Feedback and suggestions
- Thread starter FerdiadITA
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
FerdiadITA
Squire
I should improve my English,however I'll try to be more clear.
The troops that you can't upgrade belong to bandits parties or are mercenaries.The first can't be upgraded in native too,the second don't have an upgrade because they spawn in taverns,and if instead of four kind of mercenaries you'd have 16,that would make a bit hard to find the one you're looking for.
Hope this is more explicative.
The troops that you can't upgrade belong to bandits parties or are mercenaries.The first can't be upgraded in native too,the second don't have an upgrade because they spawn in taverns,and if instead of four kind of mercenaries you'd have 16,that would make a bit hard to find the one you're looking for.
Hope this is more explicative.
Amnio
Recruit
Great work on the mod so far FerdiadITA.
The rusty and broken item-meshes really make for a more varied battlefield. Not to mention easier browsing in shops.
I do however see one problem with the combination of prefixes, like "rusty reinforced ..." and so on, there`s simply so many items that finding the good ones on the loot-screen after a battle can be a chore. Would it be possible to implement an autosorting loot-screen like the one in BoW?
Also, perhaps it would be an idea to start the NPC heroes off at a lower character-level? The way they are now they are unlikely to level more than a handful of times throughout the game, this in turn means less room for customisation. (They also seem to like the ridingskill alot.)
The rusty and broken item-meshes really make for a more varied battlefield. Not to mention easier browsing in shops.
I do however see one problem with the combination of prefixes, like "rusty reinforced ..." and so on, there`s simply so many items that finding the good ones on the loot-screen after a battle can be a chore. Would it be possible to implement an autosorting loot-screen like the one in BoW?
Also, perhaps it would be an idea to start the NPC heroes off at a lower character-level? The way they are now they are unlikely to level more than a handful of times throughout the game, this in turn means less room for customisation. (They also seem to like the ridingskill alot.)
FerdiadITA
Squire
Actually they're too strong,it's true.Make the early game too easy having them in the party.I'll make them all level 1,or at least something small(Grettir is like a tank on the battlefield).
(posted on another thread) Excellent idea!Adorno said:You should consider - later on - to write down a concise background story for the mod,
so the player could read it when starting a new game.
The feeling of being a part of history is after all the best thing about historical games
To a most excellent mod I should add. Best one I've played.
A few more minor remarks/requests:
* "futuristic" equipment - 2H swords, bardiche, plate armor, some helmets, etc. should be removed, if not completely from the game, then from the shops (leave them as rare loot or something?). I will not use them anyway, but they occupy a place in the merchant's inventory and interfere with the overall feel that the beautiful period equipment adds.
* Swords - the new ones look awesome (as all new equipment), but they are perhaps too abundant as troop equipment? They should be more of a symbol of status to top tier troops or lords and also much more expensive on the market.
* Spears - should be more abundant especially as low tier equipment. I am aware that this is a problem since thrusting pole arms are horrible right now. They are slow to begin with and when used with a shield even slower. I'd suggest bumping their speed (possible damage too) up by 33% so their current stats would be the 1H stats. I tested it and it does not make them great, but make them viable. A possible model addition would be the Hewing spear. It would be somewhat similar to the glaive, but with more emphasis on thrusting and much lighter and faster:
http://www.myarmoury.com/review_mrl_hewing.html
* 1.5H axes - Most axes are suitable for use with either 1 or 2 hands. Since the grip is just a pole (later knight axes had a hand grip). AI is terrible with 1.5H weapons, but they are great for the players. Since NPC armies use the added faction axes, why not apply this to the native 'battle axe' (its stats are perfect for this) or 'fighting axe' (which has a huge model for a 1H axe)? It is very easy to implement.
Another thing I just noticed - problems transported from Native:
The Brittons (ex. Rhodoks) still have the old rhodok weapon skill, which is very low. 5th tier Rhyswr (Rhodok Sargent) has a weapon skill of 75, compared with the typical 130/140 for other factions.
The Danes (ex. Nords) have a single troop branch that include mixed missile troops. This makes them hard to command and would be much better if split into two branches: one that has no missiles and another that has guaranteed missiles.
The Brittons (ex. Rhodoks) still have the old rhodok weapon skill, which is very low. 5th tier Rhyswr (Rhodok Sargent) has a weapon skill of 75, compared with the typical 130/140 for other factions.
The Danes (ex. Nords) have a single troop branch that include mixed missile troops. This makes them hard to command and would be much better if split into two branches: one that has no missiles and another that has guaranteed missiles.
FerdiadITA
Squire
mouthnhoof said:
Didn't noticed the first one,but I'll fix it.About the Danes,I never thought at their chance to be either archers or infantrymen as a problem,but to recreate the fact that Danes were all warriors,and more than it they used to be raiders,so they were able skilled both range and melee weapons.
P.S. Ubberdorc will say what he think about the firsts suggestions,he's the one that is working with the items.
Ubberdorc
Regular
* "futuristic" equipment - 2H swords, bardiche, plate armor, some helmets, etc. should be removed, if not completely from the game, then from the shops (leave them as rare loot or something?). I will not use them anyway, but they occupy a place in the merchant's inventory and interfere with the overall feel that the beautiful period equipment adds.
* Swords - the new ones look awesome (as all new equipment), but they are perhaps too abundant as troop equipment? They should be more of a symbol of status to top tier troops or lords and also much more expensive on the market.
The futuristic weans and armors are being phased out - no worries -
I agree about the swords - top teir only - I am also thinking about doubling the price on them.
* Swords - the new ones look awesome (as all new equipment), but they are perhaps too abundant as troop equipment? They should be more of a symbol of status to top tier troops or lords and also much more expensive on the market.
The futuristic weans and armors are being phased out - no worries -
I agree about the swords - top teir only - I am also thinking about doubling the price on them.
pentagathus
Baron
FerdiadITA said:
At this time "warriors" very rarely used bows. It was cowardly and to learn how to use a bow properly takes a hell of a long time. Longbowmen had to be trained from childhood so that they could simply use them. Javelins are a period weapon and mabye having dane infantry armed with javelins and a seperate missile tree.
FerdiadITA
Squire
Apart from the cowardy thing,I think that could be something reasonable to have javelines infantry and archers separate.I'll think about it.
If you want to keep the same "feel" for them, you can create an identical branch, except that the new one will have guarantee_missile flag and the original one will have all missiles removed from inventory. They will look the same, fight the same as they are now, with the only difference being that you can control the exact percentage of missile troops in your army and you can give separate infantry and archers commands on the battle field.FerdiadITA said:
FerdiadITA
Squire
And then the Danes will become a faction too easy to command and take to victory.No a separate archer troops is the best thing,fur and rusty armored basically.
I have read the opposite. Bows were commonly used, especially when boarding ships but also on the battlefield,pentagathus said:
where some sagas refer to a 'missile phase' before the melee battle.
It's true that we have only have little 'written' evidence from before 10th century about the use of bows in battle,
but there is no reason to believe that bows were not used in battles.
"We know that the Vikings made use of the bow quite extensively both on land and at sea,
especially the Norwegians (recorded as 'Famous bowmen') and the Swedes
(the word 'bow' sometimes being used to denote a warrior in Sweden)".
Reference: http://www.regia.org/warfare/SaxonArchery.htm
Master bowmen can't suddenly have turned up around 10th century.
The tradition for use of bow in battle is probably very old, much older than the 8-9th century.
And of course it took a long time to learn how to use a bow, but practically all vikings handled a bow for hunting (and thus also battle).
More reference:
http://www.chichesterinc.com/TYMEAGAINSwordsetc.HTM
http://www.vikingsonline.org.uk/resources/articles/archery.html
When it comes to javelins, I haven't found anything supporting the use of that among vikings.
(Not saying that it wasn't used, I just don't know).
FerdiadITA
Squire
More then javelines they were considered as throwing spears,or better,as spears that can be used in both ways,as throwing weapons or melee weapons.Since is not possible to recreate this aspect with M&B(or at least I don't know how),infantry use javelines.
Norwegians were famous bowmen,as all the vikings.That's because of their "raiders nature",which make really useful to have a bow,and to know how to use it.
But there's the problem of the inability to divide the troops in infantry and ranged troops.
So here's I decided to make a poll to decide what would be better for you,infantry and archers divided or united.
Norwegians were famous bowmen,as all the vikings.That's because of their "raiders nature",which make really useful to have a bow,and to know how to use it.
But there's the problem of the inability to divide the troops in infantry and ranged troops.
So here's I decided to make a poll to decide what would be better for you,infantry and archers divided or united.
I think this one is very tricky
I voted divided, simply because it makes tactics easier.
Historically it would probably be more correct to have them united,
since the modern, professional army with specialised troops wasn't
perfected yet. Most vikings mastered the bow and a melee weapon (axe, spear etc.).
There was no infantry and archers. Just warriors
A viking with a bow was not less trained in melee combat than others.
I voted divided, simply because it makes tactics easier.
Historically it would probably be more correct to have them united,
since the modern, professional army with specialised troops wasn't
perfected yet. Most vikings mastered the bow and a melee weapon (axe, spear etc.).
There was no infantry and archers. Just warriors
A viking with a bow was not less trained in melee combat than others.
FerdiadITA
Squire
This is true,but if archers will be the same as they equivalent infantryman with a bow,they'll become a devastating melee warrior that will kill half of your army with arrows.
This is why I decided to not give bows to the brattamadur(top tier troop for the Danes).
So archers and Infantry divided means that archers won't be well armored,or have good melee fighting abilities.
This is why I decided to not give bows to the brattamadur(top tier troop for the Danes).
So archers and Infantry divided means that archers won't be well armored,or have good melee fighting abilities.
Matrix33
Knight at Arms
Well, I would give equal meele skills to standard grunt and archer type of warrior. I would just give little lighter armour to ranged warriors (for keeping game balance only).
It would make things more realistic in terms of real fighting abilities of Vikings bands and armies.
Just my 2 cents.
It would make things more realistic in terms of real fighting abilities of Vikings bands and armies.
Just my 2 cents.
