Beta e1.7.2 Troop & Equipment Changes

Users who are viewing this thread

If horses had own for example two inventory slots so bucelarii (and all the rest of cavalry) could have lance and shield - we got "medium" cavalry. I was expecting with this patch those horse bigger inventory option for cavalry units for it was mentioned before if I remember well.
 

five bucks

Knight
I'd be okay with that honestly. It would add more flavor to using Vlandia as I guess they're supposed to be some sort of expeditionary proto-Normans and add more flavor/realism to empire if they got some light melee cav options.
It would add uniqueness to Vlandia but at the expense of reducing the variety in the rest of the game.

Right now 4/8 kingdoms in the game (three Empires and Vlandia) use crossbows, and 7/8 use bows, creating good variety in ranged weapons.

If Empire lost crossbowmen, then only 1/8 kingdoms would use crossbows, so you would not see them when not fighting in Vlandia... which is 88% of playtime! So the ranged units you fight with/against would be a lot more repetitive, and gameplay content would be underused.

IMO, trying to create flavour by giving one kingdom exclusive rights to one fighting style is misguided, because that means that content gets underused in the game as a whole. Flavour is best done by giving kingdoms more of a certain type of fighter than other factions. This way, you show a speciality without killing variety.

For example, Khuzait has a larger amount of ranged cavalry than everyone else, so this gives them flavour. But if we instead made them the only faction who could use ranged cavalry, that would be bad for the variety in the game.
and add more flavor/realism to empire if they got some light melee cav options.
I agree with you that more flavour is needed, and that many factions play too similarly. But if you did that, you would make the problem worse, as Empire's T5 unit roster would become extremely similar to Vlandia's.

Empire - noble melee cav, light melee cav, ranged inf, shield inf, shock inf, ranged cav.
Vlandia - noble melee cav, light melee cav, ranged inf, shield inf, shock inf, pike inf.

So an army of Empire or Vlandian troops would feel almost identical to fight as or against!

If you want to increase the flavour of factions, check out this thread, where I made suggestions on how to maximise the variety and historical representation of the different factions.

My way of adding flavour to the Empire without making them too similar to other factions is to make them into the pike-focused faction, with a weakness of shock infantry. This would give them four major differences from Vlandia's troop tree, and be consistent with their real life inspiration, and increase variety/flavour, and make pike bracing more useful in gameplay.
Even the Celtic/Celtiberian/Welsh-inspired Battanians have light cav and mounted skirmishers - which make sense - their progeny (Gauls, mostly) were excellent skirmishers and horsemen in their own right.
Info on this here https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...-equipment-changes.450649/page-4#post-9791329 I agree with them having mounted skirmishers, but don't think lancer cavalry was a big enough part of Celtic warfare to justify two different cavalry branches. They should just have one javelin skirmisher cavalry branch who have a lance as a backup weapon.
 
Last edited:

JunKeteer

Regular
Do different lords of same factions (or all Empires) have the same party templates? As that could add variety/uniqueness without doing things like excluding xbowmen to Vlandia only.
Do they have different skill/perks that can dictate the type of party setup (ie one favors calvary heavily based on their perks, one more archers, etc..).
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
Well, I share @LuciusDomitiusAurelianus 's opinion (we agreed here too) I would definitely remove the line of crossbowmen from the empire.

I've said it before (I'm like a broken record :lol:); I'm of the opinion to highlight very much the strengths and weaknesses of each and every faction but giving more love to minor factions/mercenaries. That's why the effect of "the missing piece" would have to be provided to players by the minor factions/mercenaries, expanding (imho) from 3 to 7 units in their troop trees, thus achieving extremely interesting and multifaceted major faction + mercenary combinations.

And another thing, this thing about Taleworlds not changing troop trees for fear of killing saves. I honestly think that would be a laudable and understandable sacrifice for the sake of a total restructuring.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
Well, I share @LuciusDomitiusAurelianus 's opinion (we agreed here too) I would definitely remove the line of crossbowmen from the empire.

I've said it before (I'm like a broken record :lol:); I'm of the opinion to highlight very much the strengths and weaknesses of each and every faction but giving more love to minor factions/mercenaries. That's why the effect of "the missing piece" would have to be provided to players by the minor factions/mercenaries, expanding (imho) from 3 to 7 units in their troop trees, thus achieving extremely interesting and multifaceted major faction + mercenary combinations.

And another thing, this thing about Taleworlds not changing troop trees for fear of killing saves. I honestly think that would be a laudable and understandable sacrifice for the sake of a total restructuring.
Your guys' discussion is a bit too meaty to get through just for a quick response, but how about instead of taking away crossbowmen from the empire as a whole, we'd make it so that the three imperial factions actually differ in their troop trees, and one of them actually retains the crossbowmen, and the other two get their own, different units to set the three apart from each other.

The way I see it, Crossbowmen could be an exclusively western empire unit, bucellari could be exclusively south empire and north empire could get something slightly Sturgia-inspired. Then some more generic units would be added to fill out the missing shared imperial units.

That would have the effect of making the three empires finally have some flavor to them, and make it so that the flavor is related to their neighbors, which I believe would make it a bit more immersive.
 

Penn

Veteran
Your guys' discussion is a bit too meaty to get through just for a quick response, but how about instead of taking away crossbowmen from the empire as a whole, we'd make it so that the three imperial factions actually differ in their troop trees, and one of them actually retains the crossbowmen, and the other two get their own, different units to set the three apart from each other.

The way I see it, Crossbowmen could be an exclusively western empire unit, bucellari could be exclusively south empire and north empire could get something slightly Sturgia-inspired. Then some more generic units would be added to fill out the missing shared imperial units.

That would have the effect of making the three empires finally have some flavor to them, and make it so that the flavor is related to their neighbors, which I believe would make it a bit more immersive.

+1
I really think that they should try and make the empire factions different. Not too much though. So this idea seems really good
 
Well, I share @LuciusDomitiusAurelianus 's opinion (we agreed here too) I would definitely remove the line of crossbowmen from the empire.

I've said it before (I'm like a broken record :lol:); I'm of the opinion to highlight very much the strengths and weaknesses of each and every faction but giving more love to minor factions/mercenaries. That's why the effect of "the missing piece" would have to be provided to players by the minor factions/mercenaries, expanding (imho) from 3 to 7 units in their troop trees, thus achieving extremely interesting and multifaceted major faction + mercenary combinations.

And another thing, this thing about Taleworlds not changing troop trees for fear of killing saves. I honestly think that would be a laudable and understandable sacrifice for the sake of a total restructuring.
I agree with this. I personally would like more differentiation between kingdoms even with excluding certain unit types. this would make each new war more exciting instead of reusing the same army build + tactics. it all feels more or less the same. I did not had this feeling with warband. The different cultures where very distinct.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
Your guys' discussion is a bit too meaty to get through just for a quick response, but how about instead of taking away crossbowmen from the empire as a whole, we'd make it so that the three imperial factions actually differ in their troop trees, and one of them actually retains the crossbowmen, and the other two get their own, different units to set the three apart from each other.

The way I see it, Crossbowmen could be an exclusively western empire unit, bucellari could be exclusively south empire and north empire could get something slightly Sturgia-inspired. Then some more generic units would be added to fill out the missing shared imperial units.

That would have the effect of making the three empires finally have some flavor to them, and make it so that the flavor is related to their neighbors, which I believe would make it a bit more immersive.
As the lore goes, the empire has recently fragmented and a homogeneous army (troop tree) for the three parts is plausible. For me this holds true.

That said, that the three imperial factions would form their own independent faction on their own, is an idea that has already been brought to the table for discussion by Community forumites. That idea, properly done... in my eyes is also appealing and could bring a lot of possibilities for each imperial faction to have their own unique units and base tree as you said.

BUT In my eyes, crossbowmen don't really fit... but that's a personal opinion due to the real historical question of how and when the crossbow was used in the Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire.
I for one will buy the bucellarii (a compendium of light cavalry or trapezitos) and what you say about "Sturgia-inspired", which could certainly be the Vaegir Guards and represent a shock unit. As I have discarded crossbowmen (In my opinion I would only give them to Vlandia in the troop tree and "maybe" Battania in the militia branch + Golden Board style-ish Mercenary Unit) I would go for a single pike/kontos unit; front-line Skutatos with kontos (basically the combination of a legionary and a menavlatoi but with a western pike+shield+secondary weapon).

I agree with this. I personally would like more differentiation between kingdoms even with excluding certain unit types. this would make each new war more exciting instead of reusing the same army build + tactics. it all feels more or less the same. I did not had this feeling with warband. The different cultures where very distinct.
I am of that opinion... a strong differentiation between major factions with a highlighting of their strengths and weaknesses that are eventually complemented by mercenary units/minor factions that provide that "missing piece" with units that fit a role/function.
 

WMorton

Sergeant
WBWF&SNW
Sooooo what I am starting to gather is that you no longer read patch notes? :grin: MP is still being developed as you can see with the 172 patch. If you have any real questions, I can look into them though.
When are you releasing Private Servers? When are you releasing One-Life Gamemode?
 

Dejan

Community Manager
WBNWVCM&B
Thank you everyone for your feedback on the pila issue, forwarded it to the designers.
When are you releasing Private Servers? When are you releasing One-Life Gamemode?
We're actively working on getting both of these to you.
 

nereid

Sergeant
Thank you everyone for your feedback on the pila issue, forwarded it to the designers.
Thanks a lot, Dejan. Additionally I have just seen that the Elite Menavliatons also have a pilum equipped. Without being able to use it as a throwing weapon this slot is wasted, as the menavliaton will always out-perform the pilum as a pole arm.
 
@Dejan could you guys look into reworking the weapons for the Battanian Veteran Falxman? There is something seriously wrong with that unit, I tested it extensively and they perform a lot worse than the normal Battanian Falxman. I think the polearm is to blame.

I made a thread here with more information and a nice table.

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

nereid

Sergeant
Btw maybe consider renaming the Palatine Guard Helmet as the unit with the same name does not wear it anymore :xf-wink:
 

nereid

Sergeant
Additionally could you please take a look at the stats of the newly added items? I really like the look but stats wise they seem a little bit off:
Vit2ew7.png

The new Aserai scale armor is more expensive, stats wise a little bit worse, and weights a lot more in comparison to already existing armors (btw, you may want to revise if the Leather Strips over Padded Robe armor should be an civilian item).

Also the newly added Imperial armors are quite heavy to wear. The newly created shoulder armors weight about 14 and the new Legionary Scale Armor (or something like that) weights almost 30 but is stats wise worse than the cataphract armor with around the same weight.
 
Additionally could you please take a look at the stats of the newly added items? I really like the look but stats wise they seem a little bit off:
Vit2ew7.png

The new Aserai scale armor is more expensive, stats wise a little bit worse, and weights a lot more in comparison to already existing armors (btw, you may want to revise if the Leather Strips over Padded Robe armor should be an civilian item).

Also the newly added Imperial armors are quite heavy to wear. The newly created shoulder armors weight about 14 and the new Legionary Scale Armor (or something like that) weights almost 30 but is stats wise worse than the cataphract armor with around the same weight.
There's a lot of stat revision they should get to work on. Put the intern on it, its not hard at all.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
As HalfMetalJacket rightly says, a general update of all stats panoply items is missing; a lot of inconsistences. I don't know if they're awaiting to finish introducing the latest armour pieces/models (whatever they may be) and with that to carry out that ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY organization imho of each item in terms of "what protects more than what" and "what does more damage than what"... not to mention the urgent revision of the damage/protection formula.

That's why I'm " alarmed " about this kind of slight changes introduced in 1.7.2... In my opinion, before even getting down to "balancing" troop trees, the meaningful organization of the items and the reformulation of the protection/damage aspect would be of URGENT APPLICATION beforehand.
 

jisiting2960

Sergeant
@Dejan In version 1.72, the shadow depth cast by buildings on the ground has become shallower. Has the shadow algorithm been changed? I tested the red Kingdom town. I felt that the shadow was lighter than before and less thick. I don't know if it's true?
Can you ask the engine team for help? Compared with version 1.70, I think the shadow has a little shrinking. I'm afraid it's my illusion
 

0tto

Regular
you guys plan on making armour useful?
going from a 30 set to 70 is nothing but a cosmetic change
 
Top Bottom