Search results for query: *

Tbh. 1.6.5 Sieges had a System where you could place your groups before battle start. No sliders, no nothing. So that proves it IS able to work with the old party system. Also I had made a reddit vote 11 days ago because I was curios what people thought about it and which party deploy system the reddit active player would prefer and turns out... my line of 80% of the people prefer the old system, was partially true. Total of 186 votes, yeah a pretty low number considering 70k community members there but hey. Those are probably active players as these even follow online posts. And yeah.

17 for New system.
20 for Old system.
95 for a mix of both (just like sieges in e1.6.5 worked)
54 didn't care or are fine with either.

Tbh now I wonder how the split of voices would be if I didn't include a mix. Because as of that, subtracting those who don't care about either.

But as of just this one vote, 87% of the voters, excluding those who don't care, want to be able to pick where which unit type goes by the numbers in the party screen, not through filters and sliders. Once again... I'm using the same phrase again: The sliders and filters are the problem. Even if I include the ones who don't care, its still 61,5% of those voters which want the numbers in the party screen back availiable. Also 29% didn't care at all. So you could techincally include half of those to the upper aswell.

84% of these in total want the formations to be positioned manually right before the battle. So why not mix both systems? Just have all battles be like e1.6.5 sieges. No. It's not the majority of players who wanted the new system. They wanted the old adjusted. Not replaced.

I'd really like to suggest something. Either just do a simple vote. A simple vote, on the forums, just to have a greater number of voters hopefully and confirm whetever its true or not. Or simply implement both systems, and make a toggleable option in the main menu options to enable either new or old system. And It's really not hard to make a system load sub module A or sub module B depending on an enabled option and the other just gets ignored.

Raampagee said:

Well that rly sucks because atm all battles were reinforcements arrive break the unit formations turning them into multiple or all unit type formations…and this ofc makes commanding impossible.

Click to expand...

Thats exacktly what i said above. They didn't want to limit us or restrict us to placing certain default formations in some slots but sadly thats still the case as all reinforcment infantry spawn into group one, all rangeds into group 2, all cavalry in group 3 and all horse archers in group 4, ignoring what the palyer set there.

Raampagee said:

Okey your telling me i can remove a specific unit type out of a multi unit type formation into another formation while the battle already started?
That would solve my problem with mixed unit type formations because of unassigned lords and reinforcements that arrive…

Click to expand...

Neither new nor old system could do that. Neither system could target specific units AFTER battle start. But in the old system you could assign your companions, family and such to exacktly the formation you wanted them in regardless of their gear or whatever the game sees skillwise as justification to put them in your infantry despite them beeing a mounted archer. Armies, specificly you calling other parties to armies were impossible to adjust. But even for clan parties, upon creation or checking their troops you could even assign clan parties troop types to formations by the numbers, which they generally kept in battles aswell.

Apocal said:

Pre-battle orders/formations were very popular requested features.

Click to expand...

Does that mean the numbers to assign had to be removed? No. For just that the sliders are the problem, not the previous system.

Siege pre-battle formations possibility already proved, the sliders aren't the criteria to make these happen.
"Formations would be a mishmash of troops and it's not possible to represent that with sliders." Exactly. It isn't possible with sliders. Once again, slides are the problem, not the previous system. But It's possible to form them up the way they should based on what the player DID assign the troops into previously before battles.

Of course there are downsides to the old system. It defenitly had and has lackings if it was to be reimplemented. You cannot freely switch out troops between formations where you can do that for rough troop types with the slider system. But, to begin with, which player would intentionally assign missmatching troops in same formation?
Yes I am aware there is more than 8 potential troop types. Aka. 1 Shieldless infantry aka shocktroops. 2. Spear only. 3. Spear with shields. 4. Shield infantry without spears. 5. Skirmishers with shield. 6 Skirmishers without shields. 7 Cavalry heavy. 8 Cavalry light. 9 Cavalry skirmishers.
10. Horse archers. 11. Archers. 12. Crossbowmen. 13 Rangeds with a shield. Maybe I missed some more formations? Yes Thats too many Formations. But that applies to the new system aswell. You've got to make cuts and mix some at least. With the old system, the player could pick more detailed WHICH would be mixed. Example: Archers with pikemen. So archers are slightly better protected or pay back cavalry charging into them. That is ENTIRELY impossible in the new system, unless you transfer pikemen from a pike only formation into the archers by the transfer troops order. But thats just as possible in the old system, but easier to pre-setup for such scenarios. Also doing that through the ingame transfer system to begin with, leaves one formation empty and basicly wasted. So why not given an OPTION to mix diffrent troop types at least? Some players WANT to mix them. So let them. And thats just impossible in the new system, so another positive point for the old.

Most players wouldn't use both, archers and crossbowmen, unless somoene is just running wild recrutiung anything. Usually those "recruit everything" players don't even try to fiddle around with battle orders to begin with and just give simple engage charge or hold here orders depending on formations. The casual player isn't interested in in depth details anyway. So thats often more formations cut again.

Yes. Yes.. More formations to cut? You aren't going to make a dedicated formation for some 5 skirmishers that any party brings along if you form an army with 4 clan parties and 4 other kingdom member parties. You will still focus around your own units, so quit taking that as an argument "there can be random units in the battle". Have them default to "Infantry, Ranged, Cavalry melee, Cavalry ranged" where throwing weapons count into melee as default. Make these defaults moveable. Let me have my default melee cavalry at 7 not at 3 and everything is fine, as an example. It won't screw any of my dedicated formations for certain unit types if I personally can avoid placing random troops there. Of course. Real life works diffrently. These would be assigned in their own setups and split into not just 8 groups but rather split into 3 cavalry squads 3 skirmishers 3 crossbowmen 3 archers 3.... or even more than just 3. You cannot represent a real life battle in a game anyway. But let the player have most control over their formations.

OK. Another elephant in the room. "potentially 200+ dropdown menus for every single troop or unit type". Yep. Which player has it scattered like that in their own party? None. You'd need to deliberately TRY to have every single unit once to even make that possible. A player with an idea about the game, which this is aimed for, doesn't have 200 diffrent troops. You probably have at most 2 diffrent lines of horse archers, cavalry, foot rangeds, some shielded line. And even if you have more, you'll just put all the shielded in the same formation. Its entirely in the players control. So where was the problem with that? I cannot see that problem. To me the problem is that the developers insisted at having these damn sliders to change formations prior to battle without an extra menu if anyone would ask me. Again. Have a slot customizable default formation for all units that are unassigned. Aka all my infantry goes in formation ...5 if i don't assign them. I had the option to assign them, I didnt. I was too lazy to check.

And now the mammoth for this system..... Reinforcments. Haaah.... Where should I start? "Now one way to overcome that is locking eachs formations troop type...." - "but we didn't want to restrict the player to these pre selections" Yeah. It wouldn't be a pre locked restriction if you can pick the formations that these are pre locked to instead of making them static at 1 2 3 4 in the first place.
Currently thats still the case. The restriction is still here. Because of the reinforcment system. Example for this... A battle 2000 vs 2000 units, 500 each side simultanosly could only be on field. I as the player i am like.. Yeah nice i can pre adjust them where i want to have them! I will have cavalry at slot 1 and 2 for both flanks, 3 and 4 are my infantry one of them skirmishers, remainigns are filled diffrently. Ok. The first 400 units die of those 1000 on field, 200 of those are from the player, 200 new units spawn, "uhh this isnt looking too good lets command my cavalry to this posit... Why the FRICK is there infantry in my first cavalry formation!?! HUH Theres archers in my second cavalry formations?!! Why are there cavalry in my infnatry formation 3!? EHH Horses archers in my fourth infantry formation!?! You are still Pre-restricted to keep first formation to infantry, second to ranged, third to cavalry and fourth to horse archers. The fricking reinforcment spawns, get put into DEFAULT formations for that troop type! EXACKTLY what they meant to avoid?! Why does THIS happen then in large scale battles? Any explanation? The new system ONLY registers units that are spawned at battle start. It doesn't check anything that the player customized for reinforcements. At least thats how it is for me. This ruins the whole battle order and tactics you can kick out of the window again and retaliate to a 0 -> F1 -> F3 because you cannot keep your formations the way you want them anway past the first reinforcment spawn. Is there a way to prevent that? I'd gladly like to know. For the old system, the unit types simply spawned where they should and were meant to or set to. Formation 5 6 7 and 8 wouldn't be empty at the end of battle just because nothing spawned into them. They were only empty becaus the player himself didn't prepare it previously which is the players own fault then.

Also reinforcments now spawning one by one, taking the new system as example, reinforcements spawn, and the game can check the formations once... and simply assign the unit to the formation where most "equal" troops are in. If theres 2 formations with only this kind of shielded infantry, put in formation with less units. That way formations would stay balanced in size aswell, not suddenly the latter 5 6 7 and 8 turning empty either(I have no idea how much processing power that would take so I won't know if thats a restricting factor). Default shielded skirmshers and shielded melee only infantry as same category. At least make them a own category. I dont want my line breakers to spawn into my shield wall. They are free arrow food before they achieve anything. The current system just throws every single infantry without a ranged weapon in the same formation 1 regardless if the first slot is filled with cavalry. It just doesn't care. At least my game does that, is that a bug? Anyone else has that problem?


And now how about one ridicolously easy fix to whoever complains about the new system or the old system: Make a menu option which would be prefered which can be only changed on main menu screen? Just like picking legacy layout or newer default as battle orders? Like whatever you pick, the datas linked to the other will simply get ignored so the player sees what the want in the game. The old system didn't need to be deleted, but could have been simply hidden behind an option that is changeable, defaulting to the new system. Noone could complain, neither the "newies" nor the "oldies". It's their own decision what they'd use. Like, its as simple as that. Also to me myself it's not a problem to have any drop down menus, maybe others do? who knows. I personally see no issue with opening 500 drop down menu's just to pick formations for each unit type. I'll only do that ONCE for the entire campaign anyway. I'll gladly use that time to then battle without a second thought with units exacktly spawning into the formations I want them to be, not the system restricting me for them to be in. I bet I am not alone on that.

As a sum up: I really see no problem with the old system. The problem is the new system implementing filters and sliders to change the party setup right before the battle without another menu to open. Once again, a simple menu option "gimme the old or gimme the new" system just entirely prevents ANY complaints. Focus developing on the new system first though if you see it as better. And I am pretty sure someone would have come up with ideas to improve the old system too without replacing it entirely. Especially after one by one spawns where the system could simply run a formation check to place them in similar formations for unset troops aka random joining armies.

The new system is simply horrible for any dedicated player of the game. Sure. If i put all my T5 imperal legionaries by a button press in the same formation... yeah. Then they are in that formation and cannot split them before the battle starts but.... I still can just press a couple of numbered f buttons and split half of them into a empty group and now I have two groups of perfektly fine only legionaries that guard two diffrent directions possibly so horse enemies are blocked off. Also. I put cav as slot 1 and 2. Because they are the easiest to press and i often have to order my cav around. Congratulations. Now both sides have 2000 troops and every single infantry unit spawns into group 2 as reinforcments and every reinforcment archer spawns into group 2. Ignoring percentages on whatever the frick else in the formations so god only knows how to keep an actualy TACTIC order in a battle. Nope. Impossible. Especially since in some formations... the cav will actually slow down their movement sped to match the foot troops unless you press f 1 f3 which is once again, just a mass slaughter simulator. Please. Bring the old system back.

"I own most of the map" - Thats exacktly the problem. Ever noticed loyality increases and decreases tax - significantly? Owning too much of other cultures fiefs generally leads to.... well. These fiefs make less money. Have the same garrisons. Garrisons of far away from front cities slowly stack up all the time no matter what. And therefore their costs increase a lot more than their gains. In fact: The AI looses income if they take diffrent cultured fiefs, they cannot handle the low loyality tax reduction. Until taleworld enables cultures of settlements to slowly change, this issue is gona stay and make long plays without rushed takeovers nearly impossible - unless you use mods for just that at the bare minimum.

Its a good idea once the general prosperity problem of the game is fixed. As long that isn't it would massivly increase the dump of units into ever depleting garrisons of lategame AI fiefs and also the longer it takes for fiefs to get back into the prosperity gain and the faster they get back into dropping prosperity thanks to food surplus fading again. Rinse and repeat

Personally I'd reverse the numbers of governors and owners.
Giving a owner penalty/bonus of 1 Loyality respectivly.
Also for Governor penalties, -3 for a wrong culture governor (AI clans usually not set governors too often in conquered towns at all) People are unhappy that their governor doesn't understand their culture obviously.
-1 for no governor at all. People want to have someone to represent them, but at least aren't angry about a wrong one.
+1 if the Governor matches the culture. Basicly nullyfieing the owner debuff. People feel represented well enogh. Who cares about the owner if the governor knows aboutt he peoples culture, somewhat keeps the owner "in check". Its probably not rare that a governor gives advices to the owner which things should be pushed through and which not. Obviously those advices not actually impleneted in the game, just a statement to things happening behind the scenes.

That way the AI would at least have a total of -2 in general for new fiefs. Thats a full loyality less and they should be somewhat stable. Also might help the game balance alltogether since.... for a proper war, the player literally has to join every single kingdom first, enable policies that help these kingdoms, then hope they wont abolish them until the player stabilized every single kingdom so these kingdoms can actually conquer anything. For the player kingdom that isn't a problem but... The player literally doesn't have to fear loosing fiefs, since if they are taken, raid a single village of that taken fief once its rebuilt and just wait for the rebellion and take it back. Thats getting even more of a problem if a AI kingdom has a brainstorm together and somehow enables a policy that decreases loyality... Then thats just effectivly "this kingdom can be ignored entirely" unless for a empire player vs a empire faction

Never leave the AI with more castles than towns. Keep excess castles yourself and focus to grow village hearths after building core productions. Once villages grow, they produce more, tax and resources. That allows castles and cities to grow. At least that's how it works for me, you just need a proper order to do thing. Doesn't mean its easy to defend them in the meantime though

Ananda_The_Destroyer said:

I just got a new town, I'm going to go out and buy some extra food and solve village issues, lets look at my food situations with a garrison that's just enough for security.

Boy golly jeez, that's just enough to not have a food issue, good job me, but uh oh what's this I see? A neutral army coming to my town?

I wonder what they were doing in my town....

Oh no they bought too much food and now my barely okay food is totally ****ed up! It's -20 now! I'll have a horrible worthless -loyalty malice by the time I can manually go buy enough food to help it!

@mexxico Can you make the AI armies only buy from thier own towns? This type of stuff constantly ruins the game. I don't care about thier army and It's great if they all starve.
I don't want to help them and I don't want to lose my town because the AI bought the food from it!
What is the point of having a town? I want to put troops in it and I want it to play me money. I don't need any features or mechanics whatsoever that interfere with that.
If you want a food system for the town there should be a NO option for the human player to refuse selling food when it's going to go negative!
It makes no sense for the town to sell food and then starve! I'm posting this as suggestion but if I didn't know better I'd think it was a bug!

Click to expand...

Watch out, massive wall of text incoming. And a little rant before actual advices.

Yes. And if refusing, the enemy army should have the option to attack. Not just siege, attack from inside out. They are angry to be unable to resupply. A cruel lord would defenitly slaughter and threaten townsfolk to feed his army. He's already inside the castle, he was neutral and just got told from the merchants they aren't allowed to sell more. There should be a chance that he isn't pleased and with negative relation, maybe even attack. And hurt your people, force them to give out food. You'd prefer to defend an army from the inside out? If you add a denial, you also have to implement a counter. And the AI should also be able to do that. Imagine you are starving your army accidentally, you'd be glad they refuse to give you food? You'd either beg and pay more or threaten.

I think you should be able to reduce or limit how much you will keep, just so they can go on a little longer for the next town. But that would probably Frick up the AI since it will look for the closest town to find food. And that would make it just run back and forth. Also denieng them to resupply would let you abuse that. If they starve or you essentially keep them in place, you can just declare war once they are weak enogh and take the whole army prisoner. It would open too many options to abuse the AI.

I never had food problems in any town below 4k, mostly even 6k prosperity, and if you're above that, let's be honest, you won't care about the little drop(usually I have village growth active once towns are built completely, so their production increases in equal rates to the consumption).... if you're below that, you probably have a too big of a garrison (not the case here), just recently claimed the town, well that's unlucky, or severely misplaced your focus to build the town up. Prosperity costs food, they aren't meant to rise endless. Also not all cities are equal. If you suffer that much under it, buy the breweries in such cities and turn them Into other workshops. Breweries take grain. Grain has the greatest use to restore food rating. If you just recently took a town, temporarely place your whole party if not even parts of your entire army if you have companion, into your town. And wait in town don't just take off for the next siege. Set priorities. Garrison gives security rating. This will temporarily hit food. That's the reason why I never take towns if I have less than 3k food with me. And 2k of that is grain. Flooding towns with grain is the greatest way to restore it until caravans flow back in and stabilize it a little. In the meantime your food feeds your garrison and your garrison restores security. Security restores loyalty aswell. Note FOOD IN STASH IS NOT CONSUMED ONLY IN MARKET.. food in the Grannery cannot be sold to armies. It just doesn't appear there. Bigger grannery also has more reserves and a better food rating. You main problem here is not your food production, but your grannery size. If grannery and market wasn't separated, everyone could just buy all the food in a city and then declare war to siege. Max size granneries take far lighter hits from armies buying food in your towns.

cina901 said:

Thanks so much, unfortunately the game doesn't provide details in this regard. Without you guys I would have never understood (only imagined).
" If that's too far back, you might consider installing the diplomacy mod for a guaranteed 100 day truce between wars." I wasn't aware of such a mod, I'll go check it out!
Plus: indeed, next campaign I'll focus on one faction at a time. Surely the most "safe" way to start. What happened was a rebellion in Charas, so that's where it all started... confident of the almost unlimited money that smithing provides (mechanic to be revised asap but this is another story) I thought I could handle it, but things got out of hand!

Click to expand...

Well yeah. Diplomacy I use too, it's amazing. I even seen other factions go into rebellion and civil wars. I set the truce time to 84 days though (one in-game year) same for non aggression pacts. And the time between civil war ends and new rebels arise to 252 (3 in-game years) Especially with calradia expanded kingdoms.

Gandamula said:

You can if you use a mod called party overhaul, you can gave several orders including joining to you, and it made a army.

Click to expand...

I prefer them to just follow with 4 parties in endgame no massive speed malus and then call to army before a fight or while standing inside of enemies already hehe. Kinda exploity yeah. Play with calradia expanded kingdoms and.... the rhodoks troop rooster is just awful^^ though it makes no sense that an army cannot send a vanguard to stop escaping enemies.