搜索结果: *

During the betas, at one point there used to be a button on the Clan screen. As Lucius says, now you have to appoint a governor and talk to them - an option will appear that should be self-explanatory. Then you talk to Arzagos.

BUT: there's no rush to do so. There's no real rush to move to a kingdom, either.

As a kingdom, other kingdoms can declare war on you. After talking to Arzagos, you'll start another chain of events which takes up your time and may lead to more stuff to do (no spoiler ).

As an independent clan, you could try and expand slowly/opportunistically when you can, build up your finances, etc. before becoming a kingdom.

anoddhermit 说:

That makes it suitable for being an optional later game quest for players wanting the added challenge. Not a main quest that the basic tutorial quest should be funneling new players into at the beginning of the game.Sure, there's a certain stage you can hold off on for a long time, if you already know what the situation is, but... if you're playing the game for the first time, you don't. It's a terrible introduction to the game.

Your solution is effectively "skip large sections of the quest by doing them first under less constraint, because you already know the quest is kinda BS". The quest is clearly designed to be started early in the game because part of it is quests to establish your kingdom, it's just not a good design because of the way it ramps up the difficulty extremely and suddenly and with a hefty dose of RNG and tedium.

点击展开...

I agree, in terms of design ("... and the quests seem to push you..."). There are bits of nice backstory in some of the clan leaders responses to 'Neretzes Folly', but overall it doesn't add much. The whole things feels more like an example of what might be done using quests to set a story with conversion mods... My comment was really about the gameplay rather than the design. It can be of some value to add something to the late game, though of course the mid-late game needs to be better overall.

anoddhermit 说:

The campaign seems absurdly difficult and grindy unless you've already established yourself in preparation for it.

点击展开...

Bluko88 说:

But the conspiracy garbage... never again.

Yeah let's lock the player's current Kingdom (regardless of status) into permanent war with 3 other Kingdoms, not 1, not 2 - 3. Given how bad the A.I. is, if you don't know what you're doing you are screwed. Even if you do - it's a balancing act of smashing one Kingdom to peace out whilst not letting the other 2 take over all your territory.

And can you form an alliance? Nah. See if you could form an alliance, it might be interesting, because that would be like an actual world war scenario.

2 Kingdoms would be a decent challenge, especially for newcomers, but 3 is going to be overkill unless you're close to ruling the map already. Ah well gives Sadist Ironman folks something. But if you really want to challenge yourself just don't use all the OP builds or recruit exclusively KGs or Fians.

点击展开...

This is the campaign's one saving grace, I think. Without it, once you get your kingdom established and start to recruit clans, if you're smart with war declarations (be opportunistic, pay temporary tributes rather than lose fiefs, etc.) the game rolls on with the player faction inevitably expanding.

Many people seem (and the quests seem to push you) to trigger the conspiracy section as soon as you've got the banner/formed a kingdom - but there's no need to. You have 20 years to complete that section of the quests. Form a kingdom, get established, grow a bit - then trigger the questline if you need the additional challenge. Or not - it's just a failed quest.

It can also seem to take a week or so for a newly bought workshop to start making money, even a good one.

Formula for skills is Attribute*14 -10 + Focus*40. So 7 attr + 5 focus = 288 (6 and 5 = 274, which is annoying).

NPCs will gain Tactics skill, but not much if it's a larger party just beating up looters (and quite often they'll roam around for days on end without fighting anyone). Most noticeably levels up when a caravan gets caught by a stronger party and is going to lose...

Brano 说:

Tactics should be a useful skill as it is used in auto-calculated AI vs AI battles. Which are all your caravan will take part in.

点击展开...

Sure. But not as useful as running away .

My standard practice for quite a while has been to use all companions (and some family/clan members) for caravans; a nice way of keeping a steady income if you're not constantly warring or seeking out the best bandit parties/quests. (Though I'm now early in a v1 game where I want to avoid it, to keep more companions for banner/formation/new clan purposes - i.e. them being more part of my kingdom rather than just money makers).

Good guide - the only points I'd add is that I think scouting becomes an decent attribute with early speed perks for a caravan evading bandit parties - and that ultimately, absolutely any companion will be profitable (at least before you're in a kingdom and subject to more attacks). The first couple of levelling-ups for a less-suited companion are a bit of an impatient wait, but once you can add focus to trade (and then scouting/athletics/riding as needed) and an attribute point or two, trade skill increases fairly rapidly for any companion leading a caravan.

In my last game, in the 148 days between clan tier 2 and clan tier 3, I'd got 5 companions working caravans - a spicevendor, an 'ill-starred', an Empire wanderer, a willowbark and a smith. The four non-spice vendors all had reached a trade skill in the range 44-55 at the end of that period and as a snapshot on the day I reached T3 were bringing in 318, 498, 502 and 520 gold. At that stage (pre-kingdom, no wars), none of them had ever been captured. If that daily figure gradually increased from a base of about 150 average to 450 or so, those caravans have paid for themselves about two and a half times over, despite their initial unsuitability.

In the next 350 days to reach T4, those same four non-spice vendors had reached trade skills of 64 (the smith), 95, 101 and 104. Again as a snaphot on that day, they earned 408, 480, 955 (the smith!) and 1251. I think one had been captured in that time - even if it were two, those four non-specialist traders had each raked in perhaps a couple of hundred thousand profit in total.

(By T4, their scouting skills - including the spicevendor - were 55, 56, 64, 64 and 85. If I'm right that the first few perks of scouting are useful for evading capture, all good. If I'm not, I could have focused more on trade alone, increasing those skills still higher, for even greater profits).

On the point about leadership and tactics - they'll never build a party of more than 30, and will only recruit mercenaries/caravan guards (and maybe the odd converted, or released, prisoner). A stronger party can help them with bandits, but they'll basically always lose to a lord's party unless they can evade it. It's for this reason I'd prioritise speed (and, coincidentally, why the 'stronger troops' more expensive caravan isn't particularly useful).

kofmen96 说:

Is there any way to toggle show indicators mode (default alt) instead of having it only show while holding the alt button? I like having this on in the overworld to display the movement speed of all armies without needing to mouse over them and in battle to show formation locations. I would prefer not to have to hold the button down for the entire time i'm playing and have had some issues accidentally hitting alt+___ commands. Yes I could rebind it but there are no good alternatives that would let me use WSAD while holding it.

点击展开...

I've had it happen accidentally a few times (on the campaign map) - probably after alt-tabbing out of the game, but not sure if some other factor involved. Can't replicate at the moment just by alt-tabbing, anyway.

Dxrkwave 说:

So, without a companion/family member your troops won't be holding any banners? Because I indeed did not have companions at this time.

点击展开...

If you assign yourself as captain of a formation (and you have a banner equipped in the inventory screen), you should see a troop of that formation carrying the banner. But if you want your infantry carrying a melee banner, archers a marksman banner, etc - you'll need at least a couple of companions.

Bazza_ov_da_Norf 说:

I'll just be happy to see the "final" release so that modders have a more stable base to work from, to add the depth that should've been in vanilla.

点击展开...

Dipping into the game every few updates or so, and reading many of the discussions on here I think that's actually fine - and 'should have' been in vanilla is arguable in some cases. Some of the things some people think should be in vanilla conflict; whether the game should be faster or slower paced (children, levelling, the rate at which you gain renown, etc.), the nature of warring, whether you should explore every location to find quest givers or be able to quick-talk everyone to play more as grand strategy. The vanilla game is a base; players can choose which mods to use to take the game in the direction they prefer.

Not reviewed yet, if I do it will be a 7 or 8. Early through to mid game is actually a reasonably polished, engaging game now. Late game is a siege grind and once you have a few million to recruit clans, ultimately there's little jeopardy in it.

An odd behaviour I've not experienced before (including on 1.8.0 beta) - my army in a besieged town (Varcheg) is getting 'kicked out', at the moment the besiegers launch an attack. For a couple of seconds, the town isn't a valid target - then I can click on it, but have to 'break in' again.

guspav 说:

Really? I don't see how it works now, but it doesn't seem to!

点击展开...

If you've just bought them it takes a few days to first see any income, but they are working in 1.8.0.

Do you have existing peace terms with either Battania or WE (paying or receiving tribute)? The AI preference for war seems to be determined more by "who can we get more tribute from/pay less tribute to" than land acquisition. So if Battania and WE are exactly equivalent in terms of strength, but your lords think the peace terms with one is less advantageous than with the other, that's who they'll want to wage war on.

It is a pain. Slightly less painful workaround: dismiss your clan members from the army just fractionally before you enter the settlement. They always pause for a few seconds, so you have time to enter, do what you want and leave again before re-inviting them (at no influence cost). The downside is that they can't buy any food (but if you stop at villages, they can).

Anecdotally of course, when I've checked caravan composition after some time, it's difficult/impossible to tell what level the starting caravan was at, because they'll be a mish-mash of troops (trader types, recruited bandits and rescued prisoners) if they've survived many encounters and reinforced over time. That's why I think the difference between the two caravan tiers only really affects the first few battles that caravan will have. If those battles are with enemy faction parties, then either tier will lose. If they're with weak bandits (which most are), they'll win but have some casualties (which erodes the superior quality of the 'better troops'). My gut feeling is that the only benefit of 'better troops' is if their first few battles are likely to be with tougher groups of bandits - hence mid game - and that advantage only lasts a handful of battles before casualties erode it, or the 'weaker' troops upgrade anyway.

Flesson19 说:

I ran an extensive test for survivability in my video. I am very confident in my data. Also for Aserai culture and insurance plans I didn't want to include them as they are bonuses and without them caravans should be viable for profit and survivability. With my testing I can say for sure in 1.6.5 they are not. I tested early and late game with many runs. I know you will never get exact numbers, that's impossible but with how many runs I completed it is a somewhat accurate estimation. And wen survivability for 2 years is at 18% there is no way that could be above 50%. I could keep going but after 200 caravans runs I figured that was a decent test. They need work for both profit and survivability and if anyone watches my video they will see why

点击展开...

I wasn't commenting specifically on your tests, and not on current profitability (I've not played since 1.6.3, just upgraded today). That was a general point about most people's views being informed by what's memorable (a caravan being captured).

More specifically, I wanted to address the idea of 'better troops', because I don't think they're cost-effective; I'd be very surprised if 'better troops' were 50% (let alone 75%, with insurance plans) more durable than the base caravan, which it needs to be to warrant the price difference. If caravan profitability/survivability has declined in 1.6.5, the upgrade is even less cost-effective.

AngryPanCake 说:

Hello,

I have recently set up a couple of caravans, which started providing excellent returns. They produced much more daily income than my breweries (set up in grain rich provinces). But then, they were attacked and lost everything.

I had read some posts saying caravans get attacked non stop in late game, but I think am at an early game (Spring 17, 1086), not sure how many game days that is.

So going back to whether caravans are worth it. Mine averaged about $250/day. So, it would take about 60 game days to just recoup your initial investment ($15,000 initial investment for extra guards divided by $250/day, that's 60 game days). I should've paid more attention to when I started the caravan and the date I lost it to see how many days it ran. So is it really worth the investment if the caravan does not last long out there?

By the way, my faction was at war against another faction and my caravans crossed the enemy territory several times with no attacks. My faction seeks peace, and both caravans are attacked by some special brigand (not the usual looters/bandits), unfortunately I could not figure out how to go back and search the news that said my caravans were attacked by "so and so" to track the son***** who did it. I would appreciate if you guys know how to track the attackers.

Thank you,
APC

点击展开...

AngryPanCake 说:

My thing is if we know they last longer than the time it takes to break even, then yes they may be worth it, but if most people think they last less than 50-60 days (time it takes to recoup your investment), then the only usefulness is the leveling up of your companions!

By the way, my second caravan I know lasted less than a week. I had just joined a faction, established my new caravan and about a game week and it was done for.

点击展开...

Without an extended study over time and multiple games (by multiple people), it is very difficult to say how long caravans last on average, because people will always highlight the caravan that was captured in a few days, rather than the one they set early game which trundles on forever making them a fortune.

There are a couple of other factors to think about in terms of profitability:

- Insurance plans (level 175 trade bonus) return 5,000 gold if/when a caravan is captured. Note 5,000, not '% of your investment'. So (if you have Insurance Plans), the true cost of a caravan is 10,000 gold - or 17,500 gold if you get better troops.

[ The alternative bonus in that skill tree is a similar refund if a workshop is captured; but you have more control over where you put your workshops and selling them if you intend to war a certain faction, or your borders are getting close to a faction and they might war you - so Insurance Plans should definitely be superior, unless you specialise in the limited trade items the other bonus includes; Insurance Plans makes food cheaper, which is a more reliable benefit. ]

- Paying the extra, you get 'better' troops, not 'extra'. When a caravan runs into bandits and loses troops, they will replenish with whatever they can pickup at the next town. Ultimately, I think the 'better' troops give your caravan only a little more protection if running into a strong bandit troop, but most caravans seem to be captured as a result of 2-3 battles in quick succession (because bandit parties tend to be clustered close together). If running into an enemy faction party, they're going to lose anyway. After a few battles, there will be little to no difference between the make-up of the cheap caravan vs the expensive one, because half the party will be whatever was available in cities after they'd suffered some casualties.

Put those two factors together, and I don't think the 'better troops' upgrade is generally worthwhile, except perhaps for a rather brief period in mid-game when you start hitting stronger bandit parties, but before most losses will be the result of enemy faction parties.

DeepXen 说:

On the Clan/Parties screen when i assign a Companion a role and select 'Done' it doesn't save. When i go back into screen all roles say 'None'. Just me or a bug?

点击展开...

Known issue awaiting fix. If you talk to the companion and assign a role from dialogue, it sticks.

I reverted to an older save from before getting this quest. Played on for a while, then again got a Disrupt Supply Lines quest; again ending in Razih (though different start point/route); again causing the CTD on reaching Razih.

2021-08-25_13.15.31_954e050f8b63bd786fdde84c43e0538d

'Wanderer' is used both as the generic term for potential companion - as well as a specific suffix for some of them.

The 'occupation' is indicated (sort of) by the suffix to their name - below page gives some info on the broad types and the 'best' types for certain functions (detailed stats may have changed since that list was compiled).


If you're only seeing 'wanderer' suffixes, try more cities. It's random so you might get a glut of one type in a particular faction's cities (Battania will have several 'the wanderer's), but they do start to move between cities after a while.