Search results for query: *

They upgrade them as long as they can so with horse units they might not be able to.

Might be correlated with prosperity of cities being destroyed. Fiefs are the main form of income for them after all

I can count my crashes on one hand after 200+ hours of gaming so it is very stable for me.

When you have features that are implemented but poorly balanced they are closed to not being implemented aswell.

Both has to happen. A game needs a solid foundation

Owen Wulfson said:

Actually, I went back to level a character and noticed that at level 1 the experience gain was at a x10 whereas by level 10 it was about x6 - so there is a climbing exp grind based on what level you are as well as your focus points. In practice, this doesn't stop you from leveling skills you want to. Rather, it just makes it take longer. However, I would say the vast amount of exp required and the slow trickle for such, rather than the multipliers, are the real impediment.

I was also quite aware of how easy it was to level charm. I don't even buy a horse, I just give each passing lord I see 100 gold and call it a day - works just the same. If I like the lord, I might throw in a spare sumpter horse.

Click to expand...

The experience gain is for the skill itself it doesn't care about your OTHER skills.

If you have two characters and both have 1 int and no focus point in engineering and are at 1 engineering, but one of them has charm on 300 they still learn engineering at the same speed.

Koshkasa said:

I hope whatever fixes TW applies to armies, that stays exactly like you've said. It isn't a risky battle if you ain't, you know, risking anything.



That I do agree with. Combining Health Rebalanced (+50% works fine), Armor Does Something and the Troop Collision Fix fixes the "being killed by a gentle pat with a butter knife" problem elite units are facing right now, as well as blobbing together.
Hopefully we'll see blobbing AI fixed. Thanks to the modding-friendly engine we can at least fix some of the issues as a community effort.


Swap "North" for "East" and you have a typical Khuzait situation in all my saves.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between not risking anything and total defeat.For risky battle the loss should be acceptable. Parts of your army could come back over time like a rallying point or if both sides suffered massive casualties then prisoners cannot be taken and you get to retreat. Stuff like that.

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...

You don't realize because it is not true.

You gain focus points and attribute points faster at the start because you need less skill levels per level but the speed of learning doesn't care if you have 300 stats or 1 it cares about what the actual level of the skill is, the attribute points and the focus points.

However if you want to level charm fast just buy a horse from the lords you pass buy and it will explode.

I have 420 or so garrison and 400 ish militia. Took epitocrea within like 80 days of starting the campaign and didn't really grow it much, the cities were raided and are recovering. However I did not build the aquaducts as to not inflate prosperity when the cities still need recuperation

No food is being put there either. All natural.

Gambles said:

I REALLY get the feeling that a lot of people play this game on easy/very easy and then brag about how easy the game is. I've been playing on realistic with challenging AI since the beginning and the new 1.2 patch that doesn't allow you to auto resolve against looters for some xp has been a drag. Not to mention the endless lord spam of recruits, even with vastly superior ranked up units it's very very easy to get widdled down, if you can even make it to that point. Losing a ton of troops then trying to recruit what you can from nearby villages without trecking all the way back to your high influence ones can be a pain but it's almost a must with how spammy the AI is with their armies. Having to manually load in and slaughter 20-30 looters with 150 troops 15 times in a row for some levels on your army is a bit... much

Click to expand...

Use more archers. Any archers. A pure archer force cannot be reached by the enemies. They collapse before.

Nakh said:

There is no such thing as peace in my games so far. Non-stop grind, always at least one active war, usually two. I just avoid joining kingdom as vassal to be free of garrison management chore, but this leads to another problem - I can't level leadership skill as mercenary.

Click to expand...

I saw my leadership grow when I had high morale. You get more morale for a difficult battle you fight splendidly so that could be a way (remember leadership is a self-fulfilling prophecy in the sense that it will provide high morale by itself)

I couldn't bother to read through all of this but there is some things you can do to make leveling up your troops a better experience:

XP is earned by the entire stack of any given unit e.g. recruits. Every damage they deal, every kill they produce is XP. If you immediately upgrade whatever recruit you can, then the amount of XP that stack will produce is also lessened unless you specifically only send the recruits to fight.

See with borrowed troops you keep all of them unupgraded until all those still alive can be upgraded.

Do not simulate the battles. Load in, tell the units you want to level to charge and leave the rest at the spawn.

People are all crazy about fians, but they don't realize that all ranged troops have the very same effect. Volume of fire leads to the AI initiating shieldwall on the final meters of approach which is a death sentence for all recruits and then causes a mass route.

Empire is pretty good for this since the horse archer is in the normal troop tree so you get recruits, archers and build more and more bucellaries.

Technically a horse archer army cannot be defeated, but the same can be said about the player. Yes you can horsearcher safely, drop volleys retreat and then repeat with a full quiver if that is your jam.

However once you build this archer/horse archer army the AI will be unable to stop you unless you take on insane odds. The game is effectively over once you have e.g. 200 archers and 50 horse archers. They will lose entire armies and you will not lose anything.

Edit: Give yourself and your settlements time for peace. If a city has lots of powerful units then that is because there is nobody there recruiting every 5s. If you recruit massively all you will get is recruits.

The "free" garrison you mention for the AI is not free at all. If you have an army and capture something you can move in and participants of the army will donate troops to the garrison. In fact if you have companions with parties they will also keep the garrison up.

durbal said:

Absolutely untrue. Where do people come up with this stuff? What do you think a rear guard is for? Why do you think armies constantly maneuvered around each other and tried to make sure their means of retreat was always safe? What do you think a feigned retreat was for if armies never retreated? A few quick bits from famous historical battles, all involving retreats from part or all of the forces involved:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cunaxa -- ten thousand mercenaries retreat from Persia to Greece.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae -- Hasdrubal crushes the flanks of the Roman army which retreat and he commands his men to not chase them (ring a bell with MnB battles?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_conquest_of_England#Hastings -- initial force of Bretons fights Harold's shield wall, loses the engagement and flees, meanwhile the shield wall breaks when they chase the Bretons and William's Norman cavalry destroy Harold's pursuing infantry

Click to expand...

Thanks for finishing the job on this one, but I want to point out an even easier way to showcase that what he says is untrue:

If retreats would lead to being slaughtered down to a man, then men would never attempt to retreat. Knowledge would have been establishes that you need to win in order to survive.

Additionally if you chase people that are routing you must break your own formation to achieve it, which is not desireable all the time. Hence the problem with the fake retreats.

blackbellamy said:

Why do you think that? Because historically the losing side was completely and utterly wiped out. Complete destruction of the losing army didn't stop until the gunpowder age when gunfire could cover a retreat and units weren't locked in melee until the bitter end.

There were no retreats. An army would fight until routed and then they would be ridden down and slaughtered to a man.

Click to expand...

While most deaths occured during the retreat it was not a wipeout to the last man and people weren't locked till the bitter end. Even if what you say was true it would still mean nothing to gameplay.

Running around from city to city and hoping something is available and purchasing as many horses as you can find to just then swap into looter fights is not good gameplay. As developer your job is to get the player into risky battles, because they end up being the most fun. There is also enough example like two armies fighting it out to the last 5 ppl. The "victor" then proceeds to take 200 or 300 prisoners and gets all the wounded man back. It is not very believable either.

The fights without escape should be the siege fights.

Additionally there is enough fights were the defenders lost, but made victory down the road possible or still achieved massive feats. In this game if I take 50 sturgian berserkers to a bridge to kill 400 men before I get overwhelmed I get nothing.

Let player gear break and degrade over time.

I think an army should never be fully defeated unless something exceptional happens.

Big and risky battles are fun. Players are forced to suck the fun out of themselves right now, because if you lose your army first you need to visit 20 cities to get horses back in order and then do 50 looter battles (not even auto resolved) to get back a fighting army. That is not engaging gameplay.

If both sides inflict X amounts of casualties to each other, then the losing army still gets renown, loot and everything and gets to retreat at least with its wounded members and those that ran away.

Wars should more be a war of money than a war of those very man you have with you right now. If even for the player it is a long process of raising a new and effective army, then you don't need to look far as to why the AI is fighting mostly with recruits.

durbal said:

Is it though? There is another thread here that has people up in arms that looters now kill their units due to a bug fix. Many want the bug back so that they can spam autoresolve vs. looters. (And I agree that autoresolve is broken, but the idea that a bug should remain in the game because people actually went around pressing autoresolve vs. looters enough to complain is -- as someone else put it -- demented.)

Click to expand...

They don't care if it was a bug or not, they want the free xp. Not like anything happens if you go into the fight. You press f6 and win without moving, without losses. Thus the old autoresolve gave you a worse result faster. 100 men vs 20 looters isn't a fight, it is a waste of time you partake to level your troops.

If a reasonable way is implemented to level your troops, then killing looters will become a thing of the past right there and then.

Well the fighting needs a massive overhaul anyway it is complete garbage to begin with. Either you have a landslide victory or no chance. Randomly, every 200 battles and out of the blue a battle down to the wire happens with a lackluster result, cause the game is a winner takes all type of thing.

Looters should not become immobile after they are like 40 and actively band together (or grow) and hunt at the very minimum.

Just grab a companion and give him the other half of perks...