Affecting isn't the same as interlinking, and once you've got something stabilised it's easier to tweak the output up or down than rebuilding the entire system. The economy impacts a lot more than caravans, and things outside of the economy impact on caravans too. You pare it down precisely so you can track the ripple effects; If I wait until the game is system complete and then find the player has too much money I'd need to first test every possible source of income for the player to determine where the problem might be (usually by playing around with each in turn), apply what I think will fix it and hope the change doesn't cause issues elsewhere (or indeed, issues elsewhere don't then counter the fix). Conversely if I drill down on something like caravans I can tweak that until I'm happy, future systems (or systems which end up connected) can then be built around the stable system to take into account any knock on effects, at least in theory.These all affect the economy in one way or another.
Generally I'm finding the stun is long enough to get a quick thrust in, and two or three of those tends to put an end to it. Plus you can always kick them to death (or even better, over the nearest wall if playing siege. Yelling 'This is Calradia!' while doing so is entirely optional). Also as the kick doesn't leave you locked quite as long as Warband's did it's possible to kick and move around the side which lets you abuse the directional blocking somewhat (given they'll normally block towards the side you're trying to move around, a swing or overhead usually catches them out; with a relatively quick one hander I've even managed to hit them behind the shield via that method).Shield bash against shield does nothing, kicking is too short a stun to open him up in a meaningful way,
Manage your game holistically. Get all the features you want in, running bug free, and then balance them and ensure the intended challenge/player experience is correct.
I don't believe the weapons are the sole problem here. When attacking, I want to be able to focus on assaulting the walls instead of getting picked by cavalry every 5 seconds. Lance, spear, it doesn't matter. Either restrict defender cavalry from getting out or find another solution but in my experience no attacker enjoys this.
Yes, the force exerted is a function of mass and acceleration. That's the problem though - the reason you thrust with the spear, or indeed swing a fist, is to increase acceleration. At a walking pace - which I'd define as slow enough to come to a dead stop without needing to slow down - the force generated is likely to be considerably less than the 1kgf minimum required (momentum would be close to zero). If I were to start running rather than walking it's much more likely I'll penetrate with the spear.Couching, bracing helps add effective mass behind an attack. For example, a 90 kilo guy running at you with a 1,5-2m long stick, say 4 cm diameter, and you standing there, receiving the stick when said guy has it braced, not lounging, just ramming. Instead of the whole body impacting, the braced stick will transfer the energy from the 90 kilo guy running with minimal loss compared to it being held by 1 hand, or being thrust forward. I would not want to be on the receiving end of the stick.
That depends. Breaking the skin with a knife (and functionally a spear is simply a knife on a stick) requires between 10 and 20 newtons to be applied, or roughly 1 - 2 kgf against the tip of the spear. If you're simply standing there, the only force you're exerting is against gravity (perpendicular to the spear). So all things being equal, the end result is you being pushed backwards at around the same speed I'm moving. In order to actually break the skin I require that 1 Kgf is generated somehow, either by you pushing against the spear or else accelerating the spear to generate the force against you thanks to inertia (theoretically I could also increase the mass of the spear, but that's somewhat unlikely).Okay, let's take this step by step. Let's say that you have a spear, and that I am standing 20 feet away from you. You raise the spear toward me (thrust) and you walk (advance). You aim the point the spear at my chest and i don't move or defend myself. You continue to walk (advance) toward me until the point of the spear touches my chest. You keep walking.
What is my current situation?
It's not me you'd need to worry about, it's Isaac Newton. Though I'm sure NASA would probably also be entertained by you explaining how we've had the basic laws of motion wrong all this timeIf you think walking a spear into an opponent won't harm them, I don't know what to tell you.
Not really. There's some significant scatter on the arrow over range even if you max out your bow skill, and the AI archers don't have maximum skill. The problem is the AI has a tendency to bunch up, particularly when it's decided to attack a target and even if ordered into a loose formation. Once the AI adopts it's favoured rugby scrum formation accuracy tends to be irrelevant - you can shoot without letting the crosshairs close and still be guaranteed to hit *something*.Firstly, archers are way too accurate, it's like every AI has aimbot on.
Only partially fixes it. The old M&B trick still works (to great success in captain mode) as the AI will nearly always turn towards the closest threat. Stand a little forward and to the side of your archer line and the AI will obediently open itself up for enfilade as it decides to pursue you. It becomes a huge issue as soon as you introduce cavalry since it'll cheerfully turn to face the horseman running along behind it even while under sustained fire from the front, allowing even shielded infantry to be reduced to pincushions in short order.Second, to many unshielded infantry in armies, the vast majority of AI troops are composed of low tier infantry who don't have shields.
What precisely are you expecting at point blank range? The problem there is 'engaging one of them'. You'll notice a similar problem even with melee infantry in that when you engage one of them their friends have this annoying habit of stabbing you in the back of the headThird thing is that archers are too effective in close range, reaching the archer line doesn't mean much as when you engage one of them, the rest of them easily shoot you with 100% accuracy.
I believe some of that is related to focus point spending though.It already does that. Your EXP rate is much higher the more green there is. As you get closer to the boundary it drops.
The problem with the cap goes back to what I was saying about the relative value of the attributes. Vigour, Control and to an extent Endurance are somewhat hampered by the fact that they contain multiple skills you wouldn't ordinarily expect on the one character while Social and Intelligence contain skills you do generally want on the same character. This causes a problem since combat skills in particular tend to be quicker to level, so at some point if you're playing a horse archer for example you end up needing to spend time as a crossbow wielding infantryman to raise the otherwise useless athletics and crossbow skills enough to let you raise the cap on riding and archery. Play a trader on the other hand and since all three of their important skills come under Social and tend to be a little slower to raise you don't really hit the same problem until much later, if at all.Instead of completely nixing the penalty phase (where you go past the boundary far enough till you get 0xp gain) they should cap the total possible attribute amounts like they do focus, and once you hit the maximum attribute level the penalty should never reach 0. Something like 0.5 instead. And that should really only take effect around 250 to 275.
How fast you want to level up actually? The system is made specificaly so you would specialize. Do you want to have every skill maxed out?
I suspect they'd be better inverted, i.e. rather than applying a penalty to skill growth once it passes the attribute boundary instead provide a bonus to skill gain up to that boundary. It'd retain it's incentive to specialise without overly punishing players for focusing on the 'wrong' skills at the wrong time.The soft caps are overly aggressive right now, for sure.
It's not random, the AI is looking at the target and trying to pick the best attack to hit (it won't try a left swing if you're holding a left block for example). It's not looking at it's surroundings (hence happy to hit the nearest wall) or the weapon it's using (thus trying to literally go toe to toe while waving a polearm). I've also yet to see it couch a weapon on horseback. Funnily enough it did have some understanding of it's surroundings in WB - it wouldn't choose an attack that would be blocked by scenery etc. Of course, it could just be the AI is unaware of it's equipment as the equipment list isn't finalised yet.My game engine insight is currently on single cell organisms' level, but from my own observations the soldiers just pick a random attack like they did in previous MnB's. It would be perfectly functional if they were aware of their surroundings and used only attacks that can hit the target at least theoretically.
No, they're asking for the relative position controls, both block and attack would be set by the same thing, which is relative position of the crosshair to the closest enemy.So what OP is asking for is attack by relative enemy position as well as automatic blocking by his description?
Again (and again) i just say it's boring. The point of a video game is to entertain the player. Video game has to have a leveling, a progression. And chase 7 bandits with 200 men because i know that i will loose a soldier in AB is not fun, it's just a bad implementation of a feature.