Search results for query: *

fisheye said:

I lik the Baldur's Gate series method of acquiring party members. You get a couple of freebies early on: your sibling, or your comrade from the same school, and some old friends of your mentors, etc. Then with just a little bit of wandering you acquire some companions who will travel with you as long as you're engaged in their quest (you can have multiple companions tagging along like this waiting for you to save their son/recover their widget/avenge their father). So you can build a party fast but at the same time there is character development from their specific quests.

That was the design for Nadifa and the Awali actually.

It's a lot of scripting though. 5 or 6 well-designed quests would be more content than is currently in BoW now. If you have 26 NPCs....

Click to expand...

Well, speaking of BG 1, a lot of heroes tended to be in couples which further restricted the party variations. Many of them won't stay together like Kzar and Jaheira or Minsk and Edwin. this made the game real fun in terms of RP... not to mention Anomen in the Throne of Bhaal, when he and Jaheira tried to shred me into pieces because I successfully RPed as an evil character...

However, I believe the quests would be welcome if the heroes are somewhat more potent at the beginning. If you're playing at the top difficulty level the start is a pretty harsh one in terms of money and men. Both those resources are usually very depleted. And heroes do get wounded all the time, blast them... So there would be really no need to go through a potentially costy and dangerous quest to get one of those lackeys at the very start. More to that, heroes are as dependent on ammunition as you are, and it takes quite a time to make enough money to arm 24 of them in something different from dirty rags.
How about unique armour and weapons for them? It worked well in BG 2.

Eh, far too complicated to my liking, though it would be nice to be able to capture or seriously wound an enemy lord. They have a bad habit of respawning too fast...

The Silverbow kicks arse most naturally. I remember the golden times when it was sold in Zendar... too good to be true, eh?

I like the unique onehanders, but the bastards aren't that good in my opinion. Their reach is poor and that is the reach is the only reason why I use the bastard sword from the horseback. I also think some variation in stats would be welcome. For instance, one would be the best for dealing damage, another for speed. There could also be combinations: speed/reach, reach/damage, and so on.
I think that'd be great...

Eh... I'm seriously considering to start reading some book in English of contemporary authors. It seems that I'm the only person who understands what I'm saying. No offence, I agree that it could be nothing but my own fault.
For one thing, I never use knowledge about weapons that I obtained from computer games. I also grieve to see how they interpret names and items at their own liking... take the curious "daikatana" term for a start... no, I ain't getting into that.

As I said, cavalry swords (which got longer during the Crusades to make the hard chore of cutting enemies down from a horseback easier) could be used as two-handed weapons as well as any other longsword or any sword what so ever with a suitable handle. But you don't call all of them "bastard swords". I mean, of course, you can do it but than the whole point of the naming is lost. If you call different things the same name or use two names for the same thing you get confused at the end.
What I mean by a "bastard sword" is a blade specifically designed for being used as both a one-handed and a two-handed weapon. All the stuff about the blade and the handle I wrote before.

Again my naming may not be absolutely correct but this way I do not confuse things... and there is far too much confusion in this question to my liking.

Know nothing about the traderoutes, but the cities still have some specific kind of items (especially food) in huge quantities.
As for the wheat quests, that's just a piece of cake. Wheat is sold in other villages (more rare in cities) and you can never get more that a sack or two at once. Well that's the whole point of the quest, I guess... though having the only sack of wheat in the whole village seems stupid enough for me. 

eugenioso said:

so, in the end, back to the same question:

1.- how do you take one of the big cities?

2.- has anyone even taken one of those? cheating doesn't count

Click to expand...

Does a huge renown value count for cheating?

Taking cities is quite easy even in BoW. As a rule of thumb, the less the battle size value, the easier the siege... in its certain boundaries. 150 rules supreme, usually.
First you have to wait till all the defending heroes leave the castle. As soon as one leaves you attack and utterly destroy his party. This will diminish the garrison and prevent any future delays in the process. Then you have to buy plenty of food and get yourself ready for a real long battle.
There are two ways to take the garrisons down: try to break through (it would be a real pain unless you have heavy infantry) or to take them down with arrows. Anyways you'll need a good tactics and surgery skills. Archery skills also won't be useless.
If your men manage to break through, than you'll need a halberd and a shield (on your back) to support them on the walls. I killed good 30 or 40 men at a time without even loosing hits. And as far as I know nords are the easiest to siege. Vaegirs would be the hardest.
If you're out of provision you can raid a caravan. It always works well.

To be granted the city without any problems you best first have a good relationship with the king and your fraction. I think that's pretty much it. Oh, yeah, and don't raid villages close to the cities and castles you're planning to take. It would cause problems in future.

Cocky said:

Peruse the Historical forums on the definition of 'broadsword'. You may be ..suprised. 'Broadsword' like 'chainmail' is a misconcieved term, a broadsword simply means a sword created to be used in war. Any sword short of slimmed down civilian swords such as a rapier or the like (but even they I believe were less flimsy then you would think) would be described as a 'broadsword'.

No sword short of possibly the Estoc is going to put a scratch on any armour worth it's salt. None.

Maces, picks, axes, lances. They are pretty much your only chance to put a mark on a decent set of plate, and chain is gonna resist 'most any cut, leaving only impact damage too.

And I believe (though I welcome contradiction from the residents of the previously mention board) that a 'bastard' sword actually referred to most swords including what we would call a longsword from a certain era, they were all able to be used in one or two hands.

/Just a couple of things from a lurker who wouldnt like misconceptions furthered.

Click to expand...

Aye, strictly speaking I've seen so many various misconceptions on the topic of weaponry names, that I lost count of it. And again, if you have a special weapon on your mind you better describe it and not just give a “common” name. Though there are plenty of them like a “longsword” (a medium length sword with a double-edged blade), a greatsword (a two-handed sword of the same type but longer and broader), a short sword (anything from a long dagger to something resembling a Roman gladius), and so on.

The term “armor” (even plate armor) could be interpreted in many different ways as well. Of course, if we are speaking of extremely heavy cavalry armor, which left the knight immobile or a completely stiff tournament set, which did not even let him to move his hand, no weapon what so ever could possibly damage it save for a real hammer.
If we are speaking of anything less “heavy-duty” even cut weapons like axes or broadswords should do fine. Now there's the time to determine what the word “broadsword” means. Actually, I could never find the appropriate historical term for the weapon, which looks roughly like a two-handed longsword with an extremely broad blade designed solely for delivering cut blows. They were used to cut through armor which was impossible for any lighter weapons. Any other words, a broadsword is something of an intermediate between a longsword and an axe.

As for the bastard swords, it has some very distinct differences from a longsword. A longer blade (closer to that of a greatsword), a handle designed for wielding with both hands and most importantly – an elongation of the handle with a heavy counterbalance. Those long cavalry swords which could be use as two-handed ones cannot be called bastard swords.

mfberg said:

The refugee also has an upgrade path into ranger acolytes. I haven't check to see if farmers or townsmen upgrade along the ranger path.

mfberg

Click to expand...

Farmers do, as well as refugees. And female merc troops have no upgrade branch towards long ranged weaponry. Which makes them rather useless in that sense. While hired sharpshooters could be armed with crossbows, their female analogy could make use of bows.

Actually, I believe the troop lines could use some improvement. As they are now, they are pretty poor...

AvaRice said:

That explains some things. I play battlesize 200 with all companion party. Seeing 100+ heavy infantry marching in unison about to reach my line is far more frightening to me than a wave of cavalry. There's really no soldier that you should have trouble soloing. The bigger worry for me is having my companions get knocked unconscious and end up wounded for a week.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure how many recruitable NPC characters there are in the game, but I doubt that the number exceeds 20. And I have completely no idea how to take down a 70-men troop of Dark Hunters with 20 warriors only... to say nothing of slaying the .5 k garrison of a city.
As for soloing a soldier there is no problem, but when it comes to some 100 men, then I have problems. And those are real big problems. And that's what a battlefield would look like if you are outnumbered 25 to 1 and on.

Anyhow I don't see much difference in playing styles. All fractions should have similar battle capability in any proportion. Now, as I've pointed out already, vaegirs rule supreme.

Such a weapon still needs to be placed on something before firing. The shooter has to reload it with one hand and recoil with another, so (unless it is not Val Helsing's fuel powered machine) you cannot fire holding it with your hands. More to that, there is little need in speed with a miserable amount of bolts (24) in the quiver.

[JaGeR] said:

Strange crossbow 
perhaps a Repeater fore the eastern units?

Click to expand...

Eh... a repeater for khergit horse archers, mayhaps? And a wagon to transport it from place to place...
I wonder if siege weapons (both defensive and offensive) are going to appear in M&B. That'd be real nice.

Speaking of arms, an interesting idea came to my mind... halberd is a really nice weapon but I've never seen anyone speaking about a unique one. That'd be good. I remember what a carnage I brought upon Nords when besieging Tihr during a brakethrough, slashing and piercing the enemies and standing behind my own soldiers.
And I wonder if anyone ever used a dagger in M&B. Maybe there will be a point in making a very fast unique stiletto dealing piercing damage?..

Probably I'm a little bit off-topic, but since we are speaking of prisoners... It would be really nice to be able to buy slave hunters from Ramun in Zendar.
I never liked the trade anyways, because prisoners slow you down and since my men are mostly mounted that annoys me much. But a couple of times I made a fortune as a slave trader. Much fun when you're fed up with the castles and large scale skirmishes. But you'll have a hard time making a band of slave hunters, because the only way you can get them is to capture them from raiders. And this takes quite a lot of time.

Eogan said:

Speaking of the Ulster Cycle, a sling that fires brain balls:  deadly stones made from the brains of fallen enemies...

Click to expand...

Reminds me of the Michael Moorcock's stuff... the Hand of Kwll and the Eye of Rhynn especially...

I do not approve of the unique-gun idea. Actually, armour (plate and chain alike) is an anachronism for the firearm age, because it is of no use against guns.
But for cavalry a cranequin should do as it does not need a pull lever for reload. I guess the light crossbow is the only option for a mounted knight for now.  Also some kind of an arbalest would be nice for a footman and, maybe, a multishot crossbow (two bolts) like the one of the famous Dakeyras...
Eh, tell me if I've gone too far. 

Hm... giving it a thought...
I believe a unique type of every weapon would be welcome. Axes, polearms, crossbows, morningstars do not have any unique versions (though I have the twohanded hammer of Thor, I think). Unique types of all these would introduce a pleasant diversity. As for me, I think there are too many unique swords, really. And not much of a difference between them.

AvaRice said:

Works for my heroes. Are you sure he has another weapon in his slots? If so I think that it needs to be ahead of the lance in the slots.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the advise, I'll try it out.
But I think they just use the melee weapon they are most skilled at and that's about it. Someone definitely has to tell them about the Principle of Utility... 

Eogan said:

Correct.  All 2-handed weapons, including bastard swords, get a 25% penalty to speed and damage when used 1-handed.

Click to expand...

Turned out that this is right. Does not make a big difference on a larger scale though. I normally cut down an enemy with a bastard with a couple of blows and I have enough time to swing it again. And when fighting from a horseback the difference in weapon reach is all. So wielding a bastard at all times is better. Which is not the case in reality.
I mean if you compare the damage of a real bastard sword (in the game the blade looks nothing like it) to a heavily armoured knight and the one of a broadsword, the difference would be even more... considerable. How much damage a bastard would make? As they say, "zip, nada, zilch", simply because it is not designed to cut through armour, too long, too thin. Only axes and heavy broadswords (the latter were more popular) could do that. And apart from horseback bastard swords were used as twohanders only.
But again, I guess I'm asking too much. Still grieving about the absolute absence of flails in the game. God, this is disappointing...

Master BOB said:

If you like playing god, so be it. But I suggest you don't lough at people who play a different way, only because there are some troops they can't just flip away. Actually, that's the reason WHY they play in that different way.

Click to expand...

Precisely. But what is the point of making rhodoks all footmen if I, being outnumbered about 8 to 1 (400 against 50), with my cavalry (mostly ranger guardians) could beat them easily on a valley? And I didn't reduce the damage or something. Only when I've put the limit up to 199 I began feeling their halberds on me hide. On the other hand, my machine started moaning badly, so this is not the best way out.
That said, the very image of the vaegir king with his 200 and some more soldiers makes me run like hell, because I know that even with my 80 men I do not stand a chance against them. And this means really poor balance of the troops.

P.S. I guess "ms" means master sergeants. They do deal a good amount of damage (two hits and off the horse you go), but it is so easy to evade them when you are not soloing that there is little point in their damage.

Through the trial and error method I found out that there is something wrong with the master archers. Not to mention that they are able to hit me covering myself with a kite shield, they also deal 50+ damage per hit. My guess is that they make headshots solely. Now I'm standing against a nord champion with a war bow and a bag of khergit arrows and make a head shot with my power bend skill at 10 (don't ask). I deliver 43 damage or around that. Our helms are around the same, so I naturally come up with a question "what in the seven hells is going on here"?
As for their armour, I think its fine if they would wield something less murderous than their two-handers.

And I truly believe that rhodoks can use some troop improvement. As they are now, you can meet them on a plain and beat the hell out of them with just a handfull of cavalrymen. I took down around a hundred meself, switching to a lance when I got tired of swinging the morningstar. In a village or in mountains they are tougher, yes, but that is a poor excuse. Their crossbowmen need to be be a little more accurate, because I don't usually notice them at all. And I think rhodok elite needs either tougher armour or longer polearms (or both probably) to fight off cavalry. Otherwise they are just a joke of a warrior.

P.S.

Feanaro said:

Roamer said:

Cavalry is usually uncapable of tying another cavalry troop. When you go against Dark Knights you end up chasing them all around the place, while their crossbowmen try to take you down. Most of the time they are successful.

Click to expand...

I was speaking more in terms of infantry(only chickens fight from a horse ) but cavalry do tie up other cavalry. As you pointed out, you end up chasing them over hill and over dale.

Click to expand...

Oh... I guess then we have different views on the meaning of "tying up".
The problem with the enemy cavalry is that when your infantry is scattered throughout the battlefield they take your men down easily. Dark Knight do, anyways. For the infantry to be successful against large mounted troops you need to have no cavalry at all. The enemy cavalrymen will rush into the crowd and get stuck there, because there is no one else to attack. And in a crowd cavalry becomes much less potent. it would also make the enemy marksmen less effective as they would not fire if there is a chance if hitting their own men.

That does not work for heroes, unfortunately. I've seen my knight running around with a great lance in hand after their horse was down. Without even a shield he was almost as harmless in a melee as a kittie. I had to come through the crowd  and work with the morningstar around there to improve his standing somewhat... literally.
As for the AI I'd love to fight cavalry which does not gallop randomly from one map corner to another trying to chase their like. Though it's a piece of cake to butt them with a lance when they are stuck there, you know.