Recent content by Mama Luke

Axxoy said:

Late game is just pure pain, and to me it feels like no mod or patch can save this game, its fundamentally broken and badly designed.

Click to expand...

Callum said:

• Party Screen Troop Sorting:
  • Players can now sort both rosters in the party screen by troop Type, Name, Count and Tier.
  • The last selected sort type is remembered and applied on every party screen initialisation.
  • By default, heroes are grouped together at the top of the roster.
  • This change also includes a troop-type rundown added to the party screen. Players now can see how many Infantry, Archers, Cavalry and Horse Archers they have at a glance.

Click to expand...

conleyc86 said:

Regarding tribute...

It is VERY realistic for it to be based on a side's desire to wage war. I think the issue here is people think they are winning because they inflict casualties, which is meaningless, and capture territory, which would actually make your enemy MORE willing to fight.

You want to capture nobles... I have only ever paid for peace when I start my own kingdom to avoid fighting multiple wars. When you capture nobles, they can no longer break sieges, they sue for peace.

In fact it's so easy to get tribute for peace I often get screwed at the end of a war because peace is brokered before I can take another settlement.

Click to expand...

anoddhermit said:

In general some distance calculations are in order across the game.

Lords and armies should have prioritization of closer over distant goals.

I basically should never see an army of 2k meander past an army of 1k sieging down their faction's town or castle for the sake of sieging some distant target that they'll probably fail to take anyway.

Quest generation could have some distance limits as well.

The distance should also consider the actual path, not a bird's eye path that ignores mountains and water and so on.

Escort Merchant Caravan is a good example of the game not considering map layout and distance enough - sometimes it sends you deep into Aserai or Sturgia. So are Conspiracy quests that are brutally RNG and can send you to opposite ends of the map while you're busy at war with multiple factions on your end.

Click to expand...

Ananda_The_Destroyer said:

Pass a few policies for loyalty and ignore hideouts and quests for entire game: "Okay that's fine"
Add actual diplomacy/treaties/alliances/strategy: "no no no too much power for the player, they'll finish the game too fast if they don't use the same forced brain dead systems as the AI"

Click to expand...

BlackRainZ said:

I really think that the player should only be able to recruit mercenaries until they have their own fief, I also wish lords could only recruit from their own fiefs. Of course, this would take a re imagining of the recruitment process. So for example, fiefs would have certain limits on how many soldiers could be recruited for each lord, etc. Lords with few fiefs would naturally have less soldiers. Infinite soldier supply is just silly. There should be ways to hurt a faction by killing a lot of their soldiers which makes them not want to go to war for a long time. Of course, someone else might take advantage of this.

Click to expand...

Honved said:

I have little interest in playing a game where defeating the opponent over and over means absolutely nothing, because they continue to come back again with fresh troops recruited out of thin air.

If the wars were at least limited so not everyone is fighting multiple wars all the time, and SOME kingdoms were actually at peace for 30-50% of the time, it might be a good balance. If you want to fight constantly, either hire out as a mercenary, join one of the more aggressive factions, or take on bandits between wars. If you want more kingdom management and politics, join one of the less aggressive factions. You CAN have both options in this game, if it's designed to provide a few meaningful differences between factions.

The ability to recruit from a village should be limited, with the owner having almost unlimited ability to recruit (if it runs out of peasants, it's your own fault), faction members and those friendly to the village having reduced access (practically nil below some minimum population figure, increasing as the population grows), and neutral parties having extremely limited ability to recruit, and only if the village has excess population above some minimum. Enemies should NOT be allowed to recruit; would you give weapons to a forcibly conscripted enemy and then expect them to support you in combat? Expect a stab in the back instead.

The idea is that if there are too many wars, army sizes begin to shrink until lords can't gather a large enough field army to take another castle or town (sieges should be painfully expensive in both manpower and supplies for the attacker), in which case there's no point in continuing the war for the aggressor. The AI needs to end wars when (or before) it becomes pointless. Population growth rates need to create enough excess population to recruit in order to start another war in 3-6 months or so. 6-12 months of war, followed by 3-6 months of peace, depending on casualties and the aggressiveness of the faction. This is not the late middle ages, where you have 15-100 year wars, it should be a series of raids and brief campaigns for a single season, then return home to plant or harvest.

Click to expand...

elysebluemoon said:

Hi, the screenshot the original poster provided shows a bugged progress of -2147483648. Have you ever encountered a similar bug? Do you still have your save files with this bug persisting?

Click to expand...