Search results for query: *

they should add an icon for sieges similar to the one used for battles

I know that an icon appear during an assault, but by then it is usually too late to reach the fief and lift the siege

a different icon should appear during a siege as soon as it starts, then during the assault the icon should change to the assault one, if the assault ends without conquering the fief and the siege remains the icon should return to the siege type

Ragratt said:

This. Attack now button needed. Menu with ignore, talk / negotiate, flee / attack should be first when engaging any unit on map. Only bring up the scene if I choose to speak with NPC. Already done with cities why not party interaction, which is often even more frequent. If every time I visit fief town or city I first had to load the scene before I could access menu it’d be a huge hassle for minor interactions like recruiting. NPC interaction should be no different.

Click to expand...

I think this is a good suggestion, some option could even be based on the type of encounterd party, if needed

I tried to craft throwing axes and got a bunch of error messages for invalid type of damage, i fear this is not only a text/display problem, the system seems to not recognize the damage type at a deeper level

I don't remember how it worked on warband, but I concur that garrison units should not be autoupgraded, or not be upgraded past a specific tier

a simple solution would be to add an option in the management screen to enable/disable autoupgrade for player controlled settlements, while leaving it on for the IA

another option could be to let the player choose the max tier for the autoupgrade, with a slider in the management screen, so you can let the recruits become t2 or t3 troops overtime, but not go over that, this last option could be implemented for IA controlled settlement too, as a way to limit the lords expenses

yes this would be a good addition, at least allow us to repair the items, removing negative modifiers

speaking of "repairing" items, I'm experiencing a bug that resets all the modifiers from items in my inventory (sadly it remove the good modifier too), but I don't know how to reproduce it, I simply leave negative modifier items in my inventory and wait till they loose the modifiers, pretending that my men had done the repairs in their spare time

I honestly don't think item degradation is a mechanic that adds a lot to the gameplay, anyway I'm not totally against it, but only with use, not overtime

the degradation should never go to the point or rendering inusable the object, should only reduce the stats

for semplicity of implementation and use the repair should be done in the town forge, in another tab added to the 3 already present, it should be instantaneus and use an amount of stamina and resources coherent with that of forging a new item (I also would appreciate adding a forge to castles, maybe as an upgrade to build)

I think that the item degradation could work with the actual modifiers system, having a negative modifier already impact some stats (at least for some kind of items, like shields and armors, I suppose the other categories will be fixed sooner or later)

you start with a normal item, after a reasonable amount of use it get the first negative modifier, if you keep using it it will degrade to the second negative modifier, etc.

whathever modifier the items has, repairing it should always take it to the no modifier state, the lower the starting modifier the higher the cost for reparing it (stamina cost should remaing the same or change in very small amounts, to avoid situations in witch to repair an item the stamina required is more than the max stamina)

a smith perk could let you repair over the no modifier to the first positive one or better, for a higher cost, another one could reduce the cost of repairs, another the degradation speed

TheShermanator said:

I've been there. But then, I realized that if the enemy was throwing parties and armies at the same 2-3 villages, those same parties and armies were not defending their fiefs or bolstering their strategically important armies. And that, even if the repeated raiding of my villages was costly, I could hurt them more than they hurt me by just destroying their weaker-then-otherwise-possible armies and taking their fiefs. Furthermore, by spending time defending a village instead of taking a castle, I was only superficially preventing loss to my kingdom - because really, the loss of the opportunity to take a fief from an enemy is worse than the loss of the village. It's brutal to watch your villages get wrecked, but it's a worthy and sometime necessary trade to let it happen so that you can break the back of the enemy kingdom more generally.

That's why I think the garrison and/or clan party patrol assignments are fine. Because those options also cost the player something - men that could be more productive in the war effort on the front lines.

Basically, strategic trade-offs make the game fun. On top of that, strategic trade-offs are realistic and thus support the whole medieval warfare immersion thing. Villages in border regions got raided - even if their lord might ultimately be winning the war.

Click to expand...

yes, as of now you better let your village be raided if it become a target and spend your time doing something else than defending it, defending it is actually pointless, since the system doesn't aknowledge you tried to defend it in the first place and will continue to target it

but this is certainly not an ideal situation and should be fixed somehow, player (and IA lords) should have a way to effectively defend a village and secure it for a while from small raiding parties (big armies should not be affected)

I wasn't speaking of letting villages becoming castles, but making castles have the same basic features of towns (market, tavern, recruitment) with some of them less effective than town counterparts to differentiate the two, for example the market could have only a limited range of goods, smithy and taverns need to be built in the first place or something else

villages should still be linked to a town or a castle and take their goods to the linked town/castle, in these scenario, since villagers always go to their linked fief there is no need of an indication other than that of the linked town/castle

In a past run I used a mod that forced a minimum of 0.20 to the learing rate, and also a little bit more xp, this resulted in a better grow rate for my pg and my companions

a problem with having a minimal learnig rate is that it seems there is no hardcap on max skill value (or it is too higher), and some skills have perks that give bonuses based on the amount of skill points above a certain threshold, so with the learning rate never reaching 0 nobles can get too powerful in some aspects because they alread starts with higher stats and with become monsters overtime, there was a healing perk that made even recruits under some lords have 800hp eventually

for me a solution could be to have a minimum learning rate with a reasonable hardcap on skills (300? 400?), instead of the actual softcap given by the combination of focus points and attributes

focus point will remain and be used to have better learning rate in selected skills

attributes should have some beneficial effect and not only be used to determine the learning rate, they should also be given every 3 levels like the text says, not 4

GitiUsir said:

I agree, it's important to know which villages are supplying each city.
IMO villages should send goods to their associated castle, and from then they should send local caravans to the nearest city in the same kingdom, which should be their political and economic hub.

Click to expand...

I agree, villagers should take their stuff to respective castles

I also think that castles should have a market and be visited by caravans

basically they should act almost as towns, only with much less population and, perhaps, no workshops (but the smithy should be present, from the start or as an upgrade)

TheShermanator said:

Or, in other words, when the player knows that their villages are being raided, they should know that they have to react to that. Otherwise, if the player knew that the militia will replenish itself really quickly, they could comfortably ignore any raids, complacent in the knowledge that the situation would soon fix itself.

Click to expand...

problem is that enemies seems to target always the same village until they successfully raid it, even if you go there to defend it the IA ignore it and will try and raid the same village again and agaid and again

in the previous run I had to defend one of my village from an infinite number of raids, I chased the first lord, a second one goes and try to raid, so I turn back and chase the new one, but the first one returned to raid, so this time I first captured the second one then returned back and chased the first one, in the meantime a third one showed up to raid the same village, so back to the village, and so on, and so on, even lords that where already captured while trying to raid that same village returned to try and raid it again after escaping imprisonment (or being ransomed without my consent ...), I was unable to do anything else for most of the war, even going to the nearest city to resupply and dump prisoners was out of question for most of the time

the player doesn't have a way to stop this behaviour, you will need to spent the entire war defending that same village, I suppose that if the militia eventually grow bigger than that of another village than the IA will target that one, but with multiples raid attemps in that short time the militia had no time to grow at all, so the only course of action, is to sit down waiting in the village waiting for days doing nothing, looking at all those lords loked in a cycle of moving to raid the village than running away from your party, than returning to raid the village, in this way the militia will grow and eventually the IA will target another village (praying for it to belong to another lord)

Maybe a system in which you could post a small Garrison, say 50 or less, for a defenseless village? That would deter some small enemy parties.

Click to expand...

something like this is really needed

another option would be to force the IA to avoid villages that where recently defended and search another target instead

Badcritter said:

0.6 morale, which appears to be the minimum for an encounter. And is more than you'd get added on to the bandit hideout encounter by adding 4 dudes to it. So there is a benefit, however small. I agree it's silly and they should probably surrender. But if you lose, do your men surrender? It's been a while since I lost that fight without rage-reloading so I don't actually remember.

Click to expand...

the conditions transpiring from the dialogues and the situtation are that if the leader win you let him and his men go, if the leader loose they should surrender

remember that the bandits are already almost defeated when the duel take place, with only the leader and a bunch of his henchmen remainig, you had already won, the duel is a way to give the leader an honourable chance to fight for his freedom

there would be no logical reason for the player to accept the duel if in case of defeat he get captured

one minor thing that annoys me is that when you beat the leader of a bandit camp his followers doesn't surrender to you, they are not added to the prisoner screen and you find them in the map as a new group, so you have to fight them, this defeats the meaning of the duel.
Why I am supposed to duel the leader alone if his soldier doesn't surrender when he fall? If I loose then the bandits go away, thats ok, but what is the gain on my side if I win?
And why my men let them escape so easily? If they don't want to surrender I should have an option to fight them while in the camp scene, without the need to return to the map, and re-engage them

no the price difference indication should be the same for the two perks, like other same tier perks they share a common effect

the different part is that one should make selling equipment a little more profitable while the other should do the same for trading goods

the Appraiser perk in the same tier is not working too

Capillati said:

it`s the same for hogs and meat prices, a lot of cities will buy hogs for say... 40, but meat for 35 a piece. So if you sacrifice hogs and get 2 pieces of meat, you triple your profit. Only problem is, you`ll never increase your trade skill that way. Ever! But yeah, you`ll make loads of money...
The problem with Iron prices I would think has a lot to do with all the wars going on, just like with food. Past day 500 in 1.4.1 I`m making killer profits on trading food. Just any kind of food. Grain is now actually quite good to trade.

Click to expand...

the concept of taking live stock and turn it into meat for a profit is ok, there is a profession that does this in real life, we can argue about the fact that the player doesn't do any real work to obtain the meat, so it is a bit overpowered as of now, maybe we can make it use the same stamina from crafing (doing this will need an upgrade on the stamina max pool and regeneration) or limit it in some other way

instead smelting newly bought items to sell their parts is something that is usually non profitable, it is usually done with older broken ones, that you usually buy for a fraction of the cost of a new one

Update: restarting the game worked

update, I have checked some towns, as before the first notables do not show up on recruitment window, they are labeled as "owner of artisans", I suppose this means they are of the artisan category, so this is the reason for their absence from the recruitment screen

can a dev clarify if it is supposed for artisan nobles to not give recruits or if it is an unintended behaviour?

I had the same problem today, creating an imperial kingdom, I will check if the restart works, thanks for sharing

I've not noticed the behaviour for the spouse but can confirm the one about companions