Recent content by Razdv

TheCalradian said:

And pleace, mix formations. Let footsoldiers and archers be in the same group and form up joint formation so that soldiers will engage instead of archers pulling swords.. And let pikemen group up with footmen.

Click to expand...

This is implemented already. You can set dedicated formations in party screen.

RGB > all!
I'm playing with i5 3570k 8 Gb RAM, GTX 980 (everything stock because I'm lazy to overclock). Windows 7. Without mods.
Settings maxed except frame limit 30, shadows and grass are on lowest, 1000 units on battlefield.

And I'm enjoying playing singleplayer with this settings. It is okay, my fps drops below 30 are quite rare. Yes, for MP I need more FPS.

I think I'm going to buy new rig soon, but prices are crazy today, still deciding.
Something about RTX 2080 super, i5-i9 9th or 10th gen, or I'll wait until 4xxx Ryzen tests and maybe I'll take some cheap 3xxx Ryzen CPU as temporary decision, 16 Gb RAM, SSD.

Actually in case of realism, in history armor was very effective agains ranged and melee weapons. But it was extremely expensive and individually fitted to warrior, and before invention of watermills it was really hard to craft.
In some cases in history armored knights were knocked out from a horse, surrounded by enemies and enemies started to land strikes him with everything they had, and it was no effect at all, knight even wasn't injured, may be incapacitated for a few minutes. Sometimes he was able to stand up and enemies ran away, because knight even on foot was very dangerous and scary. And yes he was able to stand up without help. Forget those myths.

And about knights tournaments... Early tournaments were with combat weapons actually without any restrictions, and it was look as war or military drills, involved feudal parties against other feudal parties. And casualties were quite uncommon. Someone were injured or even killed, but not often.

Also known that some warriors even in mail/leather armor were studded with arrows after combat but uninjured. Arrows weren't pierced through armor.

Just look at this:

Trust me, armor and weapons are reproduced quite accurately. Couched lance hit on 80 km/h (40+40) is very powerful. This lance stick is 50 mm thick, try to break it.

On foot. Real combat swords weren't sharp too. As you see they are holding swords by blade sometimes. Yes it was possible in real combat at war with real combat sword.
So realism isn't for this game at all But you can mod the game, change armored troops hp to stamina and wait untill they fall of exaution on battlefield

From Russian fairy tales about Russian bogatyrs: "and they fought for three days and three nights"

Technically, "worst" loadout may be better than "best" in some circumstances. In my last playthrough I tried to play naked character on foot and it was very easy, because I kited enemies and could beat infinite amount in melee from out of reach of them. Ofcourse, you can't teach AI to kite properly, but "worst" armor usually means better speed, your troops are better to surround enemies, outrun them, retreat, faster charge etc.

For example, imperial legionaries are good to stand ground, but sturgian shock troops are absolutely insane at charging

TheChewieShow said:

I downloaded Xorberax's Cut Through Everyone mod and... Well, this mod lets me impale plenty of people at once! It's great, I feel like a badass piercing 4 guys at once with a spear lol Also sword slashes can affect all the people that are in the way of the swing, not just one... the mod is great!

Click to expand...

Unrealistic Actually swords weren't sharpened much, and using sword as mace, holding by its blade in hands was quite common depends of situation. Medieval smiths and warriors were pragmatic. Because sharpened edge isn't practical at all - it will dull very fast, bend, break etc and almost give no advantage against even light armor. Against unarmored sharpened edge was overkill too.
And swords were very expensive and hard to replace or repair.
As for spear and shield - it is cheap, easy to replace, relative easy strike techniques: "Hey, peasant, take this and try to hit the enemy and may be you will protect yourself with this shield... Or not, who cares...".

I'm pretty sure, that devs are aware of this issue and will be fixed in future. It isn't gamebreaking if you don't use it.

Idk why you got other result in your test.
I conducted tests multiple times being as spearmen or horsemen commander, using charge or standing, with or without shieldwall, or just f6. Spearmen lost in my tests.

Joe Friday said:

Does it really make a difference? Since I'm the king ? of my castle ? I started passing policies and procedures even with 0% support. I don't get any notifications stating that my relationship with my lords was negatively affected like it does when I vote against other lords when I'm a vassal for another kingdom.

Click to expand...

Idk. As a king you have a lot of influence whatever you do.

mexxico said:

In a new game this fluctuation is not happening. I could not understand how garrison numbers fluctuated in your games. Currently average garrison men count for a town should be around 200 and same number of militias (will be 1.5x soon). Average number of men at garrison (200 for now) can change between 0.25x (50) and 2x (400) according to economical situation of owner and new besieged situation of course. If you see any settlement with 600 garrison troops (militias are not included) you can send me your save file. There should be something buggy.

One possibility : Most lords were millioner in your late games because they were not paying much wages (they had weak and less number of troops before 1.3.0 (both in mobile and garrisons)). So they had much money accumulated. When you pass 1.3.0 they increased their garrison sizes much (with new money management systems) this time they go to bankrupt after some time and when they go bankrupt they reduced garrisons and lastly they balanced at some point. This shows our money management system needs to hold a bit less garrisons compared to current ratios even owner has lots of money.

Click to expand...

It is possible that any lord entering castle/town leaves some of his troops to other lord's garrison as my companions do increasing garrisons from unexpected way. I already reported this issue

DrDragonlance said:

We were on a hill. Archers had full line of sight.

What do you do in a battle?

Stay with your main force or venture out to engage enemies?

Click to expand...

I'm waiting and giving orders usually and watching on battlefield, keeping cavalry in reserve. Even on hill, infantry is better to place behind. Your damage dealers are archers. Infantry is only support to backup them if they needs. Shieldwall or square is rarely needed.
But I didn't fought Khuzaits yet. May be some difference

DrDragonlance said:

Infantry a few paces on front of the archers.

Click to expand...

Wrong! Never ever place heavy infantry before ranged units until it needed! This is your major issue.

Archers first! Remember it! They must have a line of sight to shoot! And they must hold ground to the death (f1-f6) f1-f4 almost never useful tactics. Infantry behind archers until...

Wait... Wait... Wait... Until enemy will be in close range to your archers, when charge your infantry and flank enemy with your cavalry in the same time. At this moment the enemy infantry is fleeing usually, and can't resist, and you need to order your infantry to RETURN behind archers. It is not an infantry business to cut fleeing, let archers and cavalry to finish them.

If enemy is not advancing to you just rain them with arrows, and they will advance because they have no choice

Evrieleth said:

Are you playing khuzaits? Because as far as i know horse archers are kinda cheaty, i've seen some reformist video in which he can dispatch 600+ men army with a 80 horse archers party, taking only 8 losses

Click to expand...

My army composition is about:
500 sturgian mixed infantry, archers, cavalry;
50 battanian fians;
70 vlandian, battanian, imperial cavalry, mostly battanian, got from prisoners.
0 bandits, 0 khuzaits

DrDragonlance said:

I just lost a battle to an army with 100 peasants.

I had 70+ Tier 2 or better Troops and we got routed.

I even redid the battle 5 times and had the same result.

Click to expand...

I don't know how it possible... I'm playing on maximum difficulty and defeating three 1200 armies in a row continuously with my 620 men, losing about 20 ppl. Try to add more ranged units and cavalry...
Hmm, I'm starting to think that difficulty settings may be mixed up...

Chips said:

Difficulty setting perhaps? There's the option for how much damage you take, and your men... makes a drastic difference.

Click to expand...

Player's troops will die on easy? On realistic and challenging maximum difficulty they are good enough at dealing with looters.

At assault you need to order your archers to charge, or them won't enter