Recent content by sentinel329

  1. sentinel329

    In Progress 1.2.5 - Cannot assign party roles to companions in Parties screen

    I apologize for the snark, and I appreciate you trying to be helpful. It's just that this was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back for me, and I have uninstalled the game for the sake of my mental well-being.
  2. sentinel329

    In Progress 1.2.5 - Cannot assign party roles to companions in Parties screen

    Here's an idea.... how about they just fix the (long-standing and reoccurring) bug instead?
  3. sentinel329

    In Progress 1.2.5 - Cannot assign party roles to companions in Parties screen

    Summary: Companions in your party who have been previously captured are unavailable to re-assign to party roles from the Parties tab How to Reproduce: - Have you used cheats and if so which: No Scene Name (if related): Media (Screenshots & Video): Computer Specs: OS: GPU: GPU Driver Version...
  4. sentinel329

    When is a good moment to marry?

    Lesbosisles said:
    Won't that lower the chances for you to concieve a child?
    Click to expand...
    No, chance of conception is based (almost) entirely on the female. I forget what the base chance is, but it starts out highest at age 18 and gradually declines as they get older. Giving birth also decreases the base chance cumulatively, so the more children a woman bears, the less likely she is to continue getting pregnant. The only difference the male makes is whether or not he has the Virile charm perk.
  5. sentinel329

    Resolved Companions stuck in Formation 1

    Summary: Companions are permanently stuck in Formation 1 in the Order of Battle screen. The only way to remove them is to assign them as captains to their own formations. Even when you delete those new formations, it puts them back into the infantry formation. How to Reproduce: Have companions...
  6. sentinel329

    Patch Notes v1.0.3

    Ananda_The_Destroyer said:
    My favorite thing is that defenders only build catapults now, it's not in the patch notes but it saves campaign time of leaving and re-starting siege to make them build catapult instead of ballista.
    Click to expand...
    Doesn't matter; they've made rams too tanky now. If you don't manage a direct hit with every single volley, you'll never kill it before it reaches the gate. It's the same old story: fix one problem only to introduce another.
  7. sentinel329

    Viking Conquest issues

    Morvayn said:
    6. Landing Points
    Landing points for ships jump along the coastline, if you select one it can change in the last moment and jump somewhere else on the coast. Also it seems if you sail along the coast, constantly generating landing points, those hit the performance quite hard.
    Click to expand...

    http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,321106.msg7652803.html#msg7652803
  8. sentinel329

    Final Final version of 1257ad

    Valen said:
    Speaking of dismounted knights,  I would usually see several dismount at the start of a battle, one my own companion.  I never gave the order and couldn't get them to remount under 1.03.  The companion had a masterwork light crossbow which should have been usable on horseback but I guess he preferred to be on foot.  Teutonic knights dismounting on occassion was rather disappointing however.
    Click to expand...

    I've noticed this sometimes as well, and I believe it's caused by having a high number of mounted troops spawning in on top of each other at the start of battle.  As your troops are moving to their starting formations, some of the mounted ones get "stuck" on troops that haven't moved yet, and I think if this persists for a certain amount of time the AI decides that the mount is permanently stuck on something, so the troop dismounts on his own.

    To help reduce this occurrence, issue a quick 'Advance 10 paces' or 'Follow Me' command to all your troops as soon as the battle starts. This helps your troops get out of one another's way sooner, which should reduce the false 'stuck mount' condition.
  9. sentinel329

    [Suggestions] for Viking Conquest.

    illperipheral said:
    Is there any possibility the randomly-chosen landing site for your ships could be changed to some other method for landing?

    E.g., the game will just always pick the landing site that's straight ahead of your ships, or you can land by right-clicking on shore. The latter option would be nice, even if there are a pre-set list of acceptable landing locations (not sure if that's how it works or not) it could just pick the closest one to where you right-click on shore.

    As it is right now, sometimes I have to ctrl-space while near shore to wait for a landing site to generate that isn't on an uninhabited nearby island (e.g. near Denmark and Friese) or all the way around a peninsula or up/down a river that's not close to where I want to be. Even if I find a landing site I want, often the site will change to somewhere else before my ships get to the spot I clicked, so I'll end up landing on one of those islands or just going back and forth between multiple landing sites without intending to.

    At the very least it'd be nice if the landing sites didn't change position once you'd clicked on one to land there.

    edit:

    One other thing that also bugs me is that in a ship battle, telling my ships to hold my position doesn't make them come closer to me -- they just stay where they are. I'm still trying to figure out a way of getting all my ships close enough together that the one ship with 5 skirmishers doesn't get bum-rushed by the enemy before the other ships with my heavy infantry can get there.
    Click to expand...

    This drove me insane at first as well, until I figured out that the landing points change position at a regular interval. My theory is that this was made to simulate changing tidal conditions at a given landing site.  I've adapted to this feature by watching for a landing site to appear near where I want to debark as I approach shore, even though I know it will be gone before I get there. Once I get close to that spot, I just hold down space bar until the landing sites cycle through and one re-appears near my ship.
  10. sentinel329

    [Suggestions] for Viking Conquest.

    FelipeII said:
    Ok, I'm getting tired of say the same thing... but the RANGED WEAPONS of this game need some real rework/rebalance now.
    [list type=decimal]
    [*]I tried to start custom battles for testing: I used same factions in the both side(I tried with almost, all the factions except looters), one 100% infantry vs 50/75% infantry 50/25% archers. Always the side who have archers loses. Doesn't matter the faction, the ground, nothing. The archers are useless unities for now.
    [*]Contrary to what was said by another forum user in the last time I suggest a rebalance for bows/arrows: the proficiency only raises the damage of melee weapons. Thats the basic system of Mount&Blade, you can see it HERE. Also there is nothing wrote/documented about a possible rework in the proficiencies of ranged weapons in the DLC.
    [*]Slings isn't realiable weapons in this DLC: Lowest damage in ranged, aweful accuracy and its completely random, even the lame animation of throwing weapons for slings from Brytenwalda is better then the actual system used by VC.
    [/list]
    My suggestion for futures patches are:
    • Improve the system of bow/arrows backing then into PIERCING DAMAGE and balancing OTHER ATRIBUTES(speed raiting, accuracy and damage) for balancing.
    • A rework in the system of slings, so they can actually works.
    The only usable ranged weapon for now are the throwing weapons, and another thing I noticed, is almost impossible to hit the feet of troops with shield. There is no Shield skill, so, I don't know how it is possible. Every troop have a ocult Shield skill in the max?

    OBS: I concluded all observations and suggestions by: 1)PLAYING with all ranged weapons and using builds of skills and atributes maximized for the use of it. 2)Using custom battles to test, and I invite anyone to do the same tests. So if you are against my suggestion, so PLEASE, try to bring a good argument, and don't f*** around with things like: Historical accuracy or "But in real life(...)"

    I really apreciate all the work and good job of the VC team but I really don't want to see a DLC with a great potential throwed in the garbage because of a leak of balancing that limit the gameplay. Anyone else agree with me that the ranged weapons should be focused in the futures balancing patches?
    Click to expand...

    I haven't tried building up a high-level archer character yet, so I won't try to comment on bows, but I would like to put forth a theory on how slings have been implemented in VC.  Admittedly, I've used the sling even less than bows, and only out of desperation. Having been on the receiving end of slings quite a lot, however, has highlighted to me their usefulness as a disruption weapon against opponents engaged in melee.  I can't count the number of times I've been squared off against a dangerous foe, focused on trading blows and shield blocks, only to get pegged in the head by an enemy slinger which forces an interrupt* and causes my character to drop his guard momentarily. This is of course immediately followed by a heavy (usually killing) blow from the enemy I was in melee with. 

    *For those who have never messed about with the module.ini file, there is a value in it which is called the damage_interrupt_attack_threshold, which as the name suggests, determines how much damage is required in order to interrupt a character's attack animation.  In the case of VC, this value is set at 3.

    For this reason alone, I would argue on the side of the mod devs leaving slings as they are and not buffing them into a more formidable weapon, as I speculate that this disruption effect was their intended purpose.  Otherwise, you'll soon run into an imbalance where skirmisher-based factions start massacaring more well-armored (and more expensive) troop types.
See more
Back
Top Bottom