feelotraveller
Banned
Well, at least they allow you to run as fast as Usain Bolt. Pretty cool, huh?I wouldn't go that far, but it is stupid that heavy chain mail and full plate offer little resistance against arrows.
Well, at least they allow you to run as fast as Usain Bolt. Pretty cool, huh?I wouldn't go that far, but it is stupid that heavy chain mail and full plate offer little resistance against arrows.
Eh it's decent. I think they should add a charge attack mechanic and sprinting.Well, at least they allow you to run as fast as Usain Bolt. Pretty cool, huh?
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.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.
I got this too i can to 1000v1000 no lag. in 1.7 branch i could play due to really bad lag.Huge performance improvements in large battles, by the way. And on the campaign map as well
+1- 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.
Has that been considered a bug by the way?- 1.8.0 is unplayble due to lords defection late game.
Yes, it hasHas that been considered a bug by the way?
Don't those low Tactics/Leadership skill nobles only become party leaders when the first generation has been captured or killed?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.
Good. I was afraid it was one of those "balance" descisions...Yes, it has
100%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.
+1100% 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.
Hey, Duh... How you doing?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.