Search results for query: *

+1 to the suggestion and to each thoughtful contribution so far.

+1
I think there are all sorts of ways to balance it, because it would be OP if a gigantic army could just inexplicably appear looming over a different army (a la Total War). I'd like an alternative to fielding a separate, all-cav army just to hunt down a few bandits.

I expect TW is moving in a direction like this. With the updated battle AI, I wouldn't be surprised if we also see a way to suggest/collaborate with allies mid-battle.

Nevertheless, I agree - peasants should listen to the military leaders.

joecamel18 said:

I am wrong, it does add xp, but an insanely small amount. A tier one unit needs 500+ xp to upgrade, where the training fields add 3 passive xp per day. That is over half a year to upgrade a tier 1 troop in a garrison with the training fields fully upgraded. Super underwhelming at the moment.

Click to expand...

Bwaaaa... I didn't realize it was so meager -- I also thought it was borked.
I agree with the original post, some sort of active/passive training would help be more intentional with army make-up and size. If nothing else, I think troops garrisoned at a player-owned castle should get a much more substantial XP boost (or it should be possible to build that upgrade).
I don't know if I agree that just resting in a friendly village should do the same thing.

TCgreywolf said:

so why not eh?

Click to expand...

100%!

About six game-years in and several hundred thousand denars later, I remembered to look up my brother's entry in the encyclopedia. I was headed to the city it said he'd been seen in, but then I saw a 40-unit Looter gang, and one thing led to another and what siblings?

TCgreywolf said:

this is just something on the side. It could probably be implemented by a mod.

Click to expand...

And it's a mod I'd install!

Ursi said:

At the same time - the pure passiveness of the workshops and their income is really nice.

Click to expand...

Totally! On the other hand, I'd like the ability to have a hand in the workshop's success (or failure!) in some way or another.

Ragnargh said:

Except that this doesn't take a lot of time at all and would be extremely helpful for new players. This could also be used to help test the game especially now that it is in early access because players can't report a bug if they don't know what the expected behavior is. For example, I still don't know what leaving a companion in a village is supposed to do. I thought it would improve relations but I haven't seen that happen, is that a bug? Who knows, because that information isn't given so I can't report it. The encyclopedia could also be used to inform early access players about what IS NOT implemented so we know what to expect.

Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you, Ragnargh, but actually I think you might be underestimating the work it would take -- I think you're right that the actual writing wouldn't be hard. Also, I bet Clanker's probably right, a robust explanation most mechanics will probably eventually exist. But in the meantime, writing up an explanation of every mechanic, its intended consequences and costs, making sure it's accurate and written well, and that whenever updates happen every corresponding mechanic is also up-to-date and nothing gets missed costs time. And that's time a dev could be spending actually making the changes.

All that said, I would also LOVE more written explanations of mechanics -- I'm not saying it wouldn't be great.

+1 this. I came to the forums today to suggest it.

When an army is marching on a settlement/castle, it's possible to view their destination by clicking -- I think encyclopedia entries should have similar functionality.

Although it's been mentioned already that a button can bring you there, I totally agree that a button on/in the GUI would help finding/using the encyclopedia

I wonder what TW's approach will ultimately be when it comes to RPing a smith.
Technically, armorsmiths were different from weaponsmiths.
So it wouldn't only be a functional difference (how to apply modularity), but it would also be a question of how much we care that the same skills would necessarily apply.

I think this is an interesting idea, but I don't necessarily think it should be a high priority change. It feels like an immersion/aesthetic change, while there are QoL and gameplay issues that could probably go higher priority.

I think this is a good idea -- it reminds me of Rome: Total War -- but in my opinion it's low priority.

I like this idea. The first thing that comes to mind is the inventory management system for workshops in the original "The Guild" game (sliders that allowed to designate "Don't sell until [X] in inventory" and "Purchase raw materials up to [Y] in inventory")

There's another post saying the same thing, but I'm +1'ing this post as well.

Strongly support and agree! Particularly being able to sort by type and strength would be incredibly helpful.

Additionally, having troop counts ON the Party Management screen. Currently "Troops" is a collapsible section above "Prisoners". It'd be nice to have a TOGGLE that allowed me to have sub-categories of Foot, Archer, Cavalry.

I find myself clicking and dragging the portraits in the Party Management screen, except the scrolling doesn't work if you've got a portrait selected, so you have to drag them to the top of the screen, scroll up and then drag again (repeat) if you've got an army with enough troop types in it.

Strongly agree!
If targeting specific units/unit types is particularly difficult, it would be helpful if I could distinguish between "Move to this location" and "Move to this location and engage with hostiles in an [x] radius", like a lot of FPSs have the room for.