Search results for query: *

i dont really see a need for anything but dagger and spear. spears trump anything at range and dagger beats anything up close.
bring arrows or spears if you want.
im fine with how the ai fights though updates would be nice. i would like to be able to switch their weapons though.
all the soldiers have regular swords and on top of that never use spears until cav show.

let me use my soldiers spears against infantry and then have the short weapons go in after.
i would even be fine with the spear being the default weapon and then attaching some kind of durability onto it. like the shield. the spear take damage and breaks then they take the sword out.

i like 2 handed weapons but they are just for army buffs. moral damage, raiding speed ect.
2 hand has cc aswell which helps in fights but personal fighting you get more than enough speed and pushback with spear and shield. plus its better on horseback being on calvary is the only time you really need a longer blade. which makes more sense because as a cav unit your causing chaos.
so even if the horse goes down you should have room to swing your weapon because the cav are messing up formations.

derfuchs13 said:

Yeah, it would be nice it had an actual effect on the battlefield besides perks

Click to expand...

i like the battlefield advantage % but maybe with tactics instead of damage you get access to traps, special formations like phylanx. maybe even battlefield selections.

could make the auto resolve a passive. so over time leveling tactics as you play the game your reward is you dont have to manually do simple battles while also letting you progress you in battle combat abilities. its what i thought origionally when it talked about damage buffs ect to units in simulation i thought tactics leadership athletics and medicine would be the best combonation.

Pejot said:

I find Vlandian xbows really good against shielded infantry. In fight with empire my 20 crossbowman kill legionaries like flies. Crossbow destroys shields much faster than bow (I checked both options against shielded troops). They are harder to lvl cause of weak T1 and T2 but are quite decent from T3 up. Cavalry is strong as long as You don't use it in frontal charges and keep ordering them instead of letting them attack on their own. Their only weakness are horse archers. I watched Khuzait horse archers taking banner knight after banner knight on plain terrain without the latter ever catching them. T3+ inf is decent against ranged fire but they die fast in melee (not sure what's causing this maybe gear is worse?) against most other factions. They also die fast against throwing weapons so Battania skirmisher can wreck Vlandian inf.

Click to expand...

what makes inf die in this game is their weapons. they have longer swords in close quarters that they cant swing when moshed up. in a shield wall they dont attack much and room again. in a spaced out formation they can actually swing and fight but eventually get moshed up again.

i have had more success with sword infantry in a loose formation than a close one.

spear infantry use their swords instead of spears which makes them worse.
spears are primary weapons.
this is why vland recruits just destroy on the front lines short spears with no other weapons.
by the time any heavy inf get near they are already shreaded by crossbows then hit a spear wall. then by the time they get through even a small amount of spears the medium shielded infantry can handle most units or hold the line long enough for calv to finish up.

Nokturnel said:

^ Yep.

Another fix that might help Vlad xbows is making it so shields always block attacks whether they're equipped or not. The huge shields their Crossbow users have would be pretty effective at protecting them if even when they had them on their back it protected them. (Currently it only protects them while they have it equipped, can shoot/hack right through it when it's on their back)

Far as army balance, Vlad isn't terrible, but it's not as OP as Fians and it lacks OP horse archers. Think Sturgia even with it's stats fixed is still the worst army. They're supposed to be "The Good Infantry" army I believe, but Infantry AI is pretty bad ATM and Archers are way more powerful than most infantry units. Their archers aren't any better than any other faction and Fian's are just plain way better, while Sturgia also lacks horse archers.

Click to expand...

the infantry ai is why i think vlad recruits are very good. they only have spears. short spears. you see 4 or 5 hitting the same target in close quarters and they hit them before then are even close . if heavy infantry like the legionary used their spears as primaries until someones in their face they could win but man those recruits tear people up.

Puerkl8r said:

Have you even fought Battania? The Empire?

Battanian archers are just as good in melee as range, and the empire units have more armor than any other units with spears and large shields, and better heavy cav than Vlandia to boot.

There are factions that are a lot more powerful than Vlandia.

Click to expand...

archers run on of ammo on your shield wall send in cav crushes them. heaviest armor in game with pike and swords. the ai doesnt use the spears automaticly so recruits with only spears hold infantry back way better then swords. even then multile pikes can hit the same unit in close quarters with the vland recruits and then you have shieldes infantry behind them as they are softened up plus the cav still running around.

the short spear as a primary weapon on the front lines is just very good . i ahve been watching them shread everyone but are weak vs arrows which is why you have the shield wall .

i would prefer tactics too boost my in battle troops damage ect. they 20% bonus arrows is already a big buff and auto troop placement would be great but i never spec heavily into tactics. i mainly just go for the starting 10% cav moral damage.

As for leveling troops. yes auto resolves gives good xp to all but if you really want to level some troops ill tell you.

get 200 2 hand .
get companions with 200 2 hand.
line up recruits in shield
put yourself and companions in from and kill enemies.

each kill gives 40% xp to 5 nearby troops. so 200% xp from a kill. plus you get to level your weapon stats.
then vlad 20% bonus xp from battles.
then leadership 20% more xp.

so one kill is 200% spread over 5 units so lets say 5 kills for 200% for each then 20% more and 20% more.

take 5 recruits into battle and you kill 5 looters. boom yours all level. not to mention you can get the diciplinarian perk to get more troops from the looters. you build your army as you fight.

iimstevo said:

You've kind of missed the point though...
Say your scenario does happen... The Knight is going to kill at least one or two of them before they even surround him. That's now 1v6.
In the event that these peasants are coordinated enough to simultaneously attack the knight, that's still another dead in the process of pulling the knight to the ground.
And then after that, its a case of an even fight in which the peasants will win because of the numbers. The individual peasants stabbing the knight, the knight scuffling with one or two simultaneously, and being pinned down by the rest.

All of this is with the expectation that seeing their peasant allies being gutted and slaughtered doesn't cause them to waiver in confidence and flee...

That's still a signficant flip of being outnumbered 1 to 8, to being outnumbered 1 to 4 or 5.
In raw numbers, you're looking at an army of 100 beating an army of 300 or 400 before taking any casualties.

EDIT: Don't forget, in the days of the arenas of the Roman Empire. Peasant executions were often carried out where several unarmed / lightly armed peasants were put into the arena against one or two gladiators. In those numbers, the peasants would outnumber the gladiators often enough at 4 to 1.

Click to expand...

i would pit a gladiator vs 6 armored knights. gladiators are not slow bulky enemies and very skilled probably with arms and hand to hand and wrestling. peasants trying to use weapons they have never used.

iimstevo said:

The problem is armour, that's it.
Weapons should be lethal. If you're sat wearing a t-shirt and joggers (essentially peasant gear), and someone swings a sword at your chest, you're going to be fatally wounded most likely from one swing.

Now if I'm not mistaken, plate armour was effective at preventing slashing and cutting. It wasn't as effective at preventing piercing damage - and Chainmail was effective at preventing piercing damage, but could easily (in regards to what it actually is) be broken by excessive slashing and cutting.

So... there's the problem;
1. No Armour prevents mortal wounding to the point where a single slash, or single arrow, cannot actually kill a target (unless headshot).
2. Plate Armour doesn't prevent slashing damage much, its barely different than having no armour.
3. Chain Armour doesn't prevent piercing damage any more than plate armour would, which is essentially the same as having no armour on.

All in all;
Armour is broken.

Click to expand...

anything layered over the body helps vs slashing. even cloth ect depending how thick is it. chainmail helps vs slashing not so much peircing and plated metal armor is still goign to help with slashing and helps with piercing aswell because the angles ect on the armor. blunt damage is the way through plate knights didnt use shields as much because they didnt have to worry so much about damage and could focus on offensive attacks.

now 3 peasants taking down elite units. 1 v 1 the yloose but in real life if 3 people go after one even if he is a stud he iwll get taken down. when you fall in armor you can get stuck like a turtle on its back. so yes you will loose vs many enemies even in plate.

Sidhwen_Khorest said:

I haven't ever had to look for looters lol, they are everywhere dude. But also if you want to level your skills without risking HP tournaments are great, and they give a crazy amount of gold if you bet on them for someone who is just starting out. I guess it boils down to preference, since either way you are just grinding out some beginner stats. I skipped the tutorial mission in warband too, even though it gave a good amount of gold to start.

Click to expand...

just saves time. tordaments you have to go and find them fight do the dialog.
in the turtorial for instance if you fully spec into athletics you can freely run on foot with no risk of bandit attacks and purely level up atheltcs for the start of the game no wasted xp
riding aswell if you wanted.

you are also currently able to take your brothers gear and give yourself high tier armor to fight with

i have found for leveling melee stats though maxing out endurance and athletics early helped a lot because you can move faster so its easier to kill banits but also you give your men hp so they can absorb more punishment for you while you are smacking the enemy on their shield wall.

Sidhwen_Khorest said:

I mean, yes the tutorial gives you a good start, though the whole +50 bonus into charm is just a bug I'm almost certain so i wouldn't count on that. If you are a new player I would say, on top of the tutorial teaching you how to play, its useful for leveling a bit before the game starts. however, I find I can pretty much get my first levels from looters and money from looters with no problem as a vet coming from warband. I played the tutorial once out of curiosity but I don't feel its necessary to get a strong start at all.

Click to expand...

its not necessary but its simple to just keep fighting there instead of looking around for fights the enemies are weaker as well. and starting the game you will have something to hit early.

Owen Wulfson said:

I actually didn't realize there was such a diminution in exp value upon leveling. I've been running arena fights with one of my character to level him up. I just wanted a character that was leveled, geared and ready to go when the whole (or most) of this game was playable. It's just day 3 of the campaign and I have him at level 9 with over 40,000 denars along with a 62 in One Handed, 56 in Crossbow and 54 in Athletics (give or take).

If what you say is true, then it might be best for me to wait and see if the new beta material makes leveling a more conducive process. I didn't skip the tutorial because I thought grabbing the Charm boost seemed a sensible boon - but now it's starting to seem like a bad idea. Not that I can't overcome such a hurtle given enough time. After all, the game expects you to be able to level to at least 22 - although my last char (played for 9 game years) only got to lvl 18.

Click to expand...

it depends on your goal, if you want to level just melee and personal stats then dont do anything besides fight. its a long grindy process. because you cant passivly level melee stats you have to personally go and kill enemies. easiest way for ranged is join an army fight inside and when they win stay at the end and kill all your allies.

if your focused on a millitary power athletics leadership medicine and charm are the top points.

charm and most other stats first 2 abilities are generally useful and charm basicly just lets you acquire troops and the abilitiy to join a kingdom faster.

why im saying this is good is because you can save all your skill points in your character creation and still get the benifit of teh charm bonus. focus points are easy to get but you cant get those stat points very often.

cyresdog said:

Or you... just cheat? Because that is pretty much what you do rn, you cheat the game but instead of actually doing what cheating is supposed to do in a SP game (Save time) you waste time. Good Job

Click to expand...

i downloaded a cheat program but it doesnt work for me. also im not really into playing games that are drawn out i enjoy building and creating so right now i have made over 40 characters with different stats so i have tried so many you get very good at leveling early and can tell when its fast or grindy. leveling a character thats purely 2 hand and athletics for instance is a huge pain.

AnandaShanti said:

You do know that every level reduces you learning speed for all skills permanently right? So trying to powerlevel/exploit dum stuff like charm and athletics actually retards (what word actually means) all future growth in more important skills that you would actually benefit from.
Athletics is fine later when you've got high riding, weapons of choice and other skills you need but grinding it early is a bad idea dude.

Click to expand...

well from the builds i have tried. honestly you dont need to max anything in riding. first couple levels are fine. no millitary bonus stats for your men really. you can get a desert horse which is fast and does what you need. as for slowing progress with all the builds i have tried focused or not the progress is about the same by the time you get to that level. so when i leveled pure 2 hand and athletics for instance my 2 hand was still low and athletics still around perk 3 by lvl 11.
with builds taht focus on trading and charm ect i dont require a horse because its all auto resolves. athletics no points about perk 3 at lvl 11. so it doesnt matter so much.
if you want to focus on any weapon stats you either do ranged or 2 hand they are the only ones worth anything to your army.
if you want your units to be stronger in battle, athletics leadership and medicine.
personal defence atheltics medine seige and scouting.

there is really only 3 options you either focus only on your character. only on your army. or your focus on trade.

getting 50 points in charm isnt wasted or slowing your progress by that much and it allows for more relation. more renown from perk 2 which levels your clan which speeds up the games development.

to be frank it seems relitivly useless to use anything but social and intelligence stats for anything. leveling atheltics as you travel.
the only reason to focus on weapons and smithing is for a solo character . since you get massive damage buffs ect but just having movement speed is enough to win any fight which is why you probably like horses so much.

charm is probably one of the top stats in the game either way becasue it opens up more troop recruitment early. easier quest completion early. so more gold. then later it helps you get castles and get allies.

the only reason to level riding and any weapon ability is purely if you want to make a character thats able to turn tides of battle on their own. but you can do that without the buffs either way. you dont need stats in polearm to lance someone or 1 hand to use a shield. and no weapon has any required stats to use.

i would consider atheltics one of the most important abilities in the game so idk why you wouldnt level it first. it single handedly will make you able to win any fight on foot. aswell as buff your troops allowing them to win many more wars. medicine would be a close second as the healing to your men allows for more fights and the hurt soldiers you get back even with a .8% chance is crazy. my losses went from like 40 too 10 with not even a 1% chance . allowing for more experianced troops. who are now buffed with bonus hp and damage

I have some options for new racial but i do think they just how they are if the ai was more tactical and the speed buffs in battles where applied they would wreck. 20% speed in snow on a battlefield means flanking could easily destroy a powerful army with the right tactician.
The trading ability isnt even a consideration to me until it becomes difficult to acquire money. its more for if you want to focus purely on your character and buy the best armor early. no armies just your stats and combat skills.

vlan- either keep the xp buff or make upkeep for tier 4-6 units reduced.
empire- keep the seige buff or reduce the cost of maintaining armies.-influence ect.
battanians- increased damage and moral in forests.
sturg- keep snow buffs or increased loot from battles and raiding. maybe defensive buffs in snow
khuz- keep speed or up the amount of arrows available to troops.
aseri- keep the trading buff or increase reputation gain with notables in areas your trade.

im seeing this as
vlan- kingdom focused on elite troops noble knights.
empire- people who love war political ambition armies.
battanian- tribes loyal to their own. defenders of their homelands.
sturg- raider and pillage under the cover of snow.
zhuz- another war conquering people but more with cav and arrows. less politics more savagery. not so good at sieges
aseri- political traders able to fund big armies but prefer conquest through negotiation and trade. may even lend armies for the right price.

so vlan should be able to win 1 force vs another like empire sturg ect. however empire will be able to field many more armies at lower costs so numbers vs power.
battanians should be able to defend themselves but pressing into open land would weaken them so far from home.
sturg are seasonal but able to raid and defeat armies in the snow.
khuz- deadly in army combat and raids but weaker in areas with poor terrain. making the upper portions of the map hard to deal with.
aseri- able to field massive armies well equiped but takes longer to build war with trading factions hinders their profits so they have to end wars fast too resume gold income or they will run low on funds. everything down south is more expensive since metals, woods, food, ect are harder to come by and troops are more expensive to field because of this.