Companions spent faster than denars

Currently viewing this thread:

cadadr

Recruit
I'm on the freshest 1.5.5. Every other battle a companion dies. They die quicker than tier 1 troops, regardless if I outfit them with top level armor and/or put them on horses.

Two or three things can fix this, not necessarily exclusive of each other:

1) Nobles and companions stand behind. They shouldn't engage in the front rows of the battles. I see nobles attacking full on enemy armies by themselves like they are some sort of batman. First moment of a battle the army leader falls.

2) Have companions immortal for a certain amount of time. I.e. they stay alive at least for a few years.

3) Have an option for the player's clan to only die from old age. Yes not as realistic but seeing all my clan die out like there was a plague makes me want to keep them all in castles. And AFAIU this is already the case with the player's hero.

This needs fixing because it makes for a pretty boring game otherwise and renders the whole concept of companions futile.
 
Try putting them on the bottom of your list, that should help to keep them away from the front line.
As for #2, I personally find that a bit lame, I'd rather play with no death.
That said, there are things to consider. Firstly, the devs said that the mortality rate is 10%, and they had already reckoned that was a bit high, but they were interested in seeing it's effects. Probably they will reduce to 2 percent or so. That is better but if you consider the amount of time you currently need to develop a dependable companion, it won't pay off.
Having very good randomly generated companions would help, but you miss half of the fun of equipping and planning their skills.
Or they could make levelling much easier, so that you have a chance to develop them before they snuff it.
In any case, it will take a long time to fine tune this, it's not easy.
 

AnandaShanti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Try putting them on the bottom of your list, that should help to keep them away from the front line.
Is this true, do units try to fallow their list arrangement in formation? That's useful if so.

I think we need a "do not deploy" option for some units or groups and also a "stay defensive" for when you want them as a captain but want them to stay behind troops, such as an infantry captain who will be at high risk. And of course for them not to rush ahead if mounted. It should be okay for archer and infantry captains to be mounted and stay in the rear their formation advance. Also even a captain Cav should have a setting to not charge personally.
 

cadadr

Recruit
Try putting them on the bottom of your list, that should help to keep them away from the front line.
As for #2, I personally find that a bit lame, I'd rather play with no death.

I doubt the first thing, any devs saying this is a thing? I do keep them up top but what I think has the most effect is that they are part of cav or infantry or archers. It could work to switch them to heavy variants but then you lose the captain effect.
 

cadadr

Recruit
Is this true, do units try to fallow their list arrangement in formation? That's useful if so.

I think we need a "do not deploy" option for some units or groups and also a "stay defensive" for when you want them as a captain but want them to stay behind troops, such as an infantry captain who will be at high risk. And of course for them not to rush ahead if mounted. It should be okay for archer and infantry captains to be mounted and stay in the rear their formation advance. Also even a captain Cav should have a setting to not charge personally.

+++++++
 
Hmm, I always thought it made a difference when you have a large army, as he will be deployed at the back. But if he's a rider then yeah, makes no difference. Being a ranged troop might help as well, that's how I used to develop the weak ones in WB, since I can't really level the companions as it is in BL
 

Antaeus

Veteran
Keep them in their own battle grouping (the number on the party tab) and deploy them only when you're sure they'll be victorious. I keep mine under 8. I set them to follow me about the field unless I'm charging in myself, then I usually park them behind my infantry somewhere so they can keep an eye on flanks.

I really only recruit companions to my party for their scouting, healing or engineering perks, so I'm not that interested in them becoming super-human fighters. I mean, they are usually some drunk unemployed person you picked up at a pub (no offence to the unemployed folk at the pub amongst us), so it's not like they're going to be your top rate general straight off the bat.
 
Last edited:

cadadr

Recruit
I mean, they are usually some drunk unemployed person you picked up at a pub (no offence to the unemployed folk at the pub amongst us), so it's not like they're going to be your top rate general straight off the bat.
Huh, I suddenly find employment 😜

I'll be tring that. I recall reading somewhere that they may spawn in terribly exposed locations esp in village maps but lets see (skirmishers for example spawn 200m away in village centre when the party is by the fields). Frankly I don't do anything else with them except levelling up their smithy sometimes. Does this help with them dying in sieges?
 

SugarfreeTW

Recruit
I agree, developing my companions is one of my favourite parts of the game, it sucks that they can die at all when you can invest so much time and money into them, really hope this is reversed 'cause its kinda ruining the whole experience for me.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
I agree, developing my companions is one of my favourite parts of the game, it sucks that they can die at all when you can invest so much time and money into them, really hope this is reversed 'cause its kinda

Just disable the death option when you start a new game.
 

Antaeus

Veteran
I agree, developing my companions is one of my favourite parts of the game, it sucks that they can die at all when you can invest so much time and money into them, really hope this is reversed 'cause its kinda ruining the whole experience for me.

You want them to change the game because you told your in-game subordinate to run at a Sturgian shield wall and they died?

For you I'd make a suggested trait to the developers: Flippant with lives (Party leader) - General throws away the lives of their soldiers without care (+20% chance of desertion due to low morale)
 

SugarfreeTW

Recruit
You want them to change the game because you told your in-game subordinate to run at a Sturgian shield wall and they died?

If this had been how the game was designed from the start, that would be one thing, but until recently it was impossible for companions to die in battle, so its not nearly as silly as your disingenuous comment is suggesting.

Just disable the death option when you start a new game.

This removes ALL deaths and births, I just don't want my companions dying.
 

madnessario

Sergeant
If this had been how the game was designed from the start, that would be one thing, but until recently it was impossible for companions to die in battle, so its not nearly as silly as your disingenuous comment is suggesting.

Until the game is finally released this is false in the sense that the intended design probably included companion/noble deaths.

This removes ALL deaths and births, I just don't want my companions dying.

This ties to the previous argument. Without noble death, in combat (old age is still there), the world will reach a point where there are x3-x5 more nobles on the map when you are 80 years old (crude math, you get the point). This requires different balancing, something that can be done with a mod in my opinion.
 

SugarfreeTW

Recruit
Until the game is finally released this is false in the sense that the intended design probably included companion/noble deaths.
Have you just pulled this factoid out of the air? Where was this explained as being the intended design? Doesn't make any sense to me personally and there's no precedent for it.

This ties to the previous argument. Without noble death, in combat (old age is still there), the world will reach a point where there are x3-x5 more nobles on the map when you are 80 years old (crude math, you get the point). This requires different balancing, something that can be done with a mod in my opinion.
No we are talking about companion deaths, not deaths in general or noble deaths. I liked the previous system where nobles could only die from old age or if the player executed them and companions couldn't die at all.
 

madnessario

Sergeant
Have you just pulled this factoid out of the air? Where was this explained as being the intended design? Doesn't make any sense to me personally and there's no precedent for it.

I should have been more clear. Dynasty building was designed from the get go. This means that you need a way to reduce the number of incoming children->nobles->parties in the game. If you do not have death by combat you reach large populations until someone dies by old age. In that sense, the key word from my previous remark is probably.

No we are talking about companion deaths, not deaths in general or noble deaths. I liked the previous system where nobles could only die from old age or if the player executed them and companions couldn't die at all.

A companion acts as a noble for all intent and purposes. Your companion leads a war party as any other noble in a clan. He can be a governor etc. Making them immortal only for the player is unfair for the AI (which is already in a disadvantage compared to a human player) for a number of reasons. I like both systems, but I prefer what we have now. It makes more sense, it adds an element of not-suicide aspect to the game etc.
 

cadadr

Recruit
You want them to change the game because you told your in-game subordinate to run at a Sturgian shield wall and they died?

For you I'd make a suggested trait to the developers: Flippant with lives (Party leader) - General throws away the lives of their soldiers without care (+20% chance of desertion due to low morale)
Useless snark. The way it is nobles and companions go to the foremost line in their lineup. They could just stay right behind the formation and that'd be a huge improvement. Further, when a noble is leading e.g. infantry but is on horseback they stand right in the middle of the front most line and play like infantry, and they are like tower with a shoot me sign right there, esp in a shield wall or box formation. I doubt much if any nobles or sergeants were suicidal like that ever.

They can code in some self preservation to nobles and companions. Not that difficult or out of place.
 
Keep them in their own battle grouping (the number on the party tab) and deploy them only when you're sure they'll be victorious. I keep mine under 8. I set them to follow me about the field unless I'm charging in myself, then I usually park them behind my infantry somewhere so they can keep an eye on flanks.

I really only recruit companions to my party for their scouting, healing or engineering perks, so I'm not that interested in them becoming super-human fighters. I mean, they are usually some drunk unemployed person you picked up at a pub (no offence to the unemployed folk at the pub amongst us), so it's not like they're going to be your top rate general straight off the bat.
This only works when you aren't part of a larger army; when you are they go where the AI puts them (usually infantry or archers if dismounted). If they are mounted and have bows, then they should go to horse archers, which makes them quite survivable. Simple solution is for the dev to create a new hotkey category exclusively for companions (e.g. "x") that allows player control of the group for field battles, sieges, etc. even when you are not in command of the army.
 

Scipio65

Regular
You want them to change the game because you told your in-game subordinate to run at a Sturgian shield wall and they died?

For you I'd make a suggested trait to the developers: Flippant with lives (Party leader) - General throws away the lives of their soldiers without care (+20% chance of desertion due to low morale)
I have had them die sieging castles, being on the defense or offense in open fields..

I think the 10% is probably anytime they get wounded down to zero. Which simply can happen in any battle no matter what. Some enemy is going to lance them off a horse.. a crossbow hits their coconut... friendly fire from a catapult knocking down the siege tower with a rock... anything. I don't think you can really stop it.
 

Kismet23

Recruit
I would love a option to put units in a "camp follower" formation. So the player can chose to have companions with non fighting skills outside the fight.
I also find the idea good, to put captains in secound line nice. Everytime I see a noble charge at my shildwall like a manica, i wonder if the breed to long only with themself :smile:
I would not take them out completly, but now nobles and companions act like the had lose their minds.
 

Antaeus

Veteran
I have had them die sieging castles, being on the defense or offense in open fields..

I think the 10% is probably anytime they get wounded down to zero. Which simply can happen in any battle no matter what. Some enemy is going to lance them off a horse.. a crossbow hits their coconut... friendly fire from a catapult knocking down the siege tower with a rock... anything. I don't think you can really stop it.

I don't think it is ever about elimination of risk. On the battlefield there is always risk, it's more about managing that risk. Relative to what some seem to want, which is invincible super sidekicks.
 
Top Bottom