搜索结果: *

I bought the game through Avangate (directly through Taleworlds) and while they did email me a link to download the mod, I can't play online because they never gave me a serial key.  The email with the link has strange grammar and sentence structure too.  Clearly they were not ready to release this.

Take your own cavalry, preferably sword sisters / slaver chiefs... but basically ANY UNIT with a horse is fine.  You can even equip your companions with whatever cheap horses you have in your inventory just to do this.  Run them up ahead of your army at the very start.  Dismount so that there is a wall of horses, then bunch up all of your units as tight as possible into three lines that are right next to each other.  You basically want as close to a big square as possible.  Put the archers in the back so that they shoot at anything that attempts to flank and also so that they are not the ones who absorb any charging cavalry units that break through the horse wall.  If the enemy gets caught on the horse wall, order a charge, watch the melee, and order them to return to the 'square' set up you started with when the enemy gets reinforcement waves.  Rinse and repeat.

With Khergits, you WILL have some horse archers flanking the melee after the initial charge.  Luckily, the horse archery A.I. is incapable of hitting anything - just don't chase them, they'll come to you eventually.  You also have your shooters in the back of the formation who will likely take out a few of these.  Just understand that the real danger is the melee heavy cavalry.

Be conscious of your unit types weapons.  If you know you'll be going up against cavalry, the best weapon types for infantry are a mix of two handed pole-arms/2h weapons like glaives/pikes/warhammers and very short range blunt/piercing weapons like military hammers, spiked maces, and of course picks.  Since you're actively trying to make a huge melee pit where all movement stops, though, I strongly recommend having more short range blunt/piercing weapons than pole-arms - pole-arms need a lot of space to really shine with the A.I. units.

At the end of the day, if you're using infantry against cavalry, pick Rhodoks or Nords.  It's the obvious choice, though if you have any knack at all for tactics, Rhodoks are a far superior faction.  Probably the most overpowered faction in the game if you factor in the tilt towards siege warfare as you progress in the game.

I have the mod up and running, and it's a great combination.  It looks like you've really fleshed out what you originally had going with those horse archer scripts into something amazing.

I do have one little issue I can't seem to solve though.  When I enter a battle on the saved game I imported from plain diplomacy, I keep seeing the word 'Ranged' appear every three seconds in the same area where kill-spam and experience spam etc. appears.  Is there any way to get rid of that?

EDIT:  Update - it seems to be linked to the 'Formation AI' option.  If I turn it back to Native/Formation, the message disappears.

Cuir Mustache 说:

So the new patch removed javelins from archers (allegedly), will Sarranid archers finally live up to Lezalit's promises.

点击展开...

Depends on what you're doing with them.  Compared with Vaegir archers, they are better armored, faster moving (Both on map and in battle), faster shooting, better in a melee, lower damage, and less accurate.

Compared with Nord archers, they are more costly to train and maintain, slower in battle, faster on the map, more accurate, equal damage, better armored, somewhat worse in a melee.

So... Sarranid Master archers are ideal for an army composed of archers and cavalry.  In sieges, however, Vaegir Marksmen will give better general performance.  It's also worth noting that most Vaegir troops do not have 'junk points' placed in their stats, so there is some stat randomization added to them in the beginning of each new game.  This means that in some games, you can even end up with Vaegir marksmen with 6 points of power draw.

I guess the Sarranid army is, in a way, an army that works best when there's a good mix of units in it- though if any faction relies heavily on its cavalry, it's the Sarranids (When you can't avoid a melee anymore, you need Mamelukes.)  Sarranid infantry troops are outclassed by everyone.  The Developers seem to have made that choice by design as their top-tier reinforcement template is exclusively cavalry where other factions tend to have a mix of archers and cavalry in their kingdom_reinforcements_c templates.  The infantry has a chance at having jarids, and they all have throwing skill instead of power strike..  until Sarranid Guards.  You might think that Nords do 'throwing' better, but the simple equipment difference of the jarid vs. any throwing axe makes more a more accurate and damaging piercing projectile.

Anyone else disappointed they didn't release the awesome content we got for WF&S for warband?  I really wanted to try a playthrough in Warband where a Khergit cavalry charge was decimated by couched Rhodok pikes...  at least they removed military scythes from equipment lists, I guess I'll have to look over the troops.txt to see if the stats are different.

Agreed, please switch either DM, TDM, or siege to battle... it's so much better.

This is a great patch, very nice work.  I'm extremely surprised to see some of the suggestions I really wanted with warband put into WF&S like having two thrusts for the pikes.

I think it would be a great step forward to reduce the area of conflict from Calradia to simply a border region between, say, the Khergits, Swadians, and Sarranids.  This would free up some unit balancing and equipment design time from your developers to instead implement game-play improvements like...

* First off, please don't be afraid to make the graphics a little under the status-quo in order to focus on game-play first.

* No world map, walk / ride between castles/towns in randomly generated plains, forests, deserts.

* Smaller scope of battles would allow more accurate depictions of skirmishes... not battles.  Since the player army is typically around 75-150 units strong, it makes more sense to focus on skirmishes over battles - the smaller theatre of war allows you to take that limitation and roll with it.  Focusing on skirmishes would also translate better into multiplayer if you decide to make an objective based mode with more flavor than capture the flag (Stealing cattle, looting a village, etc.)

* Focus on the player's roll as leading a mercenary warband, bandit warband, or lesser lord for a kingdom.  Don't open the can of worms that is 'player kingdoms' at all... leave that to modders.

* Have multiplayer 'macro game' where 'team captain battle' style skirmishes are fought on servers to capture land/income.  This income can then be used to improve settlements, upgrade troops/weapons.  This would also provide an incentive to raid villages.  Borrow as many elements from the old MMO, Shadowbane as realistically possible, here.

* If your engine isn't already locked in, strongly consider destructible environments, dismemberment, and physics that cause knock-backs and trampling from coming in contact with a galloping horse, or a warhammer.  The combat in the Mount&Blade series is the huge selling point, but simply adding a little more dynamism to the results of such powerful forces bashing into either would go a long way towards attracting a wider audience.

lotsofpaper 说:

D: NO. AI can't use grenades at all!!!

点击展开...

Wildcard, *****es.

I find that companions, no matter what specialization you make them, should always start levelling using rifles and bullets and at least 3 weaponmaster.  The A.I. aims best with high velocity and high accuracy weapons.  The best weapon for the A.I. is therefore the handcrafted European musket.

After you get their firearms up to ~200ish, though you can:

A)  Mount them up, give them balanced chekans, crowbills, or some kind of mace + a shield, and use them as anti-cavalry (they won't use their rifles while mounted, only if they are dismounted, so you can send them to harass enemy cavalry before armies engage in lord VS. lord fights.

B)  Make them siege specialists (my favorite option) by pushing strength up, ignoring riding, and giving them 2-3 shield + as high powerstrike and iron skin as possible.

C)  Push up their intelligence, and use them to cover all of the skills.  Keep them in your marksmen group, or in a separate group to minimize casualties.  This leaves you open to pursue something like a 30 strength build.

D)  Wildcard, *****es.  Up strength, ironskin, power-throw.  Give them 2h weapons or balanced pikes + 3x large grenades with as much power throw as possible.  Cross your fingers.

Mmm... I like:

Open Field:  3x small grenades (if power throw is 3+) or medium or large if power throw is at 1.  Then a Masterwork or Balanced Good Broadsword (Base stats w/o masterwork or balanced applied:  117 range, 1h, slashing 28, pierce 20, speed 75).  This sword gets better and better the more you add to power strike, but has much better range than the piercing or blunt one handers.  If I were to use <5power strike, though, I'd prefer a balanced good crowbill or chekan I think.

Basically, with this setup, you do bombing runs, then run back to your 'baggage' at your spawn point on the map to restock bombs.  Use the 1h weapon opportunistically to level marksmen if they aren't focusing on you... or simply to defend yourself.

Siege:  I still like 3x small grenades + sword here for quickly clearing large groups of enemy infantry to get your own infantry troops into the fray.  I also wade into the melee when I can which is... not recommended, but potentially a battle-winner, and some of the most fun you can have in the game.  It's probably better to use an accurate rifle like the Handcrafted European Rifle with 3x large bag of bullets, though.  That or a handcrafted bow + 3x arrows if you've invested in power draw.

Enemy Wagon Wall:  I think the best setup here is probably the bombs and sword setup, or a simple pistol + sword + bullets + shield setup if you have points in shields.  I guess metal shields stop most bullets, so that can be pretty great.

Ultimately, I think this game is better balanced than M&B:  Warband, and your troop types make a much larger contribution than you ever could.  Well, maybe not in open field with bombs and inventory-reloads working the way they do...  But I think you're usually better off just getting the strength to use the best armor, the agility to use a heavy troop horse, and putting the rest into something like intelligence for surgery/first aid, or charisma just for leadership.

nox 说:

Basically my idea at this point would be - game operates normally so long as you are under your soft cap which would be listed in the party size report.

Over the cap, you would have an effect that scaled up somehow which would
- penalize tactics bonus
- not give tactics bonus for troops > soft cap
- incur morale penalty
- incur overworld movement bonus penalty

so you can have more troops, and it might even be situationally beneficial but what it really does is lets you move large #s of troops from one place to another, and to bulk up to throw bodies at an enemy for big sieges.

点击展开...

My only qualm here is that tactics is already nearly irrelevant.  Penalizing it is, of course, intuitive, but I'd argue that it makes an already trivial skill absolutely pointless.

Also, currently the biggest reward to the player for fighting against tough odds is gaining renown, which in turn grants the player greater power in sieges against larger cities or talking on larger armies.  Why not just do a simple tweak to grant a flat bonus to party size related to player level...  or improve the benefits of the leadership skill to promote charisma builds?

nox 说:

Caba`drin 说:

wannyboy 说:

I too love that nox actually says something on the forum. I love dev replies on my suggestions but this is first forum where i get them

点击展开...

Well you will note that up until 7-10 days ago, nox was just another schmuck like us, posting on what he thought the faults were and where improvement could be made, etc. One of Taleworlds' acquisitions from the active community.

点击展开...

I hate to shatter any illusions you may have but I am still the same shmuck. 

I've always written code with the intention of having it benefit TW/M&B moving forward, working for them was really just an excuse for me to spend even more time doing what I would have done anyways.

Of all the games and expansions that TW has ever released, I felt very strongly that WFaS had the most potential and the least development of it.  I think everyone would agree that with a little love this title is going to be a laugh riot. 

Who is going to volunteer to help me figure out how to bring cannons and carronades into battle?  Yeah, you hear me.

点击展开...

I, too, think the game has/had a lot of potential.  Unfortunately, I am pretty amateur when it comes to coding... but if you ever need a guinea pig, I'm your man. 

Already, I feel like WF&S has a much better balance than Warband, disregarding the balance between bows and firearms.  Pikes and pike units perform their intended anti-cavalry roles, the speed values and ways of attacking are much more varied between weapons, and horses have been made more vulnerable to every kind of weapon to better balance cavalry in multiplayer and single player.  Team Captain Deathmatch is exactly how multiplayer for M&B should have always been, and it's a whole lot of fun.  There's so much potential with it... customizing squad appearances, making a persistent world or macro game that records victories / clan matches / nation battles, etc.

To the folks who cried out about WF&S being a rushed out piece of trash, I feel that you are not being realistic.  These indie games, these developers like Taleworlds do need to make some sacrifices that are industry wide to turn out a profit, and a profit is absolutely necessary to keep them producing games.  I feel that given that understanding, Taleworlds tends to sacrifice very little when compared to ridiculous AAA title companies (I'm looking your way, EA).  Besides, I've logged almost 60 hours into this game between single and multiplayer, and it cost me 15 bucks as opposed to if I wanted to toss $60 at something like The Witcher 2 for maybe 20 hours of gameplay.  And since I am talking about gameplay, here, I feel it prudent to mention that a game as mod-able as any M&B series game is bound to bring you back every once in a while for the next year or so to see what new mods are out there.  Well, that might be a little ambitious seeing as we don't have the mod tools released yet...

nox 说:

Download WFaS from us, then apply your serial # from steam.  All the cool kids are doing it.

点击展开...

Easy-peezy.  Thanks, dude.

Elavyan 说:

So how do you feel that fire and sword competes to warband skillwise?

My opinions, i think there is way to much ranged, camping ect. No use of the amazing melee system on multiplayer. It just feels like another Shooting game. Call Of Duty: Age of Gun powder.
People running from melee reloading there pistols then turning shooting and running again. One of the most annoying things i have came across so far ^^

All opinions welcome

edit: Also discussing the fact all Class types have ranged weps in game right now with other players. Infantry shouldnt be able to carry Pistols, they have heavy plate armour
Only musketerrs should be ranged class or mounted ranged

点击展开...

I think the overall balance is much better than Warband's at the expense of making mastery of the melee system less important.  The guns provide a clear advantage to the more organized team and take away the advantage of a few 'masters' of the melee system.  Horse archers, while still by far the most effective class against disorganized players, are actually less effective in this game compared to warband because of the ubiquitous firearms.

Pikes in WF&S actually have the range and speed to do their intended roles effectively, and horses are not as resilient to damage, so pike infantry can now effectively counter cavalry (though there are some A.I. issues here - I'm looking at you, top-near-Muscovy cavalry in Captain mode).  Now, many cavalry units utilize pistols and carbines to counter these new pikes... and this is why the infantry troops simply MUST have pistols in multiplayer.

For those players who have mastered melee, you actually have a better chance to use that skill if you do figure out new ways to sneak up close, or use ranged weapons yourself to force a close engagement as less of your foes will have shields to stall your attacks.  The maps certainly make it easy for anyone with half of a brain to take a longer route to close the distance and surprise enemies.

Frankly, I don't see any argument for your suggestion either.  Why shouldn't infantry have access to a few ranged weapons?  Contrary to the popular belief, infantry as a descriptive word means a foot soldier.  This is why 'ranged' was renamed 'marksmen.'  This implies that 'marksmen' are a little better at longer ranges, infantry at short - not JUST melee short.