搜索结果: *

I'm glad that I was able to sorta fix-to-preference the pacing of (a lot of) leveling through modding the character development models because the game still seems to stick to a lot of design which commits the gaming sin of feeling like an absolute Waste of Time. Which is pretty bad if I'm feeling it because I find a lot of grinds somewhat relaxing. I do appreciate that they sorta backed off the worsening skill gains by level thing tho.

Skills books and passive sources of training could definitely round out more of it. Especially since they seem to sorta pushed more perk roles in being important to governing without a lot of ways to really work on those outside of the whole... ~~defending the same village~~ army battle slog. Which is another kind of long-term problem to the campaign level behind taking another break from the game.

Yes. This would be grand.

I only loaded up the game again with the 1.5.9 release and then updated to the beta and menu lag went from unnoticeable to jarring.

I think the default leadership xp from morale is like... 0.01 per soldier per morale over 70.
So not very good yeah.

I had to mod in a daily tick for leadership gains based on leading troops and recent morale boosts. Even if the current leadership from morale was worth anything it suffers from an odd conceptual problem where you need high leadership for the morale bonus to get the morale xp gain.

I voted "No", not until there are better clan vs clan and outright civil war mechanics, as well as ways for local heroes to rise up and attempt to reassert their region's unique identity (at least for the first generation or two of occupation) or other complications to the bland and loose exchange of settlements that we have now. Monocolor domination stagnates a save and makes it boring in terms of character and what can be done (by the player) within it.

A system of competing claims, escalation of war from sacking incursions to complete assaults between cultural elites and those they're attempting to conquer, ideological and succession conflicts, etc.

Caravans and workshops should absolutely be able to provide a sizeable profit *with player input* into making them profitable, in the same way that fiefs should have ways to manage them for better returns. Both of the "trader systems" already have limits based on renown—which is a move that I like because it provides a long-term goal to reasonably acclimate to—and at least caravans have the additional drawback of removing a companion who could be fighting for your army (potentially adding perks.. once they function), building their own party's army, or governing your fiefs (currently not implemented well).

Ideally, your workshops and caravans should be able to work together to create serious profits, and bandits would be a more interactive aspect that players could work to suppress or make deals with to let their caravans thru. Similarly, being able to negotiate trade agreements and secure peace with other kingdoms are essential to making these game systems rewarding.

Y'all just needed to make them catchable and maybe let bandits summon armies to ambush them rather than break another feature that costs the player a companion and gold. I was hoping later there'd be an expansion to running trade empires vs the bandits who prey on them instead of repeating warband's mistake of shoving players into the feudal slogfest—especially the one lacking any real aspect of diplomacy that we have now.

Swyter 说:

Probably because the modified parties don't fit the in the traditional one line structure. Instead of writing a full-featured Python tuple parser what I did is just (pretty solid) RegEx substitution.

Try to format the new parties just like those which come originally with the file, specially important is keeping every entry in a single line and keeping the commas with their spaces and such.

点击展开...

As I said, some of the original parties had the same issue. I didn't attempt any fancy formatting and my entries were copy-pasted. Did some experimenting and it seems the issue was with format: specifically the need for two decimal places at the original position. I threw all my new parties at 0.0 so that it'd be easier to locate them, which may have been my issue.

Tested by switching two villages to 11.01 (x and y) and 11.0, former worked while the latter failed.

Though thanks for pointing out that converter, as I haven't really kept up with all the tools already available in MB modding.

So I'm not sure what's causing it, but when I try to save the new position of certain settlements it fails to modify the module_parties.py file correctly. This has occurred with a few of native's bridges and all new settlements created by myself. Not really sure why it's not working. I get the following message:


But despite the message it resets back to the file's original location. Going in an manually setting the location works but I'd rather avoid such.


Also, could you support reading/writing parties.txt files at some point in the future? I'd like to change a map a bit but don't have access to the source code.