Companion revision 3 - retinue system.
- Thread starter DrTomas
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
skullmasher
Sergeant at Arms
JuJu70 said:
There is no such thing as recognition - there is only opportunism, in this case.
DrTomas said:
Which? Do you think they are to imba? If so, then consider the fact that it needs hours and millions of denars to get them as powerful as knights. Only the most dedicated player will pull off this endeavour.
Yeah, I find them imbalanced and misused. Even if you need to participate in a massive grind fiest for that. Especially when I remember some people were talking that they could take entire castles with just the companions. I see companions as sidekicks - not an company of immortal buddies(actually 29 are bigger then some mercenaries companies since last revision). In short if you don't want to level up some skills, you get a companion to do so instead.
The only reason why you have 30 companions in the first place is because they are unfinished. The original idea would that they would have had personality clashes and in such, you wouldn't be able to keep them all either.
Lets do it!
The only reason why you have 30 companions in the first place is because they are unfinished. The original idea would that they would have had personality clashes and in such, you wouldn't be able to keep them all either.
Earende said:
Lets do it!
Kelem
Knight
Again, I agree. In my present game, I gathered all the companions, 250 days of play, and they are far from invicible. Ok, yesterday, I took Roma with 120 troops, 30 companions + 60 miles or eq. + 30 armigers or eq., against a 950+ garrison. But, first the fight ended after I killed only ~350 troops, not the 950, second my companions were all defeated quite quickly, and only my character and miles finished the work. My companions are level 20-22 but only few of them got a good gear, most of them have a very basic gear, yes, it's not cheap !skullmasher said:
Like skullmasher, I think investing in companions, essentially companion gears, is a choice, I could choose to invest in manors, I don't, I could choose to invest in enterprises, I do it but not completely, etc. So, if a player do this choice, (s)he slows down other choices. Is it bad ? I don't think so, it depends on player gameplay preferences & styles.
My 2 cts.
Earende
Sergeant
DrTomas said:Yeah, I find them imbalanced and misused. Even if you need to participate in a massive grind fiest for that. Especially when I remember some people were talking that they could take entire castles with just the companions. I see companions as sidekicks - not an company of immortal buddies(actually 29 are bigger then some mercenaries companies since last revision). In short if you don't want to level up some skills, you get a companion to do so instead.
The only reason why you have 30 companions in the first place is because they are unfinished. The original idea would that they would have had personality clashes and in such, you wouldn't be able to keep them all either.
Earende said:
Seriously though, turning companions into "books" might be a pretty decent idea. The main reason for companions is for them to have skills that you lack, and pocket-companions handles that just fine. Like books, they'll be costly (depending on its quality [+1, +2...]) and you'll have to search for them (maybe sold by the tavern keeper? ). Finally, it completely removes the ability to abuse companions (companion armies), since they're not there to begin with. 
oroboros
Squire
The reduced number of companions could be compensated by making them start at a higher level. With 10 companions around lvl. 40 and myself I still can take on ~200 custodes and smash them, or lord's armies with ~100 troops. With all 29 companions at around lvl 30 and decently equipped (1000 days in game) I was able to conquer whole cities. That's why I started to use 10-14 companions max. since about 1 year ago, it's more fun and way less straining to equip them all. Today, I need them for their skills mostly while the fighting is done by my troops. I only use them for a kind of diversionary tactics, ie. letting them charge right on into the enemy so that they are distracted while I lead my cav into the enemy's rear or flank. Or in sieges for blocking the entrance, so that I can shoot them enemies, and killing as much high tiers during the first waves as possible.
martin-bs
Veteran
I agree completely with the Doctor. I do not think that the companions (as they were) added to the gameplay as much as they could have.
Besides, when I created my own kingdom I wanted to have vassals - that is why I had to give up almost all my companions. (the first foreign lord to join my faction came only after conquering 7+ cities and I dont know how many castles). Tracking all of them and making them lords was quite unpleasant endeavour. Moreover, all of them were from diff background with banners of diff factions. My capital was Tunis, but my lords had Crusader, Grenadian, Hospitalier, Navarrean flags and what not.
I believe that changing the companion system will not only solve the unfinished dialog problem, but in the long run add a new dimension to the mod. And truly let you create a new faction.
@Everybody arguing for the historical accuracy of having a new faction: In feudal Europe every lord was in his own right leader of a faction. When powerful enough they could achieve some independence. (Not as a king, because that is something that Pope had to acknowledge, but as whatever title they could get.) The emperor of the HRE was in most cases just a nominal figure leading a coalition of minor factions. Byzantines had greater ease in acquiring a title due to their religious structure (the patriarch in Constantinople had limited power and influence, while the Emperor was above all men - hence if you are strong enough there is noone to challenge your claim for whatever not).
Finally: if you think that king is inaccurate just don't write "king" in front of your name. Even after creating a quite strong faction the most I got was the title "Lord of Tunis". You can check by sending an emissary to other factions asking recognition. (Not everybody is that positive though).
SO: Bring us new customized companions! I do not like the idea of having a number limit: add cost if you want to get rid of the immortal squad.
Support the DR!
Besides, when I created my own kingdom I wanted to have vassals - that is why I had to give up almost all my companions. (the first foreign lord to join my faction came only after conquering 7+ cities and I dont know how many castles). Tracking all of them and making them lords was quite unpleasant endeavour. Moreover, all of them were from diff background with banners of diff factions. My capital was Tunis, but my lords had Crusader, Grenadian, Hospitalier, Navarrean flags and what not.
I believe that changing the companion system will not only solve the unfinished dialog problem, but in the long run add a new dimension to the mod. And truly let you create a new faction.
@Everybody arguing for the historical accuracy of having a new faction: In feudal Europe every lord was in his own right leader of a faction. When powerful enough they could achieve some independence. (Not as a king, because that is something that Pope had to acknowledge, but as whatever title they could get.) The emperor of the HRE was in most cases just a nominal figure leading a coalition of minor factions. Byzantines had greater ease in acquiring a title due to their religious structure (the patriarch in Constantinople had limited power and influence, while the Emperor was above all men - hence if you are strong enough there is noone to challenge your claim for whatever not).
Finally: if you think that king is inaccurate just don't write "king" in front of your name. Even after creating a quite strong faction the most I got was the title "Lord of Tunis". You can check by sending an emissary to other factions asking recognition. (Not everybody is that positive though).
SO: Bring us new customized companions! I do not like the idea of having a number limit: add cost if you want to get rid of the immortal squad.
Support the DR!
JuJu70
DrTomas said:Yeah, I find them imbalanced and misused. Even if you need to participate in a massive grind fiest for that. Especially when I remember some people were talking that they could take entire castles with just the companions. I see companions as sidekicks - not an company of immortal buddies(actually 29 are bigger then some mercenaries companies since last revision). In short if you don't want to level up some skills, you get a companion to do so instead.
The only reason why you have 30 companions in the first place is because they are unfinished. The original idea would that they would have had personality clashes and in such, you wouldn't be able to keep them all either.
Earende said:
I hope not!
JuJu70
Frankly I don't think it should be mod's goal to prevent cheating if cheating already exists in options (1/4 damage). Everyone is entitled to their own game, and companions are important for roleplay reasons, otherwise everyone is exactly the same, same face same stats. I fought looters the other day for some reason every single one of them had the same orange hair and orange beard. If you remove companions that what this will turn into.
Warchild
Veteran
I really like the base idea from DrTomas. But I think some modifications could be great.
Explanations :
When you are a peasant, mercenary or whatever, you'd be able to have 4 companions : pathfinder, medic, and 2 trusty warriors.
So you can have a decent pathfinding and healing rate whithout being a lord.
When you become lord, you'd be able to recruit 5 more : trader, engineer, and 3 other warriors.
trader and engineer are more luxurious sidekicks.
Then, when you become king, you'd get the final ones, 4 last warriors and 1 or 2 lords in becoming.
That lead us to 13 permanent companions and 2 temporary ones destined to be lords.
Sidekicks like pathfinder should be designed to never become both a good warrior and a good pathfinder.
Future lords should be recruitable again once you promote one (with a limit for the max number of this kind of lords you could have, maybe 5, the map is huge).
So, being a king, you have your bad soldiers sidekicks, your knight squad to protect you on warfare, and some noble to promote when you really need it.
I think the knight squad is something realistic since a king/lord on warfare usually has his bodyguard squad separated from the rest of the army, and I don't see my pathfinder being also my bodyguard (see "Jacquouille" in "The visitors" ^^).
The numbers I gave are for example, and could be revised for balancing reasons but I think they are quite good.
I don't agree with the 29 companions in the game. It would be great only if party size and battle size were much larger (in this case I'd put them to 33), but what holy PC should we need. ^^
Well, I don't know if all of this is possible, especially the 1 or 2 future lords at a time, but it's to avoid adding them all as great knights without promoting them. You get 1, you train him, and when time has come, you promote him and recruit another one.
Here's my idea on it, hope you'll like it or at least it'll give you inspiration.
Explanations :
When you are a peasant, mercenary or whatever, you'd be able to have 4 companions : pathfinder, medic, and 2 trusty warriors.
So you can have a decent pathfinding and healing rate whithout being a lord.
When you become lord, you'd be able to recruit 5 more : trader, engineer, and 3 other warriors.
trader and engineer are more luxurious sidekicks.
Then, when you become king, you'd get the final ones, 4 last warriors and 1 or 2 lords in becoming.
That lead us to 13 permanent companions and 2 temporary ones destined to be lords.
Sidekicks like pathfinder should be designed to never become both a good warrior and a good pathfinder.
Future lords should be recruitable again once you promote one (with a limit for the max number of this kind of lords you could have, maybe 5, the map is huge
).So, being a king, you have your bad soldiers sidekicks, your knight squad to protect you on warfare, and some noble to promote when you really need it.
I think the knight squad is something realistic since a king/lord on warfare usually has his bodyguard squad separated from the rest of the army, and I don't see my pathfinder being also my bodyguard (see "Jacquouille" in "The visitors" ^^).
The numbers I gave are for example, and could be revised for balancing reasons but I think they are quite good.
I don't agree with the 29 companions in the game. It would be great only if party size and battle size were much larger (in this case I'd put them to 33), but what holy PC should we need. ^^
Well, I don't know if all of this is possible, especially the 1 or 2 future lords at a time, but it's to avoid adding them all as great knights without promoting them. You get 1, you train him, and when time has come, you promote him and recruit another one.
Here's my idea on it, hope you'll like it or at least it'll give you inspiration.
I think the idea with the "pocket medic" isn't even that bad. I imagine it as a 2nd party which isn't for fighting. A king rarely would send his personaly physician into battle.
But besides that I hope the "helpers" (medic, trainer(!) ,pathfinder, engineer, etc.) won't be too mixed fighters but more excel at their fields.
But besides that I hope the "helpers" (medic, trainer(!) ,pathfinder, engineer, etc.) won't be too mixed fighters but more excel at their fields.
Meta2142
Sergeant
Cenavin said:
I agree with this, to a degree. A lord did not send his personal retainers (IE. Physician, Advisers,etc.) into the field of battle, if you still add them into battle, it would be better if they could not easily be warriors. Ie. Noncoms should be at high level (as to make it more difficult to turn them into warriors), and have high skills in their field(s), but low fighting skills. while I don't think "Pocket People" are the best idea, i do think the non combatants should be more like conscripted militia (low skills, poor armour,etc.) than battle-hardened knights.
Ps. I do support the Good Dr.'s Revisions
nawbambam
Recruit
why not add the companions as the player raise in renown, so you will end up with a complet Knight party
During the late Middle Ages in Western Europe, fighting men were principally organized on the basis of a combined arms team, or a Lance. The Lance consisted of a landholder and the men in his direct service: the men he rode to war with. The classic example of a Lance, as in the royal French and their opposing Burgundian forces, featured one noble heavy cavalryman, commonly known as a Knight, supported by at least two Sergeants (professional soldiers, as opposed to gentry, who carried similar arms as knights, only lighter and cheaper), two mounted archers, and between two and six valets or squires, non-combatant support troops in the service of the knight.
As the vast majority of Medieval European warfare consisted of performing raids and long-range patrols, the lance was an important method of providing shock effect, ranged firepower, and logistical support for a knightly retinue out for plunder. For the rare occurrence of a set-piece battle, the most senior of the gentry would break up the lances, organizing the men into the more familiar en bloc formation of individual arms: sergeants dismounting to form the main battle line with archers and crossbowmen in support.
The knights would remain mounted and act as scouts, flank defense, and in rare instances, the main frontal assault force. The Sergeants, also known as Men-At-Arms, were principally professional soldiers of common birth, although this was not always the case. As the number of truly professional soldiers was very low, the Lances were often supplemented by large numbers of drafted peasants, local Militia[citation needed] and mercenaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms#Middle_Ages
i think the idea of adding claim the armor and weapons or forfit and gain Honor and rep with the lord is a great idea and also support the ability to play the game as hedge Knight with more income abilities
Knights Tournaments - The Kippers and the Spoils
Tournaments during the Middle Ages were a good source of revenue for a successful Knight. The champion knight's prize money could yield a considerable purse. But at the tournaments of the early Middle Ages they were allowed to claim the armor and weapons of a fallen adversary during the tournament. (Later the tournaments were governed by pomp, ceremony and chivalric conduct and this right was waived.) To claim the armour and weapons the knight employed a vassal or squire as his 'Kipper'. A Kipper was expected to collect the 'Spoils of Combat' as the tournament proceeded. The word 'Kipper' originated from the Scandinavian word 'Kippa' which means to snatch or to seize. The weapons and armor of a knight were very expensive and a fallen knight would not give them up easily. The Kipper was therefore armed with blunt, but heavy clubs, with which they could knock the unfortunate Knight into an unconscious state and collect the spoils of combat.
Crossbows vs bows
on the need to different on the classes on range and firerate, i think a proper rebalanced of the crossbow is low range and low firerate but + damage modifier on range so a crossbow volley on close range will kill armone horses and men if they hit
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_of_longbow_or_crossbow_is_the_more_effective_weapon
i also think rebalanced of heavy mount horses shod be incrises so it can be used to charge if non armoured unit and hit by a heavy charging horse (if speed greater then x) unconscious everyone else shod get knock back if they have health to survive it so you need crossbow or spear or similar unit to stop them or you will take heavy loss be fore they are lost horses, so it a point of having the proper troops in your army
During the late Middle Ages in Western Europe, fighting men were principally organized on the basis of a combined arms team, or a Lance. The Lance consisted of a landholder and the men in his direct service: the men he rode to war with. The classic example of a Lance, as in the royal French and their opposing Burgundian forces, featured one noble heavy cavalryman, commonly known as a Knight, supported by at least two Sergeants (professional soldiers, as opposed to gentry, who carried similar arms as knights, only lighter and cheaper), two mounted archers, and between two and six valets or squires, non-combatant support troops in the service of the knight.
As the vast majority of Medieval European warfare consisted of performing raids and long-range patrols, the lance was an important method of providing shock effect, ranged firepower, and logistical support for a knightly retinue out for plunder. For the rare occurrence of a set-piece battle, the most senior of the gentry would break up the lances, organizing the men into the more familiar en bloc formation of individual arms: sergeants dismounting to form the main battle line with archers and crossbowmen in support.
The knights would remain mounted and act as scouts, flank defense, and in rare instances, the main frontal assault force. The Sergeants, also known as Men-At-Arms, were principally professional soldiers of common birth, although this was not always the case. As the number of truly professional soldiers was very low, the Lances were often supplemented by large numbers of drafted peasants, local Militia[citation needed] and mercenaries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_arms#Middle_Ages
i think the idea of adding claim the armor and weapons or forfit and gain Honor and rep with the lord is a great idea and also support the ability to play the game as hedge Knight with more income abilities
Knights Tournaments - The Kippers and the Spoils
Tournaments during the Middle Ages were a good source of revenue for a successful Knight. The champion knight's prize money could yield a considerable purse. But at the tournaments of the early Middle Ages they were allowed to claim the armor and weapons of a fallen adversary during the tournament. (Later the tournaments were governed by pomp, ceremony and chivalric conduct and this right was waived.) To claim the armour and weapons the knight employed a vassal or squire as his 'Kipper'. A Kipper was expected to collect the 'Spoils of Combat' as the tournament proceeded. The word 'Kipper' originated from the Scandinavian word 'Kippa' which means to snatch or to seize. The weapons and armor of a knight were very expensive and a fallen knight would not give them up easily. The Kipper was therefore armed with blunt, but heavy clubs, with which they could knock the unfortunate Knight into an unconscious state and collect the spoils of combat.
Crossbows vs bows
on the need to different on the classes on range and firerate, i think a proper rebalanced of the crossbow is low range and low firerate but + damage modifier on range so a crossbow volley on close range will kill armone horses and men if they hit
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_of_longbow_or_crossbow_is_the_more_effective_weapon
i also think rebalanced of heavy mount horses shod be incrises so it can be used to charge if non armoured unit and hit by a heavy charging horse (if speed greater then x) unconscious everyone else shod get knock back if they have health to survive it so you need crossbow or spear or similar unit to stop them or you will take heavy loss be fore they are lost horses, so it a point of having the proper troops in your army
Keep
Regular
The idea (joke?) turning them into items is a bad substitute imo. I just like to equip and level up my companions (though i have to say that the M&B menu makes it a chore), it gives the game its roleplay touch. And it takes ages to finally get them anywhere near a real knight, even if you trained them from the beginning.
I liked my 24 companion strong "Deutschritter" strike force (well, 20 knights and 4 sergeant on horse) + 5 supporters. But it actually took me 2 games of several 100 hours (imported companions) to get them where they were. If i'm honest, leveling and equipping all 29 of them was a pain in the behind. 1/3 of them will do as well.
If you make them available in different game stages however, please keep in mind that it takes ages to train them. Getting a Knight with lvl 15 while you are lvl 35+ is worthless So if you are going to get Companions later on they have to represent that level of Gameplay stage at least. i.e. a Sergeant that you would get with a castle should be at least lvl 20, Knight something like 25-30 (Miles basically) and some almost-lord even better. It's more difficult to customize them that way, that is true.
You could make up for that if you make the customizable characters available in the early stages, so that you can customize specialists like you want. In the later stages you get good fighters to buff up your forces.
It would be nice however to get an initial choice for choosing the later stage companion. In middle stage you could for example choose between a good archer/xbowmen, an infantry sergeant, or a sergeant-on-horse/ soon-to-be-knight. Or horse archer for eastern kingdoms.
Or you just make them level X, and instead of already having the skill you can use free skillpoints to customize them like you want - within limits ofc.
I wouldn't mind if they were not specially named btw, just some sort of "sergeant champion" or something like that... easier to remember who does what ^^
I liked my 24 companion strong "Deutschritter" strike force (well, 20 knights and 4 sergeant on horse) + 5 supporters. But it actually took me 2 games of several 100 hours (imported companions) to get them where they were. If i'm honest, leveling and equipping all 29 of them was a pain in the behind. 1/3 of them will do as well.
If you make them available in different game stages however, please keep in mind that it takes ages to train them. Getting a Knight with lvl 15 while you are lvl 35+ is worthless So if you are going to get Companions later on they have to represent that level of Gameplay stage at least. i.e. a Sergeant that you would get with a castle should be at least lvl 20, Knight something like 25-30 (Miles basically) and some almost-lord even better. It's more difficult to customize them that way, that is true.
You could make up for that if you make the customizable characters available in the early stages, so that you can customize specialists like you want. In the later stages you get good fighters to buff up your forces.
It would be nice however to get an initial choice for choosing the later stage companion. In middle stage you could for example choose between a good archer/xbowmen, an infantry sergeant, or a sergeant-on-horse/ soon-to-be-knight. Or horse archer for eastern kingdoms.
Or you just make them level X, and instead of already having the skill you can use free skillpoints to customize them like you want - within limits ofc.
I wouldn't mind if they were not specially named btw, just some sort of "sergeant champion" or something like that... easier to remember who does what ^^
I like them being of low level when acquired, as so to allow me to customize them to how I want my Companions. Grooming and equipping them are part of what makes them fun for me, and not just immortal members of the army.
If you feel it takes too long to level them, why not simply use the Grant XP cheat to get them to the level you want?
Given that this is a singleplayer game, there's no such thing as cheating, just tweaking the game to provide as much fun for you personally as possible.
If you feel it takes too long to level them, why not simply use the Grant XP cheat to get them to the level you want?
Given that this is a singleplayer game, there's no such thing as cheating, just tweaking the game to provide as much fun for you personally as possible.
Keep
Regular
Its just very un-knightly to get killed by a peasant with a pitchfork on the first occasion So if you get a knight at a late stage he should also have knightly qualities - to compensate for the weeks of gameplay that you already spent - so he can somewhat keep up with the rest of your men. And it can still be somewhat customizable if there are unused skillpoints.
I'm not saying that it should be all characters, just the ones that you can recieve later as a lord of a castle for example (medium lvl) or as king (high lvl)
Or do you think it's fun to get a lvl7 companion when you are king and lvl 40 already?
So if you get a knight at a late stage he should also have knightly qualities - to compensate for the weeks of gameplay that you already spent - so he can somewhat keep up with the rest of your men. And it can still be somewhat customizable if there are unused skillpoints.I'm not saying that it should be all characters, just the ones that you can recieve later as a lord of a castle for example (medium lvl) or as king (high lvl)
Or do you think it's fun to get a lvl7 companion when you are king and lvl 40 already?
You could as well change the level in the files yourself if it's to high for your taste... "just change it yourself"-"arguments" never work well because they work in both directions
That sounds like a great idea, Dr. I usually play with 1-6 companions and I don't recruit them until I'm already fairly well established in the game. I never really saw the point in recruiting some down on his luck loser or an old woman in a tavern when what I'm really looking for are established knights and freemen with the skills to serve me. I'm not running a homeless shelter.
Besides, I want local men to join me.
Besides, I want local men to join me.
Yliax
Recruit
I really like the idea of a revised system. I also like the idea of getting more companions as you advance. Perhaps an option to start with a good friend or a servant/paige. I think as a starting character you should be able to have up to 3 recruits. More oriented towards support such as pathfinders, medics, and merchants. after reaching key points in the game allow another 3 such as when you own a village or a fief, a city, a kingdom...each time you would gain access to a few new types of heroes based on what it is you own. A castle may open options for soldiers whereas becoming king would allow for knights. At most I see about 15 retinue. 3 received at 5 different times during the game. I think the overall point is to simply have a fun game based on history. The game my start in 1257 but the idea is still to be able to shape it and change the course of history. A few friends never hurt.
I subscribe to the idea above. Makes a lot more sense to go into battle with your personal band of retainers than your average malcontent pariah who simply can't seem to get along with the other malcontent pariahs in your following. They don't even need a background story for me personally. I'm happy as long as they don't complain about this and that every five minutes.
