Beta Patch Notes e1.6.3

Users who are viewing this thread

Lesbosisles

Knight
And about the Lord's death in battle, I just started a new campaign, and at day 12, I have already seen at least 3 lords dying. Maybe the rate of dying is a bit high, isn't it?
My death rate is a bit different: I rarely see someone die, and if they do, usually these are the lords from some rebel clans. And the death rate is already 2% and it can even be lower. Disable the death in battle at all, because it seems the only option for you :grin:
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
I'm really liking the 2% death chance in AI battles, finally the game is feeling a bit more complete and balanced. The legacy orders menu also restored good part of the fun in battles to me since i can position and rotate troops much better now that the most important commands aren't hidden behind needless sub menus farther away from the fingers.
 

Madeloc

Recruit
My death rate is a bit different: I rarely see someone die, and if they do, usually these are the lords from some rebel clans. And the death rate is already 2% and it can even be lower. Disable the death in battle at all, because it seems the only option for you :grin:
Oh, the death rate from the setup in the campaign menu. I have put it on 100%.
So I might rather put it on 100% less, which would divide per two?
 

Bovice

Recruit
At 2% the casualties are still a little high, in my campaign lords are dying well above the stated goal of 5-10 deaths per year. I think reducing NPC simulated battle deaths to 1% or even lower would be appropriate just from the quantity of battles that occur on the map. I have yet to kill anyone in battle, so I think increasing the Player battle deaths to 3-5% would help.

On a side note, are children ever intended to do anything in this game? I have not had them meaningfully impact my game as newborns are still too young by the "end game" to do anything useful. Has this issue been discussed by the devs?
 
Last edited:

Julio-Claudian

Knight at Arms
Isn't it bound to be a bit different in each campaign? The amount of lords dying within the first year I mean. Are they dying in battles with looters and bandits?
 
Isn't it bound to be a bit different in each campaign? The amount of lords dying within the first year I mean. Are they dying in battles with looters and bandits?
It has to be, if they aim for 10 deaths a year, then there must be some game where 20 or near zero would also die in that first year.

I think it be great if they add a quest for the player to do, the quest ALWAYS triggers if a clan has lost a certain amount of members. The quest is the player help the clan find a new member! The player initiates this quest from one of the secondary dialogues so it doesn't interfere with other quests. This way THE PLAYER can, when they choose help a clan no go extinct when they suffer from RNG!

In addition I think alternative spouses (meaning not from existing clans) and adoption would be good things to add, so we can circumvent the rng of bot preproduction as the game goes on.
 

Lesbosisles

Knight
Isn't it bound to be a bit different in each campaign? The amount of lords dying within the first year I mean. Are they dying in battles with looters and bandits?
By the way... I don't think that unit types are taken into consideration while calculating the death probability... I mean, the battle can be won, yet a lord still have the same death chance against looters as of against the proper enemy army...

Then again - they're not really often hunt bandits and stuff
 

Julio-Claudian

Knight at Arms
It has to be, if they aim for 10 deaths a year, then there must be some game where 20 or near zero would also die in that first year.

I think it be great if they add a quest for the player to do, the quest ALWAYS triggers if a clan has lost a certain amount of members. The quest is the player help the clan find a new member! The player initiates this quest from one of the secondary dialogues so it doesn't interfere with other quests. This way THE PLAYER can, when they choose help a clan no go extinct when they suffer from RNG!

In addition I think alternative spouses (meaning not from existing clans) and adoption would be good things to add, so we can circumvent the rng of bot preproduction as the game goes on.
Yeah I think something like this would be a good idea. Like this mod:
"If there are no eligible candidates for marriage, clans with low fitness levels may eventually choose to marry from the lesser nobility"
By the way... I don't think that unit types are taken into consideration while calculating the death probability... I mean, the battle can be won, yet a lord still have the same death chance against looters as of against the proper enemy army...

Then again - they're not really often hunt bandits and stuff
I think disabling or reducing death chance for the AI against caravans and looters/bandits would be a good thing to do. When I've used mods that allow death, a huge number of the deaths that occurred happened when lords attacked looter parties or caravans.
 
It may sound obvious, but the main reason we have many deaths is because we have too many (and meaningless) battles - all of them are fight to death! So it's not surprising to see that many casualties. I believe that a few things might help to mitigate this, though:

1) If we had a sort of manpower system, the troops wouldn't be so expendable. It's just too easy to get beaten and then recover your army in a couple of weeks or so.

So basically the villages and cities should yield way less troops over time...and after a few major battles one of the warring factions would eventually emerge as a winner because the loser faction wouldn't be able to replenish their soldiers.

More importantly, the factions would need to take time to recover, therefore reducing the number of battles in the longrun, and with that, the chance of death.

2) We have just too many casualties before morale starts to break, including the lords/commanders. If a considerable number of troops would flee (at least in most battles), they would have the chance to regroup and fight on another day, and at the same time the proposed manpower system above wouldn't be depleted too quickly, meaning more battles could be fought during a war.

3) Sieges - This is also an issue in WB - we can't effectively starve a settlement. Surrendering was by far the most frequent method to take a city or castle during a siege.
Currently, you always have to assault a settlement, and then again, an exterminating battle will occur; when instead, the.most realistic outcome should be commanders parleying and negotiate surrendering, safe passage of the troops, prisoner exchange, etc.
I think this is the most difficult thing to do, but from what I have noticed it seems the food lasts for too long, and morale penalty for the besieged is negligible.

4) Time - if TW aims to make use of 1st and 2nd generation during a playthrough, the passage of time will need to be drastically increased. At the same time, the lords will have more chance to survive for longer.

Now...do people want that? Honestly, don't think so.
I believe most people like it this way, partially because it might be boring to do other stuff (which, to be frank, is not much ATM).
 
one of the warring factions would eventually emerge as a winner because the loser faction wouldn't be able to replenish their soldiers.
And the looser will sue for peace, paying heavily or simply being barred from hostilities for X time. Absolutely NOT anything like how they behave now, where the worse off they are, the more they want for peace, to the point where a completely crush faction will never accept peace and will just be locusts forever! This is a point I can't overstate enough: The loser needs to LOSE, not "be prevented from losing and get a short break, then back to war".
I understand "why" the AI works like it does and how it reduces snowballing, but it's a very common complaint for players that they never understand or agree why the enemy won't pay them for peace when they're losing or completely de-fiefed. And the "agree" is the important part, you can explain it but that doesn't make it interesting or satisfactory to the player.

More importantly, the factions would need to take time to recover
Yes, take time to recruit and build up thier troops and funds, doing things like issues and bandit hideout clearing, things that make them seem like part of a world and NOT a endless wave of tower defense enemies.

I think this is the most difficult thing to do, but from what I have noticed it seems the food lasts for too long, and morale penalty for the besieged is negligible.
For sure, this is a problem. It has been shown to me to be actually possible, but IMO it takes far too long and I have not been able to completely starve out anyone when I've tried. For me the garrison reduced to a certain amount and then wouldn't die anymore, but I have been shown by @Apocal IIRC that it can be done. I think instead of using the same consumption mechanic, it should accelerate after the town has been under siege a certain time or when the food hits zero, it should then become faster and faster to drop troops, not ever slower. Of course they should be able to surrender as well before starving out.

Now...do people want that? Honestly, don't think so.
Well TBC I don't think the player at mid-game and beyond should be in anyway bound or restricted by the anti-snowballing bandaids the AI is. If the players want thier faction (or solo pseudo-faction) to pursue and outright destroy and occupy other factions without letting them recover, they should be able to. If they want to play nice and cycle through wars at the pace of the AI, that 100% should be their choice. But if they want to refuse peace and paint the map, that should be up to them. IMO the current ruler/election system basically kills the mid-late game completely and needs to be altered to give the player full control of thier kingdom. What is the point of making a faction if it's the same exact thing as being in another faction?
I cannot stress enough how much of a red flag it should be that it's at least 10X easier and faster to just take on the entire map as a solo clan then it is to form kingdom and collect vassals! The vassals just create more problems then thier man power can ever help with since you can't make them do anything strategically, you can't control fiefs/garrisons for security, they can even vote peace and release all your prisoners, then vote war with them again the next day!
 

dannazgu

Sergeant at Arms
Fp8rB.png


I don't believe this a bug, but an oversight and lack of attention to the responsible @Dejan , @MArdA TaleWorlds

Just letting you guys know
 

Penn

Regular
I disgard armor, but I do not get any experience for my troops. Am I doing something wrong? (I do have the required perk)
 
Is one of the devs going to create a thread in the single player forum for feedback/discussion/testing of the AI death rate? I’d guess they did a bunch of testing internally. Maybe it’d be nice to know (for discussion sake) what the expected range of deaths might be. An average rate of anything can be skewed pretty heavily one way or another.
 
If it hasn't been said before this update turns Mount and Blade into Game of Thrones literally because of the many surprise deaths. The game has that George R.R. Martin feel to it because you don't know who is going to last to the next book or episode. I hope the devs will introduce new ways for clan's to replenish members and for new clans to be created in the place of eliminated clans.


The map is so politically unstable that this has happened.
I have never seen Sturgia take Jaculan but seeing the Battanians take Makeb is very strange.
 
Last edited:
If it hasn't been said before this update turns Mount and Blade into Game of Thrones literally because of the many surprise deaths. The game has that George R.R. Martin feel to it because you don't know who is going to last to the next book or episode. I hope the devs will introduce new ways for clan's to replenish members and for new clans to be created in the place of eliminated clans.


The map is so politically unstable that this has happened.
I have never seen Sturgia take Jaculan but seeing the Battanians take Makeb is very strange.
Yea, I hope they introduce good mechanics to replenish members for clans and new clans, but it is pretty dope to see all the changes happening. I hope they don't tone it down way too much.
 

Lesbosisles

Knight
Yea, I hope they introduce good mechanics to replenish members for clans and new clans, but it is pretty dope to see all the changes happening. I hope they don't tone it down way too much.
They already produce offspring like rabbits... Feels like only my character follows the golden rule "Safety first", so I have only 3 daughters, others have more than 6 children... Also, rebel clans become part of the Kingdom as well, what's that if not a replacement for the killed ones? Looks like I'm missing something, but I sincerely cannot understand the point of adding another replenishment system - what do we have a death then for? You kill one - and the system creates another jumped out lord our of nowhere?
 
Yea, I hope they introduce good mechanics to replenish members for clans and new clans, but it is pretty dope to see all the changes happening. I hope they don't tone it down way too much.
Its kind of scary its like when they beheaded Ned Stark or when they stabbed up Rob Stark and Jon. I have no idea what the hell is going on. Caladog, the dog, has married a 58 year old Imperial for some reason. Which is puzzling.
 
I disgard armor, but I do not get any experience for my troops. Am I doing something wrong? (I do have the required perk)
I checked it out, tier 0 armor and weapons give zero exp, tier 1 and up give exp, (75 exp for tier 1)though it maybe reduced from that it was, but I'm not sure. Many of the items in loot are tier zero, Check it out and if thier 1+ aren't giving exp it's a bug that needs reporting or explanation from dev. I don't see this change in patch notes, but I also can't say for certain it is a change or not as I seldom use this ability.
 
Top Bottom