Still a better love story than Twilight.
Still a better love story than Twilight.
The blog is about the persuasion feature and mentions civil war in passing - which is the setting and one of the mechanics of the main storyline.Overworld
* Civil Wars: The ability for a kingdom to split into two warring sub-factions. This feature was mentioned in devblogs, and also present in Warband.
One may also argue that any separation from a kingdom in conflict (player leaving with fiefs) is arguably an act of civil war. But I presume that your reference to warband concerns claimant quests. This type of content seems possible but not a critical priority to me. I personally think that the base game mechanics of kingdoms and clans should be as solid as possible before building quests upon such a foundation.The persuasion system is based on the premise that, even in a dark and desperate land like Calradia, there are some things that money can’t buy. An honorable emir may feel compelled by his oath of fealty to stick by even the vilest of sultans. A conniving one might turn down the choicest bribe because frankly, he doesn’t think you have what it takes to win a civil war, and silver is no use to him if he’s dead. Persuasion is a means to help players overcome these reservations.
I don't think this will come. I remember the discussion with @mexxico - while the idea was explored, there were too many challenges with AI and the focus went to making the base army and party AI better.* Suggesting to allied lords that they attack/defend a specific location without you, or scout an area, or bring reinforcements.
This seems possible.* Ability to promote companions to lords when you are a faction ruler.
* Deserters: Hostile roaming parties of runaway troops with military-level equipment, created on the world map when AI parties' morale falls too low.
It doesn't seem impossible, but it's not part of the current priorities. These are changes at a rather broad level and may cause a range of unforeseen consequences - and I'm sure you wouldn't want them added in a way that makes the game worse. Nonetheless, they certainly seem worth discussing to me since they can add life to the world.* Manhunters: Neutral bounty hunters who spawn to fight bandits in areas of high bandit activity, and have a unique recruitable troop tree
Just designating a capitol would yield little gameplay value, so this is a bit of an empty suggestion. Non-party leading clan members should (soon) be staying in whichever location you leave them in in any case. Of course, there can be many features added to make a capitol more interesting, but I am not sure which you are looking for.* Choosing a city to be your "capital" (home base for the player kingdom's court and husband/wife).
This seems possible, but needs to be approached carefully as a free defection is a fairly powerful boon. I personally like the idea as it adds to the feeling of a living world (like ransom offers for prisoners), but it's more of an immersion / QoL feature than a matter of critical urgency.* Poor clan leaders coming to a player kingdom's capital and offering to defect.
I have no strong opinion on them. I don't know their original design or the reason for their removal. I can see that they may add some additional points of interest to the map (permanent point of contact, opportunity for recruitment) but may also not be straight forward to pull off in a worthwhile fashion. (Is it pure menu/dialogue interaction or would they require a new scene per location? Base game locations are still WIP. Do they serve any other purpose than what i mentioned earlier? Do kingdoms have to go after them if they are at war with the minor faction? If so, what consequences does their clearing bring with it? I'm sure some solution could be found to KISS... but well, just like capitols, that may not be what you specifically are looking for.)* Minor Faction bases as seen in the 2016 gameplay video.
I think the current template system can be expanded upon to make the companions feel more alive. I don't think a separate type of companion is required for that.Roleplaying
* Reactive Companions: In Warband, companions had more detailed backstories, talked about the locations you visit, asked the player to make decisions, and reacted more often to the player's actions. They had unique, permanent personalities (could be added along with the randoms).
I am on the fence with this feature. Feasts only really make sense if there is a good bit of attendance - which means lords and ladies need to prioritize them over other activities and those tend to be mostly military or self-preservatory in nature. Naturally, they could just be limited to periods of peace... but those can be few and far. Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about logical decision making and just welcome the return of Harlaus the Butterlord. Or it's worthwhile even if it's rare. I don't think that they are impossible, in fact, I am sure that they will continue to be discussed but they are not part of the current priorities.* Feasts: Gathering which can be hosted by the player or AI lords (only in peacetime) in order to improve relations and gain influence.
The plot to betray a king is linking to a discussion of the persuasion feature, which is in the game. However, I do think that there could be more issue quests that follow a political theme. They just need to meet in the middle between some form of reasonable gameplay experience (so ideally not just going through menus and dialogues) on the one hand and a limited impact on the sandbox on the other. This kind of excludes plots to start a war, but a plot to steal from the king or a rich clan (or the reverse - you being tasked to foil such a plot) or a quest to denounce / embarass another lord seem quite viable and I like the ideas.* Political quests: The ability to plot a coup against the ruler of a faction with other lords, plot to start a war, or to accuse other lords of plotting.
Persuasion may see some additional work, but I don't think it will go this route.* Courtship: The ability to talk to other NPCs about a potential spouse's likes in order to gain conversation topics. Completing quests for love interest to gain approval. Dissuading or dueling competing suitors. Returning more times over a longer period of time to build the relationship.
This seems like it is repeating the previous two points so skipping it. Let me know if, I misunderstood.* Dueling lords: Legally fighting an enemy lord one-on-one, if you are competing for a lover or in a political feud.
I don't think this would be particularly difficult, but it may distort feedback on the gameplay based skill progression and we should get that fixed first.* Skill Books: Expensive items which you can buy from a bookseller and read over time to gain proficiency in a skill.
It's certainly possible to add another set of mercenaries, but this doesn't seem like high priority to me.* Sword Sisters: Hiring peasant women and upgrading them into combat troops with their own troop line.
The crime system largely works as described (crime rating tracking and penalties per faction), there are quests that use criminal activities like smuggling and alleys continue to be discussed. I am not sure what you are referencing by undermining local nobility but if it concerns same-faction combat encounters, then I don't think that that will be coming.* Crime and Gang system: Taking over gang hideouts and installing your own operation there, bribery (added for breakouts in 1.5.9), smuggling contraband, crime rating penalties by faction, undermining local nobility, etc.
I think this is possible but it isn't my area of expertise. It may have been discussed recently, will check.* Visible spawn point marker for reinforcements. (In Warband this was the supply chest and a banner, but anything easily visible will do.)
I don't think anything like this will be offered as it sounds like it would clash with the way formations work. Of course, if you have a formation following you, then they would presumably be selectable and around you.* Ability to select a group of troops in a small radius around you.
The assault already includes the streets and will have the enemy retreat to the lord's hall - once the lord's hall fight is in.* Fight in the streets after winning the wall fight of a town siege.
I don't know whether you are discussing campaign or mission, but I think both can be affected by the character traits. Maybe the mission is only looking at the tactics skill, but I am not sure if further limits would actually make for a better experience, since it would just mean that there are more battles with a lower range of tactics that players can experience.
I mean that's the goal They already use 3 different fronts and react to changes on the battlefield (losses of troops & equipment & defenses). Sieges will continue receiving attention.* Intelligent attacking/defending siege commander AI which will split its forces on multiple fronts, and change tactics to react to diversions.
Banners are pending another feature, but they will come.* Banners borne by troops as shown in the 2017 video.
Thanks for the answer.Sorry for the delay guys, these past weeks were a bit complicated in terms of private life.
Usual disclaimer - Personal opinion. Not a company statement. Not a promise. I will skip any bits that you already marked in progress or that I can't discuss.
The blog is about the persuasion feature and mentions civil war in passing - which is the setting and one of the mechanics of the main storyline.
One may also argue that any separation from a kingdom in conflict (leaving with fiefs) is arguably an act of civil war. But I presume that your reference to warband concerns claimant quests. This type of content seems possible but not a critical priority to me. I personally think that the base game mechanics of kingdoms and clans should be as solid as possible before building quests upon such a foundation.
I don't think this will come. I remember the discussion with @mexxico - while the idea was explored, there were too many challenges with AI and the focus went to making the base army and party AI better.
This seems possible.
It doesn't seem impossible, but it's not part of the current priorities. These are changes at a rather broad level and may cause a range of unforeseen consequences - and I'm sure you wouldn't want them added in a way that makes the game worse. Nonetheless, they certainly seem worth discussing to me since they can add life to the world.
Just designating a capitol would yield little gameplay value, so this is a bit of an empty suggestion. Non-party leading clan members should (soon) be staying in whichever location you leave them in in any case. Of course, there can be many features added to make a capitol more interesting, but I am not sure which you are looking for.
This seems possible, but needs to be approached carefully as a free defection is a fairly powerful boon. I personally like the idea as it adds to the feeling of a living world (like ransom offers for prisoners), but it's more of an immersion / QoL feature than a matter of critical urgency.
I have no strong opinion on them. I don't know their original design or the reason for their removal. I can see that they may add some additional points of interest to the map (permanent point of contact, opportunity for recruitment) but may also not be straight forward to pull off in a worthwhile fashion. (Is it pure menu/dialogue interaction or would they require a new scene per location? Base game locations are still WIP. Do they serve any other purpose than what i mentioned earlier? Do kingdoms have to go after them if they are at war with the minor faction? If so, what consequences does their clearing bring with it? I'm sure some solution could be found to KISS... but well, just like capitols, that may not be what you specifically are looking for.)
I think the current template system can be expanded upon to make the companions feel more alive. I don't think a separate type of companion is required for that.
I am on the fence with this feature. Feasts only really make sense if there is a good bit of attendance - which means lords and ladies need to prioritize them over other activities and those tend to be mostly military or self-preservatory in nature. Naturally, they could just be limited to periods of peace... but those can be few and far. Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about logical decision making and just welcome the return of Harlaus the Butterlord. Or it's worthwhile even if it's rare. I don't think that they are impossible, in fact, I am sure that they will continue to be discussed but they are not part of the current priorities.
The plot to betray a king is linking to a discussion of the persuasion feature, which is in the game. However, I do think that there could be more issue quests that follow a political theme. They just need to meet in the middle between some form of reasonable gameplay experience (so ideally not just going through menus and dialogues) on the one hand and a limited impact on the sandbox on the other. This kind of excludes plots to start a war, but a plot to steal from the king or a rich clan (or the reverse - you being tasked to foil such a plot) or a quest to denounce / embarass another lord seem quite viable and I like the ideas.
Persuasion may see some additional work, but I don't think it will go this route.
This seems like it is repeating the previous two points so skipping it. Let me know if, I misunderstood.
I don't think this would be particularly difficult, but it may distort feedback on the gameplay based skill progression and we should get that fixed first.
It's certainly possible to add another set of mercenaries, but this doesn't seem like high priority to me.
The crime system largely works as described (crime rating tracking and penalties per faction), there are quests that use criminal activities like smuggling and alleys continue to be discussed. I am not sure what you are referencing by undermining local nobility but if it concerns same-faction combat encounters, then I don't think that that will be coming.
I think this is possible but it isn't my area of expertise. It may have been discussed recently, will check.
I don't think anything like this will be offered as it sounds like it would clash with the way formations work. Of course, if you have a formation following you, then they would presumably be selectable and around you.
*Skip 4
The assault already includes the streets and will have the enemy retreat to the lord's hall - once the lord's hall fight is in.
I don't know whether you are discussing campaign or mission, but I think both can be affected by the character traits. Maybe the mission is only looking at the tactics skill, but I am not sure if further limits would actually make for a better experience, since it would just mean that there are more battles with a lower range of tactics that players can experience.
*Skip 1
I mean that's the goal They already use 3 different fronts and react to changes on the battlefield (losses of troops & equipment & defenses). Sieges will continue receiving attention.
Banners are pending another feature, but they will come.
//
Yes, it's still not complete. But then everyone uses cliffhangers.
Thank you for your time and your replay.Sorry for the delay guys, these past weeks were a bit complicated in terms of private life.
Usual disclaimer - Personal opinion. Not a company statement. Not a promise. I will skip any bits that you already marked in progress or that I can't discuss.
The blog is about the persuasion feature and mentions civil war in passing - which is the setting and one of the mechanics of the main storyline.
One may also argue that any separation from a kingdom in conflict (leaving with fiefs) is arguably an act of civil war. But I presume that your reference to warband concerns claimant quests. This type of content seems possible but not a critical priority to me. I personally think that the base game mechanics of kingdoms and clans should be as solid as possible before building quests upon such a foundation.
I don't think this will come. I remember the discussion with @mexxico - while the idea was explored, there were too many challenges with AI and the focus went to making the base army and party AI better.
This seems possible.
It doesn't seem impossible, but it's not part of the current priorities. These are changes at a rather broad level and may cause a range of unforeseen consequences - and I'm sure you wouldn't want them added in a way that makes the game worse. Nonetheless, they certainly seem worth discussing to me since they can add life to the world.
Just designating a capitol would yield little gameplay value, so this is a bit of an empty suggestion. Non-party leading clan members should (soon) be staying in whichever location you leave them in in any case. Of course, there can be many features added to make a capitol more interesting, but I am not sure which you are looking for.
This seems possible, but needs to be approached carefully as a free defection is a fairly powerful boon. I personally like the idea as it adds to the feeling of a living world (like ransom offers for prisoners), but it's more of an immersion / QoL feature than a matter of critical urgency.
I have no strong opinion on them. I don't know their original design or the reason for their removal. I can see that they may add some additional points of interest to the map (permanent point of contact, opportunity for recruitment) but may also not be straight forward to pull off in a worthwhile fashion. (Is it pure menu/dialogue interaction or would they require a new scene per location? Base game locations are still WIP. Do they serve any other purpose than what i mentioned earlier? Do kingdoms have to go after them if they are at war with the minor faction? If so, what consequences does their clearing bring with it? I'm sure some solution could be found to KISS... but well, just like capitols, that may not be what you specifically are looking for.)
I think the current template system can be expanded upon to make the companions feel more alive. I don't think a separate type of companion is required for that.
I am on the fence with this feature. Feasts only really make sense if there is a good bit of attendance - which means lords and ladies need to prioritize them over other activities and those tend to be mostly military or self-preservatory in nature. Naturally, they could just be limited to periods of peace... but those can be few and far. Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about logical decision making and just welcome the return of Harlaus the Butterlord. Or it's worthwhile even if it's rare. I don't think that they are impossible, in fact, I am sure that they will continue to be discussed but they are not part of the current priorities.
The plot to betray a king is linking to a discussion of the persuasion feature, which is in the game. However, I do think that there could be more issue quests that follow a political theme. They just need to meet in the middle between some form of reasonable gameplay experience (so ideally not just going through menus and dialogues) on the one hand and a limited impact on the sandbox on the other. This kind of excludes plots to start a war, but a plot to steal from the king or a rich clan (or the reverse - you being tasked to foil such a plot) or a quest to denounce / embarass another lord seem quite viable and I like the ideas.
Persuasion may see some additional work, but I don't think it will go this route.
This seems like it is repeating the previous two points so skipping it. Let me know if, I misunderstood.
I don't think this would be particularly difficult, but it may distort feedback on the gameplay based skill progression and we should get that fixed first.
It's certainly possible to add another set of mercenaries, but this doesn't seem like high priority to me.
The crime system largely works as described (crime rating tracking and penalties per faction), there are quests that use criminal activities like smuggling and alleys continue to be discussed. I am not sure what you are referencing by undermining local nobility but if it concerns same-faction combat encounters, then I don't think that that will be coming.
I think this is possible but it isn't my area of expertise. It may have been discussed recently, will check.
I don't think anything like this will be offered as it sounds like it would clash with the way formations work. Of course, if you have a formation following you, then they would presumably be selectable and around you.
*Skip 4
The assault already includes the streets and will have the enemy retreat to the lord's hall - once the lord's hall fight is in.
I don't know whether you are discussing campaign or mission, but I think both can be affected by the character traits. Maybe the mission is only looking at the tactics skill, but I am not sure if further limits would actually make for a better experience, since it would just mean that there are more battles with a lower range of tactics that players can experience.
*Skip 1
I mean that's the goal They already use 3 different fronts and react to changes on the battlefield (losses of troops & equipment & defenses). Sieges will continue receiving attention.
Banners are pending another feature, but they will come.
//
Yes, it's still not complete. But then everyone uses cliffhangers.
ggSorry for the delay guys, these past weeks were a bit complicated in terms of private life.
Usual disclaimer - Personal opinion. Not a company statement. Not a promise. I will skip any bits that you already marked in progress or that I can't discuss.
The blog is about the persuasion feature and mentions civil war in passing - which is the setting and one of the mechanics of the main storyline.
One may also argue that any separation from a kingdom in conflict (player leaving with fiefs) is arguably an act of civil war. But I presume that your reference to warband concerns claimant quests. This type of content seems possible but not a critical priority to me. I personally think that the base game mechanics of kingdoms and clans should be as solid as possible before building quests upon such a foundation.
I don't think this will come. I remember the discussion with @mexxico - while the idea was explored, there were too many challenges with AI and the focus went to making the base army and party AI better.
This seems possible.
It doesn't seem impossible, but it's not part of the current priorities. These are changes at a rather broad level and may cause a range of unforeseen consequences - and I'm sure you wouldn't want them added in a way that makes the game worse. Nonetheless, they certainly seem worth discussing to me since they can add life to the world.
Just designating a capitol would yield little gameplay value, so this is a bit of an empty suggestion. Non-party leading clan members should (soon) be staying in whichever location you leave them in in any case. Of course, there can be many features added to make a capitol more interesting, but I am not sure which you are looking for.
This seems possible, but needs to be approached carefully as a free defection is a fairly powerful boon. I personally like the idea as it adds to the feeling of a living world (like ransom offers for prisoners), but it's more of an immersion / QoL feature than a matter of critical urgency.
I have no strong opinion on them. I don't know their original design or the reason for their removal. I can see that they may add some additional points of interest to the map (permanent point of contact, opportunity for recruitment) but may also not be straight forward to pull off in a worthwhile fashion. (Is it pure menu/dialogue interaction or would they require a new scene per location? Base game locations are still WIP. Do they serve any other purpose than what i mentioned earlier? Do kingdoms have to go after them if they are at war with the minor faction? If so, what consequences does their clearing bring with it? I'm sure some solution could be found to KISS... but well, just like capitols, that may not be what you specifically are looking for.)
I think the current template system can be expanded upon to make the companions feel more alive. I don't think a separate type of companion is required for that.
I am on the fence with this feature. Feasts only really make sense if there is a good bit of attendance - which means lords and ladies need to prioritize them over other activities and those tend to be mostly military or self-preservatory in nature. Naturally, they could just be limited to periods of peace... but those can be few and far. Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about logical decision making and just welcome the return of Harlaus the Butterlord. Or it's worthwhile even if it's rare. I don't think that they are impossible, in fact, I am sure that they will continue to be discussed but they are not part of the current priorities.
The plot to betray a king is linking to a discussion of the persuasion feature, which is in the game. However, I do think that there could be more issue quests that follow a political theme. They just need to meet in the middle between some form of reasonable gameplay experience (so ideally not just going through menus and dialogues) on the one hand and a limited impact on the sandbox on the other. This kind of excludes plots to start a war, but a plot to steal from the king or a rich clan (or the reverse - you being tasked to foil such a plot) or a quest to denounce / embarass another lord seem quite viable and I like the ideas.
Persuasion may see some additional work, but I don't think it will go this route.
This seems like it is repeating the previous two points so skipping it. Let me know if, I misunderstood.
I don't think this would be particularly difficult, but it may distort feedback on the gameplay based skill progression and we should get that fixed first.
It's certainly possible to add another set of mercenaries, but this doesn't seem like high priority to me.
The crime system largely works as described (crime rating tracking and penalties per faction), there are quests that use criminal activities like smuggling and alleys continue to be discussed. I am not sure what you are referencing by undermining local nobility but if it concerns same-faction combat encounters, then I don't think that that will be coming.
I think this is possible but it isn't my area of expertise. It may have been discussed recently, will check.
I don't think anything like this will be offered as it sounds like it would clash with the way formations work. Of course, if you have a formation following you, then they would presumably be selectable and around you.
*Skip 4
The assault already includes the streets and will have the enemy retreat to the lord's hall - once the lord's hall fight is in.
I don't know whether you are discussing campaign or mission, but I think both can be affected by the character traits. Maybe the mission is only looking at the tactics skill, but I am not sure if further limits would actually make for a better experience, since it would just mean that there are more battles with a lower range of tactics that players can experience.
*Skip 1
I mean that's the goal They already use 3 different fronts and react to changes on the battlefield (losses of troops & equipment & defenses). Sieges will continue receiving attention.
Banners are pending another feature, but they will come.
//
Yes, it's still not complete. But then everyone uses cliffhangers.
Thank you for your time. All the best with the private life.Sorry for the delay guys, these past weeks were a bit complicated in terms of private life.
Mind the attitude, Duh is only there for the last couple of years, long after many (poor) design decisions were made and he answered here on his own initiative about what he knows. You usually can't get ANY kind of substantial answer from official Taleworlds.This game in its current state is a spit in the face to your long time supporters and fans. And if you can't give us an actual answer that is not just your opinion. Then get someone who can.
I was very disappointed that you think that many of the features are ready . I'll say nothing about the siege ... Because Siege's AI is terrible !Sorry for the delay guys, these past weeks were a bit complicated in terms of private life.
Usual disclaimer - Personal opinion. Not a company statement. Not a promise. I will skip any bits that you already marked in progress or that I can't discuss.
The blog is about the persuasion feature and mentions civil war in passing - which is the setting and one of the mechanics of the main storyline.
One may also argue that any separation from a kingdom in conflict (player leaving with fiefs) is arguably an act of civil war. But I presume that your reference to warband concerns claimant quests. This type of content seems possible but not a critical priority to me. I personally think that the base game mechanics of kingdoms and clans should be as solid as possible before building quests upon such a foundation.
I don't think this will come. I remember the discussion with @mexxico - while the idea was explored, there were too many challenges with AI and the focus went to making the base army and party AI better.
This seems possible.
It doesn't seem impossible, but it's not part of the current priorities. These are changes at a rather broad level and may cause a range of unforeseen consequences - and I'm sure you wouldn't want them added in a way that makes the game worse. Nonetheless, they certainly seem worth discussing to me since they can add life to the world.
Just designating a capitol would yield little gameplay value, so this is a bit of an empty suggestion. Non-party leading clan members should (soon) be staying in whichever location you leave them in in any case. Of course, there can be many features added to make a capitol more interesting, but I am not sure which you are looking for.
This seems possible, but needs to be approached carefully as a free defection is a fairly powerful boon. I personally like the idea as it adds to the feeling of a living world (like ransom offers for prisoners), but it's more of an immersion / QoL feature than a matter of critical urgency.
I have no strong opinion on them. I don't know their original design or the reason for their removal. I can see that they may add some additional points of interest to the map (permanent point of contact, opportunity for recruitment) but may also not be straight forward to pull off in a worthwhile fashion. (Is it pure menu/dialogue interaction or would they require a new scene per location? Base game locations are still WIP. Do they serve any other purpose than what i mentioned earlier? Do kingdoms have to go after them if they are at war with the minor faction? If so, what consequences does their clearing bring with it? I'm sure some solution could be found to KISS... but well, just like capitols, that may not be what you specifically are looking for.)
I think the current template system can be expanded upon to make the companions feel more alive. I don't think a separate type of companion is required for that.
I am on the fence with this feature. Feasts only really make sense if there is a good bit of attendance - which means lords and ladies need to prioritize them over other activities and those tend to be mostly military or self-preservatory in nature. Naturally, they could just be limited to periods of peace... but those can be few and far. Maybe I shouldn't be so concerned about logical decision making and just welcome the return of Harlaus the Butterlord. Or it's worthwhile even if it's rare. I don't think that they are impossible, in fact, I am sure that they will continue to be discussed but they are not part of the current priorities.
The plot to betray a king is linking to a discussion of the persuasion feature, which is in the game. However, I do think that there could be more issue quests that follow a political theme. They just need to meet in the middle between some form of reasonable gameplay experience (so ideally not just going through menus and dialogues) on the one hand and a limited impact on the sandbox on the other. This kind of excludes plots to start a war, but a plot to steal from the king or a rich clan (or the reverse - you being tasked to foil such a plot) or a quest to denounce / embarass another lord seem quite viable and I like the ideas.
Persuasion may see some additional work, but I don't think it will go this route.
This seems like it is repeating the previous two points so skipping it. Let me know if, I misunderstood.
I don't think this would be particularly difficult, but it may distort feedback on the gameplay based skill progression and we should get that fixed first.
It's certainly possible to add another set of mercenaries, but this doesn't seem like high priority to me.
The crime system largely works as described (crime rating tracking and penalties per faction), there are quests that use criminal activities like smuggling and alleys continue to be discussed. I am not sure what you are referencing by undermining local nobility but if it concerns same-faction combat encounters, then I don't think that that will be coming.
I think this is possible but it isn't my area of expertise. It may have been discussed recently, will check.
I don't think anything like this will be offered as it sounds like it would clash with the way formations work. Of course, if you have a formation following you, then they would presumably be selectable and around you.
*Skip 4
The assault already includes the streets and will have the enemy retreat to the lord's hall - once the lord's hall fight is in.
I don't know whether you are discussing campaign or mission, but I think both can be affected by the character traits. Maybe the mission is only looking at the tactics skill, but I am not sure if further limits would actually make for a better experience, since it would just mean that there are more battles with a lower range of tactics that players can experience.
*Skip 1
I mean that's the goal They already use 3 different fronts and react to changes on the battlefield (losses of troops & equipment & defenses). Sieges will continue receiving attention.
Banners are pending another feature, but they will come.
//
Yes, it's still not complete. But then everyone uses cliffhangers.
Mind the attitude, Duh is only there for the last couple of years, long after many (poor) design decisions were made and he answered here on his own initiative about what he knows. You usually can't get ANY kind of substantial answer from official Taleworlds.
You don't get it. Calm down and count to 10. This is a voluntary response from an individual developer, not the company. Maybe you would be happier with no response at all or PR crap? Because no one has to listen to your Karen roleplaying.Yeah no. The only reason duh posted that is because he got permission to post that. You can't just have developers posting whatever they want on the forums about your product. So don't give me the developer of the people crap. It's just his opinion. Give us someone who actually calls the shots.
We need an OFFICIAL statement from the COMPANY about what is intended for their game.
Lmao Everything that gets posted here by a member of the tales world team has to be approved by someone. You can't just have people who represent your company saying whatever they please.You don't get it. Calm down and count to 10. This is a voluntary response from an individual developer, not the company. Maybe you would be happier with no response at all or PR crap? Because no one has to listen to your Karen roleplaying.
Different companies have different policies about the engagement that is permitted. There are certainly some statements that would require permission (any confirmation of future content for one), but others, such as the discussion of existing features or community suggestions and what we (personally) think about them, don't. Of course, there are still certain standards to follow, including courtesy, but, no, not every post by a developer requires approval.Lmao Everything that gets posted here by a member of the tales world team has to be approved by someone. You can't just have people who represent your company saying whatever they please.