frugal vs spartan??

[RodLimitless]

for the steward talents, which one is best long run???

the 5% party cost decrease or the taking away penalty for single food items??

like how much would spartan boost morale by, and does high morale help before battles or it's just so trooops wont desert ?

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I take frugal, it's in you interest to have food diversity anyways so usually will not have only 1 type of food anyways.
The moral helps them not route as easily in battle and also activates some skill gains such as leadership and I think more steward if the moral it beyond a point and some perks turn on from high moral. If moral is say under 40 you troops will rout very quickly in battle and lower then that they will start to disband daily as well, not sure what the exact break point is.

Just use that five% wage to buy more food types and you'll always have more +moral!

 

[black_bulldog]

I take frugal, it's in you interest to have food diversity anyways so usually will not have only 1 type of food anyways.
The moral helps them not route as easily in battle and also activates some skill gains such as leadership and I think more steward if the moral it beyond a point and some perks turn on from high moral. If moral is say under 40 you troops will rout very quickly in battle and lower then that they will start to disband daily as well, not sure what the exact break point is.

Just use that five% wage to buy more food types and you'll always have more +moral!

While I get this idea, imho if you're going to get leadership high enough (+100) then having multiple sources of food is useless. Yes it helps in the early to mid game but I'm typically around 100 leadership by the end of the first year. There's nothing stopping you from using food as a morale booster early on so it's not penalizing you for having various foods. Personally I'd rather just buy grain and be done with it because it's cheaper and more readily available and I can't be asked to run around looking for every kind of food, I guess I'm just lazy. Also consuming 10% less food while leading an army really can help, just my 2 cents.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

I don't think either of them is making difference in the long run. I always choose any less money perk in the perk tree. But in the long run, you become so rich that I think these perks lose their significance. I don't remember that my party morale drop below 70 in the late game even if I am someone who does not pay attention to food diversity. Of course, in the late game, money should not be something to worry about as much as early and mid game but right now, money becomes so meaningless in the late game.

 

[Eneas21]

@Bjorn The Hound
I think thats a problem, too much money on late game, there should a higher risk to getting poor again or just having to rely on your fiefs for a time to recover. We have an economy that makes possible being a millionaire with almost no fiefs like you were Jeff Bezos or Elon Musk in a capitalistic society like its XXI century. Economy in medieval ages cant have such reliance on coin and market. Fiefs, trading caravans and local bussiness you own should be the main source of income, loot after battle gives too much in this game, and sacking villages or towns should give more.

Gear is overpriced to make it hard for the player to get well equipped, giving a sense of progression, but at the same time winning battles, taking loot and selling all that overpriced gear makes it too easy for the player to get rich. There should be less loot after battle, you cant bash their helmets with a poleaxe and then sell it like its new and ready to use, its too damaged. So instead there should be a durability feature that affects price, and perks and stuff so that your gear and your party gear is repaired constantly over time or by going to a town and asking the blacksmith to fix your troops armor by paying a lot and staying in the city for a few days, but improving their performance on battle.

Another alternative, though they can both be used, is that after a battle you get X amount of loot, part of it is okay to use, same as now, and the other majority of gear involved in battle is not in a good condition and you get scrap metal as a material, which you can melt to get proper iron, steel, etc.

I think the second option is the best since its easier, it makes the smithing mechanic better, rebalances economy to make it more property and trading based like it should in a feudal society, though there should be a boost to fief income, a massive one.

Another way to make sacking more profitable could be to make money material in the game world, those 2M denars you carry in late game have to be SOMEWHERE, currently is like they are bitcoin, unrealistic. They have to be stored somewhere, most of it should be in your castle, city, bussiness treasury, caravan treasury, some of it with your party, and banks too with a cost for saving your money. And the profit of sacking should be linked to how much money you can yoink from these places, while giving a lot to your men too. And you can get fcked too if the city where you stored most of it is lost too.

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

I don't think we could get having to store your money feature somewhere(actually you can store your money in the game on your fiefs but the game does not make you to have to store) or maintaining your army gear feature(I don't know how I feel about this actually, it might be too much of micromanagement and there is too much war going on right now, that this too can be boring repetitive stuff you have to do) since I think TW's vision right now does not align with these features. However, having a price debuff on gear equipment, which you get from loot, is something we could ask from TW. Nonetheless, these two feature you are talking about making the game difficult and that is something this game so much lacking right now.

 

[Apocal]

I don't think either of them is making difference in the long run. I always choose any less money perk in the perk tree. But in the long run, you become so rich that I think these perks lose their significance. I don't remember that my party morale drop below 70 in the late game even if I am someone who does not pay attention to food diversity. Of course, in the late game, money should not be something to worry about as much as early and mid game but right now, money becomes so meaningless in the late game.

Frugal stacks with others to make daily party costs a minimal concern, assuming you stack them correctly.

 

[Eneas21]

I don't think we could get having to store your money feature somewhere(actually you can store your money in the game on your fiefs but the game does not make you to have to store) or maintaining your army gear feature(I don't know how I feel about this actually, it might be too much of micromanagement and there is too much war going on right now, that this too can be boring repetitive stuff you have to do) since I think TW's vision right now does not align with these features. However, having a price debuff on gear equipment, which you get from loot, is something we could ask from TW. Nonetheless, these two feature you are talking about making the game difficult and that is something this game so much lacking right now.

I agree about TW situation and yeah the goal is to make it harder and more realistic. Also when i said about maintaining the army gear i didnt mean to actually go piece by piece, just by troop types, like "these x30 vlandian vanguard gets everything fixed for 600 denars and a 8h wait in settlement" I wouldnt consider that too much micromanaging, but by TW standards it is obviously. Anyway its best to forget because the AI would have to do it too and thats just adding more stuff to their calculations and opening to new bugs, at best it should be simulated, like if this AI lord has over X amount of denars, he is rich, therefore all this troops always have gear in good condition, if its lower than X then they dont have enough, only top 70% of troops have good condition gear, etc. Thats would be the safest way

But I really think they should balance the selling loot money vs fiefs/bussiness because it is ridiculous

 

[RodLimitless]

While I get this idea, imho if you're going to get leadership high enough (+100) then having multiple sources of food is useless. Yes it helps in the early to mid game but I'm typically around 100 leadership by the end of the first year. There's nothing stopping you from using food as a morale booster early on so it's not penalizing you for having various foods. Personally I'd rather just buy grain and be done with it because it's cheaper and more readily available and I can't be asked to run around looking for every kind of food, I guess I'm just lazy. Also consuming 10% less food while leading an army really can help, just my 2 cents.

you actually get to 100 leadership just by taking Spartan over frugal? that's how much the morale buff is?

Right now my morale is usually around 60-70 and i'm winning battle after battle after battle but can't get it to raise above 90 nor 100. And I am interested in leveling the leadership for veteran's respect (disciplinarian).

In every playthrough i've played, I've always taken the frugal for money saving early game,

but this playthrough i still haven't chosen. any additional input would be much appreciated

 

[anoddhermit]

It's good to have moral 76+ since there are some good bonuses for high morale - for example in Scouting a +2.5% move speed I always grab - or if you have a companion scout hopefully they have it.

Troops eating more food costs money anyway, so I always grab Spartan regardless. It could be a mistake but it does result in a bit less inventory management to have food items last longer.

Not sure what the rate of food consumption is though and done no math on this. I assume there's some point where one or the other becomes better economically.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I agree about TW situation and yeah the goal is to make it harder and more realistic. Also when i said about maintaining the army gear i didnt mean to actually go piece by piece, just by troop types, like "these x30 vlandian vanguard gets everything fixed for 600 denars and a 8h wait in settlement" I wouldnt consider that too much micromanaging, but by TW standards it is obviously. Anyway its best to forget because the AI would have to do it too and thats just adding more stuff to their calculations and opening to new bugs, at best it should be simulated, like if this AI lord has over X amount of denars, he is rich, therefore all this troops always have gear in good condition, if its lower than X then they dont have enough, only top 70% of troops have good condition gear, etc. Thats would be the safest way

But I really think they should balance the selling loot money vs fiefs/bussiness because it is ridiculous

This has already came up and gone back down. TW does not want to add more menu clicking BS for the player to have to do in normal gameplay. They may add changes to wages that simulate some effect of more cost for more advanced troops, however t4-6 troops already cost too much for thier performance level, so this need to be addressed before increases could be justified.

IMO the problem is much more that there's not enough good things to do with money and not that the player gets too much. Many player do not get that much and have a hard time with this aspect of the game too.

you actually get to 100 leadership just by taking Spartan over frugal? that's how much the morale buff is?

It doesn't give a moral buff. What it is, if you have say only grain for you troops to eat you get a -moral penalty, it's either -1 or -2(don't remember), if you have spartan perk on quartermaster you don't get this -moral.
HOWEVER if you have more types of food you not only don't get the -moral but you +moral too (up to +9 with max variety), so like I said, I would just take frugal and remember to buy more food types.

@black_bulldog is saying that after they get leadership to 100+ the moral bonus from leadership is enough that they don't worry about food variety for + moral. It's worth pointing out that this should mean he also doesn't need the spartan perk either at this point.

I don't think he means that the spartan perk helped him get leadership to 100 though. If anything I think the + max moral from food diversity would be a greater help in raising leadership as having more moral give you leadership (very small amount) exp daily. However the bulk of leadership exp usually comes from becoming a vassal and forming armies for more leadership exp daily.

 

[RodLimitless]

This has already came up and gone back down. TW does not want to add more menu clicking BS for the player to have to do in normal gameplay. They may add changes to wages that simulate some effect of more cost for more advanced troops, however t4-6 troops already cost too much for thier performance level, so this need to be addressed before increases could be justified.

IMO the problem is much more that there's not enough good things to do with money and not that the player gets too much. Many player do not get that much and have a hard time with this aspect of the game too.


It doesn't give a moral buff. What it is, if you have say only grain for you troops to eat you get a -moral penalty, it's either -1 or -2(don't remember), if you have spartan perk on quartermaster you don't get this -moral.
HOWEVER if you have more types of food you not only don't get the -moral but you +moral too (up to +9 with max variety), so like I said, I would just take frugal and remember to buy more food types.

@black_bulldog is saying that after they get leadership to 100+ the moral bonus from leadership is enough that they don't worry about food variety for + moral. It's worth pointing out that this should mean he also doesn't need the spartan perk either at this point.

I don't think he means that the spartan perk helped him get leadership to 100 though. If anything I think the + max moral from food diversity would be a greater help in raising leadership as having more moral give you leadership (very small amount) exp daily. However the bulk of leadership exp usually comes from becoming a vassal and forming armies for more leadership exp daily.

ahhh i see. i thought it was like you were always at -9 morale if you didn't have all 9 food sources, and spartan got rid of it. wasn't aware of how it worked. this helped a lot

 

[black_bulldog]

@black_bulldog is saying that after they get leadership to 100+ the moral bonus from leadership is enough that they don't worry about food variety for + moral. It's worth pointing out that this should mean he also doesn't need the spartan perk either at this point.

I don't think he means that the spartan perk helped him get leadership to 100 though. If anything I think the + max moral from food diversity would be a greater help in raising leadership as having more moral give you leadership (very small amount) exp daily. However the bulk of leadership exp usually comes from becoming a vassal and forming armies for more leadership exp daily.

Correct