Recent content by John the Roleplayer

You're quite right for the rest of them, but I think Temion actually looks pretty good, meaning believable (though perhaps not that his athletics is 110). A nice variation of the mostly generic looking lords of previous versions.

I feel that the geographical changes of the map were made with naval travel in mind. There is just overall a lot more coastline, and several of the straits are now blocked with rocks that don't look entirely in place there. This may well be to make the straits traversable on land for now, but allow the blockading rocks to easily be removed later.

One possibility would be a scene, where a small strike force from your party tries to clear a way to get in, and has to fight some of the besiegers to do so. The idea being, that it's a surprise attack, before the besiegers can muster a larger force. It would have to be balanced along the relative party sizes and also depend on tactics skill. Potential losses would then be taken directly.

This option might become too powerful though, as players could perhaps make disproportionatee use of it, comparedto AI.

I'd also say that castle defenders should join the fight when the besiegers are attacked, maybe arriving with a little delay and starting at another point of the field.

Madae said:

I know that it doesn't raise both skills, I'm asking if, regardless of that, the two hand perks are still used for a polearm if it's being used as a two handed weapon.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I misunderstood then. Regarding perks, it would depend on the individual perks. Things like "+3% hitpoints" should be a passive bonus regardless of weapon, while those that say "... for two-handed-weapons" should only apply to those, but not polearms.

Basically, polearms don't benefit from things that relate to two-handed weapons, even when they are also used with two hands. They still fall solely under polearms.

They do not. Weapons with two modes improve the one currently used when landing hits, not both. There are no "compound modes" as "two-handed and polearm". The modes and relevant skills for a weapon are shown in the orange bar over the stats.

The colours are much better looking than in some demonstrations, so I now think it's all right to colour the units cloth items according to faction. It does help a lot, as troops of the same culture end up fighting for different factions often.

What I'd still like though, is some distinction between clans by simple heraldic patterns.

So, mercenary support for weaker kingdoms seems to be working. In my new game the northern empire is losing to the Khuzait, and they now have no fewer than six mercenary clans.



Before this, I had actually not understood that all minor factions are considered mercenaries that can switch sides. Some of them, like the Beni Zilal, struck me as having their own agenda. Will there be some factors to the minor factions, that would make them consider other things than money when choosing sides (e.g. always working against certain factions for political or spiritual reasons)?

I just had a companion show up as dead in the post battle statistic for the first time, yet they were only wounded regardless. I definitely have death set to on, so maybe it's not working yet.

Character and clan pages in the encyclopedia show a timeline of some events, relevant to that person/clan on the right.

I suppose a full list of all world events would be too cluttered.