Armor Should Be Much Cheaper, Upgrading Should Be Much More Expensive

Best answers
0
I hate how they jacked up the prices for armor and equipment, even after the last patch. I saw helmets, very nice helmets but still just helmets, going for over 10k. That is completely unreasonable seeing as it was only marginally better than an alternative helmet which was 10x cheaper (which is still too expensive tbh). M&B has always had this problem.

I was also always baffled by how you were somehow able to purchase all these otherwise unreasonably-priced items as long as you ore your companions didn't wear them. Upgrading units is so cheap I doubt anyone even thinks about it. But it should be the most significant investment you make in the game and be the brunt of your costs along with wages and food. After all, the game is all about commanding an army and an army doesn't come cheap. Why is it the the player can easily find themselves in a position where they can easily afford 10 units wearing armor that would bankrupt them? M&B has also always had this problem.

The solution then is to reduce the cost of equipment dramatically to the point that the player could reasonably afford to upgrade a high-tier unit paying for all his armor and weapons at market price at the mid-game. This means reducing equipment costs by a factor of 10, if not 100.

My rational for this is that there is really very little reason to arm yourself all the extensively. Even with the best weapons and armor my character as an individual would make little difference in the battle beyond giving order. In fact, getting into combat at all was extremely risky since that would put my troops in the hands of the AI who would inevitably **** everything up. In the end, I was buying armor not because it had better stats but purely based on looks. Troops on the other hand are vital for your success, especially high-tier troops that let you win lopsided battles against equal or slightly greater numbers of foes. Despite this clear mismatch in importance, I felt like I was spending more on a single piece of armor than I did on wages for my very elite company of troops in the last year.

That's why I think upgrading should cost at least the full set of the units (now much more affordable) kit. A new player shouldn't be able to quickly get a bunch of high-tier units just because they were grinding looters for half an hour or so. There should be a not-insurmountable-but-substantial money gate to breaktrhough in order to field elite troops in any good number. And a new player shouldn't have to wait until late-midgame to finally upgrade their kit because there is such a bad cost/performance ratio.
 

Svenn

Sergeant
NWWF&S
Best answers
0
If you raise the cost of upgrading troops then lords, who are "irresponsible" with cash, will never upgrade their armies. They'll be running around with peasants all year, inevitably making the snowball problem worse.

I choose to see it this way, you're paying your soldiers every day and by the time they get into some 'decent' armour you've probably had them a while. Maybe they pay for the new kit with wages AND the player's upgrade fee?

Historically, the best armour was too expensive for most soldiers. It was reserved for kings, counts and knights not just because it kept them alive but because it looked pretty and was hard to make.

Crossbows on the other hand are different...
 
Best answers
0
If you raise the cost of upgrading troops then lords, who are "irresponsible" with cash, will never upgrade their armies. They'll be running around with peasants all year, inevitably making the snowball problem worse.

I choose to see it this way, you're paying your soldiers every day and by the time they get into some 'decent' armour you've probably had them a while. Maybe they pay for the new kit with wages AND the player's upgrade fee?

Historically, the best armour was too expensive for most soldiers. It was reserved for kings, counts and knights not just because it kept them alive but because it looked pretty and was hard to make.

Crossbows on the other hand are different...
The snowball problem is already improving thanks to the current patch, and lord behavior will continue to be improved upon, I'm sure. Even if it does not, keep in mind that every lord will have to pay more to upgrade their army, so it will have a neutral effect at worst. At best, it will make sieges much harder for them considering garrison units are tier-2 units, reducing their ability to snowball.

And if troops are paying for their armor with their wages (not possible considering how bonkers expensive it is, you'd have to be in army for decades) then why aren't they willing to buy their much cheaper food as well?
 

Svenn

Sergeant
NWWF&S
Best answers
0
The snowball problem is already improving thanks to the current patch, and lord behavior will continue to be improved upon, I'm sure. Even if it does not, keep in mind that every lord will have to pay more to upgrade their army, so it will have a neutral effect at worst. At best, it will make sieges much harder for them considering garrison units are tier-2 units, reducing their ability to snowball.

And if troops are paying for their armor with their wages (not possible considering how bonkers expensive it is, you'd have to be in army for decades) then why aren't they willing to buy their much cheaper food as well?
Those are fair points.

Yes each lord will have to upgrade their army but only the victorious ones would be able to afford to, making them more powerful. This is what i meant by compounding the snowball issue. I agree that TW are making great progress with that problem so i guess we'll see how this turns out.

As for the troop armour; the time it would take to afford good equipment varies by kingdom. For example Asarai use very little plate/chain armour so arguably could spend less on getting to T4/5. Food is yeah, that's a fair point but what kind of army management simulator would this be without food logistics?

It's never going to be perfect but i think TW have struck an okay balance so far, and it can only improve.
 

Shaf

Recruit
Best answers
0
It sounds like you didn't even play for more than a few minutes. The second you have an army capable of kill vassals on the regular you end up with more money than you know what to do with. Not to mention after you get a few castles/towns/trade routes. Before I even had a town I was sitting at 100k gold just from selling bounties and all the loot.

Killing a army of 60-90 size nets you like 5k in items to sell and another 3k-5k in bounty and you can do that like every 10 minutes sometimes on realistic.

What you probably don't realize because you haven't played much... Calvary cost a horse to do first level up (so basically 200/300). Then it cost a war horse which is 1k-2k cost. In my opinion all troops should have requirements like this to upgrade.

In my game right now I own 1 castle and 1 town and 2 trade routes. I constantly have over 500k gold and don't know what to do with it so I hunt for those 10k-30k weapons for my party members.
 
Best answers
0
Those are fair points.

Yes each lord will have to upgrade their army but only the victorious ones would be able to afford to, making them more powerful. This is what i meant by compounding the snowball issue. I agree that TW are making great progress with that problem so i guess we'll see how this turns out.

As for the troop armour; the time it would take to afford good equipment varies by kingdom. For example Asarai use very little plate/chain armour so arguably could spend less on getting to T4/5. Food is yeah, that's a fair point but what kind of army management simulator would this be without food logistics?

It's never going to be perfect but i think TW have struck an okay balance so far, and it can only improve.
The fact that this is an army management simulator where the greatest expense is my personal armor is what annoys me, those costs should be an afterthought in the grand scheme of things. The two chief investments you should be worried about are those you make to support your army and thaearmy itself. Currently you only really worry about the former, but the latter is easily overlooked.
 
Best answers
0
It sounds like you didn't even play for more than a few minutes. The second you have an army capable of kill vassals on the regular you end up with more money than you know what to do with. Not to mention after you get a few castles/towns/trade routes. Before I even had a town I was sitting at 100k gold just from selling bounties and all the loot.

Killing a army of 60-90 size nets you like 5k in items to sell and another 3k-5k in bounty and you can do that like every 10 minutes sometimes on realistic.

What you probably don't realize because you haven't played much... Calvary cost a horse to do first level up (so basically 200/300). Then it cost a war horse which is 1k-2k cost. In my opinion all troops should have requirements like this to upgrade.

In my game right now I own 1 castle and 1 town and 2 trade routes. I constantly have over 500k gold and don't know what to do with it so I hunt for those 10k-30k weapons for my party members.
I played 10 hours today alone (thanks Corona). This is not an issue about me not having enough money; I'm swimming in it. This is about the game making you spend money on things that are, in the big picture, rather superfluous (personal gear) instead of the stuff that really matters (high-end troops). That 10k-30k you spent on weapons should be spent on a squadron of heavy cav or something.

You seem to agree with me so I'm not sure why you're being a little *****.
 

Svenn

Sergeant
NWWF&S
Best answers
0
The fact that this is an army management simulator where the greatest expense is my personal armor is what annoys me, those costs should be an afterthought in the grand scheme of things. The two chief investments you should be worried about are those you make to support your army and thaearmy itself. Currently you only really worry about the former, but the latter is easily overlooked.
Each to their own. On my second and primary play-through (40hrs or so) i did not once buy armour for anyone, just loot and a tournament win (a nice plumed helmet). That was enough to equip me and 4 companions pretty well.
 

lcmiracle

Knight
WBNWVCWF&S
Best answers
0
After some thought I do believe that the cost of basic armor are way too high. A proper helmet and good padded armor is what saved player character from constant setback early game - the crucial period when a new player decide if the game is fun or not. If they can't get access to proper gears fast enough and had to brave a sea of bandits with starting gears because upgrades are too expensive and you ain't gonna get drops better than your starting gear from looters. Making personal gears cheaper simply helps player progress.
Meanwhile, upgrade troops should indeed cost more, at least high tier troops. Upgrading peasants to T2 should be relatively cheap, but anything with good armor and weapon should cost significantly more. Of course wars should be profitable, otherwise there's no point in waging war, and it should be through wars that good players can raise an elite army from loot and experience.
Think of it this way, item costs, upgrade costs, upkeep, etc. are really the sink through which to drain a player's in-game money. What is more liable to be lost: gears or soliders? A good player can never lose a battle and therefore never lose any gears they own, but I can't say anyone can reliably never lose a single solider in all their fights.
 

Eldorian91

Recruit
WBWF&SNW
Best answers
0
There is just a lot of balance wrong with gear. Bows and armor are too expensive, melee weapons are too cheap.. I've seen 100k pieces of armor this patch, and I'm wearing at least 100k in armor currently (I have one city, so I'm sort of mid game), but I'm using the same 1.3k weapon I bought in the early game.

Also having some gear, like horses and bows, behind skill gates, and other gear, like armor and melee weapons, usable from day one, really makes the progression wonky. I still haven't hit 60 riding, and I'm a Khuzait. None of my companions have made any significant progress leveling their skills either.

Leveling in general is too slow. My companions and my troops have much higher skill rankings than I have, and I get a ton of work done on the battlefield. My army is mostly tier 4, 5, and 6, and I have sub 80 polearm skill, which is my primary weapon.
 

oleggorru

Recruit
Best answers
0
I played 425 day. I own 1 castle and 1 town. Balance -935, but i have 1.19m because after 4-6 battles where 1-2 of them are against armies, I get a loot that costs 80k + -50k (trade skill 69). I was glad to buy the armor for 100k(before patch, now cost about 400к) because there is nothing I could spend money on. But even such armor does not protect very well from militia axes during an assault. it is disappointing.
It is necessary to raise the cost of the upgrade and the maintenance of elite troops.17 dayly cost for cavalry 6 tier, it's too cheap. Armor 4 tier for yourself and companions you can loot easily.
 
Last edited:
Best answers
0
I played 425 day. I own 1 castle and 1 town. Balance -935, but i have 1.19m because after 4-6 battles where 1-2 of them are against armies, I get a loot that costs 80k + -50k (trade skill 69). I was glad to buy the armor for 100k(before patch, now cost about 400к) because there is nothing I could spend money on. But even such armor does not protect very well from militia axes during an assault. it is disappointing.
It is necessary to raise the cost of the upgrade and the maintenance of elite troops.17 dayly cost for cavalry 6 tier, it's too cheap. Armor 6 tier for yourself and companions you can loot easily.
I don't think income needs to be buffed. Its already a step up from Warband cause you have to pay every day or so instead of just every month. That already has the player rushing around during the early game just trying to keep their meager party up. I wouldn't want to add more stress to that, it kinda sucks.
 

D.O.A.

Recruit
Best answers
0
You guys can argue about cost for now I just got stabbed to death by a peasant and died in my 10,000 gold helmet