搜索结果: *

I have checked and the issue persists. The second quest giver NPC still only asks about the first quest from a different NPC.

I had uploaded the file previously, but incase there was an issue I have done so again. Thanks

I agree with HalfMetalJacket. The Clan system works ok as it is, but trying to structure a religious based Clan hierarchy would be an issue I think.
Also the whole Bannerlord world culture appears to be based on the Early Middle Ages, after the fall of Rome and before the Crusades occured.

My last point would be that while I'm all for slaughtering an enemy army because their lord wasn't polite during his/her opening dialogue with me, or because he bullied and robbed villagers under my protection. Doing it because he isn't deemed 'pious enough' or because they have different beliefs altogether, just doesn't sit right with me as an enjoyable scenario.

I covered a similar suggestion last week -Commission Weapons

Regarding point 1, I like this idea. At present having a large number of ranged units in your party has no replenishment cost. This is rather unrealistic and to quote Braveheart "Arrows cost money, the dead cost nothing". If implemented this would encourage commanders to utilise the 'Hold Fire' order until there was a good opportunity for their ranged units to make use of their ammunition and reduce the after cost upon victory.

I also like point 2. I would suggest if this feature was to be added that it be expanded a little so that the time duration to 'Clean Battlefield' is dependent on the number that died fighting and that the loot include equipment from those fallen on the victors side. This would allow the victors to recoup lost funds and equipment from higher tier units that were lost. Also after the battle is over there should remain a battlefield marker. This would disappear once the battlefield had been cleared, but if the battlefield was left or the victors chased off it could be cleared by another party. This would allow the implementation of battlefield markers being magnets for looter parties in the immediate area. A final point would be if a player (or NPC) wanted to play dirty politics, they could allow a party who was on there side but the leader disliked to be defeated while they waited nearby and after the battle move in to defeat the enemy victor (who would be 'Clearing the Battlefield'), thus claiming the loot from both his former 'ally' and the enemy.

I cant say I agree with the 3rd point. To increase the number of villages would require either the distance between villages to be reduced (which would be less realistic and rather annoying) or the size of the map to be increased (while I'm not against this, I'm sure the developers would be as it would raise all sorts of other problems and they have likely spent a long time already on the map area). A second point would be that an increase in villages would generate an increase in revenue which there is according to many users a lot of already. If the increase in revenue was balanced back to the current economy lines with an increased number of villages, it would result in each village producing far less income to keep the balance (also annoying as it would mean the looting of a village would be less meaningful due to reduced impact on the Castle/Town connected to the village).

It would be helpful if to offset the cost of keeping multiple parties you could assign villages to Clan Party Leaders. Much like Warband when you were given a village to govern. The Party Leaders would protect and manage the village and cover their own expenses with the revenue (minus your clan leader cut). The ownership of the village would still be under the Clan but would need less micro-managing.

This would allow clan members to operate with a bit more autonomy and act like other Clan AI NPCs, that have income and require funds to recruit and upgrade troops. Also it would make choosing a Clan member with high Steward skill or Husbandry (if the village produced horses) worth while to lead a Party and govern a village.

Thanks, the saved file and 2x screen shots have been uploaded.

No problem, as soon as my new account restrictions lift I will send through the save files and screen shots.

I agree that the principle of the idea is great. It would not only stop the unrealistic scenario of low tier lords leading masive armies but the cost still being carried by the respective clan leaders.

One amendment I would suggest is that when creating an army and choosing the members to join your own clan member would cost influence but should you want/need members from another Clan you can select them and a negotiation window opens in which you must offer payment to the respective Clan for the use of there vassal in your army. Likewise you would receive a message that another Lord wants to use one of your parties in their army and when clicked a negotiation window would open for you to set an appropriate price/compensation. This could be subject to your Charm skill for a better deal as well.

The result would be Kings are able to recruit a large armies from all Clans at the cost of only influence (perks of ruling) and high tier Clans could have good sized armies of their own Clan at the cost of influence, topped up by a party from another Clan at a cost. Lower tier Clans could have a good sized army, but it would require spreading the wealth to other Clans and paying for it. This would also offset the cost of high tier Clans having many large parties as you would effectively rent them out when you wanted/opportunity arose.