1.80 Beta issues and suggestions

[StaceMcGate]

Bugs

- Character world map portraits either have glowing red eyes or their eyes are closed
- Clan parties told to disband do not immediately do so, and may continue onwards for some time.
- Spouses do not have access to trainer skill reallocation.
- Army members do not purchase food while in army, this leads to starvation quickly.
- Heroes do not use random broker and only store prisoners in settlements.
- AI NPCs do not offload Noble prisoners into towns or castles.

Quick Suggestions

Prisoners
- Prioritize offloading noble prisoners into castles or towns for AI.
- Prisoner limit should not affect storing nobles.
- NPCs should prioritize using ransom broker for prisoner troops as opposed to storing in settlement.
- Normal prisoners should be consumed daily by at least 10%, providing income and production for settlement.

Influence
- Influence needs a hard cap, most clans have several thousand and nothing to spend it on.
I suggest having a limit based on Clan tier of around 200 influence per Clan tier.
- Double the cost of voting for policies or decisions.
- Implement incremental cost of influence for inviting parties to armies.
I suggest 10% base cost increase per member.
- Provide option to use influence on settlements, increasing loyalty temporarily or to host a tournament.

Tournaments
- Ongoing tournaments/Completed tournaments should provide loyalty bonuses to settlement.
- Nobles not deployed should travel to settlements within factions hosting tournaments.
- If not at War, Clan parties should travel to tournament locations and rest there.

Mercenaries
- Once the player or Mercenary factions are hired by a kingdom, they should serve for at least 20 days
without leaving kingdom.
- Once the player kingdom Mercenary contract expires, provide a textbox asking the player if
they wish to renew it or not.

Trade
- Owning profitable caravans or workshops should provide Trade SP to the player
- Companions assigned to caravans should receive Trade SP for being in a caravan.

Policies
- Policies should have a cultural modifier attached to them that determines favorability with NPCs.
Currently all policies have the same level of appeal within all kingdoms.

Clan Parties
- Provide an option in clan parties on whether they will join armies or not.
As they are free influence cost, as soon as they are made they will get absorbed into NPC armies.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Influence can be sometimes lost when you press the ESC key. I think it's just the most recent influence you've gained goes poof/ Using the ... on the UI to open the main menu can circumvent this bug.

Player's Vassals with max relations, fiefs and average-rich wealth can often defect to enemy factions that have less faction power and the vassals have no relations with the ruler. It makes no sense and obviously makes kingdom creation games pointless as it will just become whack-a-mole.

Heroes do not use random broker and only store prisoners in settlements.

One + of this though is that it seems the AI (or at least player clan parties)is allowed to donate all unit prisoners to a allied fief, even past it's capacity and get you + influence, even if the prisoners just go poof. This is only judging by influence gain on entering a fief, but it's my only explanation.

Nobles not deployed should travel to settlements within factions hosting tournaments.

Hmmm, they were doing this before, but maybe it was stopped by the "less teleporting" bug fix. I notice a much slower rate of wanderers moving around too, which has pros and cons. If I had to choose I would choose less teleporting over more nobles in tourneys.

Influence
- Influence needs a hard cap, most clans have several thousand and nothing to spend it on.
I suggest having a limit based on Clan tier of around 200 influence per Clan tier.
- Double the cost of voting for policies or decisions.

Hmmmm the problem is TW has said these kinds of things are wired to the player too (I guess meaning to much resources to make separate changes or just not wanted), 200 influence is not enough for being vassals and getting your way consistently (plus is can be really good to just donate for charm skill) and spending more on policies will be very very very annoying when you are a ruler and need to pass like 10 of them to make you kingdom happy n healthy before you start making/taking vassals. I think other solutions to influence bloat could be making AI need better troops before being summoned to an army (so less constant armies) and "no repeated propositions, war requests" cutting down having vassals propose the same things too often. Of course if they made it vassals pay more but not ruler (Yes I mean even more of a difference then now) that could work too.

 

[StaceMcGate]

Hmmmm the problem is TW has said these kinds of things are wired to the player too (I guess meaning to much resources to make separate changes or just not wanted), 200 influence is not enough for being vassals and getting your way consistently (plus is can be really good to just donate for charm skill) and spending more on policies will be very very very annoying when you are a ruler and need to pass like 10 of them to make you kingdom happy n healthy before you start making/taking vassals. I think other solutions to influence bloat could be making AI need better troops before being summoned to an army (so less constant armies) and "no repeated propositions, war requests" cutting down having vassals propose the same things too often. Of course if they made it vassals pay more but not ruler (Yes I mean even more of a difference then now) that could work too.

- 200 per tier is more than enough, that would be a cap of 400 by Tier 1 (minimum to join a kingdom) and 1200 by Tier 6.

- Also the policy issues to make your Kingdom actually thrive would not be so much of an issue if the policies had cultural traits like I mentioned to make voting for proposals to increase loyalty actually viable. Currently all voting goes the same way, making over half the policies impossible unless starting a kingdom and having sole sway.

- Influence bloat needs to be countered by making armies actually cost significant influence, making voting meaningful with its required influence, and to use influence currency for other things besides armies/voting. Having a cap on the amount of influence possible and increasing its value will also cut down on non-stop wars and policy declarations.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

- 200 per tier is more than enough, that would be a cap of 400 by Tier 1 (minimum to join a kingdom) and 1200 by Tier 6.

- Also the policy issues to make your Kingdom actually thrive would not be so much of an issue if the policies had cultural traits like I mentioned to make voting for proposals to increase loyalty actually viable. Currently all voting goes the same way, making over half the policies impossible unless starting a kingdom and having sole sway.

- Influence bloat needs to be countered by making armies actually cost significant influence, making voting meaningful with its required influence, and to use influence currency for other things besides armies/voting. Having a cap on the amount of influence possible and increasing its value will also cut down on non-stop wars and policy declarations.

There probably is something that can be done for influence bloat, but it must be kept in mind that the player faction and it's vassals start at zero influence. Any change needs to only be aimed at high amount of influence or only at AI factions, or it will cause problems for player faction getting going.

 

[StaceMcGate]

So update regarding prisoners from what I've seen
1) Nobles do not ever store hero prisoners in castles or keeps regardless of whether or not in army in 1.80 beta.
2) When a settlement is taken, the AI stores prisoners way past the settlements capacity. I see things like -200/20 prisoners when I take over a settlement.
3) AI do not use the ransom broker whatsoever in any capacity at the moment.


Obviously this needs to be corrected in next beta hotfix.
- AI behavior should have no behavior priority towards donating regular troop prisoners to settlements.
-- If this is something that is wished to be continued, capacity for prisoners needs to be greatly increased.
- AI should prioritize donating hero prisoners at nearest settlement when not in an army.
- If in an army, they should donate whenever they enter an allied settlement.
- Random broker should be utilized whenever normal troops are prisoners in party.

 

[five bucks]

There probably is something that can be done for influence bloat, but it must be kept in mind that the player faction and it's vassals start at zero influence. Any change needs to only be aimed at high amount of influence or only at AI factions, or it will cause problems for player faction getting going.

How about Influence drift when over (X high amount) of Influence? E.g. when a clan (player or AI) has over 1000 influence, they lose 10 per day until they are at/under 1000?

That way influence isn't "hard capped", but it is reduced from getting too excessive.

- Also the policy issues to make your Kingdom actually thrive would not be so much of an issue if the policies had cultural traits like I mentioned to make voting for proposals to increase loyalty actually viable. Currently all voting goes the same way, making over half the policies impossible unless starting a kingdom and having sole sway.

Yes. I proposed six different policies, and out of them: all lords voted the same way for all of them, except one of them where nobody but me and Derthert voted, and War Tax which had 2 lords in favour and 6 against. It seems the only factor significantly affecting votes right now is whether they are a vassal or ruler.

I think this is best solved in the following way:

Personality Traits make nobles like or dislike certain policies more. For example;

Lords' Privy Council - Liked by Closefisted, Disliked by Generous.
Military Coronae - Liked by Daring, Disliked by Closefisted.
Serfdom - Liked by Cruel, Disliked by Merciful.
Bailiffs - Liked by Honest, Disliked by Closefisted.
Declare War - Liked by Daring, Disliked by Cautious.
Declare Peace - Liked by Cautious, Disliked by Daring.

A formula determines how much nobles will support or oppose a policy, based on three factors - relations, personality, and ruler/vassal status - which increase or decrease their "support strength".
If they have under -30 relations with the policy proposer, -1 support strength.
If they have over +30 relations with the policy proposer, +1 support strength.
If they have over +50 relations with the policy proposer, +2 support strength.
If they have under -50 relations with the policy proposer, -2 support strength.
If they like the policy due to a Personality Trait, +1 support strength.
If they dislike the policy due to a Personality Trait, -1 support strength.
If they like the policy due to being a Ruler/Vassal, +1 support strength.
If they dislike the policy due to being a Ruler/Vassal, -1 support strength.

Add up the support strength, and the total determines how much influence they will be willing to spend on a policy. 0 support strength means they will abstain. 1 support strength means they will spend 20 influence in favour. 3+ support strength means they will spend 150 influence in favour. -2 support strength means they will spend 60 influence in opposition. Etc.

For example, if a clan leader has +50 relations with his ruler (+2 support), and his ruler proposes the Sacred Majesty policy (-1 support for being a vassal), that clan leader will give +1 support to the policy.

In the current system, if I vote on Military Coronae, 9 lords will support me for 20-40 and none will support the ruler, who opposes it. I can reduce my relation with all lords to 0, and the result is the same, I still get 9 supporters for the vote; only reducing my relations to -100 with someone makes them merely abstain (not even oppose me), so apparently relations makes only a small impact and traits mean nothing. But if I voted with the system shown above:

Aldric is Closefisted (-1) with 87 relation with me (+2), so he would spend 20i in favour.
Calatild is Closefisted (-1) with 100 relation with me (+2), so she would spend 20i in favour.
Ingalther is Closefisted (-1) and Daring (+1) with 39 relation with me (+1), so he would spend 20i in favour.
Varmunt is Daring (+1) with 0 relation with me, so he would spend 20i in favour.
Eleduran has 36 relation with me, so he would spend 20i in favour.
Hecard is Daring (+1) with 58 relation with me (+2), so he would spend 150i in favour.
Vartin is Closefisted (-1) with 28 relation with me, so he would spend 20i against.
Ecarand is Closefisted (-1) with 51 relation with me (+2), so he would spend 20i in favour.
Voleric is Closefisted (-1) with 0 relation with me, so he would spend 20i against.
The vote would be 270i in favour and 40i against.

If I had 0 relations with everyone and proposed it:
Aldric is Closefisted (-1), so he would spend 20i against.
Calatild is Closefisted (-1), so she would spend 20i against.
Ingalther is Closefisted (-1) and Daring (+1), so he would abstain.
Varmunt is Daring (+1), so he would spend 20i in favour.
Eleduran would abstain.
Hecard is Daring (+1), so he would spend 20i in favour.
Vartin is Closefisted (-1), so he would spend 20i against.
Ecarand is Closefisted (-1), so he would spend 20i against.
Voleric is Closefisted (-1), so he would spend 20i against.
There would be 100i against, and 40i in favour; the player would be able to sway the vote by spending 150 influence.

This system means the player can get consistently good outcomes on votes if they have high relations with many lords; variable but influencable results if they have mixed relations with lords, and unwinnable votes if many lords hate them. Making relations, and personality traits, important; and introducing skill to politics, as the player can know that certain combinations of traits and relations will make lords vote certain ways.

 

[StaceMcGate]

How about Influence drift when over (X high amount) of Influence? E.g. when a clan (player or AI) has over 1000 influence, they lose 10 per day until they are at/under 1000?

That way influence isn't "hard capped", but it is reduced from getting too excessive.

Yes. I proposed six different policies, and out of them: all lords voted the same way for all of them, except one of them where nobody but me and Derthert voted, and War Tax which had 2 lords in favour and 6 against. It seems the only factor significantly affecting votes right now is whether they are a vassal or ruler.

I think this is best solved in the following way:

Personality Traits make nobles like or dislike certain policies more. For example;

Lords' Privy Council - Liked by Closefisted, Disliked by Generous.
Military Coronae - Liked by Daring, Disliked by Closefisted.
Serfdom - Liked by Cruel, Disliked by Merciful.
Bailiffs - Liked by Honest, Disliked by Closefisted.
Declare War - Liked by Daring, Disliked by Cautious.
Declare Peace - Liked by Cautious, Disliked by Daring.

A formula determines how much nobles will support or oppose a policy, based on three factors - relations, personality, and ruler/vassal status - which increase or decrease their "support strength".
If they have under -30 relations with the policy proposer, -1 support strength.
If they have over +30 relations with the policy proposer, +1 support strength.
If they have over +50 relations with the policy proposer, +2 support strength.
If they have under -50 relations with the policy proposer, -2 support strength.
If they like the policy due to a Personality Trait, +1 support strength.
If they dislike the policy due to a Personality Trait, -1 support strength.
If they like the policy due to being a Ruler/Vassal, +1 support strength.
If they dislike the policy due to being a Ruler/Vassal, -1 support strength.

Add up the support strength, and the total determines how much influence they will be willing to spend on a policy. 0 support strength means they will abstain. 1 support strength means they will spend 20 influence in favour. 3+ support strength means they will spend 150 influence in favour. -2 support strength means they will spend 60 influence in opposition. Etc.

For example, if a clan leader has +50 relations with his ruler (+2 support), and his ruler proposes the Sacred Majesty policy (-1 support for being a vassal), that clan leader will give +1 support to the policy.

In the current system, if I vote on Military Coronae, 9 lords will support me for 20-40 and none will support the ruler, who opposes it. I can reduce my relation with all lords to 0, and the result is the same, I still get 9 supporters for the vote; only reducing my relations to -100 with someone makes them merely abstain (not even oppose me), so apparently relations makes only a small impact and traits mean nothing. But if I voted with the system shown above:

Aldric is Closefisted (-1) with 87 relation with me (+2), so he would spend 20i in favour.
Calatild is Closefisted (-1) with 100 relation with me (+2), so she would spend 20i in favour.
Ingalther is Closefisted (-1) and Daring (+1) with 39 relation with me (+1), so he would spend 20i in favour.
Varmunt is Daring (+1) with 0 relation with me, so he would spend 20i in favour.
Eleduran has 36 relation with me, so he would spend 20i in favour.
Hecard is Daring (+1) with 58 relation with me (+2), so he would spend 150i in favour.
Vartin is Closefisted (-1) with 28 relation with me, so he would spend 20i against.
Ecarand is Closefisted (-1) with 51 relation with me (+2), so he would spend 20i in favour.
Voleric is Closefisted (-1) with 0 relation with me, so he would spend 20i against.
The vote would be 270i in favour and 40i against.

If I had 0 relations with everyone and proposed it:
Aldric is Closefisted (-1), so he would spend 20i against.
Calatild is Closefisted (-1), so she would spend 20i against.
Ingalther is Closefisted (-1) and Daring (+1), so he would abstain.
Varmunt is Daring (+1), so he would spend 20i in favour.
Eleduran would abstain.
Hecard is Daring (+1), so he would spend 20i in favour.
Vartin is Closefisted (-1), so he would spend 20i against.
Ecarand is Closefisted (-1), so he would spend 20i against.
Voleric is Closefisted (-1), so he would spend 20i against.
There would be 100i against, and 40i in favour; the player would be able to sway the vote by spending 150 influence.

This system means the player can get consistently good outcomes on votes if they have high relations with many lords; variable but influencable results if they have mixed relations with lords, and unwinnable votes if many lords hate them. Making relations, and personality traits, important; and introducing skill to politics, as the player can know that certain combinations of traits and relations will make lords vote certain ways.

Yeah this is stuff I was proposing over a year ago, actually using traits + culture + relations to determine voting favorability
Problem is we are 2 years into early access and policy voting has not changed whatsoever
Every Kingdom and vassal are still eager beavers to vote for debasing their currency.
At this point I just want simple additions to voting before some true complexity to show that
TW wants to do ANYTHING about how stale voting is.

 

[Thandruin]

- Clan parties told to disband do not immediately do so, and may continue onwards for some time.

It really blows the way it's done now - so much unnecessary downtime. The program says the party will marge with the nearest clan party or travel to the nearest faction settlement and join its garrison, but that is absolutely not what happens. Like OP says, they travel all over, recruiting junk troops and often end up in a distant town, taking days to recall - and that is if they don't get overrun by bandit or enemy parties first.
If you disband a party that is near you or in your army, there should be a dialogue option to immediately assimilate the companion and the troops into your party - or at least actually do what is stated and auto-join nearest clan party/garrison.

 

[azakhi]

- Companions assigned to caravans should receive Trade SP for being in a caravan.

Pretty sure this is already case but I am guessing it is based on profit. Do you mean passive XP regardless of profit?

 

[Sir Frederic]

Mercenaries
- Once the player or Mercenary factions are hired by a kingdom, they should serve for at least 20 days
without leaving kingdom.
- Once the player kingdom Mercenary contract expires, provide a textbox asking the player if
they wish to renew it or not.

-The mercenary clans, including you, should end the contract at the end of the war and receive a payment for all the leftover accumulated influence.

-The offers to be a mercenary should have the option to "decide later" to be able to wait for other offers and see the one that interests you the most, for economic reasons or other interests.

 

[Killer Kitten]

My bug is that the npcs won't fight each other. If two opposing npcs happen to be next to each other, they will engage or retreat, so they do recognize an enemy. But if I have a factions at war, the AI will not recognize it's at war and go into enemy territory to seige or anything.

 

[RyanMan12]

I want to suggest they fix the ragdolling of enemies when I kill them with a javelin. And to be able to put soilders into individual units, ex: pikes in a formation of its own. I get if they have different variations for troops but I haven't come across that with weapons

 

[Sir Frederic]

fix the ragdolling of enemies when I kill them with a javelin

Do you want them to fix the funniest part of the game?

 

[Madeloc]

Do you want them to fix the funniest part of the game?

for sure, rest is more boring than funnt

 

[RyanMan12]

Do you want them to fix the funniest part of the game?

They implode and ragdoll for 5 yards

 

[Madeloc]

They implode and ragdoll for 5 yards

Love Impale, lol

 

[Sir Frederic]

They implode and ragdoll for 5 yards

Without a doubt, and that's the funny thing. Every time I send an enemy into Calradic space, I wonder, could I make it go further? LOL

In any case, if they fix the "bug", I hope it will be optional in the settings menu

 

[Madeloc]

Melee combat still looks as a DISORGANIZED PYGMACHIA, a PUGILISM where the AI closes the more possible to us so that our weapon is too long to hit anything lol
And where one shield protects 10 lads lol....

Edit : I must be sick to go on playing that unfinished piece of s***. When we do something, two options :
1) do it well
2) or do nothing if no intention of working well
3) absolutely not half made thing like that
4) agile method is a laugh as well as the zero stock in industry during 80's, does not work, or just oriented $$$
Kiss

 

[Madeloc]

Without a doubt, and that's the funny thing. Every time I send an enemy into Calradic space, I wonder, could I make it go further? LOL

In any case, if they fix the "bug", I hope it will be optional in the settings menu

Useless to fix lol, so funny when you have a high Throwing to see them take off the ground =)
And really not a nuisance to the mecanisms of the game. Unlike the melee combat

 

[Madeloc]

Prisoners
- Prioritize offloading noble prisoners into castles or towns for AI.
- Prisoner limit should not affect storing nobles.
- NPCs should prioritize using ransom broker for prisoner troops as opposed to storing in settlement.
- Normal prisoners should be consumed daily by at least 10%, providing income and production for settlement.

One the one hand, if you are owner of the town, it is convenient to improve Roguery, since you can sell prisoners to the ransom broker.

One the other, when it's not the case (you are not the owner) , you cannot store ennemy lords, because the prison is full and it's painfull. Only for the player, the AI can fill prison with no limit...