Disciplinarian perk too late?

Currently viewing this thread:

Rhyuus

Recruit
I think the disciplinarian perk should be one of the first in the leadership skill tree, or even in another skill tree (eg. roguery) because:

Leadership is hard to level at the beginning, but it's the first few days where you are actively hunting looters/bandits and eventually recruit them. At the point you really start to level your leadership skill (with armies) you probably have no use for this perk anymore because your troops are full of skilled warriors and you rather fight other troops/armies than looters/bandits.
 
Last edited:
The thing is that the Disciplinarian perk can turn bandit troops (really common/easy to get) into noble troops, which are extremely rare and valuable.
Which is really good and very worth it for a 125 skill level perk, but for a 25 skill level perk it's a bit over the top.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
If I could get Champions from Highwaymen at Leadership 25, I would never recruit out of a village.
 
Last edited:

TheShermanator

Sergeant
Definitely agree that 125 is too late. It falls into the classic character-build trap: By the time I get it, I'm late enough in the game that I don't care about it / it doesn't matter. Late game, your party is too slow to catch most looters and bandits most of the time. Also, you have so much money late game that you have no hesitation to collect (and expose to death for leveling purposes) all of the regular recruits you encounter.

Also agree that 25 would be way too early. Hard to say exactly where it should fall. 75 maybe?
 

grgazzels

Recruit
(edited) Agree, if im leader focused I lose most of other traits. I tend to focus on leader, tactics and stewardship. And lean others in battle. But leadership is hard if you dont start heavy in it at first, Cant level up until later game. Opp's, an edit misread, not that early in the tree, 75 earliest.
 
Last edited:

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
Disagree.

It's fine where it is. If it's available in the early phases of the campaign, like someone said, the entire recruiting-leveling system is meaningless.

Just capture bandits -- usually better than most regular t1-2-3 troops, cheaper to maintain, and easier to recruit from prisoners... and then within a few fights they get to become noble-tier troops. Totally broken if this becomes possible earlier on.

WTF would I need to try and maintain good terms with powerful landowners in handful of villages, when I can go make entire 10~15-man groups of bandits surrender and join the army with brute force, and then have them all turn into Vlandian Champions and Battanian Fians, Sturgian Druzhinaks?

At the time you reach 125 in leadership, you've already plenty of experience in leading big armies, probably engaged in a lot of wars with attrition rates becoming a problem. At that point disciplinarian can help out by lessening the burden of maintaining enough number of noble troops by taking in bandits. But when you get to tote around this perk when you're still an adventurer, or just a minor lord, then it's just totally off balance.
 

Rhyuus

Recruit
Interesting thoughts here.
In my case: i wanted it, now i don't need it because even my prisoners are full of high level soldiers waiting to be recruited and my reputation is high.

But how about putting the disciplinarian perk into the roguery skill tree?
You level roguery by raiding caravans and towns, doing so you ruin your relation with the ones that can give you the good recruits. If disciplinarian was a perk of roguery this would be a balancing mechanic to get the special troops.
 

TheShermanator

Sergeant
Disagree.

It's fine where it is. If it's available in the early phases of the campaign, like someone said, the entire recruiting-leveling system is meaningless.

Just capture bandits -- usually better than most regular t1-2-3 troops, cheaper to maintain, and easier to recruit from prisoners... and then within a few fights they get to become noble-tier troops. Totally broken if this becomes possible earlier on.

WTF would I need to try and maintain good terms with powerful landowners in handful of villages, when I can go make entire 10~15-man groups of bandits surrender and join the army with brute force, and then have them all turn into Vlandian Champions and Battanian Fians, Sturgian Druzhinaks?

At the time you reach 125 in leadership, you've already plenty of experience in leading big armies, probably engaged in a lot of wars with attrition rates becoming a problem. At that point disciplinarian can help out by lessening the burden of maintaining enough number of noble troops by taking in bandits. But when you get to tote around this perk when you're still an adventurer, or just a minor lord, then it's just totally off balance.
Again, I think most of us agree that true early game (e.g L25) is too early. But how do you answer my specific earlier critiques? As in, by L125, I’m too big/slow to bother w bandits (love me those stewardship perks) and too rich anyway for it to matter. I think L75 or even L100 would be a better spot.
 
Again, I think most of us agree that true early game (e.g L25) is too early. But how do you answer my specific earlier critiques? As in, by L125, I’m too big/slow to bother w bandits (love me those stewardship perks) and too rich anyway for it to matter. I think L75 or even L100 would be a better spot.
You can still go popping into Bandit Hideouts. And there are always going to be fat bandit gangs roaming around for you to hit. And if not that, you can always dump your troops into a garrison and roam around with a cavalry force to capture bandits with.

Also yeah, Disciplinarian at level 25 would be too much. Its good where it is, although if you have a castle its kind of weak as well.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Interesting thoughts here.
In my case: i wanted it, now i don't need it because even my prisoners are full of high level soldiers waiting to be recruited and my reputation is high.

But how about putting the disciplinarian perk into the roguery skill tree?
You level roguery by raiding caravans and towns, doing so you ruin your relation with the ones that can give you the good recruits. If disciplinarian was a perk of roguery this would be a balancing mechanic to get the special troops.

This is a good idea, but I don't thinking hitting caravans wrecks village rep? Just town notables and lords.
 

dcolinfox

Recruit
One thing to point out is that later in the game, if you have a sizable party, it's hard to catch up to bandits and such, so it does make it a bit pointless later in the game when you're focused on much larger battles. Are we supposed to ignore our settlements getting besieged to hunt down bandits just to recruit them when we can recruit prisoners from the armies we fight? I think it'd be better if that perk were instantiated earlier on (say 75), but with the added stipulation that we could only upgrade them after they spent a certain amount of time in our own dungeons, or something similar.
 
One thing to point out is that later in the game, if you have a sizable party, it's hard to catch up to bandits and such, so it does make it a bit pointless later in the game when you're focused on much larger battles. Are we supposed to ignore our settlements getting besieged to hunt down bandits just to recruit them when we can recruit prisoners from the armies we fight? I think it'd be better if that perk were instantiated earlier on (say 75), but with the added stipulation that we could only upgrade them after they spent a certain amount of time in our own dungeons, or something similar.
You can pop your armies into garrisons while you go bandit hunting, tbh. Won't even get besieged if your settlement's garrisons are beefy enough to scare the enemy off.
 

MinhTien

Veteran
WBVC
I personally think Disciplinarian is already too powerful as it is, you can't just buff it by lowering the requirement. You get a lot of Noble troops from just 1 perk.

I think lower the skill requirement AND nerf the upgrade to common troops instead of Noble would make it more fair and make more sense.
 

TheShermanator

Sergeant
I personally think Disciplinarian is already too powerful as it is, you can't just buff it by lowering the requirement. You get a lot of Noble troops from just 1 perk.

I think lower the skill requirement AND nerf the upgrade to common troops instead of Noble would make it more fair and make more sense.

+1. Worthy player QOL trade off.
 

TheShermanator

Sergeant
You can pop your armies into garrisons while you go bandit hunting, tbh. Won't even get besieged if your settlement's garrisons are beefy enough to scare the enemy off.

True, but only true as far as it goes. You can do this, but who does this? Or, more precisely, who is doing this so often in the mid-late game that it makes the effort to get 125 leadership worth it? By the time you have 125 leadership, your time is, mostly, better spent doing other bigger-picture things. That means that time spent hunting bandits creates an opportunity cost of defeating rival armies, taking fiefs, defending fiefs, etc. I agree that garrisons can be used to temporarily shrink player party size to hunt looters and bandits in the mid-late game - but that is way too unwieldy to be worth doing, especially in the mid-late game (early kingdom ish).
 
I agree. The Disciplinarian perk should be available much earlier, because by the time you're able to get it, it is useless and unnecessary. Later perks should be the ones that you will need in the late stages of the game, when you've committed to a certain build type. But this perk won't EVER be used by the time you get to 125 in leadership, because you'll already have TONS of noble troops by then. You will have no use for recruiting the rabble.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
I agree. The Disciplinarian perk should be available much earlier, because by the time you're able to get it, it is useless and unnecessary. Later perks should be the ones that you will need in the late stages of the game, when you've committed to a certain build type. But this perk won't EVER be used by the time you get to 125 in leadership, because you'll already have TONS of noble troops by then. You will have no use for recruiting the rabble.

I had a good reason to recruit them because those goddamned Aserai castle sieges. Or maybe a town siege, I can't quite recall, but you're basically forced to go up a fairly steep incline, with archers along the wall parallel to your advance, then turn to face full gauntlet of archers before reaching the gate or wall breach.

Other sieges are fine-ish, but that one always takes a toll of my Khan's Guards and Vanguard Faris. So I keep Raiders and Haramis in my party for easy replacements without having to level up from T2 units.
 
Top Bottom