Search results for query: *

  1. Third Generation All Barren

    I haven't looked into it for a while so I'm running off of memory, but that sounds right.

    A woman's chance of pregnancy depends on:
    • Her Age
    • How many children she has already had
    • Whether her or her husband have the Virile perk
    • If neither she or her husband are the character you're playing as, there's also a penalty based on how many characters (not counting companions I think?) the clan has. Higher tier clans get to have more children before getting penalized
    The young wife should have a chance, yes. Unless your clan already has too many people in it, she might also have a chance if you're leaving her sitting in the same town/castle as her husband too.
  2. Steam won't let me roll back- what gives?

    As far as I know, they removed the versions older than e.1.7.0 entirely.

    eX.X.X = Early Access

    vX.X.X = Release

    Serve As Soldier is the current Freelancer-like mod around. I remember it being pretty buggy the last time I used it, though that was a while ago so it could be different now.
  3. Making Personality Traits, Noble Relations and Political Stances relevant

    Trait levels do range from -2 to +2. Can't remember if any NPCs start with a-2 or +2 trait though or if they can change them during the game though. I'd say unlikely though, if only because the player has to painstakingly grind Trait XP to reach those extremes.
  4. Beta Patch Notes v1.1.0

    Name of the thread again? You can't do the 1.1 without opt into it.
    Yeah, I meant you had to opt in to play the beta, so it wasn't something people were forced into doing. Though I think I get what you meant about beta patches now. The thread I was talking about was the new silent patch notes thread.
  5. Beta Patch Notes v1.1.0

    Because nothing like bright up some peoples day by release a patch full of bugs and mess up their game right? At least with make a beta patch optional, people (should) know what to be expected..
    To be fair, the beta is opt-in optional. Are you sure that you're not talking about the (previously) unannounced and patch-noteless patch to 1.0.3 instead?
  6. come on now!

    Two-handed axes and two-handed maces are capable of this in Native. There are some mods that extend the capability but haven't tried any so wouldn't know how much they change about it.
  7. Smithing parts unlock grind solution

    The first blunt heads are T1 if I remember right, so you'll just have to craft and smelt (also look for low difficulty 2h mace orders) until you can unlock them.
  8. Will changing the game version to beta 1.0.3 prevent the Update?

    TW can and will still update the live version (currently 1.0.3, whether you picked it under Betas or had None for your beta) still. It's generally safer to stay a version or two behind the current Live version (1.0.2, 1.0.1, etc) if you're modding. Though other than that thing where Newtonsoft.Json had to be updated, I dunno why TW would update the current Live (if a Beta exists), just that they do.
  9. Third Generation All Barren

    You probably married him to a clan leader. Clan Leaders always take their spouse into their clan. Which is also why two Clan Leaders can't marry.
  10. Third Generation All Barren

    Unfortunately the only current solution is to be a male character and keep getting your wives killed. Though I imagine this is supposed to be a deterrent for both the player and AI clans getting bigger.
  11. Third Generation All Barren

    I say it again, this should not be for the player clan, because the player clan has other pregnancy system than the AI clan, because player clan members have to wait together with their spouse for pregnancy and the AI cheats the pregnancy.
    That is the way it works currently, whether it should be like that is a different subject. Right now the only check it does for if it should apply this penalty is whether the wife or her spouse is the current Main Hero.
  12. Third Generation All Barren

    Oh whoops, just realized that I forgot to put parentheses to make it clearer. 28 is the most you can have as a T6 clan before the penalty starts to kick in, and 56 is the point at which there's absolutely no chance (though even before then the chance will be so low that it's worth focusing on just you/your spouse)
    Code:
    4 + (4 * Tier)
  13. Third Generation All Barren

    The issue is probably your 58 lords (as in everyone who is not a companion). But all wives except for your wife (if you're the husband) or you (if you're the wife) take a penalty as I mentioned above. In fact, I'm pretty sure that only you and your spouse can have any children by this point.
    I don't know if there's an explicit max, but NPC couples do get a penalty the more members (not counting companions) their clan has, based on their tier.
    The point at which AI couples in your clan start taking this penalty is after your clan has more than
    Code:
    4 + 4 * Tier, so if you're a Tier 6 clan, 28
    lords.
    And the point at which they would have absolutely no chance is twice that.

    All Virile does is multiply the chance by 1.3 if either the wife or her husband has it, so a 1% chance would become a 1.3% chance, a 20% chance would become a 26% chance, and so on. And a 0% chance is still a 0% chance.
  14. Patch Notes v1.1.4 ...?

    But... if the lords are free, you have more threatened battles. And we take all their fiefs too. I don't get your point.

    There is a minimum amount of time a prisoner stays put, which is unarguably far too low, which makes the prisoner strategy the only (?) viable CONQUEST strategy. But this isn't a game of CONQUEST, it is a game of individual combat and individual achievement. Any amount of Conquest you get done is ephemeral, and that is *by design*.

    I happen to agree with the design: crappy little kingdoms knocking the piss out of each other and then waiting in the shadows to make a comeback, for hundreds of years? That is realistic.

    World domination is NOT realistic. But the game lets you do it anyway with a specific set of traits.
    You'll have more battles, but they won't particularly be more threatening. Their best tend to get thrown at you first, then they'll have to pull some from their garrisons and start recruiting from notables, which should give decent troops as long as the notables haven't been drained of higher tier troops yet, then back into the meatgrinder player's loving arms. Then it's downhill from there for troop quality until they build up their own parties more and the notables get a long enough break for their troops to level up.

    I'm not really sure how you've come to the conclusion that conquest isn't something that TW wants the player to be able to do. The game's description mentions it, there are achievements around not only that but world domination, and it's a prequel to a game where conquering was supported and players were expected to do.

    The game has mechanics that support it and put limits on it, like needing to make sure your holdings are stable unless you want a rebellion to wrest them away from you. Though I figure most players would just influence drain so that they could put +Loyalty policies up. I doubt that the devs put so much work into sieges for them to be a trap option that ultimately gets the player nothing. At least for towns, castles are meh. The work done to curtain snowballing wasn't so that no one could do anything ever, but that a non-speedrunning player could have more time before factions get too strong or weak. Though the general trend of clans toward Tier 6 means they'll get stronger anyway.

    When I was talking about prisoner strategies, I meant that they seem to be the only viable way of getting positive tribute (maybe raiding too? Though that would come with its own costs), but that's not the same as conquering territory. For that it's just spilling a bunch of blood while avoiding getting too bled out to siege.
    But yeah, you need over 40 before it even matters at all because they all have extra members to send out in replacement parties, so until you start cutting into those their amount of parties won't even change in a useful way. Even then they will pile on mercs and you have to catch them too. Of course you don't have to, I don't even have keen sight until I'm 1/2 done with the map these days, you can just doze them anyways and be annoyed with the conga of armies.
  15. Patch Notes v1.1.4 ...?

    I have come to the conclusion that I like how difficult it is, how absolutely hard it is to get anything done.

    The system is built to produce a certain result. You are playing one game that is balanced to oppose you at all times ("Your faction"? No, you are one person, and you are not everywhere at once), and the AI is playing a different game. The game is built for the AI to be a *functional* structure to string together small unit battles, not to make it easy for you to conquer their pet-project world.
    I do agree that on average, the game should challenge the player, but I think it should be through threatening battles and that the current war score system just isn't fun or challenging to engage with. Going for tribute is less attractive than just sieging down their mostly defenseless fiefs by the point that you've used the two big prisoner perks (which require going pretty deeply into two specific skills) to just drag everyone around anyway.

    I think that the game should try to get the player more involved and immersed in the world, rather than tiptoeing around it by influence draining / infinitely imprisoning lords.
    Uh... this seems completely unrelated to his suggestion which is only that AI decision making make sense considering their traits. That doesn't necessarily make things harder or easier for the player, just different. Has nothing to do with how easy it is to manage voting.
    I absolutely agree regarding AI voting. That was me copying and pasting his "git gud" message from earlier on the page about five bucks' desired change of war score / tribute calculation, then changing the words to be about voting. I just think both of those things fall under the category of "systems designed purely for the AI that don't feel fun for the player to engage with", so at the time I didn't get why one would just get a "git gud" and the other wouldn't. That and I probably got a little too offended by it.
  16. Patch Notes v1.1.4 ...?

    No, the loop is *capture their lords so they cannot form parties*. That's it. Most people stop at 30, 40 lords and that is why they fail. Get ALL of them. Get cash payments.
    Ah, I disregarded that idea entirely because I remembered something about Ananda doing something similar without much luck, though I guess things have changed since then.

    Though with that said, it's still basically down to hoovering up the enemy with prisoner perks (which tend to require specific builds), while all the enemy has to do to get tribute is to lie down and be slaughtered until someone else jumps in against the player. Though at that point, why not just siege them down entirely?
    Regarding your facetious example: The latter change adds stuff to the game. The thing I dismissed is something which I do not consider a problem.
    Feels like the same kind of problem to me. The system (war / voting) is built for the AI, and the player has to play around it by (imprisoning everyone / influence draining), and playing around it just sounds annoying and grindy.
  17. Patch Notes v1.1.4 ...?

    I can sympathise, but I cannot agree that imprisoning those smug sons of dogs isn't actually a fun loop.
    The loop seems to essentially be:
    1. Take a bunch of prisoners with the Riding/Scouting perks that make it impossible for them to escape, or build a governor who can almost make it impossible for them to escape.
    2. Wait until you can make the enemy lose a bunch of strength at once and then force a peace before they have time to put out more parties and/or hire mercs to replace what you just got rid of.

    1 is pretty much doing what you always do, beating lord parties, except you need a specific build on you or compfam to avoid leaking like a sieve. The lords/ladies tend to blend together anyway, meh.
    For 2, if they have the ability to just set up more parties or hire mercs the next day, why should they give up then and there? It just feels arbitrary.
    But people don't in general want to change their behaviour; they want to be able to win THEIR way instead of TW's way, and ... it's not that kind of game.
    I'm not sure what you mean by either of these sentences. By this logic, there's no point in suggesting any changes to the game at all because TW designed it the way it is and you should either take it as it is or mod it if you're on PC. Would armor have been buffed in 1.8.0 Beta if people hadn't hounded TW about it? Would TW have improved OoB and let us decide what formations we wanted our companions with in 1.1.0 Beta if people hadn't complained?

    I don't actually know what it would take to make war decisions better (more intuitive, satisfying, etc), but it's definitely not by shrugging and saying "TW doesn't need my input, I'd have to be a spoiled brat to want anything anyway."

    Not that I don't have my own reservations about Five Buck's war score suggestion, but what makes it any different from this one?
    • AI vote choices are now influenced by their Personality Traits.
    Look, I know how this is gonna sound, but f*cking GET GOOD.

    There is a way to not ever let the AI interfere with the policies you want.

    Stop whining and start actually influencing the AI's votes. Not *thinking the AI should vote in their own interests or at least be swayable*, but winning the way the game politically tells you is a win.

    Granted: the traits are misleading, and there are a thousand AI errors in the way they vote especially since they all trend toward Tier 6 eventually, but,

    if you're letting the AI vote against your policies or vote for foolish ones, it's a choice.

    But people don't in general want to change their behaviour; they want to be able to vote for policies THEIR way instead of TW's way, and ... it's not that kind of game.
  18. Patch Notes v1.1.4 ...?

    No, the Romans paid tribute to the Huns to avoid being attacked. It's not a subordinate empire relationship.
    Ah, I stand corrected on the tribute part then.

    Look, I know how this is gonna sound, but f*cking GET GOOD.

    There is a way to not ever pay any tribute to any kingdom that has a fief left. @Ananda_The_Destroyer

    Stop whining and start actually winning your wars. Not *thinking you should be winning*, but winning the way the game financially tells you is a win.

    Granted: the War Score is misleading, and there are a thousand AI errors in the logical pursuit of the war, but,

    if you're paying the AI, it's a choice.
    It's not like the game goes out of its way to tell you how to win wars. Like you said yourself, the war score is misleading. Honestly, I think it'd probably be better off without the bars in the diplomacy screen, for one. It's not like they really tell you anything useful.

    Sure, players can and have explored the system or learned about it from others, but even those who did "GET GOOD" and delved into it the most (ex. Ananda) don't turn around and say "Oh yeah, I get it now, the way that tribute is decided is genius!" It's still not a particularly satisfying system even when you do beat it.

    (Edit: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/war-score-continues-to-feel-bad-man.455506/)
  19. Third Generation All Barren

    I don't know if there's an explicit max, but NPC couples do get a penalty the more members (not counting companions) their clan has, based on their tier.
  20. How can weapon and endurance skills be made more viable for the player?

    I think the posts in this thread have some interesting ideas on the subject too.
Top Bottom