With your mod outputting it straight to raw text files, it'd be pretty easy to knock up a little python or R script that translates that over into the tables and figures being made here. If I end up with some time I could have a look at it, but if it's raw text separated by commas or whitespace, something as simple as pandas' read_csv will likely do the trick, followed by a matplotlib/seaborn barplot. Might help speed things up!
For my current playthrough, I never had so many deaths in one battle. The OP's screenshot seems more like a coincidence rather than regularity. And I have many large battles 1000 vs 1000 in the current playthrough. I've lost about 4 companions in ~20 game years and a few nobles (including 2 wives). Others always get wounded, go to jail, escape, repeat.
2% is WAY too low. With this death chance I can go play Warband and won't feel the difference, because of the immortal lords here and there.
Yes you're confirming my point earlier, a freaking UI change as a piece of evidence, really ? Are you joking or something ?
With that in mind, could you elaborate your thoughts further ? This is the exact same debate that happened in another thread, for some reasons past the UI rant nobody could explain me why they logically think the shalowness of that game was magically because of a console port.
And you were on that thread.
I agree the debate isn't starting very well for you if you think you made good logical points above.
Knight of calradia said:I would recommend going for 10 in trainer and tactics skills rather than into the main character boosting skills.,you should know this stuff, but I'll just say anyway what these two skills does, trainer: faster training depending of you character's level, tactics, increases your units performance in battles, super helpful.
spyczech said:Or TW could just implement it in the first place... I'm hoping they improve more than just the graphics and stuff.
Yukisuna said:This might not be helpful at all, but you should consider taking a look at the coding for "Battle time". It may or may not help with stability between players, both on the world map and in battles. I'm especially excited to see how battles will happen, for example how this might work if one player goes into a battle and another doesnt. (I imagine going to fight a looter pack, and then dozens of outlaws coming in wave after wave as they reach your party on the world map. Please, do not implement PvP, at least not yet. It would be a nightmare for other players to be able to join in on the opposing side during your battles.
Metalfist said:Content includes development information.
Metalfist said:Leave the Dev to release content when he wants otherwise the thread just becomes a hostage situation and the dev gets angry.
Gruumsh said:Arcaian said:You see my post?
I did. It helps to understand the mechanism, but I can see from this thread that my experience is pretty close to universal, which means that the only way to play past mid-game is to adopt one particular strategy, of becoming king yourself. This is very poor design on the part of the devs. How many games did QC play? This problem should have been readily apparent. In a game based on totally open sandboxing, to railroad players into a single strategy due to poor AI is a huge issue.
Gruumsh said:Well, I just ragequit. That's it, I'm done with Swadia. I've spent the last two hours taking and defending and re-taking and re-defending two castles which Swadia can't or won't defend, mainly because enemies keep launching attacks from those castles on MY fiefs. This cost me most of my top-tier troops. All while at war with three nations, all of them declared by us. My reward for all of this? The king just declared war on the Khergits, the only nation with which we were were not yet at war -- and who are at full strength, and who border *my* lands and no one else's.
When I feel less like smashing my keyboard, I'm quitting Swadia and becoming my own kingdom. If I'm going to be at war with the whole planet, I might as well reap the benefits.
This is seriously poor AI. I don't remember it being this bad in M&B.
Arcaian said:Your main problem is being a vassal of Swadia; they're in a horrible position in the centre of the map. As they get attacked by multiple factions, their lords lose land. Losing the land causes them to lose significant amount of relation with their King. So does losing battles, though not quite as much. Thus as they lose battles and land they start to hate their king. The King must fix this, and the only way to do this is to host a feast. The feast allows everyone to restore their relationship, however as they lose more battles and land whilst feasting they start to lose more relationship, thus feasts become very common, otherwise all the lords would leave the faction. Even as you take enemy lands and you cause Swadia to 'win' the war, the lords still need to have their relationship restored and so the feasts continue, as you win the battles but the lords of Swadia lose them.
It's basically just two different parts of the AI that are conflicting because you keep on winning the battles. The first part is the King's declaring war AI based on war progress and success in expanding their kingdom. It's seeing the kingdom expanding, and so declares war on 'weak' kingdoms. The second part is the King-Lord relationship AI, showing the Lord's relationship dropping and therefore feasts must be called to fix the relationship.
The easiest fix to this for the devs/ a mod would be to expand Swadia's land slightly into the sea; giving them one more city, 2 more castles and 5 more villages, and removing Dhirim and the surrounding castles and giving them to a 'neutral' or rebel faction. That way Swadia would only border the Rhodoks and Nords, and whoever took Dhirim would have an extra city as well as some castles to give them an advantage, but then border every other faction as well.