Search results for query: *

mujadaddy said:

Not sure I've noticed; there are a lot of changes, maybe I've been focused on polearms

Click to expand...

MArdA TaleWorlds said:

Could you try the same issue on 1.6.5? If it is still happening could you send us the save file you are experiencing the issue with?

Click to expand...

MArdA TaleWorlds said:

This problem might be fixed with the released patches since you have reported this issue. Are you still experiencing this issue?

Click to expand...

Warlord123123 said:

This is a picture of elves leaving the middle earth.

Click to expand...

Warlord123123 said:

There are mods where this works perfectly.
Just look at the code, refactor it, implement and test it.
Add two menu configuration toggle buttons and its done. Will take a week of one developer probably.
But I guess they are quite busy with development resources for "nice to have" features currently.

Click to expand...

MadVader said:

Random outcomes just encourage save scumming.

Click to expand...

Ikea Knight said:

Do you know how that will work?

To me it seems like a mechanic that won't happen too often. I am only guessing here, I am not sure how it works.
Armies only lay siege if they have an army size & winning rate that is higher than the defenders + the autoresolve bonus for sieges, right?

So if the attacking army is always stronger there is no reason to sally out into a position where they have a disadvantage.

The three reasons I could come up with why the defenders should sally out is
1. It's the player.
2. The city has a lot of cavalry units and so is stronger in open field battles than in siege.
3. The city starts a fight because it expects support from an nearby ally.


I am not sure how you are planning to implement the mechanic but I have 2 suggestions:

The army that plays siege can only use unmounted units ( since they are suprised)
That again gives an edge to cavalry units in Siege situations.

The other option would be to change sally out into a mission were both armies only use a fraction of it's unit in contrast to the full scale attack.
This might be for example an night attack where the defenders try to sabotage the siege equipement while the army that is laying siege also only has a few units (due to it being night)
(Could also be an additional skill to the rougery skilltree)

Click to expand...

Warlord123123 said:

two (easy) features

Click to expand...

Viranto said:

I understand that its important for multiplayer, but why is it a thing for the singleplayer?
If every faction is the same, only the visual armor is changing, this destroy the replayability for me.
Because at the end, no faction is unique. It makes absolutly no difference which faction i serve, because every faction is the same except visually.
Okay, maybe Khuazit a little bit difference and the only one which is right in my eyes. You can fear them because of there much riders and horse archers.
But what is with the rest of the faction? Why no difference Politics, difference in tactics, difference in how they handle there people, manpower, etc. and why is armor balance a thing in the game?

Should it not be like this:
The Empire has a lower amount of manpower but the best armors in the world. Tribes like Battania have weak armors, but to compress that, they have nearly the double amount of soldiers, they fight without big tactics, with heavy weapons and at the same time, the empire fight only with tactical formations. Because of the amazing armor and tactics of the empire, they can even win a fight sometimes, when they are face a larger amount of enemys. But in the game, the battles are more or less balanced except the khuazit. This one are the only one which have there own system. But the factions should have there own unique formations (like shildwall sturgia, turtle empire, circle khuazit) in battle, too.

And this need other factions, too.So that its still balanced from the system, because nobody like khuazit snowballing everything (even if it were right (golden horde).
But a solution for that would be a thing like: the Khuazit are difficult to fight, but politically they are so weak that their empires can break apart again and again into small clans due to rebels or the dead of the clan leader. They need something like in ck with tribes, clans, feudal, imperial and such things.
So we have replayability and not the feeling that every soldier is the same one, with the same stats, same tactics but in other skins.

Click to expand...

Bannerman Man said:

One thing to point out about having a bunch of troop giving notables inside castles is that it makes raiding villages less valuable, and makes it harder to hurt the enemy's troop production, since it'll increase the pool of "safe" recruits factions have available. I think it's nice how important villages are for a faction's recruiting capacity right now, but maybe that's just me.


The AI is actually pretty efficient at managing their garrisons. Castles' clan members will stop by to deposit troops (or withdraw them if they are in need) fairly regularly based on a calculated "ideal" garrison size. Any member of the kingdom can also stop by and donate troops if the garrison is too low (doesn't apply for the players fiefs).

On top of that, clan leaders will visit all of their settlements (towns, castles, and villages) based on how long it's been since they last visited them. In certain circumstances though, it can take them a year or two (sometimes more) for them to visit some of their castles and villages if they are too remote. They will still always eventually visit them though, because the "score" for them to visit the settlement will continuously increase as time passes until it becomes higher than the scores for any other action they can make.

The campaign AI functions as a uility-based system btw, in case anyone is interested. Every action the AI can take at any one time is assigned a "utility score" based on various factors, and the AI will carry out the action with the highest utility. They evaluate dozens or hundreds of potential actions at regular intervals (such as Raid X village, Visit Y town, or Patrol Z castle, etc).

Click to expand...

Apocal said:

Like, if you just want feasts, whatever. You do you. You don't need to legitimize the idea by presenting it as an anti-snowballing measure, especially when that issue is already resolved and you haven't even tested the solution once.

Click to expand...

Dreed89 said:

Only questions revolving around particular topics are answered. The rest are ignored.

Just a simple yes/no/maybe would suffice but the company prefers to leave the playerbase in dark.

Moreover, these questions are not something unrealistic like "add ships". They are just related to what's already in the game like additional dialogue and scenes.

Click to expand...

8uzzard said:

I don't think so. There is only 3 types of truth, my truth, his truth and the truth for example

Click to expand...

8uzzard said:

Agree with mexxico that's reasonable but not realistic. It's the same with me(khuzaits) and the sturgians when I leave them with 3 or 4 cities. But lets look closely in history when Attila snowballed and he went at the gates of Rome, who payed the tribute, Attila or gold/silver from romans for Attila to stop this humiliation? The same goes for Genghis khan's snowball. But this is only a game and no need for too much realism of course. So I understand, that this is a part from economical balancing system for the game to prevent further snowball or something like that. So I agree, it's reasonable for the game. Of the topic, for those who are interested in history, do you know of the so called "sheep battle" on Volga river in 1223? This year Genghis khan's troops completely destroyed the united troops of the Moscow principalities, but met an insurmountable enemy - the Bulgarians from Volga river. The battle is in unequal forces, with only 30,000 Bulgarians facing 150,000 Mongols. However, the high fighting qualities and the strong devotion of the Bulgarian fighters screaming "FREEDOM OR DEATH" who started to retreat in the beginning of the battle chased by the Mongol army, a retreat lie leading into a big trap tilts the scales of victory in their favor. Only 4,000 soldiers of the Mongol army survive, whom the Volga Bulgarian ruler Gabdula Chelbir exchanges for 4,000 rams and the famous Mongol general Subutai for 10 rams, because only sheep can be defeated with such a numerical advantage - humiliation. This is the only defeat of Genghis Khan in his entire life and no you will not find this in history books.

Click to expand...

Battle of Samara Bend - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

froggyluv said:

Take it easy dude - just because you prequalify your assertion with FWIW -doesnt mean others cant point out an inconsistency in the statement

PS: That Does Make All The Difference

Click to expand...

froggyluv said:

Ah ok TDMATD

Click to expand...

froggyluv said:

Obviously in a game things are artificially accelerated- look at the sheer amount of wars happening - normally that amount would be drawn out over generations

Click to expand...