Beta Patch Notes e1.8.0

Users who are viewing this thread

This whole governor-leaving-the-settlement thing is getting pretty annoying. Especially since most of the governor affect perks also stop working - not great when you're trying to raise the Loyalty/Security of a Town and the Governor just decides to stop doing their job and the place rebels when you're on the other side of the map fighting yet another stupid 3-vs-1 War in late game.
 

swally0ne

Veteran
This whole governor-leaving-the-settlement thing is getting pretty annoying. Especially since most of the governor affect perks also stop working - not great when you're trying to raise the Loyalty/Security of a Town and the Governor just decides to stop doing their job and the place rebels when you're on the other side of the map fighting yet another stupid 3-vs-1 War in late game.
if it is possible for you, then you are able to prevent rebellions with the policies "forgivness of debts" and "tribunes of the people" without the need of governors.
 
Significant performance and stability improvements.Competent innovations and improvements of the former.You are going the right way.
 

Althix

Sergeant
- 1.8.0 is unplayble due to lords defection late game.
- please make separation units by role. In the current system of battle orders i CAN NOT reliably assign a group of shock infantry. That filter through "+" is useless. I want a simple separation on Cav, Mounted archers, archers, line (shield) infantry and shock infantry. Make it happen please.
 

Emperor1997

Knight
- 1.8.0 is unplayble due to lords defection late game.
- please make separation units by role. In the current system of battle orders i CAN NOT reliably assign a group of shock infantry. That filter through "+" is useless. I want a simple separation on Cav, Mounted archers, archers, line (shield) infantry and shock infantry. Make it happen please.
+1

And for heroes, please.
I want my heroes in an seperate group only for them.
 

Lesbosisles

Knight at Arms
- 1.8.0 is unplayble due to lords defection late game.
Has that been considered a bug by the way?

If not, I cannot catch the logic of this - lords join my faction, get a fief or two and run away with those fiefs back to the original Kingdom and take those fief with them... And it has 0 logic, because I beat up Vlandia really hard, left them with no fiefs at all, persuaded a Vlandian clan to join me and granted them a town. A few days later, that clan joined Vlandia again (a faction with no money and fiefs) and took the town I granted them back, just for me to get back, siege and re-take it...
 

Taveren

Regular
WBWF&S
Two main areas I hope TW will consider for the next patch:
1. Limit ability to lead parties based on leadership/charm/tactics stats: Maybe this has been mentioned previously, but one of the most frustrating/annoying features of the single player campaign is the incredible number of young nobles, male and female, with incredible low leadership and tactic skills, zero or very basic armor equipped, who for ZERO logic are able to command a party.
This should be changed (please) so that only leadership of 80-100 and similar tactics skill levels are required before these "nobles" are allowed to roam the map. They are annoying as allies, as their low stats make them incapable of taking command of any units during sieges or battles, and even more annoying when refusing to yield and surrender when faced by superior forces with much higher skilled commanders.

2. Enable surrender for NPC parties when facing overwhelming odds: it is plain annoying when incompetent party leaders leading tiny parties pull a pouty face and refuse to surrender when intercepted by superior forces. Surely there should be logic to allow surrender to stop the meaningless death of countless soldiers because of the idiocy and arrogance for their incompetent stupid party leaders? Any force with a greater than 2:1 advantage will almost certainly obliterate a small force, so please, for the love of life, program some sense into this aspect. Surrendering and being ransomed surely would be preferable to any noble than facing probable death or dismemberment in battle they have zero chance of winning?

Thanks for considering these two issues.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Two main areas I hope TW will consider for the next patch:
1. Limit ability to lead parties based on leadership/charm/tactics stats: Maybe this has been mentioned previously, but one of the most frustrating/annoying features of the single player campaign is the incredible number of young nobles, male and female, with incredible low leadership and tactic skills, zero or very basic armor equipped, who for ZERO logic are able to command a party.
This should be changed (please) so that only leadership of 80-100 and similar tactics skill levels are required before these "nobles" are allowed to roam the map. They are annoying as allies, as their low stats make them incapable of taking command of any units during sieges or battles, and even more annoying when refusing to yield and surrender when faced by superior forces with much higher skilled commanders.

2. Enable surrender for NPC parties when facing overwhelming odds: it is plain annoying when incompetent party leaders leading tiny parties pull a pouty face and refuse to surrender when intercepted by superior forces. Surely there should be logic to allow surrender to stop the meaningless death of countless soldiers because of the idiocy and arrogance for their incompetent stupid party leaders? Any force with a greater than 2:1 advantage will almost certainly obliterate a small force, so please, for the love of life, program some sense into this aspect. Surrendering and being ransomed surely would be preferable to any noble than facing probable death or dismemberment in battle they have zero chance of winning?

Thanks for considering these two issues.
Don't those low Tactics/Leadership skill nobles only become party leaders when the first generation has been captured or killed?
 

Taveren

Regular
WBWF&S
@five bucks - not in my game they don't. Strutting their stuff early on. Some as low as level 11, with <20 leadership. I lock them up and refuse to let them out. Whenever I let them be ransomed they are back at at it again. Silly merry go round
 

Julio-Claudian

Sergeant Knight
Two main areas I hope TW will consider for the next patch:
1. Limit ability to lead parties based on leadership/charm/tactics stats: Maybe this has been mentioned previously, but one of the most frustrating/annoying features of the single player campaign is the incredible number of young nobles, male and female, with incredible low leadership and tactic skills, zero or very basic armor equipped, who for ZERO logic are able to command a party.
This should be changed (please) so that only leadership of 80-100 and similar tactics skill levels are required before these "nobles" are allowed to roam the map. They are annoying as allies, as their low stats make them incapable of taking command of any units during sieges or battles, and even more annoying when refusing to yield and surrender when faced by superior forces with much higher skilled commanders.

2. Enable surrender for NPC parties when facing overwhelming odds: it is plain annoying when incompetent party leaders leading tiny parties pull a pouty face and refuse to surrender when intercepted by superior forces. Surely there should be logic to allow surrender to stop the meaningless death of countless soldiers because of the idiocy and arrogance for their incompetent stupid party leaders? Any force with a greater than 2:1 advantage will almost certainly obliterate a small force, so please, for the love of life, program some sense into this aspect. Surrendering and being ransomed surely would be preferable to any noble than facing probable death or dismemberment in battle they have zero chance of winning?

Thanks for considering these two issues.
100%
 
100% agree,

What about only being able to call clan parties to your army of similar rank or lower? I find it strange that you can call a big landowner to your army after first joining a kingdom.
This will also keep you motivated to gain higher tiers so you can lead bigger Armies.
my hope is that this will lead to a situation that 1 or 2 'marshals' will lead the kingdom armies.
Losing a lot should lead to a lower rank, so the most suitable 'marshal' will change over time.

Suitability of leading a party should be important to determine who gets the role of party leader.
But an alternative solution could be to assign a standard advisor/general to an noble who lacks the proper skills. To make sure there is a minimal skill level.
 

Emperor1997

Knight
100% agree,

What about only being able to call clan parties to your army of similar rank or lower? I find it strange that you can call a big landowner to your army after first joining a kingdom.
This will also keep you motivated to gain higher tiers so you can lead bigger Armies.
my hope is that this will lead to a situation that 1 or 2 'marshals' will lead the kingdom armies.
Losing a lot should lead to a lower rank, so the most suitable 'marshal' will change over time.

Suitability of leading a party should be important to determine who gets the role of party leader.
But an alternative solution could be to assign a standard advisor/general to an noble who lacks the proper skills. To make sure there is a minimal skill level.
+1

And if the party of the army commander is smaller than the potential army member, they should not allowed to call them to their army.
My 400 troops clan parties are called to army by someone, who only has 40 troops is not very funny.

Fun Fact:
My Clan Parties only lose battles, if someone has called them to their army with a Tactics Skill of 0, because the game only use the Tactics Skill of the Army Commander.
 

dannazgu

Sergeant at Arms
Got covid fam. It's hit me pretty gut. Probably gonna return to office this week though.

In any case, afaik this is still being worked on. It is a high priority for us, but simulation balance is finnicky and can take time.
Hey, Duh... How you doing?
It's been close a week since you last said anything here..
Hope you got better
 
Top Bottom