Recent content by Tryvenyal

There are severel ways too achieve this. These suggestions I think should apply to mainly AI but some of them also for player

Military ways:
Less good troops - Increasing the cost improve troops beyond T4 would be one way make sieges less successfull. IE, less steamroll. Militia mould be more than a tiny obstacle. They could cost influence to upgrade maintain when in a kingdom!
Weaker armies - Make it harder to create 1000+ armies. Can be achieved in many ways but the easiest is probably that clan realtion greatly penalized inviting them to your army.
Smaller parties - Ofcource an option nerf the base partysize for all parties.
Cheaper/bigger garrisions and militia - More troops to kill - less steamroll

Diplomatic ways
NAPs and truces - With a basic solution for negotiated timeframed periods of peace. Even a "bad" implementation, that completly stopped you from doing hostile stuff with a NAPed or TRUCED enemy would do as a starter to expand some real diplomacy
Alliances - A delicate issue that easly could go wrong and cause exactly the opposite. But a thrilling thought!

De-escalation
Dangerous war-mongering - What if it was dangerous to trigger a vote for war? What if king vetoed the war and you had to suffer concequenses for your stupidity with bad relations to come?

Other things to spend influence on?
Anti-Bandit parties - Small parties of improved milita troops led by a Sergeant semi- charachter(T5, simelar to bandit chiefs and caravan-drivers) that protects your areas from bandits and hideouts. Could 10 influence to start and 2 influence/day to maintain. Affects the area of one single fief. You can activate it in every fief with a governor precent.
Emisaries - Improves relation with other clans. Costs 10 influence to start, 1 influence/day to maintan and has a 40% chanse to give 1 relation/day.

Relations
King - > Vassal - For each vassal, what if relations mattered Bonus for good realtions, malus for bad relations
Vassal -> King - More delicate! A good relation should be better than a neutral but I dont want to penalize rougue vassals! There should be ways to thunnel realm- influence into your pocket! leading to....

Intrigue
I´d love an expanded solution for this - but a thin one would do! Here are some
New owner of fief - This feature is there but what if it was used and usefull? What if you make clans support usurping powerfull fiefs and trigger a vote where old owner is not qualified? Id like to see AI using this... And alot. The king could have a sheap veto but why should he allways use it?
Vote to exile clan - This feature is there but what if it was used and usefull? I´d love this, even if a ruler should very rarely accept it... Uless he is the initiater
Blackmail fellow clan - You blackmail a fellow clan in your kingdom(Where you are king/vassal or merc). They could accept and pay you X influence and lower your relation by 20. They could deny, triggering a duel(simelar to hideout boss fight) where looser pay 2x influence to winner.

Some of these would greatly improve the lenght and fun of the game! I liek the thought especially of lords have other things to spend influence on than voting for war and sniping fiefs!

I think perks overall should be more general. Allways do _something_(IE have a "Clan leader", a "Party Leader" and a "Governor" effect.) "Personal", "Captain" and party-role based effects are a bonus/complement to this.

Agreed!!

RJ_Sera said:

look at this, these towns seem locked down by covid 19

Click to expand...

Yes, for no good reason! Its avarage prosperit(I dont see the actual scire but the text above the meny say so).
It should be bustling, merchants should try to sell wares, townspeople should run their arrends, soldiers should patrul, thugs should sneak around. This is was not a locked down city. Except for you, it was a dead city. Abandoned.

RJ_Sera said:

Another thing is the town is now lack of bustling, need more townspeople going around and the market place need even more bustling to make town look more living
Thanks for taking a look !

Click to expand...

The level of "Bustling" should reflect the prosperity A poor settlement should display poverty, lack maintanance, few badly dressed citizens etc

No real suggestion for this unfortunatly. But... Ofc I have allways dreamt of a bandit game-play where Curring would be essential(Like Social is for noble gameplay!!)

I think perks overall should be more general. Allways do _something_(IE have a "Clan leader", a "Party Leader" and a "Governor" effect.) "Personal", "Captain" and party-role based effects are a bonus/complement to this.

Also the "Attribute"- score and the "Skill"-score should be more usefull with static effects.

See this for some inspiration, touching the subject but for trade.
Tradeskill & Experience gain

On the contrary, I´d suggest suggest making them profitable..... If you assign a good clanmember to work there! Smithing and Steward could give a small static benefit.

Lornloth00 said:

I can get 5000d per day from caravans but I struggle to get workshops that can get close to 200d

Click to expand...

Caravans costs a clanmember. They should be alot better

I´m not english nor have English as my native language. Putch seems to be a synonum to coup. Were they really using any of these words during mediveal warfare/politics - where you rather "usurped" or "conquered" titles or territory than couped/putched the government.

Again, correct my if I´m wrong and learn me how properly use the different terms.

You can die in battle. Its a setting at start of a game who is immune to death in battle:
- Your clan(you, familly and companions)
- Your Clanmembers(You and familly)
- You(Only you)
- Nobody

This setting unfortunatly cant be changed after game is started :/

But.. Despite I play "Nobody", I have never died in battle. It takes a bit to kill a lord in battle. I rarely see it in battles not simulated to be honest(Where main player never don't participate).

darkstar48507 said:

ive heard (though i could be wrong) that you can play your child if you die.

Click to expand...

You will get a dialogue where you pick next player charachter among adult clanmembers(Not companions). IE you will never play an underaged child but you might play your siblings or kids if they manage to grow up.

darkstar48507 said:

1) speed up the day/night cycle, wars should take many years with only a few lasting a month or so. it should also take a good chunk you your life moving up the political ladder so to speak

Click to expand...

I´d rather have more main - quests telling me WHY I can speed-climb that ladder. Low-level game is so hallow and repetetive.

darkstar48507 said:

2) there should be risk in battle, if you are below 10% health and the finishing blow is 50% of your total you die, if any hit is 2x your total you die

Click to expand...

Whould love increased death with more options on above list(of who is Immune to death)

- You (Up to level 10)
- You (Up to level 20)

I´d hate to be forced to play elder big brother over an unlucky bandit encounter. It would likely be a campaign-killer for me.

Whould love a 4th skill on Vigor "Battle Survival". With increased death risk AI would die as flies but with this skill this could be countered for core charachters. All pers would be "Personal". Then only bad AI charachters(including yours!) would die as flies!

darkstar48507 said:

3) wars should only be proposed by lords only if you are in UP TO 2 wars, if you as the ruler want to be in more than you can start them

Click to expand...

More love to the war votings, yes absolutly! But my problem (with votes over all) is that vassals are very united! Hive-minded! They thinks and votes the same to 90% There are rarely even votes. They know the odds. They know the king will have to veto it before they trigger the vote. I´d like more divided vassals where opinion and realtion toboth initializer and liege matters. And above all, traits. AI vassals should have an option where they "Support the king" for 50% influence cost. They choose it if they have no strong opinion for any option and likes the liege.

Elite noble units is too cheep and too easy to get. They should be more valuable. Loosing them and replacing them should be alot more expensive and hard than replacing 30 times the number of elite regulars. And a elite regular should be ten times harder to replace than rurrent...

I´ll give this suggestion of mine a second moment of fame in the spotlight

Albastı16 said:

Please god no, player is already getting suffocated by freebies at the beginning of the game and now we want for game to also give a free house as well as if its already not giving out enough stuff for free?

Click to expand...

Comparing to what? Football Manager where you can get a football team worth billions of dollars? Or plague Inc where you can get a completly halmless virus - embreo?

There are probably mods for starting naked and 0 gold.

The start equipment is somewhere inline with what a recruit have - worth 200-300 denars maybe. And a pack - horse worth 100 denars when scarse. 1000 denars in purse. And a level 0 clan. And a family of 3 siblings. One too good to utilize in several years and hard to develop. 2 you cant utilize or develop in several years. I´d appriciate the adult brother more if he was level 5, honestly, with matching skill levels.

There is the the sandbox start if you don't want the family.

From my perspective a house or a home is mainly a flavour thing. It does not give income. where you can gather your familly members if you need to speak to them and dont want to run around the map. Where you can requip for example caravanleaders etc.

Later in the game, you could invite clanlords to your home/capital to speak to them. Or invite mercenarycaptains. Or other people of interest you don't want to run around the map after.

Earlier I saw it as a the place where defeated bandleaders regroup. Now it´s easier just calling them to my band wherever I am on the map.

of dey Riyn said:

First one about heirs. About their skills.

Characters born after starting the campaign grow one time and become full part of the game. From this moment they are able to lead parties, be governors etc. BUT most of them either warriors with, OK, few advanced combat skills or just useless persons with no abilities. Of course, not all of them should become overlords of Calradia. But looking back and reminiscing the state of lords in the early beginning of the campaign... it makes you a little upset cause next generation is worse (?), at least less useful comparing to first one. We have some badass persons in each culture from the start, why not to create few same ones after?

Would be nice to rework this and add heirs some more skills from the moment they grow out of childhood.

Click to expand...

Agree! They often have great potential, gets massive xp for what they do BUT AI lords are not doing that much stuff! Many lords could get 150 skill from the focus/atrributes they have from start but to get there takes time! And AI picks the best suited lord when creating a new party/assigning governors. Highest current score and does never check potential. I have seen 30 year old such charachter with huge potential but stuck on level 1 because AI never use them because they allways have better options.

My solution: Bring youths to map earlier(at age 16 but they cant lead parties and they cant govern holdings untill 1. Set them as "Squires" in armies or beside governornors. The teatchers skill is used but half the unmodified XP is awarded the squire. This means the next gen will be better prepered!

of dey Riyn said:

Now about how game determines who to give fiefs to. Played for different kingdoms, different versions of the game, in each faction there are couple of clans who eager to grab each fief the kingdom conquered. Even ruling clan is not so greedy. There is some logic I noticed like, of course, quantity of fiefs, location of new fief (if it’s close to candidate’s area), relationships with the ruler and voting lords. BUT it’s broken too often, usually there are same persons at the elections and no logic in how they were proposed. As a result, 3-4 clans (with the ruling one) possess most of lands while there are could be clans even without a single city under control. Unable to make smth with this as a vassal, not ruler.

Click to expand...

Yes. And the worst part is generation the candidates! Now you are there if you have no fiefs or nearby fiefs
1. there should be more than 3. Increase to a maximum of five!!
2. First candidate is allways the king/ruler!
3. Second - forth candidate candidates are the 3 with least holdings and most poverty.
4. Fifth is allways the one conquering

Then let nomenated clans decide to accept nomination by paying some influence(King does it for free, conquerer pay some extra). The accepting is listed. Things clans consider when accepting/declining:
1. Do I have enough suitable governors to handle my fiefs(including this)?
2. Is it close to my other fiefs?
3. Can I afford to spend influence on my own vote?
4. ...

Then the voting! today vassals tend to vote exactly the same. I want divercity!!
1. Make relation matter more!
2. Make traits matter more!
3. Make distance to the clans other holdings matter more!
4. Strategy. Consider both internal and external espects.
5. ...

This would likely mean more fiefs to the ruler. But then he can hand them out to whoever he finds fit(Depending of his traits, relations and strategic needs of the realm - mainly external)!