Search results for query: *

I can kind of see why they don't though, battles are just too short most of the time for you to have an impact if you spawn away from the main fight. I'll often join in when the allied side already has a decisive advantage, if the battle starts at the hunting-down -the-stragglers phase of a fight it will be over before your army can even see the enemy. Having the battle start in progress would only really work for large-scale battles where each side has 100+ troops, in which case it would be an amazing. For "skirmish" sized battles it could probably stay the way it is.

I agree this is a problem. It would be perfectly acceptable if foliage also seemed to block AI line of sight, but archers seem to do just fine sniping people through dense layers of trees, as long as the AI is able to do that the player shouldn't be disadvantaged because of it.

I think the rate of troop XP gain is entirely intentional, it makes perfect sense if the intent is to force the player to rely on high-relations notables to gain powerful troops. It shouldn't be easy for a low-renown player to field an expert army, but a player with a lot of connections should be able to recruit troops of a higher level without having to train them up. The main way this system is failing right now is that its incredibly difficult to reliably increase your relations with notables and, as Bramborough pointed out, that the AI grabs all the possible recruits before you can get there more often than not.

I agree that this is a huge problem with how battles play out at the moment, but changing it to a series of smaller skirmishes risks eliminating the feeling of participating in large battles which is fairly central to the game, in my opinion. I think a better solution would be to continue to allow troops to spawn in, but rather than have the spawn points be fixed at either end of the map have them be a set distance behind the "center" of your rear-most group of units. This way if the bulk of your army is sitting back while you harass with horse archers any reinforcing horse archers will rightfully need to go catch up, but if the bulk of your army is together you can reinforce almost immediately without being penalized for taking the initiative. I think this would also keep battles more structured, right now it seems like in large fights it almost always devolves into masses of infantry and ranged milling around in a few different groups, spawning right behind the main body of your troops means they'll hopefully be able to keep more a "front line." If an army is pushed back all the way to the edge of the map such that their spawn is outside it any reinforcements coming in should automatically flee, which will penalize a player for just hiding in the corner and incentivize active battles in the center of the map.

I agree with this, I think there are a few small changes that could be made to drastically increase the feeling of defense being layered.

• Add doors to towers that attackers will have to break down. This give the defenders time to react to a breakthrough rather than just having a wall be immediately overrun without changing the amount of territory the attacker needs to take to win.
• Have the AI defend the courtyard/city streets rather than just endlessly sending reinforcements to retake a wall that is beyond their ability to take back.

Honestly though, I think this is an area the devs are intending to flesh out. It's already possible to bug your way into fighting inside the keep itself so it seems like it's intended to bring back multi-stage assaults, but it's just not in the game right now.

I agree with this 100%, there's been a few times when I've been completely surprised to find myself in a village battle. It makes about as much sense to warp to a village battle as if you had to fight a battle in a cities streets after attacking an enemy party as you were running by. I think that if one party isn't already in the village it should just be a field battle.

andycott said:

✌The problem is when a castle is captured, it is automatically given to a leader of a faction and is considered his property until he's given it away via vote/leader's will. And if you have bad relations with him, you won't be able to enter a fief. I think it's the main reason, why it is done so.
So at the moment if you would implement appearing immediately in castle walls, you should also change the current relationship system. Not to do so a suggestion below.

Possible Solution
How it must be done instead to fit in the current system and it also be 99% the way you wanted from the start.
Attacker should appear in front of the conquered fief's gates. More specific: The place you appear on the map when you leave a fief.
And only then if the attacker has good relationship with faction leader he can immediately enter without wasting a single moment of in-game time. If he can't enter, than OK, it's already an another story.

+ to this thread, because I fully agree!
No logic in attacker's party/army appearing so far away from the place after a successful siege.

Click to expand...

I think this would be a huge improvement over how it is now, but I still think it makes more sense for you to stay inside the captured fief following a siege. Even if you have poor relations with the faction ruler and wouldn't normally be allowed in you literally just stormed the walls and took the place, you're already inside. The game picks up again the moment the siege ends, does your party just leave once the garrison is slaughtered and then knock politely on the gate they just battered down asking to be let in? I think it makes way more sense for the game to pick up again with you already inside the fief, if you leave you might not get back in but I don't think it makes sense to immediately be kicked out.