For it to feel like you're rewarding companions for loyal service I'd need companions to have more depth... It doesn't make me feel what you're implying if they're all robots who will follow my lead no matter what I do. I need some to actually betray me, turn hostile against me and attack my party with theirs (and you don't see them as hostile until it's too late, so it's a very dramatic event. Also they'd try to aim for moments when your party is weakened if possible). I need relationship, and relationship to actually matter in such decisions they do. If I treat them well I expect them to treat me well and be loyal to me, especially if our "styles" are similar. If they're good natured and I don't do any bad stuff I expect them to be more willing to stay loyal to my cause. But if they're more of a rogue and have some nasty traits then I expect them to betray me if I'm too good-natured for their liking, and be more willing to follow me if I'm a raiding, peasant killing bastard... I JUST WANT THAT. Some depth to these characters. If I turn them to lords but I know they will always be loyal no matter what, because they're robots with no feelings, how can I roleplay that they're anything special when they're not? I guarantee I still won't care for them at all... The army template based on personality that you mentioned does really sound good though, those are the kind of additions that we need. Game really needs personality.Some of the stuff Taleworlds has already said they're working on will help. Turning your companions into nobles could be a nice roleplaying feature that lets you feel like you're rewarding them for loyal service.
For Armor my suggestion implies that different clan tier lords would get different tiers of armors, so not every lord would have the highest armor values and the most survivability. The highest clan tier lords would have highest survivability because they would get the best armors and would be more likely to reach old age and be seen and remembered by the player. Having some characters be more consistently alive in the world is a MUST, it paints for a believable story with actual life in it that clings to survive, where top of the food chain is making it more often than the bottom of the food chain, because other lords (from low clan tiers trying to get up in the world) would give the impression that they struggle economically and do not have access to the best of armors like a well renowned and successful lord would. Low renown = more death, high renown = more time in your story. It brings a nice flavor to the world. You could even go further and provide a training experience bonus for higher clan tiers so that those lords will have better quality troops than lower clan tiers (tier 4-5 troops vs tier 2's and 3's), to make it more believable that there is an economical gap between clan tiers. High clan tiers could also get a reduction in wages they have to pay, so that they don't suffer economically from the increased tier of troops like they did in the past.Armor is a nice suggestion and gives them another purpose in the game, I will discuss the survival effect of armor in the game with the team. (However, this would also reduce the probability of death for lords as well, making them a bit meaningless, because other than the player everyone who's killable in the battle is a lord.)
I agree, I suggested this before. It makes sense for me for a lord/companion/ and PLAYER to have deep wounds after falling in battle, needing rest to recover. The solution is so simple, start death chance of every significant NPC at 0%, then after falling in battle he gets a WOUNDED status (if not enough time passes/if the player or npc doesn't rest enough so that the wounds heal then this death chance goes UP to 2% or 5%, so next time he falls in battle he has a serious chance of death (also if the lord/companion is IMPRISONED that time doesn't count as "resting"). If he survives falling in battle again then this chance goes up even further. That way reckless lords will die more often and cautious lords would survive longer, as it makes sense. Same for the player, good cautious players will live longer, giving the game a WELL NEEDED challenge and consequences (so it's not totally BORING, because please take note that GOOD players will barely lose ANY battles in their campaigns, the game is not hard at all. We are talking about players that have mastered masterpieces likes the Prophesy of Pendor mod in Warband and such, which was one of the more challenging ones, which also made it the most fun).I think that 2% is still way too high.
If you imagine between 5 and 10 deaths per year, let's say 7 on average.
So that's 70 dead lords in 10 years and 126 dead lords in 18 years, by the time the children grow up and replace the dead ones.
I'm not even sure if there are that many in all factions, it's going to be very quiet on the map...
Moreover, no player will get attached to the characters since they will all die one after the other very quickly, each companion/lord will be just a vulgar "bots" without any flavor, a name vaguely heard once during a battle and replaced by another bots which will itself die very quickly.
Yes, the dynastic aspect and death is a really nice feature, bringing another dimension to the games. But it must be customizable by the player (with much more precision than now) and must be RARE to be memorable and have a real emotional impact.
Why not implement some kind of injury system as suggested in another post? Falling in battle would require some sort of recovery/rest to heal without which future battles would increase the risk of dying.
Fallen and defeated lords would have to rest in a fiefdom or could take up arms again, but with great additional risk.
This would make combat victories impactful, with real consequences, rather than having defeated lords reappear on the map 3 minutes later with a small, fresh troop after fighting to defeat them.
That's my opinion anyway, sorry for my English.
yes, that sucks, as a defender it would be pretty cool. Also maybe the /retreat order could make soldiers go back to the keep. For this to not be abusable, there would have to be some sort of limit on how many defending troops can enter the keep. The rest of the troops would have to fight it out outside the keep door. I hope TW implements this kind of thingYou can't enter the keep from the battle, no. It will just pull you out then give you the option to join the keep battle. You also can't do keep battles as a defender, which I assume TW will add(?) because keep battles as a defender would be far more fun imo.
Agreed, makes no sense for it to be bow. I was thinking the same thing. Also throwing skill from catapults is cool and all, but it would make more sense to gain engineering skill... If I throw a rock/pot by hand then it makes more sense to be throwing skill. Also if I'm pushing a ram/siege tower, I'd like to gain athletics. Just some ideasBug:
Balista improves Bow skill currently, it should be Crossbow skill.