Beta Patch Notes e1.5.6

Users who are viewing this thread

Pejot

Sergeant Knight
WBVC
Did anyone had the chance to check if Your married brothers can have children? One of my brother's is married for 6 years now and younger one 2 years. Both don't have children but my sister married for 2 years have 2 children. But she's part of another family now.

So can Player brothers have children?
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
Did anyone had the chance to check if Your married brothers can have children? One of my brother's is married for 6 years now and younger one 2 years. Both don't have children but my sister married for 2 years have 2 children. But she's part of another family now.

So can Player brothers have children?
Saw someone say it worked for them, my guess is they need to be together waiting in the same town. Easy way to check would give them both party and summon them to your army and just wait in a town for awhile.
 

Pejot

Sergeant Knight
WBVC
Saw someone say it worked for them, my guess is they need to be together waiting in the same town. Easy way to check would give them both party and summon them to your army and just wait in a town for awhile.

I tried that I have both brothers wife of one of them in my party. Wife of the second is governor of a castle. I waited in that castle for 2 weeks and nothing. I'll try with making them party leaders and summoning to army.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
Did anyone had the chance to check if Your married brothers can have children? One of my brother's is married for 6 years now and younger one 2 years. Both don't have children but my sister married for 2 years have 2 children. But she's part of another family now.

So can Player brothers have children?
Yes it works, put him and wife in same settlement and they made 2 so far. Haven't gotten confirmation that they 'must' be in same settlement or what not though, but that's what I did and they made baby.
 
I tried that I have both brothers wife of one of them in my party. Wife of the second is governor of a castle. I waited in that castle for 2 weeks and nothing. I'll try with making them party leaders and summoning to army.
Patience, it defnitley works. 9 children so far, 6 of them come from my brothers. I just had put them into my town with their spouses, since they are wandering around if it is an other town.
 

Julio-Claudian

Knight at Arms
Is there a way to disable the relationship change notifications, or move them to the feed on the lower left, or just disable the sound the make?
Leaving companions in settlements means you constantly get those notifications popping up.
 
Exploitable as hell.

You mean by the player baiting parties/armies to get closer to castles? Sure, about as exploitable as doing the same thing with mobile parties, even the AI does this, they stick around waiting for others to come in so the balance of power shifts in their favor.

Or do you mean by locking armies in a "following X" and "running away from X" states until they starve? I talked a bit about this in another post:

I don't see it as being too complicated, AI can already factor in multiple parties to decide when to run and when to fight, it would need to check if it is within a castle reach and factor in the garrison when measuring the strength of enemies that could reach it.

I see a possible issue with armies trying to pursue as soon as they are out of the castle area of influence and getting locked in "following X" and "running away from X" states, but that could be avoided by adding a list of coordinates not to include in its path calculation for some time or falling back enough so the party it was pursuing/running away from has had a chance to move.

Maybe making it so that parties don't consider friendly garrison strength when deciding to switch from running away to pursuing if the enemy is not besieging or raiding a settlement, or simply falling back to the castle and staying there for some time. A progressive area could also be used, so only the cavalry part of the garrison joins the battle if it happens further away than half the radius of the control area.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
You mean by the player baiting parties/armies to get closer to castles? Sure, about as exploitable as doing the same thing with mobile parties, even the AI does this, they stick around waiting for others to come in so the balance of power shifts in their favor.

Or do you mean by locking armies in a "following X" and "running away from X" states until they starve? I talked a bit about this in another post:

No, I mean the campaign AI is a terrible judge of party strengths in live battle, so the player will be able to drain garrisons by simply engaging near castles, slaughtering them for minimal losses. Meanwhile, the campaign AI is also like a shark with weak garrisons being blood in the water, so this strategy can easily allow them tofollow up your garrison-draining activities with an actual siege.

I did a kinda-sorta version of this by running around with 200 archers, besieging towns and castles, then reaving the defenders on the walls with all my arrows. Obviously there was a cost to that, but in a open field battle I could do it even more quickly and easily, almost certainly with fewer losses. Making it even easy to seduce the garrisons out would seriously distort campaign balance.
 
No, I mean the campaign AI is a terrible judge of party strengths in live battle, so the player will be able to drain garrisons by simply engaging near castles, slaughtering them for minimal losses. Meanwhile, the campaign AI is also like a shark with weak garrisons being blood in the water, so this strategy can easily allow them tofollow up your garrison-draining activities with an actual siege.

I did a kinda-sorta version of this by running around with 200 archers, besieging towns and castles, then reaving the defenders on the walls with all my arrows. Obviously there was a cost to that, but in a open field battle I could do it even more quickly and easily, almost certainly with fewer losses. Making it even easy to seduce the garrisons out would seriously distort campaign balance.

The campaign AI has issues that go beyond this, you could also siege a settlement on the other side of the territory and the AI would gather and send armies your way while armies gathered by your faction go around taking other settlements. When they come in to defend they also track you longer, so you could even kite them away from their territory, maybe getting them to starve.

There is a YouTuber called Spiffing Brit and he posts a ****load of videos exploiting games, some get patched, other are just not worth the trouble. In my opinion TW shouldn't be constricted into implementing things only if they feel they can make it exploit-proof, there is only so much they can do, and people tend to find a way to cheat if they really want, either by using the built in cheat mode or downloading a mod for that.

Maybe instead of sallying out for field battles, garrisons could be constricted to supporting armies that attack besiegers, and even this could be exploited, if you won the field battle with minimal casualties it would make the siege easier, but I think this is better than watching a 700 strong army sitting outside while a 800 strong army takes their settlement, even though there are about another 200 troops right next to them inside the settlement.

Not related to the argument, but, did you have fun running around with 200 archers? Would you put a cap on troop type so it couldn't be exploited? I would add this to the Swadian Knights "issue" we had in Warband. Should TW had made it so mixed armies in terms of types and quality could've stopped a full army of heavy armored knights? Wouldn't it have made the knights useless in AI armies that can only field a few? If a full force can be stopped by lesser troops, what chance would only a few have of being useful?

My point is, even if TW decided to nerf archers, the nerf would hit the AI the hardest, as soon the players realized which unit is overpowered now, we would field full armies of that unit.
 
Top Bottom