Charisma and leadership values are too low

[allthesedamnnamesaretaken]

as of version 0.9xx  the party size bonuses for leadership and base party size are controlled in the module system's script's, not in the ini file.

 

[SoanoS]

Okiedokie. Perhaps make your selection of the bacground effect the Charisma and party size bonus?
Would make sense.

 

[HardCode]

as of version 0.9xx  the party size bonuses for leadership and base party size are controlled in the module system's script's, not in the ini file.

This is the correct answer. And I'm glad that it's this way. With a script, you can calculate party size any way you want, in a mod, rather than relying on a fixed number in the .ini file

 

[Gregarion Roseby]

Get your renown up. I am glad it takes awhile to get a large army.

The values are fine where they're at, if you ask me.

 

[Larken]

So does anyone have a definitive answer as to how we would go about changing party size bonuses ourselves? I remember in the last version editing the INI file would work, but not retrospectively (if you changed the leadership bonus up to to 5, the next time you invested in that skill it would be 5).

 

[Timber]

My bigger problem isn't getting a big army, but keeping one. The morale loss for having 50 men seems ridiculous, and the only way I know of getting it up, is to fight. And usually that's hard, because every party I can take, runs away and is almost always faster than me..

 

[Red River]

My bigger problem isn't getting a big army, but keeping one. The morale loss for having 50 men seems ridiculous, and the only way I know of getting it up, is to fight. And usually that's hard, because every party I can take, runs away and is almost always faster than me..

that's another reason I don't like big amries/battles. I just don't wanna engage X10 to fight one battle... I usually don't last very lon' as I don't play ranged and they eventually cut me down. my options then is either leave or let my soldiers fight without me.
and that's just no fun.

 

[Lightzy]

I dunno. I play on highest difficulty (107% I think?) and I still find it hard to lose even battles in which I'm severely outnumbered..

and now with the AI working on a strategic level there's no real reason why you would ever have to attack a castle alone..  just set it so you don't have to defend it alone either, or invest in more charisma :>

 

[Gothic Knight]

Nope it can go higher,I'am on 187percent

 

[Poc]

Thats easy to fix. Open mount&blade/modules/native/module.ini with notepad or some other text-editor, and adjust these values as you like:
skill_leadership_bonus = 3
base_companion_limit = 20

That doesn't work, trust me I've tried it already

but the point of being able to have a large army is rendered moot by the sheer small size of troops you can recruit from fiefs.

Don't you get more recruits by getting the village to like you?

 

[pedrodiniz92]

I actually believe that heroes' having leadership skills should add to party limits, since no army has only one commander, there were minor commanders...

Don't you get more recruits by getting the village to like you?

Yes, you do.

 

[Timber]

My bigger problem isn't getting a big army, but keeping one. The morale loss for having 50 men seems ridiculous, and the only way I know of getting it up, is to fight. And usually that's hard, because every party I can take, runs away and is almost always faster than me..

that's another reason I don't like big amries/battles. I just don't wanna engage X10 to fight one battle... I usually don't last very lon' as I don't play ranged and they eventually cut me down. my options then is either leave or let my soldiers fight without me.
and that's just no fun.

Now that too. A few hours ago, the whole army of Nords got into a battle with most of the Vaegirs, and it was about 1500 units vs 1100. Even with my battlesize at 200, it took a whole long to fight, and after the 4th or 5th battle, I had to just send my troops in, as I didn't have enough health left to fight.

 

[phbbbt107]

Nope it can go higher,I'am on 187percent

Well, I think he's playing an unmodded version of M&B. Aren't you using Battle Size Changer?

 

[Lord Sami]

I think all party sizes should be based off of battlize selected by player in the options. that way there's no battles seeminly goin' on forever if somebody chooses to play with a low battlesize.
for instance. with battlesize 50 max party size for player/AI should be in the neighbourhood of 50-100 to avoid looped battles when more than 2 armies clush on a battlefield.
battlesize should also reflect the town/castle garrison size in this context.

I don't think that's a very good idea. Even though army size should be increased through bigger leadership bonuses, I don't want my party size to be tied down to a certain point which I can't exceed. For example while I was playing BoW X mod in 0.903 I was able to reach a such a level of renonwn that I could carry with me over 220 men. And that was more than enough to match any army that came across the map. Infact it was so huge that my weekly wages often exceeded 10 000 denars, depending on the type of soldiers, not to mention the consumption of food! But my point is that a large army isn't always a good army. A well balanced army around 50-100 men with a decent travelling speed is much better than a massive army of 600 knigths that can't even catch band river pirates (or looteers, nowadays). A small boost to the leadership/renown bonus, but nothing ridicilous. Sorry for the overly long post...

 

[Destichado]

My bigger problem isn't getting a big army, but keeping one. The morale loss for having 50 men seems ridiculous, and the only way I know of getting it up, is to fight.

SO true.  I can't afford to trade anymore, the morale loss from just walking across the map pisses everyone off so much that they'll drop from "Excelent" to at least "Average" -or further.
It's ridiculous.

 

[Red River]

I think all party sizes should be based off of battlize selected by player in the options. that way there's no battles seeminly goin' on forever if somebody chooses to play with a low battlesize.
for instance. with battlesize 50 max party size for player/AI should be in the neighbourhood of 50-100 to avoid looped battles when more than 2 armies clush on a battlefield.
battlesize should also reflect the town/castle garrison size in this context.

I don't think that's a very good idea. Even though army size should be increased through bigger leadership bonuses, I don't want my party size to be tied down to a certain point which I can't exceed. For example while I was playing BoW X mod in 0.903 I was able to reach a such a level of renonwn that I could carry with me over 220 men. And that was more than enough to match any army that came across the map. Infact it was so huge that my weekly wages often exceeded 10 000 denars, depending on the type of soldiers, not to mention the consumption of food! But my point is that a large army isn't always a good army. A well balanced army around 50-100 men with a decent travelling speed is much better than a massive army of 600 knigths that can't even catch band river pirates (or looteers, nowadays). A small boost to the leadership/renown bonus, but nothing ridicilous. Sorry for the overly long post...

ya entirely missed my point. I ddin't suggest reducin' army sizes I merely suggested an option to control it usin' battlesize. if somebody likes big armies then they will select max battlesize and for those of us who don't a smaller battlesize will take care of crazy battles where ya have to fight one battle in 10 stages or more because of low battlesize. understand?

 

[Zalson]

Red River, why do you drop the 'g's of each gerund you use. I find it distracting, which is why I mentioned this.

More on topic: I've got say that I disagree with your idea. I frequently will adjust battlesize, especially when attacking cities (it's not fun to be outnumbered, say, 150 to 20). Your suggestion might not be viable on the engine; in the past, party sizes scaled on the protagonists level.

Are you aware of the battlesize changer? How would that mod affect this suggestion. I appreciate where you're trying to go, but I don't think it's feasible.

That said, I've got to plead for a higher charisma/leadership bonus; at least from leadership. Make it five instead of three. Make it reduce the morale penalty for lots of troops significantly. Make it reduce the amount of food consumed significantly. Make it essential for a good leader to have good leadership. That way, the general character has to be more specialized... and his specialization is rewarded.

 

[Alex]

I would say we need bigger leadership bonuses from renown if anything. A high renown attracting all sorts of people flocking to that lords banner due to his reputation as a solid leader and competent soldier. Also if you want bigger battle sizes go download the battle size changer mod. But back to what i was saying. You could also increase slightly leadership and charisma bonuses. But on the whole i think renown might be the way forward for bigger parties if its improved as then you can still be decent in battle and have a sizeable force.