Battle death chance should be 5% for the battles that the player is taking part in

Users who are viewing this thread

Totalgarbage

Sergeant Knight
Right now, I feel that the death chance for battles our character fights in is too low. Back before simulation death chance was added, I usually played with ½ death chance (which was 5% iirc) and the proportion of deaths in the game felt perfect to me. It wasn't extreme like the full chance of 10% back then and wasn't negligible like it is now with 2ish%. Just to be clear, the simulation death chance shouldn't be changed for the health of the game. It should be the current simulation death chance + 5% default death chance for both the AI and the player character, which should be adjustable at character creation to be lower or even turned off.
 
Last edited:
A few months ago, when the developers were going to lower death chance down to 2%,I felt like I was the only one who stood up against that decision. I told people that it'll be a super boring experience, but in return, I was given some math formulas like 'Hey, according to my super accurate calculations, 2% means one death per 10 fights, I'd say 2% is to high!'.

Well, now look where we are. I don't know about other fellas here, but to me, it feels like a medieval Batman experience: catch a lord, put him in a cell, they escape, fight him, catch, put in a cell,repeat... Oh, and did I mention that now it is even harder to put them there, since AI throws THOUSANDS of peasants in the dungeon, so you can't put a lord in it.

A happy medieval fairy world, where everyone dies from old age, surrounded by thousands of healthy and loving children. 'Hey, but you can do a chop-chop' someone might say. Of course, only after that everyone will hate you, they will never join you and everyone will rob your villages. That's a nice set of options.

My current playthrough is more than 80 in-game years, during that period I can't remember someone dies on a battlefield I was the part of.
 
I agree that currently the percentage is so low that it dampens the immersion of the game. I do get why they changed the death percentage to 2% for simulations, but they really should have lowered the in battle death chance to 5% from 10%. Imo, 10% was really ridiculous. I remember 2 of my spouses that I just married dying back to back in battle. Maybe 10% would feel a tad better with the armor buffs tho, you never know.
 
I agree that currently the percentage is so low that it dampens the immersion of the game. I do get why they changed the death percentage to 2% for simulations
That's fine by me. Raising it higher may desert the world before you even notice. But, an ideal option to me, as many people said here, would be an option to raise the death chance (separately for simulatios and for player battles).

Those who tell that 2% is good may stay there and enjoy the Batmanlord, those who replay every time someone dies may turn the death off, and those who wants to raise the stakes may change the percentage to their liking.
 
I agree, I don't know the % that would be best but in my 1.8 game I had 1 enemy lord die in battle with me and 1 wanderer die in a 580 day game of taking the whole map. Many battles had 12-15-20 enemy lords, many siege's I had a bunch of fresh meat wanderers so like 12 clan mates in the battle and most get KO'd and still only 1 time did one die.

Now there's a strong argument to just turn off death anyways because neither death or children are useful at all in the game. Unless you purposefully sit around for like 7 years, your kids won't ever grow up. And the death is nothing to the AI who always has back up parties and at most a annoyance to the player. Oh the guy I just hired to give a town to just died in his first battle because I forgot to retreat him? I just re-load because it's inconvenient and adds nothing of value to the game to not be able to use that wanderer to make clan. Was I supposed to feel immersed? Was it supposed to be an epic moment? Too bad TW still hasn't added the ability to add multiple members to a group (so you can retreat them) or choose to not deploy some units.

I like the idea of death though, but I want it to be useful.
 
The % chance of death is just a cop out by the game. If a lord gets lanced in the face, he should just die, no percentages or anything. The solution should then be to make the AI retreat if it's about to lose, or reactively send cavalry after the player trying to lord-snipe, and generally make it difficult for them to die under normal circumstances. Otherwise its just yet another thing that's out of the player's control.
 
That would require them to code the lords to have any sense of preservation and considering lords still charge in solo at the start of battles half the time, I wouldn't count on that
 
I agree it should be increased at least to 4%. The 2% that we have now is constantly lowered by armour, medicine skill etc. and I think losing a lord in battle is a bit too rare. Also, if you've seen Strat's latest video, the world is currently actually getting overcrowded due to new lords being made (babies, rebels etc) and not enough of them dying (very, very few die in battle, others of old age)
 
The % chance of death is just a cop out by the game. If a lord gets lanced in the face, he should just die, no percentages or anything. The solution should then be to make the AI retreat if it's about to lose, or reactively send cavalry after the player trying to lord-snipe, and generally make it difficult for them to die under normal circumstances. Otherwise its just yet another thing that's out of the player's control.
Exactly my thoughts. Lethal hits should be recognised and evaluated by game + it was only natural for most of commanders to run away from lost battle. I wouldn't really mind. Traits could jump-in as well. Like coward or calculating lords would run, some stubborn braves would stay and fight till death. Or to have an option to reconsider coup de grace for wounded lord. Like it happened many times to me that I de-horsed a lord in full gallop, he did few rotations on the ground and then jumped up like nothing happened and started to poke his silly sword around. I'd like them to stay laying on ground wounded and me coming to them deciding either to let them live or put my axe thru their skull 🤭
 
A few months ago, when the developers were going to lower death chance down to 2%,I felt like I was the only one who stood up against that decision. I told people that it'll be a super boring experience, but in return, I was given some math formulas like 'Hey, according to my super accurate calculations, 2% means one death per 10 fights, I'd say 2% is to high!'.
I agree with you, it bothers me that everyone in the battlefield is mostly safe from death, i believe the could allows us to at least customize the percentage like they did with a lot of other things when some part of players didn't want something, like the option to turn off deaths all together. Why us who wanted a bit of increase wasn't give the option too?

@Dejan @Duh_TaleWorlds

Can you guys please talk this internally to make a slider inside the options menu?
 
I agree it should be increased at least to 4%. The 2% that we have now is constantly lowered by armour, medicine skill etc. and I think losing a lord in battle is a bit too rare. Also, if you've seen Strat's latest video, the world is currently actually getting overcrowded due to new lords being made (babies, rebels etc) and not enough of them dying (very, very few die in battle, others of old age)
Yeah I saw Strat's new video and I think it's an issue that the number of nobles increase exponentially. The reason for heavy stuttering after 30 years may even be caused by the number of parties on the map and the game trying to process them all.

In another thread, I suggested that the AI should execute prisoner nobles in factions that have lost their last fief after an x amount of days. Although this probably won't be an actual solution since it is unlikely that a faction will lose all its fiefs in 30 years without the player's intervention. One possible solution could be soft capping the number of nobles.
 
Yeah I saw Strat's new video and I think it's an issue that the number of nobles increase exponentially. The reason for heavy stuttering after 30 years may even be caused by the number of parties on the map and the game trying to process them all.

In another thread, I suggested that the AI should execute prisoner nobles in factions that have lost their last fief after an x amount of days. Although this probably won't be an actual solution since it is unlikely that a faction will lose all its fiefs in 30 years without the player's intervention. One possible solution could be soft capping the number of nobles.
Or disabling the procreation mechanic for landless AI factions and AI clans, currently a landless clan can have childs and marriages, but they have no value for the game anymore, they should die out naturally.

In CK3, all wanderer characters can not have childs, because their child limit is 1, but being in the pool, reduces their child limit by -1, so they die out naturally.
 
Looking at real injuries for results in BL is not feasable because real world people didn't fight 10 battles a day and were gutted in any of them to fight the next 30 minutes later (and btw not every head wound is deadly). I think a percentage of 5% battle death chance would be ok.
 
Looking at real injuries for results in BL is not feasable because real world people didn't fight 10 battles a day and were gutted in any of them to fight the next 30 minutes later (and btw not every head wound is deadly). I think a percentage of 5% battle death chance would be ok.

That doesnt mean a base %5 chance of death is better. Frankly i find that so boring and gamey -lacking any amount of invertedness, adding nothing strategic to the game.

Now how about rather than random Lord personalities -each one had some primal traits that would factor into every battle in real time. For Example say a Battanian Lord is known as extremely Brave but also Reckless -this could add a bonus to his attacks both in Auto Calc and in the actual Battle Screens -they might sprint to attack, have a more fearsome War Cry that lowers morale of enemies as well as...makes the Lord get more tangled up in especially dangerous situations giving him an 8-12% (based on some other factors) chance of Death as he may end the battle with a Suicide Charge,

Thats just one example -obviously some creative Dev could make hundreds of combinations like these and they would actually effect the gameplay world, and make all battles unique.

I just find a base 5% chance to die murderously boring..
 
Right now, I feel that the death chance for battles our character fights in is too low. Back before simulation death chance was added, I usually played with ½ death chance (which was 5% iirc) and the proportion of deaths in the game felt perfect to me. It wasn't extreme like the full chance of 10% back then and wasn't negligible like it is now with 2ish%. Just to be clear, the simulation death chance shouldn't be changed for the health of the game. It should be the current simulation death chance + 5% default death chance for both the AI and the player character, which should be adjustable at character creation to be lower or even turned off.
The problem with this is that it effectively makes you, the player character, the "grim reaper" of Calradia. Basically you can kill more Characters off then the A.I. can in simulated battles, which is empowering yeah. But makes it too easy to save scum things to your advantage if you ask me. (Though you also run the risk of having to replay Sieges - which is a big no for me!)

5% might be tolerable - all I remember was that 10% was absolutely miserable. Literally drove me away from the game back in 2021:


The game just isn't equipped to handle even a modest death rate as there's no forms of population control (i.e. more births, more deaths, plagues, etc.) Other than Rebel clans, new Clans aren't really formed so it's not reliable for an influx of Nobles. (Apparently PC is only one special enough to go from Peasant to Lord).

If the game had the means to keep the Character population in-check it would be fine. It would also help if deaths weren't basically all a matter of RNG. Like only headshots could kill a Character (cause conceivably you might not want to kill everyone ya know?) Maybe you do want to deathblow a rival, but maybe there's an opposing Lord you want to recruit - so ideally you'd prefer to wound them right? Also A.I. has no self preservation what-so-ever which is another problem.


It's too late to fix this now, and I don't expect very good support post release. Didn't TW leave the rate at like 10% for 6 months or something? Honestly they should just add 0-10% Death Chance slider, then everyone can be happy. But TW's true goal is to make the game more or less idiot proof. The PC market isn't their main concern, since they already sold us the game. Consoles are where they are hoping for a big break through.
 
That doesnt mean a base %5 chance of death is better. Frankly i find that so boring and gamey -lacking any amount of invertedness, adding nothing strategic to the game.

Now how about rather than random Lord personalities -each one had some primal traits that would factor into every battle in real time. For Example say a Battanian Lord is known as extremely Brave but also Reckless -this could add a bonus to his attacks both in Auto Calc and in the actual Battle Screens -they might sprint to attack, have a more fearsome War Cry that lowers morale of enemies as well as...makes the Lord get more tangled up in especially dangerous situations giving him an 8-12% (based on some other factors) chance of Death as he may end the battle with a Suicide Charge,

Thats just one example -obviously some creative Dev could make hundreds of combinations like these and they would actually effect the gameplay world, and make all battles unique.

I just find a base 5% chance to die murderously boring..
5% is based on Science (do you play Fallout?). Currently in the real world about 10% of soldiers hit by bullets die if the best and most modern medic system is available. In Calaradia, as in most video games even without magic hp drinks, there are obviously much better doctors around than in our world, despite living in a dark medieval surrounding. They are surely about twice as good, so you get 5% death chance when wounded. :wink:

That apart, yesterday I recruited a companion in my new campaign and he died the next battle. Also my "hero" recently died in a battle when he got a spear through the guts (I was too lazy to start a new campaign but I had to reload the battle and lost some nice gear because of that).

The dead companion was a big hit to my purse because it was early in the playthrough. Getting killed as player plays a nice video but is also a bit unconvenient. Both possibilities of deaths add a certain pressure to the player to be at least a little bit careful, even at low probabilities. Wether it is 2 or 5 or 10 percent is a bit of personal taste. I would prefer 5% as higher death chances might be too much pressure, and too low is boring.

It would be best if there were a slider to adjust death chances.
 
The game just isn't equipped to handle even a modest death rate as there's no forms of population control (i.e. more births, more deaths, plagues, etc.) Other than Rebel clans, new Clans aren't really formed so it's not reliable for an influx of Nobles. (Apparently PC is only one special enough to go from Peasant to Lord).
1.8 patch, the NPCs are making thousands of children while the PC can barely have 2 or 3.

I married my daughter to the 70-years old Vlandia ruler. After a few seasons I opened an encyclopedia and saw that he's got 5 children from my daughter... 70 years old man... My char was about 40 y.o. by that time and had only 2 children. The game gets overcrowded with nobles and deaths in battle are a rare and rather unimpactful thing right now. King died? Whatever, the AI chooses another one in a blink of an eye and nothing's gonna be changed in a Kingdom's policy. Clan ruler died? Matters not, here's another one. You got the point.
 
Back
Top Bottom