Killing an army needs to have a much bigger reward

Currently viewing this thread:

It has gotten to the point where the only time i engage armies in an even fight is when they are sieging one of my fiefs and even then there are many ways around that. The cost of losing men so heavily outweighs the reward of beating an army that it is almost stupid. At least with sieges you gain something for all the men lost and i still dont siege places directly. What do you gain when you beat an army? You get some gold and tbh nothing else. They have tinkered with the tribute payments so much that even when i wipe out 10 armies back to back other kingdoms still want me to pay 500 gold to them. Pls do something. I find myself mainly using passive options now to deal with enemies just because the cost to reward ratio is so broken right now and that is kinda aids.
 

el_infante

Sergeant at Arms
WBWF&S
Since the AI cheats on recruitment, also cheats on upgrading troops (no horses required) and can also create armies from thin air on respawn there is no point other than renown for wiping an army. Every lord is Harry Houdini, so expect them to come back with an army full of recruits in two weeks.

If you don't mind chopping their heads, it's the way to go.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVC
Mind giving a concrete example of the additional reward you want? I've seen people saying the rewards are too big and it's too easy to get rich from it and stuff. Personally I think it's good enough. You get loot, prisoners and basically cripple their power for a while. To be fair tho, I pick my battles. I don't jump into an evenly matched battle because I know of the risks.
 
Mind giving a concrete example of the additional reward you want? I've seen people saying the rewards are too big and it's too easy to get rich from it and stuff. Personally I think it's good enough. You get loot, prisoners and basically cripple their power for a while. To be fair tho, I pick my battles. I don't jump into an evenly matched battle because I know of the risks.
The only thing you get is money. Prisoners is redundant unless you lose very few men in the fight, otherwise you will still come back with less than you started with. And as for crippling their power it in no way does that. I have gone to war with factions and wiped 10 1000 man armies back to back. And as for what i would want i think it would be nice if wiping an army DID in fact cripple them for a time. Perhaps notables should have a bottomless pit of recruits to throw at you. Like if you wipe 10000 men then there should literally be no more levies left in their nations cause they are all DEAD. And when causality get so high for one war they should be willing to pay up. Idk if this only effects me but no enemy nation ever if willing to pay me a tribute anymore. I literally wiped an entire nation and even after we took their last city they were still asking for a 500 gold tribute.
 

SOku

Veteran
A nice and indirect reward would be positive Diplomatic resources after you beat an army, we can see that the AI comment those things when they meet you, but as far as I know there is nothing else than a small piece of text.
It all lies down to the fact that Dialogue and Diplomatic relations are too shallow, but it seems reasonable to have those rewards after being victorious a couple of times, thus granting the player much more power while Bartering for example or negociating a Peace with Tribute. ( granting you that time direct resources / gold )

To be honest, peace with tribute should be a more deeper mechanic than it is right now.
 
Mind giving a concrete example of the additional reward you want? I've seen people saying the rewards are too big and it's too easy to get rich from it and stuff. Personally I think it's good enough. You get loot, prisoners and basically cripple their power for a while. To be fair tho, I pick my battles. I don't jump into an evenly matched battle because I know of the risks.
Not OP, but I would like to feel that defeating a large army in a hard fought battle is somehow decisive or significant. The fact that they come back in two weeks with another full stack is demoralizing and not fun game play.
 

Magello

Sergeant
I think a morale penalty to any of the lords and their settlements in the army you defeated. And a boast to your lords and settlements morale.

I also think that repeatedly depleting a city or village of their recruits should lower their prosperity. This would give those lords who keep building quick armies a negative return for doing so.
 

Adrivan

Sergeant at Arms
Dont you take several lords prisoner when you win a large battle? Just throw them in a dungeon and you wont see them again for some time. Sure, they will eventually escape, but at least they dont immediately come back with another army.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Maybe make it so that if you wipe out an army (say 200+ men) the area of recruitment is penalized for about one month? That could be a good reason to fight armies, so that you are safer for a time. A boost to morale and prosperity for the winner would also be good.
 
The way the game is designed its going to be really hard to balance this. When the game first released into EA I think the AI was recruiting from the same pool as the player and once they lost their armies it was hard for them to raise armies, this was a problem because it led to snowballing effect vs other AI and also was kind of boring for the player as there weren't enough armies to fight. Now since the AI cheats it has led to non stop fights which is I guess good vs snowballing but very bad for the player. Since the map is so big and each faction has so many lords and prisoners escape so easily it results in non stop armies or just hordes of lords attacking you when you're sieging. So I don't really see what can be done in the current design. They could maybe make it so the AI can't form an army too quickly after defeat or something like that, but it doesn't solve the problem you face during a siege where you just get attacked by 10 separate lords at once. The only solution I've really seen is a mod that breaks the game into tons of little clans so you're only at war with smaller clans so you don't really have the problem of fighting vs 50 or more lords at once. I think its called Calradia Divided. I'm pretty sure this is not something the main game will do.

Another idea I had was that if you could join a faction and than go to war vs specific clan than that would be another way to keep the conflict small so you're not fighting armies after armies. You could even have allies internally in the faction that could join you or your enemy could call on allies as well, this could create more interesting diplomatic options as well, but it doesn't seem like the game that taleworlds wants to create. They have said before they want to make the game more action oriented and less management, so doubt we'll see any complicated system in the game and are probably going to be stuck with either unending armies or basically no armies to fight.
 

Bob Gnarly

Sergeant at Arms
Dont you take several lords prisoner when you win a large battle? Just throw them in a dungeon and you wont see them again for some time. Sure, they will eventually escape, but at least they dont immediately come back with another army.
This.

You should be taking lords prisoners which makes it difficult for the faction to return with another strong force.

If TW tweaks this any further, snowballing will become an issue again and campaigns won't be lasting very long.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVC
Dont you take several lords prisoner when you win a large battle? Just throw them in a dungeon and you wont see them again for some time. Sure, they will eventually escape, but at least they dont immediately come back with another army.
Yes, and after escaping, those lords will come back only with a small army of recruits that are not a concern. They're basically free money at that point. However, people still seem to find that annoying.
 

Grank

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVC
Would be if smithing wasn't a thing tbh. Although with how much it costs to upgrade troops like cavalry, i still think thats too little.
As a filthy Khuzait I'll have to disagree. I always find those little recruit armies to be enough to upgrade my horsemen. My issue instead lies in the supply of war horses. While a steppe war horse is cheaper than war horses in other regions, I don't think there's that much price difference.
 

Akka

Sergeant
As usual, rather than adding a new layer to compensate for a problem, it's better to just fix the problem itself.
The problem is that AI cheats to get back on its feet. Fix the cheating.
 
Top Bottom