war you be easily outnumbered with no way to replenish your troops. It use to be impossible to start a kingdom without massive preparation.
It also helped solve the snowballing problem. If kingdoms can’t recruit from neutral factions then once they start to lose land their ability to gather troops becomes significantly harder and they would get rolled over in a single war.
It’s a necessary feature for gameplay to be enjoyable. I’m sure there’s a mod that forces them to be homogenous
They must add more fertile couples to all clans.This is a huge issue. Since the Ai vs Ai death has been enabled, I've stopped playing since it basically ruins your save.
A few issues here, first of all, the 2% seems like 20% because the battles are endless which makes the possibility of lords dying seem much higher.
Another major issue is that when you start a save, some clans have barely any members in them. TW needs to add more adult clan members and children at the start of the game, for gods sake.
Lastly, even younger npcs can die which is incredibly frustrating. Young ones should have a less chance of dying in battle compared to older members.
Won't be playing again until this issue has been resolved. It's a complete game wrecker.
+1Where the couple ends up should be part of the bargening and should be part of the AI matchmaking.
Matchmaking - Some kind of score - system, like:
Situation Score Other part is same culture 1 Other part is same faction 1 Other part is ruler clan 1 Other part is clanleader 1 Other part is ruler 1 Age difference -1/ for each started 10 year diff My female candidate above 30 1 My female candidate above 40 1 Friends 2 Rivals -3 Other part female candidate above 45 -3
Apply first in favour of the highest clan level. Then in favour of male candidate. Then in favour of the female candidate.
Other part joins my clan 1 My member leave clan -1
Then apply, If "My member leave clan":
My clan has less than 4 members -1 My clan has less than 3 members -1 My clan has less than 2 members -1
Matches with 7/7 is married straight away.
Matches with 6+/6+ is married within X/2 ticks(if score persists).
Matches with 5+/5+ is married within X ticks(if score persists).
Matches with 4+/4+ is married within X x 3 ticks(if score persists).
Matches with 3+/3+ is married within X x 5 ticks(if score persists).
Difference > 1 : +2 ticks/score
tick = how often marriage is checked.
This is a game, not the real world.If we're looking for historic precedence... the woman is being traded like property between the two men (father, and future husband). Usually as the icing on the cake for some sort of agreement between the two men - be it an alliance, or peace, or something else. The only time the woman being traded stayed with her own was when she was the ruler, and even then sometimes her new husband took her throne - almost how it works in-game (with the exception of the loss of the throne)
It would be nice if a marriage was an option in peace negotiations...
Why should a powerful faction leader agree to marry his daughter off to another clan, the lesser important character should join the important character's clan, the gender of the characters should have no influence about this.At this point, there isn't much in the base feature unfortunately.
The game pretty much forces the use of a female clan head, unless you don't want the clan to have kids and continue, and limits you to only the 1 companion to start, with no option to add future companions.
There's also no real way to advance the clan upwards.
It's a necessary feature sure, but it's clear that it's missing a lot.
There are some decent female companions out there (the companions are all based on templates), but yes, overall we do need more options.
The only other option is to use a mod to edit the gender of some companions.
But retreat for heroes should the clan cost something, the clan should lose renown, everytime a hero retreat from the battlefield.It's very late to +1 this post, but I couldn't agree more.
Make armor work so that the heroes wearing it are less likely to die from random spam. Give hero characters enough self preservation that they stay behind whatever party they are commanding to avoid combat, and retreat when their force is starting to lose, unless they have brave and impulsive Traits. Make hero characters more likely to retreat in simulated battle as well.
If TW does those things we'll probably see people asking to raise the lord death rate, if anything.
Impressive amount of effort for a random thread, you should put it as a standalone post in Minstrel's Corner if you haven't already. I can't read the cursive on my phone but the overall presentation is sick
Good idea.AI get´s "free" troops when they respawn/creates a new party. I think this "kickstarting" needs to come from somewhere and I think the number is based on what fiefs they have ETC but I don't think it affects the fiefs which I think it should! Let it add a malus to prosperity and/or militia count or even a direct hit to it. After a few "partyspawns" they start to take severe economic damage and stops to respawn or slows it down. This way a faction maintaines the ability survive first few defeats and still resist but it has a turning point - now they will not be able to muster a new army for a while.
In addition, it could cost them some Influence. There´s another pool that can be drained that slowly drags down the resistance and makes wars not feel eternal.
Only when the clan is still alive.They will have new members