hostergaard
Recruit
Here have a look on my post in this topic, it fits in this topic to!
A long existing upgrade flaw!
- Thread starter Balinux
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Recruit
SoanoS
Veteran
An interesting proposal indeed, but there are some things that just stops it from working.
1) Enemy warlords and their insta-restocking armies.
Currently, they just respawn with full army (seen an army of 145 moving on world map for about 5 seconds after I defeat said lord)
They do not have an issue with money. They just respawn.
This just makes it impossible for player to do anything, if the if the aforementioned lord has just killed half of your army.
2) Not enough loot on battlefield.
Currently, After a battle of 75 vs. 200 I get a tattered wrap boot, a rusty sword, a couple of norman shields and a bundle bent arrows,
with the occasional bit of armour that is worth a few hundred. I also get a few denars but that is peanuts.
Well, I personally would not mind paying a small, incremental "upgrade fee" up to 100 denars for a knight.
Of course, the upgrade would be allowed when the said unit has enough experience from the battlefield so he/she is worthy of the rank and equipment.
But the bottom line is, I would like to see the current system unchanged.
1) Enemy warlords and their insta-restocking armies.
Currently, they just respawn with full army (seen an army of 145 moving on world map for about 5 seconds after I defeat said lord)
They do not have an issue with money. They just respawn.
This just makes it impossible for player to do anything, if the if the aforementioned lord has just killed half of your army.
2) Not enough loot on battlefield.
Currently, After a battle of 75 vs. 200 I get a tattered wrap boot, a rusty sword, a couple of norman shields and a bundle bent arrows,
with the occasional bit of armour that is worth a few hundred. I also get a few denars but that is peanuts.
Well, I personally would not mind paying a small, incremental "upgrade fee" up to 100 denars for a knight.
Of course, the upgrade would be allowed when the said unit has enough experience from the battlefield so he/she is worthy of the rank and equipment.
But the bottom line is, I would like to see the current system unchanged.
Narcissa
Sergeant
SoanoS said:
The OP seems very unfair and would KILL the trainer skill in favor of surgery. Your knights never die and you never pay upgrades again vs you can replace your losses fairly quickly but have to spend a little time for them to train (useful to create garrisons for your castles whereas surgery is retardly powerful for sieges.. woo army of immortal swordsmen.. Highlanders anyone?).
The whole immortal nobles and restocking armies would make the game virtually unplayable if your avatar wasn't able to slice through their armies virtually solo. Also any knight could make a knight. Making it king only just to make it 'special' hardly makes sense. I like the idea of knights being elite and possibly becoming pseudo companions. Though they would be autogeared and levelled to the 'knight' class the player could give them gifts of better armor if they chose.
LokiGodOfFire
Veteran
If this option would be implemented i'd demand another addition:
a) any knighted companion HAS to get a fief!
b) he is then an independent "warlord" of your faction, regarding only YOUR enemy settings, not those of thy faction.
c) he takes the taxes of the fief, upgrades it and places garrisons, governing you with 10% of the taxes per month
d) given the option of diplomacy you can COMMAND him to follow your party, for raids i.e.
e) he does have a depot in his fief for loot won during battles, that you can use if desired, but limited to a certain worth per month. the rest HAs to be divided into 1) garrison equipment 2) personal equipment for your "knight" 3) junk that is sold.
a) any knighted companion HAS to get a fief!
b) he is then an independent "warlord" of your faction, regarding only YOUR enemy settings, not those of thy faction.
c) he takes the taxes of the fief, upgrades it and places garrisons, governing you with 10% of the taxes per month
d) given the option of diplomacy you can COMMAND him to follow your party, for raids i.e.
e) he does have a depot in his fief for loot won during battles, that you can use if desired, but limited to a certain worth per month. the rest HAs to be divided into 1) garrison equipment 2) personal equipment for your "knight" 3) junk that is sold.
Blod Vigtonn
Recruit
I am new to the forum and game. So sorry if I am a little of a newbie but here is my ideal.
1. Do what the one guy said and change the name of Knights to Heavy Cavalry.
2. Then make a new unit called a knight. This unit is almost impossible to kill ( They just get knocked out ). They are the best units you can get in your army.
3.How do you get them ? It is easy. You have to go to a fief and give him land to make him a Knight. Ever fief can support so many Knights. Like a small little town the middle of nowhere only can hold one knight. Where as a huge city with a arena and everything can hold 10. This would make it so that you have to conquer more land to get more nobles. This way you would not have a full army of Knights when you only had one fief.
4. Make so that if a fief is raided they knights that own land there will want to go back there to protect his land.
5. If you lose a Fief you lose the knights that where there(Or downgraded to a Heavy Cavalry). This way it will make you have to protect them Fiefs with all your heart.
This is just my ideal what do you think ?
1. Do what the one guy said and change the name of Knights to Heavy Cavalry.
2. Then make a new unit called a knight. This unit is almost impossible to kill ( They just get knocked out ). They are the best units you can get in your army.
3.How do you get them ? It is easy. You have to go to a fief and give him land to make him a Knight. Ever fief can support so many Knights. Like a small little town the middle of nowhere only can hold one knight. Where as a huge city with a arena and everything can hold 10. This would make it so that you have to conquer more land to get more nobles. This way you would not have a full army of Knights when you only had one fief.
4. Make so that if a fief is raided they knights that own land there will want to go back there to protect his land.
5. If you lose a Fief you lose the knights that where there(Or downgraded to a Heavy Cavalry). This way it will make you have to protect them Fiefs with all your heart.
This is just my ideal what do you think ?
Blod, a way to limit how many knights you have in your army is not a bad idea. Its also not a bad idea to do it by how many fiefs you own. Problem with this entire discussion about knights is that only 2 factions have knights. The Khanate, Nords, and Rhodocks dont have knights. I think the current system for upgrading works perfectly, myself.
Unless you had more inventory space the larger your army, there would be no way to finance a decent sized crew even if you personally received all the loot from every battle. I, like many, am under the impression that each soldier in your group gets a share of the loot and that is how he pays for his stuff. Also, tracking down the right equipment for YOURSELF is hard enough without having to do it for an army of 50+ soldiers.
I would be more concerned, upgrade-wise, with how the NPC nobles can support such large, high tier armies even though they treat their fiefs like crap.
Unless you had more inventory space the larger your army, there would be no way to finance a decent sized crew even if you personally received all the loot from every battle. I, like many, am under the impression that each soldier in your group gets a share of the loot and that is how he pays for his stuff. Also, tracking down the right equipment for YOURSELF is hard enough without having to do it for an army of 50+ soldiers.
I would be more concerned, upgrade-wise, with how the NPC nobles can support such large, high tier armies even though they treat their fiefs like crap.
Blod Vigtonn
Recruit
For the ones that don't have knights can have there own elite soldiers like for the Nords they would be called Jarl . They would act the same just have a different name and what they used in battle.
Agree I like the how they upgrade to. I just think they need elite units for each faction. The best units should be a medal of pride. The sign of a powerful man is that he can get rich noblemen off there asses and fight for him. lol
Agree I like the how they upgrade to. I just think they need elite units for each faction. The best units should be a medal of pride. The sign of a powerful man is that he can get rich noblemen off there asses and fight for him. lol
rageshrub
Knight at Arms
what if there was a blacksmith type place where you choose packages for troops? that way you could have heavy / medium / light and a selection of weapon / shield packages. that way you can customise your troops and set them up however you want, with light armour & mauls or maybe heavy armour and butchering knives, but without aving to trawl through a dozen towns trying to find the gear and having to equip it to them yourself
Darian
Sergeant Knight at Arms
This has been suggested before (and partly implemented in some mods) but the problem is that this could seriously affect the usual game balance. Players could take cheap troops and equip them with far more powerful weaponry, possibly at a cheaper price than the wages of troops upgraded to a comparable level--for instance giving Caravan Guards better horses and plate armour would make them a slightly weaker alternative to Hired Blades but they would cost less in the long run unless their wages were to increase along with their equipment quality.
Yeah, I really must say I very much like the unit upgrade system as is. The one thing I liked from a version a long time ago was character level restrictions on how far you could upgrade troops. I remember having to be like level 16 or so before caravan guards could become mercs. That was nice, but not quite right. Perhaps you would only be able upgrade to the highest tier troops when you belong to the same faction. That is, no upgrading to knights, sergeants, lancers, snipers, marksman, lancers, etc until you are a lord of the faction. Of course, you could get these troops before becoming a lord of the faction by rescuing them from captivity of enemy parties. Its believable that they would repay you with their service for giving them their freedom. Also/or your renown could affect what tier troops you can upgrade too. Renown is kinda the best indicator for how successful you have been throughout your career along with your level. I cant see a really crappy renown leader being respected enough to have knights and such follow him or her into battle.
scalylizard
Recruit
Upgrading the soldiers only when in a town is very reasonable as opposed to conjuring armor and weapons for them when you are on the field. I'd be fine with the existing upgrade system if it added some symbolic upgrade costs.
As a ballpark figure I'd be willing to pay 20 times the weekly cost of a soldier for his upgrade. For example, to upgrade each of my 1 denari/week recruits to 3 denarii/week footman I would be willing to pay 20 times the new wage per man=20x3=60. When you are upgrading to knights you have to pay 20x20=400 per knight. As a result of that, I'd want to see a rebalancing of weapon skills so that lower level troops get worse weapon skills, since now I am investing in them more. (My recruits had better weapon skills than me for a long time-)
This way, fielding better armies would be more difficult but you'd be a force to be reckoned with. 20 times the wage might be a bit excessive in the beginning, so , lower tier troops could have a lower cost, with a cap at 20 times when you are upgrading to knights.
I am going to assume that he picked up some of his armor from one of the armies we have beaten together, (or he is exchanging some of his loot for an armor, and also using the upgrade funds he is getting from me ) so not paying the full market cost of equipment can be justified from that point of view.
As a ballpark figure I'd be willing to pay 20 times the weekly cost of a soldier for his upgrade. For example, to upgrade each of my 1 denari/week recruits to 3 denarii/week footman I would be willing to pay 20 times the new wage per man=20x3=60. When you are upgrading to knights you have to pay 20x20=400 per knight. As a result of that, I'd want to see a rebalancing of weapon skills so that lower level troops get worse weapon skills, since now I am investing in them more. (My recruits had better weapon skills than me for a long time-)
This way, fielding better armies would be more difficult but you'd be a force to be reckoned with. 20 times the wage might be a bit excessive in the beginning, so , lower tier troops could have a lower cost, with a cap at 20 times when you are upgrading to knights.
I am going to assume that he picked up some of his armor from one of the armies we have beaten together, (or he is exchanging some of his loot for an armor, and also using the upgrade funds he is getting from me ) so not paying the full market cost of equipment can be justified from that point of view.
The way I see it, that happens because your soldiers already took whatever equipment they needed for upgrades/replacements/their due share of the loot.SoanoS said:
And that explains why there's no need to actually pay for upgrades, other than the raised upkeep.
Mravac Kid said:
Yeah, its generally been agreed upon that the reason you do not get all the loot is that it is also divided among your troops. Looting skill makes a big difference, though. At least in the number of denars you get after each victory.
Tankai said:
Pfft. Let their families pay for their gear. You're not supposed to provide them with stuff. They're supposed to bring their own. That's how it worked back then.
Khalid ibn Walid said:
Well, not entirely. Knights did provide their own gear, in exchange for not having to pay taxes for their fiefs. Thus, if we want to be ultra-realistic, knights would recieve no pay, and cost no money to equip, but you could only have a few for every village you own - perhaps with some more for each castle. Commoner troops, however were often at least partially equipped from the armouries of their lords.
On the whole I like the idea of managing the equipment of my troops. It would require some rebalancing of prices though, as many are absurdly inflated in relation to what you get paid. But I imagine if we could equip each soldier like we equip our heroes! It would of course also require some means of ordering large amounts of weapons and armour and get them fabricated, rather than the present retail shopping.
Ape-O
Veteran
Hahhah, imagine the look on the armourers face when you come, holding a piece of paper in your hand: ''Umm, let's see... I need 30 plate armours for my knights, also helmets, gauntlets and boots... aaand... 40 hardened leather armours for foot archers. Some helmets and boots would be good as well... and something in between of these, I need full set of armour for foot soldiers... How much do I need to pay?'' ''Well, lets see... All that armour is going to cost some money... let's say that 150 000 denars should be enough''
And the armourer is brutally killed with a headshot from two meters away.
And the armourer is brutally killed with a headshot from two meters away.
LokiGodOfFire
Veteran
The road is open, just like a finely chosen wench.
To the equipment idea: why don't we just give us a blacksmith in the fiefs? That should solve the problem, the higher its level the better the equip.
To the equipment idea: why don't we just give us a blacksmith in the fiefs? That should solve the problem, the higher its level the better the equip.
mishamael
Regular
nah, as many has pointed out. your troops lot AND get paid and fed by the player, so I don´t see what they´d spend their money on (except maybe for 'special services' from Ymira) 
they probably have more money than the player has
and I think it might be a detriment to the player to have to pay his troops when they level up. Do you really want to say "noooo! my troops leveled up again, I have to PAY them to level up!
"
doesn´t sound like good game design to me >___>
they probably have more money than the player has
and I think it might be a detriment to the player to have to pay his troops when they level up. Do you really want to say "noooo! my troops leveled up again, I have to PAY them to level up!
"doesn´t sound like good game design to me >___>
