搜索结果: *

NachoDawg 说:

The way I always imagined ambushing working like is that you have an option on the overland map to chose to "set up ambush". Depending on the terrain (better in woods, worse in plains) and your relevant party skill level, you become invisible on the overland map. An enemy lord then walks by, and depending on their scouting skills, they will reveal you when they get closer. You would then have X amount of time from when you start to move to start a battle with the lord and have the best starting position in the battle, perhaps having your archers place in good flanking positions for cross-fire. The time you have to move to engage to get the "ambush" benefit depends on how long the time you spent on setting up the ambush before being detected, this would prevent anyone from clicking "set up ambush" right before a lord chase and reaches you.

Bloody shame they decided to move away from ambushing tactics. I'm honestly not sure what purpose Battania serves other than being an early punching bag, as I imagined Battanian lords all starting with good ambushing skills.

Edit, I just want to say that I disagree with faction-specific abilities. Those should be relegated to skills. I would much more prefer "faction temperament" that makes a faction's lord lean towards specific play styles and skill distribution.

点击展开...

100% agree with everything right here.

nposborn 说:

Would rather see better more realistic combat ai than most of these "cherry on top" features.

点击展开...

What would you change about the combat AI? Compared to warband the difference is already night and day.

Another problem is that once you design a weapon you like you can't make any more without teadiously recreating it. The ability to save and load templates would be a godsend.

Perhaps the characters should be more exaggerated in how far they lean over to hit enemies below them, especially if the character in question is particularly tall. Like, 75 degrees if you are aiming straight down, although dynamically reduced if your weapon is long enough that it would be scraping the ground.

PenisMightier 说:

Well techincally the game says that all you're doing is creating a distraction. In my mind I see my chosen soldiers sorry, heroes, running out of the castles front gate completely naked running away shouting "weeeeeee look at meee look at meeee!" while getting pincushioned and trampled from the enemy long enough for me to leave so I can scoop up that sweet deal going on in Iyaski's markets. 6 denari is an incredible price for fish!

点击展开...

Clanker 说:

The entire point of a siege is to stop things from getting in and out.

点击展开...

These are fair points, but I would contend that a small party in the dozens being able to sneak past a besieging army with some luck is entirely plausible. Or at least bypass the bulk of the force and have to make a run for it under the cover of the allied fortifications. For larger forces I agree, although a skilled tactician should know how to create diversions that don't sacrifice a quarter of their army without inflicting any casualties on the enemy. Simply detaching some skirmishers would be enough, and even if wiped entirely out the enemy would still have taken losses in doing so. I do think that baggage train needs to be counted though. Smuggling in a few dozen troops? Plausible. Smuggling in a few dozen troops each riding a horse and leading a large stud loaded down with enough goods to supply a small army for the better part of a year? Not so much... The quality of the besieging forces is an important factor too. A mediocre siege commander with manpower shortages will have difficulty maintaining a total blockade. The reincarnation of Alexander the Great leading a 5000 strong army? That place is airtight. Quality of defenses would be a factor too. Stronger defenses means the blockade has to be more distant and cover a larger area, making it easier to breakthrough via local local superiority, since by the time the entire army has converged the assailants could already be long gone.

In general small breakthrough attemps would make for a more engaging siege system overall. Small engagements where a group of soldiers are trying to sally out and sabotage your blocade, or a caravan trying to sneak past and smuggle supplies into the settlement being caught, and a small sortie being made by the garrison to secure those supplies.

Kobrag 说:

new factions should be able to split off from any overwhelming faction to fight for the spoils of the conquest, aka the Greeks post-alexander

点击展开...

This. If any one faction becomes too powerful it should start to splinter, at least once the leader is weakend, although this is well justified in lore for most of the factions already, since the empire is already in a civil war and the other factions have at least one signifigant internal rivalry or opposition. For the Empire if one of the factions starts to become too powerful the other two should probably gang up on it. This way the empire is perpetually weak without player intervention, and non-imperial factions can't become too strong without suffering signifigant infighting.

Is the number of pack animals you can bring proportionate to the size of your party and their skill with animals? It would be weird if three footsoldiers, who could probably manage around ten total, could bring just as many horses as a 300 man strong Khuzait hoard, who could reasonably bring over half a dozen mares each.