Search results for query: *

  1. [Bug report] Farmstead recruits don't refresh (2.036)

    Basically what the subject says. I take it no one has noticed because, let's face it, recruiting from farmsteads is something most people don't bother with except maybe when first starting out (and even then, villages are a better option); however they can be useful if you want a bunch of...

  2. [Bug Report] 2.036 - Pre-battle 'Leave' option when it should be 'Surrender'

    AFAIK whether you get "leave" or "surrender" depends on how many troops you have.

    If you have above a certain number of troops, you'll only be able to surrender - but if you have above another threshold level of troops, you'll also get the option to leave some troops behind as a diversion.

    I'm not sure what the actual intended behaviour is supposed to be, but personally I'm OK with a certain threshold meaning you need to create a diversion, whereas below that number you can just run.

    The issues from my POV (personal opinion only of course!) are:
    - sometimes you can end up in a situation where you cannot run or use a diversion, since your troop numbers are between two thresholds. Which can be kind of annoying.
    - IMO if you have few enough troops to be able to retreat/escape, then the relative speeds of the groups should be taken into account, as it makes little sense to be able to escape from a group that's of a similar size to yours if your group is actually slower (though tbh this is probably relatively rare).
    - Likewise, if your group is not large enough to have an option to leave behind some diversionary forces to help you escape, it probably makes sense to allow escape if your group is faster than the enemy's (except in case of ambush of course).
    - Related to OP's post, injuries should probably be taken into account - that is, if you have a ton of injured soldiers then the effective speed of your group should be slower, possibly making escape impossible (but offering surrender instead as OP suggests). For non-companion troops in such a situation, there should be an option to "leave the wounded behind" so you can escape anyway, at the cost of losing all your wounded troops. Basically, if num_uninjured_troops < num_injured_troops (AFTER allowing for the player to potentially leave the wounded behind), then escape should be impossible.

  3. Possible minstrel bug (+fix) (2.032)

    CeltiberoCaesar said:
    Sorry Evil, August is a bad month... especially in hot south Europe :mrgreen:

    I've noted your report, we will take a look, thank you.
    Click to expand...

    No worries - I just figured you were busy with the latest patch release.

    BTW since I'm in Australia, you probably won't get much sympathy for your so-called "hot" weather. I consider 30C to be nice, comfortable weather (provided it's not dry and not humid). It's not till it gets to 40C that it gets annoying (but that's what air conditioning is for - until the grid gets overloaded and the power goes out, which tends to always happen right in the middle of a week-long heatwave - hopefully your power grid is better!).

    By contrast, our August was freezing cold (OK average around 10-15C, but that's cold for us).

  4. Information on SPECIAL traits

    The Lord7 said:
    I'm sorry if I start a duplicate Topic but the topics on special traits are locked not sure if there is still an open topic on this subject.

    According to information I gained through search on these forums and some other forums and resources there is 3 known SPECIAL traits I will explain how to get them (spoiler alert!).
    Dungeon Master (put 7 or more lords in a single dungeon): Congratulations! You've managed to imprison seven or more lords at (Location). You really are a true dungeon master (confirmed by multiple resources).
    not sure what it does May be reduce the chance of prisoners escape?
    Click to expand...
    Yep this reduces the chances of your prisoners escaping by a certain percentage. I can't remember what this percentage is, but it's noticeable over the long term.

    The Lord7 said:
    Wine Connoissuer (tuck away 25 or more barrels of wine from your household storage -Not very sure-):
    Congratulations! You've managed to tuck away 25 or more barrels of wine in your household storage, a great feat considering you are in the part of the world more known for mead and ale. Either you have a drinking problem, or you are a true wine connoisseur.(from a single resource).
    not sure what it does but may be it makes your feasts better somehow?
    Click to expand...
    This trait allows you to offer wine to other lords. You need to have wine in your inventory when speaking to them with this trait, then you should get the option to offer it. It raises relations with the lord by a small amount (2-3?). AFAIK this can only be done once per lord.

  5. What's up with numerous negative steam reviews?

    Laizenbh said:
    Anani said:
    Basically,

    Overall the whole game feels like it should just be a mod. Nothing more. I have seen lots of better and bigger mods which if compared to this "DLC" deserve more money. So I actually was expecting more from this "DLC".

    But then again, those people put their efforts into this, and I don't think anyone can really blame them for expecting money in return for their efforts.
    Click to expand...
    VC has his own unique stuff, sea combat and travel for example is very superior. Many companies charge even more for a DLC with much less features, CK2 for example has very expensive DLCS that add almost nothing and free mods that surpasses their base game is common thing these days.
    Click to expand...

    And to top it off they're still releasing patches for it years later! If this were Bethesda then they'd do a few half-assed patches and call it a day (i.e. wait for modders to fix their bugs).

  6. PYTHON SCRIPT/SCHEME EXCHANGE

    JuJu70 said:
    That is interesting - is there any likely reason for this? Superstition? Or perhaps they thought it could collapse and trap them?
    Click to expand...

    There were very few real bridges in Britannia at the time, Saxons used fords. Bridges were basically built to block the rivers in a way, to prevent large forces to sail unopposed.
    Click to expand...

    Interesting, didn't know that. Don't suppose you have a link to any source material on this?

    Also, while we're on the topic, does this mean that the bridges in VC are placed more to enable easier land movement, or are they actually (for the most part) historically accurate? I guess the same question goes for the rivers?
    Click to expand...

    No bridges in VC are simply a matter of convenience, so armies don't have to march around for ages everywhere. Same for ferries.
    Click to expand...

    Figured this to be the reason. Both bridges and ferries are definitely welcome in-game.

    And although I'm not sure Vikings ever actually raided Jorvik via following the rivers, but I thought that parts of Jorvik were accessible by river?
    Click to expand...

    Yes York is on the river and was captured by vikings sailing up the river. however, in VC it was decided not to have inland ports.
    Click to expand...

    Damn. Oh well, perhaps when a Viking-flavored mod comes out for Bannerlord? :wink:

  7. PYTHON SCRIPT/SCHEME EXCHANGE

    NPC99 said:
    EvilSquid said:
    JuJu70 said:
    Somehow I assumed that someone would have already done this, considering that most bridges effectively create rivers that you, by default, cannot sail/row past - meaning you have to disembark at the bridge and go the rest of the way on foot (which is usually slower). Which tbh has bugged me since getting VC - I thought one of trademarks of the Vikings was cruising all the way down inland rivers for raiding?
    Click to expand...

    Interestingly, vikings rarely ventured past bridges.
    Click to expand...



    And although I'm not sure Vikings ever actually raided Jorvik via following the rivers, but I thought that parts of Jorvik were accessible by river
    Click to expand...
    Jorvik was an important port. http://viking.archeurope.info/index.php?page=jorvik-the-viking-city-of-york
    Click to expand...

    Cheers for the link. Now I'm tempted to extend that river so that Jorvik can become a port in-game...

  8. PYTHON SCRIPT/SCHEME EXCHANGE

    JuJu70 said:
    Somehow I assumed that someone would have already done this, considering that most bridges effectively create rivers that you, by default, cannot sail/row past - meaning you have to disembark at the bridge and go the rest of the way on foot (which is usually slower). Which tbh has bugged me since getting VC - I thought one of trademarks of the Vikings was cruising all the way down inland rivers for raiding?
    Click to expand...

    Interestingly, vikings rarely ventured past bridges.
    Click to expand...

    That is interesting - is there any likely reason for this? Superstition? Or perhaps they thought it could collapse and trap them?

    Also, while we're on the topic, does this mean that the bridges in VC are placed more to enable easier land movement, or are they actually (for the most part) historically accurate? I guess the same question goes for the rivers?

    And although I'm not sure Vikings ever actually raided Jorvik via following the rivers, but I thought that parts of Jorvik were accessible by river?

    Same question as above for Caer Maguidd - IIRC this has a harbor (of sorts) with ships in it, so it's definitely located on/near a river? Is there a historical reason Caer Meguidd was not made a port city, or is it just one of those things that you didn't have time for in the end?

  9. Pagan anglo-saxon playthrough?

    koteko said:
    After having finished the game as pagan siding with norse as well as christian siding with anglo-saxon, I'm wondering about what happens with "weird" combinations, in particular pagan siding with anglo-saxons (Uthred for the win).

    I know that raiding monasteries would pretty much make it impossible to keep most companions and to have good relationship with anglo-saxon lords. So it would have to be a peaceful pagan, I guess?

    I also noticed (but am not 100% sure about it) that fiefs of opposing religion would hate me. Would this make it hard to progress as a lord of West Seax?

    Has anyone tried this, or maybe even succeeded in converting England to paganism, if at all possible? :grin:
    Click to expand...

    I think the issue is more about befriending lords/factions with an opposing religion. I think lords randomly (and really slowly) lose relations over time with lords of the opposite religion, so that makes it slightly harder (i.e. more maintenance) to keep on good terms with them. From my experience this is very slight, so I doubt it's insurmountable - it's probably just annoying enough that converting to Christianity seems like a good idea if you have lots of Christian friends (or potential future friends).

    In my experience, the morale drop due to "issues" that companions have with things such as raiding monasteries tend to pale in comparison to the morale drop due to personality conflicts - at least according to the game they appear to get over such issues pretty quickly.

    Naturally, as you've stated, raiding monasteries tends to annoy nearby fiefs, factions of those fiefs, and lords of those fiefs/factions. More worryingly, your relationship with christians will suffer - once it gets below -50, you'll start to see regular (and random) drops in relation with any christian factions.

    My current playthrough is pagan, but even though I've pretty much set out to crush all the christian kingdoms, I stopped raiding monasteries pretty early during the run due to those relations drops (I converted to Christianity temporarily to solve it). I did raid a ton of villages though - this still annoys even neighboring fiefs, but the relation hit is less widespread, and the relations with Christians aren't affected (so no slow random rel drops due to -50 with Christians). Of course if you convert to Christianity, you can simply visit a monastery to donate yourself back into God's grace... :wink:

    I wouldn't worry too much about relations with villages/forts/towns unless the town has the culture (and therefore troops) that you like to use, and/or if you're the lord. If you are the lord, then there are buildings and events such as Symbel which can help you to increase relations. If you are not the lord, and you don't like people not liking you, if you then visit that lord while he's in his fief (if it's a town or fort), you should have an option to get the lord to help you increase relations for 500-1000. Currently about half of the fiefs in my territory hate me due to the nasty things I did to their villages, in addition to the stuff I did during sieges - it's not really a problem since I have subordinate lords to deal with them.

    As for converting England to paganism - it's slowly getting there, though I didn't start building pagan temples until recently (so only about 3 fiefs have them, and I can't build in another lord's fief even if I'm his king). And by slowly I mean sloooooowly - the difference in religions compared to the start of the game is currently probably tiny at best.

    It's probably easier to convert to Christianity instead (assuming I cared what Christian lords think of me), plus I could potentially get more/better troops more often from certain fiefs - the only problem is that if you're using Norse faction troops, then they will be pagan, even though you recruited them from a Christian town...

    TL;DR:

    Being pagan will make it more challenging to succeed in a Christian realm, and will likely require more "maintenance" for relations - but is definitely doable. Definitely makes sense to convert to Christianity - except faction troops have a pre-set religion so it kind of makes things a bit weird.

  10. Feast Rating Bug (affects relation boost) (+possible fix) (2.032)

    Forgot to put this up the other week, namely a bug relating to how feasts are rated, which affects the max rep you can get. People may have noticed that no matter how much (or variety) of food, drink, jewelry or furs you have - even if you max everything out as "magnificent" - the actual...

  11. Potential Siege Bug (plus fix) - 2.032

    kalarhan said:
    EvilSquid said:
    Cool, sounds good. BTW it's awesome that you guys are still patching this game even as work on Bannerlord progresses.
    Click to expand...

    they are awesome (BWStudios), but they are not the ones working on Bannerlord (TaleWorlds). VC was developed by a third party company, similar to all the add-ons to MB (NW, MBF&S, Carribean!, VC)
    Click to expand...

    Ah of course, my mistake - for some reason I assumed they were now part of the same company (prob cos they're on these forums), whereas they're more like 3P contractors. Still cool of them to continue pumping out free updates either way, unlike some companies I could mention.

  12. PYTHON SCRIPT/SCHEME EXCHANGE

    Sailing/Rowing under bridges in Viking Conquest RE (2.032+)

    Somehow I assumed that someone would have already done this, considering that most bridges effectively create rivers that you, by default, cannot sail/row past - meaning you have to disembark at the bridge and go the rest of the way on foot (which is usually slower). Which tbh has bugged me since getting VC - I thought one of trademarks of the Vikings was cruising all the way down inland rivers for raiding?

    Anyway, the below code snippets (which will probably work with any version from 2.025 onwards) will allow you and any lords following you to sail (or row) under any of the bridges in VC - albeit via a lame insta-teleport after you confirm you want to cross via a triggered menu (I'm open to input on how to improve this btw!).

    The first snippet goes into module_simple_triggers.py:

    Code: 
    #SQUID - Hack to sail under bridges to get to other side
     (0.1,
      [
	(try_begin),
          #Check for nearby bridge
          (party_slot_eq, "p_main_party", slot_party_on_water, 1),
          (set_fixed_point_multiplier, 100),
          (assign, ":bridge_in_range", -1),
          (assign, ":end", "p_ferry_1a"),
          (try_for_range, ":cur_party", "p_Bridge_1", ":end"),
            (store_distance_to_party_from_party, ":cur_distance", ":cur_party", "p_main_party"),
            (lt, ":cur_distance", 2),
	    (assign, ":end", ":cur_party"),		#Loop breaker
	    (assign, ":bridge_in_range", ":cur_party"),
          (try_end),
	  (try_begin),		#Account for "extra" bridge
	    (eq, ":bridge_in_range", -1),
	    (store_distance_to_party_from_party, ":cur_distance", "p_Bridge_18", "p_main_party"),
	    (lt, ":cur_distance", 2),
	    (assign, ":bridge_in_range", "p_Bridge_18"),
	  (try_end),
          (gt, ":bridge_in_range", -1),
	  (party_get_position, pos1, ":bridge_in_range"),
	  (party_get_position, pos3, "p_main_party"),
	  (position_get_x, ":bridge_posx", pos1),
	  (position_get_x, ":party_posx", pos3),
	  (store_sub, ":pos_x", ":bridge_posx", ":party_posx"),
	  (val_add, ":pos_x", ":bridge_posx"),
	  (position_get_y, ":bridge_posy", pos1),
	  (position_get_y, ":party_posy", pos3),
	  (store_sub, ":pos_y", ":bridge_posy", ":party_posy"),
	  (val_add, ":pos_y", ":bridge_posy"),
	  (copy_position, pos4, pos3),
	  (position_set_x, pos4, ":pos_x"),
	  (position_set_y, pos4, ":pos_y"),
	  (map_get_water_position_around_position, pos2, pos4, 1),
          (party_set_position, "p_landing_point2", pos2),
       	  (jump_to_menu, "mnu_bridge_travel"),
	(try_end),
    ]),

    The second snippet goes into module_game_menus.py:
    Code: 
    #SQUID: Bridge travel
  ("bridge_travel",0,
   "You are at a bridge. Do you want to row under it? {s1} {s2}",
   "none",
   [
     # The below checks to see if lords following you will be OK or left behind,
     # and informs the player of this. Should work whether marshal or not.
     (set_background_mesh, "mesh_pic_fleet"),
      
     (str_clear, s1),
     (str_clear, s2),
     (assign, ":can_join", 0),
     (assign, ":cant_join", 0),
     (try_for_parties, ":cur_party"),
       (party_slot_eq, ":cur_party", slot_party_type, spt_kingdom_hero_party),
       (party_is_active, ":cur_party"),
       (store_faction_of_party, ":cur_party_faction", ":cur_party"),
       (eq, ":cur_party_faction", "$players_kingdom"),
       (get_party_ai_object, ":cur_party_ai_object", ":cur_party"),
       (eq, ":cur_party_ai_object", "p_main_party"),
       (party_slot_eq, ":cur_party", slot_party_on_water, 1),
       (store_distance_to_party_from_party, ":distance", "p_main_party", ":cur_party"),
       (try_begin),
         (le, ":distance", 5),
         (val_add, ":can_join", 1),
       (else_try),
         (val_add, ":cant_join", 1),
       (end_try),
     (try_end),
      
     (try_begin),
       (eq, ":can_join", 1),
       (str_store_string, s1, "@One lord can disembark here with you."),
     (else_try),
       (gt, ":can_join", 0),
       (assign, reg1, ":can_join"),
       (str_store_string, s1, "@{reg1} lords can disembark here with you."),
     (try_end),
     (try_begin),
       (eq, ":can_join", 1),
       (str_store_string, s2, "@One lord will lose track of you. He must disembark at the next port and then come find you."),
     (else_try),
       (gt, ":cant_join", 0),
       (assign, reg1, ":cant_join"),
       (str_store_string, s2, "@{reg1} lords will lose track of you. They must disembark at the next port and then come find you."),
     (try_end),

   ],
   [
     ("yes",[],"Yes - sail/row under the bridge.",
       [
	 #Teleport the ship to the new location
	 #TODO: but make the ship "travel" instead of teleporting...
         (jump_to_menu, "mnu_auto_return_to_map"),
	 (party_get_position, pos1, "p_landing_point2"),
	 (call_script, "script_get_next_water_position",1),
	 (party_set_position, "p_main_party", pos2),
	
	 #Check for lords following player - anyone within range will also end up on the other side (with the player)
	 (try_for_parties, ":cur_party"),
           (party_slot_eq, ":cur_party", slot_party_type, spt_kingdom_hero_party),
           (party_is_active, ":cur_party"),
           (store_faction_of_party, ":cur_party_faction", ":cur_party"),
           (eq, ":cur_party_faction", "$players_kingdom"),
           (get_party_ai_object, ":cur_party_ai_object", ":cur_party"),
           (eq, ":cur_party_ai_object", "p_main_party"),
           (party_slot_eq, ":cur_party", slot_party_on_water, 1),
           (store_distance_to_party_from_party, ":distance", "p_main_party", ":cur_party"),
           (le, ":distance", 5),
           (party_set_position, ":cur_party", pos2),
         (try_end),

       ]
     ),
     ("leave",[],"No.",
       [
	 (jump_to_menu, "mnu_auto_return_to_map"),
       ]
     ),
   ]
  ),
    Note that I reuse the landing_point2 party (since it's still there but not currently used as far as I can tell).

    Note that although other parties can follow you even if you're not marshal (I haven't added a check for this), they will get stuck if you decide to disembark anywhere on the side of the river that's cut off by the bridge. So just be careful to not go under bridges with AI parties following you, unless you're the marshal - they will likely get stuck permanently.

    Note also that only you and parties currently following you (if in range) will be able to travel under bridges - the AI won't be able to do this by itself, so AI ships still won't ever appear on the "cut off" section of bridges.

  13. Potential Siege Bug (plus fix) - 2.032

    Cool, sounds good. BTW it's awesome that you guys are still patching this game even as work on Bannerlord progresses.

  14. Lord "promotion" bug + fix (2.032)

    kalarhan said:
    EvilSquid said:
    if you're looking for them in the name list
    Click to expand...

    off-topic comment: I use a simple filtered system on my mods. When you click on a faction (example), it will only display the lords and centers of that faction (if you visit the other Notes pages).
    ...
    Click to expand...

    Cool, yeah I've noticed that other mods have many QOL improvements over both the base game and VC. I generally navigate from the Notes Faction page to find associated fiefs and/or lords, but there are definitely times when I thought that the ordering could be better, or presented better.

    It's mainly annoying when I want to check my relation with a lord that is waiting to join my faction (or get rejected) - these lords change their title but they don't show up on your faction page because they technically haven't joined yet. Although funnily enough, kingdom ladies will count them as part of your faction for the purposes of giving them gifts.

  15. Lord "promotion" bug + fix (2.032)

    kalarhan said:
    The idea (original) was to update the base title when a lord changes faction. That way you won't have:

    Ealdorman Ragnar, Tiarna Kalarhan, Warlord Squid, Jarl XXX -> in the same faction

    so as you update titles to match the current faction, you get a more clean list (all Jarls, or all Warlords, etc) based on the faction culture.

    VC at release had static titles.
    Click to expand...

    Yes this makes sense - things definitely make much more sense this way than with static titles. The only downside being, given that the naming convention is TITLE NAME, it requires knowing the title of the person if you're looking for them in the name list. Additionally, as a side-effect, it appears that this also invalidates the rivalry hyperlinks on a lord's notes page (although most of the time I've seen ALL of a Lord's rivalries lose their hyperlink status - sending someone to spy on their kingdom tends to update that though, and it usually doesn't take too long to figure out where they went).

    kalarhan said:
    EvilSquid said:
    So the original design decision was lords having titles set at the start only, so their "rank" effectively only ever changes, never actually increases?
    Click to expand...
    increase or decrease. Lets use a medieval type for titles:
    Click to expand...

    Good point! I had completely overlooked the case of ranks actually decreasing, as I'm pretty sure that function isn't called when lords lose a fief, only when they gain one...

    Edit: OK it appears that give_center_to_lord is called whenever a fief changes hands, so just make sure to check/adjust the old lord in case he got demoted:

    Code: 
    (try_begin),
        (eq, ":faction_leader", ":old_lord_troop_id"),
        (call_script, "script_add_log_entry", logent_liege_grants_fief_to_vassal, ":faction_leader", ":center_no", ":lord_troop_id", ":lord_troop_faction"),
        (troop_set_slot, ":lord_troop_id", slot_troop_promised_fief, 0),
      #SQUID changes begin
      (else_try),
	# Old lord was not a faction leader - meaning it was taken from him, so check for updates to his rank in case of demotion
	(store_troop_faction, ":old_troop_faction", ":old_lord_troop_id"),
	(call_script, "script_troop_set_title_according_to_faction", ":old_lord_troop_id", ":old_troop_faction"),
      #SQUID changes end
      (try_end),

    Not tested yet but should work...

  16. Quick Questions - Quick Answers Thread

    CHenric said:
    TatteredBanners said:
    If you play as a bandit, with enough reputation can you recruit bandits for free?
    Click to expand...
    Yes, with negative rep it's possible.
    Click to expand...

    Negative rep (if it's low enough) is required to be able to recruit them at all. To get them for free I believe you also need to be significantly outnumbering them at the time you encounter them (they won't even ask for money when you suggest joining in that case).

  17. Quick Questions - Quick Answers Thread

    AfLIcTeD said:
    They seem to have removed lords personalities and other lord/lady relations from the relationship tab in the latest patch, this is to try and fit all the lords on to the relationship tab.
    It may still show the personalities in the notes section, but only if you haven't sent out a companion to spy on them (may be a bug).
    Personalities won't show for lords straight away if you have just met them for the first time, so give it some days/weeks to update.
    Click to expand...

    As per the above, the Notes should have this info (when it becomes available). Generally it "being available" requires you to have met the lord in question, or at least heard something about him (maybe?), or have had someone spy on their kingdom.

    IMO the notes are much more convenient than the Lords info screen, since you have hyperlinks for easy navigation, and can get to all lords of a single faction from their faction screen as opposed to having to read through tons of text with no hyperlinks (IMO that list is only really useful to see who your top likes/haters are).

    Having someone spy on the kingdom definitely has the potential to add rivalry information to a lord (if he has any), as well as information about his relationship with his liege (which can be useful if you want to scheme some land without fighting) but I'm not sure if it adds personality info at all (it doesn't appear to remove it if its already there though). Note that spying probably won't reveal all info about all lords at any rate, so it's worth spying multiple times (plus your existing info may get updated).

  18. Lord "promotion" bug + fix (2.032)

    kalarhan said:
    that is by design (WAI), or something that was decided to work this way back on VC RE beta/release. Lords get new titles when they change factions (faction was destroyed, you recruit a lord to yours, etc), but not promotion when they get land in the same faction.

    maybe devs will revisit this idea and apply your suggestion

    Cheers
    Click to expand...

    So the original design decision was lords having titles set at the start only, so their "rank" effectively only ever changes, never actually increases? That makes some sense, but since titles are generally related to land, and since the game explicitly sets titles up based on land, IMO "promotion" should be a thing.

    Especially since the same script is run whenever a lord changes faction - so in effect it is possible for a lord to get a "promotion", but only if they start as with one village or less, acquire at least one fort or town, then change factions (bringing the town/fort with them). Sure this isn't common, but can (and does) happen.

    Irrespective of my thoughts on the matter, I'm happy for this thread to get moved to the modding section if this is indeed WAI.

  19. Possible minstrel bug (+fix) (2.032)

    OK this one is really minor - it only affects minstrels, specifically, when they tell you about feasts going on. Surely I'm not the only one who noticed that they ALWAYS say "there's a feast at BLAH, but it's been going on for a few days and is about to end". Well the following changes will...

  20. Potential Siege Bug (plus fix) - 2.032

    AfLIcTeD said:
    Wondered why I could never get them to surrender when I had over 1000 men with me. Will try this and translate it to .txt format and add it to the tweaks thread.

    Not only does lords following you not caluculate into surrender, they also don't calculate when you order the vanguard, it only calculates yours which means if you are seiging a large town with allies you will lose most of your troops while your allies lose none.

    I think the first one is working, still haven't got them to surrender, but they now say other lines other than "Surrender, it's a joke" before they would just say that all the time.
    Click to expand...


    Hmmm, well I thought they did factor into other scripts, and I thought that included the vanguard - I'm sure that even though I put my important troops in a quarters, when I placed the mantlets I had troops dying that I no longer had in my main army. I did have those troop types in my quarters, but on checking them I found I hadn't lost any, so I assume the game must have added troops from my allies. Either that or putting them into quarters makes them both available for use but invulnerable to death from certain siege scripts? :wink:

    I know that for the actual assault, I can confirm that when you lead the troops yourself, that I definitely had allies with me - generally I'd have more allied troops than my own, so I'd actually lose less men than my allies. I don't tend to let them assault without me though - since the casualties for that are way higher than if you do the battle yourself - so I guess it's possible that this could result in allies not being added properly - but I thought a recent patch fixed this already?


    Getting the requirements to trigger the surrender is pretty tough. The (potential) problem is that once you pass the initial check, the rest of the calculations don't take your army size into account (they're generally just arbitrary-looking numbers added to "conditions", but they DO take the enemy's army size into account (i.e. the "conditions" need to exceed 2*enemy_strength). So the later in the game you are, the more difficult this is to reach due to the larger garrison sizes.

    Each day they spent starving gives you 80 points toward "conditions", but each day spent starving there's also a 10% chance the garrison surrenders by itself (i.e. without requiring you to contact the garrison first). I think the only time I got a surrender was when I had everything done and successful (successful infiltration, found a traitor, pillaged farms, checkpoints active, mantlets built and placed, ladders built), plus they'd been starving for a number of days, plus they'd sallied out twice due to starvation.

    By that time they had hardly any non-injured troops left, so it would have been almost as easy to assault them at that point (plus I would have gotten more loot). Not to mention that they could have just as easily surrendered the next day for all I know, so this probably only saved a day or two at most. Although this way should theoretically mean fewer casualties than assaulting the place, given how easy it is to cheese the AI on most assault maps and how many troops I lost due to siege events and placing the mantlets (though I did the old "put your good troops in the quarters when placing mantlets" trick), I'm not sure I was that much better off.

    And if we assume that most of those chumps can be replaced easily enough, and then factor in the cost of the food I went through (good variety + amount for morale), plus the peningas for the occasional event, plus the cost of priests/camp women every 3-4 days - in most cases it's probably not worth seeking surrender. The only thing that makes this viable is the fact that troops often take time as well as money to replace, which might be more important than the time/money saved by assaulting it.

    In winter I would have definitely been worse off, but that's to be expected.

    There are other factors - your relations with the centre, the owning lord, the owning lord's personality type - which can mean earlier surrenders - but I don't tend to generally have good relations with my enemies. Also I think the lords relation/personality only factors in if the lord is actually present (i.e. you talk to him instead of the generic commander).

    So... overall, starving them out is situation-dependent, where you can both afford to take however long you want, and where the casualties you take in an assault would definitely be more than the casualties you take during all those siege events (and you have lots of food with you, and have enough for expenses, and you're not fussed about missing out on the extra loot/prisoners). IMO most siege works are still worth it since they can help thin their numbers prior to an assault - that's usually what I do when facing large garrisons and/or places that are difficult to assault.

    It's also useful to get them to sally out due to lack of food in those cases, although there are times where I swear that I lose more troops fighting an (starving!) enemy's sally than a direct assault against their full garrison...
Back
Top Bottom