Late Game Fix

Users who are viewing this thread

To me minor factions / mercenary clans should be made stronger by owning top tier units for their exclusives - and the game should get a system for contracts where they become bound to you until the contract expires IF you choose not to renew it, making possible to bypass the renewal or abandon the contract if you go bankrupt or if they hate your guts.
The actual current function of those minor clans' to simply annoy the crap out of the player because they'll join the weakest faction, even if they are bankrupt and cannot pay, than zerg around in mini-parties raiding and attacking innocents & caravans endlessly... Currently the best option in vanilla is to simply murder all of them - problem solved. Issue is that for that to actually work you gotta murder all members of the clan simultaneously otherwise the game spawns substitutes, and you'll get arbitrarily karma bombed by TW's disgusting system for executions, realistically only a couple lords would get mad at that and the OG enemy faction should instead be thrilled... Like, killing those Ghilman or the Jawwal should make Aserai declare a holyday... Or ridding the empire from the Hidden Hand / Legion of the Betrayed / Eleftheroi (all three are traitors to the Empire in-lore) Instead we get the RNG karma bomb - which goes against the own game's lore...

To me it's just an intentional anti-player mechanic - TW has a lot of that bias rolling in BL.
Yeah agreed. I would probably be less annoyed with minor factions if the units themselves weren't paper weights as well. I like your suggestion of set time contracts and us having the option of renewing or cancelling the contract. It's essentially how it was in Warband, but from the employer's perspective.

The current system of hiring minor factions just serve as an unnecessary glue that's barely holding functionally dead kingdoms together. The snowballing is no longer much of an issue, just let us get rid of kingdoms which should've died out already. These kingdoms with not only their foot, but their whole torso being in the grave, yet surviving and annoying the crap out of the player is one of the problems with the game anyway.

The game has so many artificial barriers in it for no reason, which just takes the immersion out of the game for the players, such as the renown and clan tier system. Just let us get a +1 to party size for every 25 renown like in Warband (but maybe with a ceiling to max party size?) rather than these weird and unnecessary thresholds. Just let us get the max limit of companions from the get go, but limit it through the companions arguing with each other and having a higher chance of leaving the party if there are too many companions, where we could increase this effective maximum through charm and/or leadership. Let us have an "unlimited" amount of workshops but add a debuff to income which scales with the number of owned workshops like the tax inefficiency mechanic in Warband called idk "admin costs" or something, so we would have an effective maximum number which we could increase our overall number of effective workshops. I'm aware that this would be very broken in combination with the perk which gives +1 renown each day for every profitable workshop but they can maybe limit it at +5 renown at max a day or something.
 
Last edited:

JunKeteer

Veteran
The game has so many artificial barriers in it for no reason, which just takes the immersion out of the game for the players, such as the renown and clan tier system. Just let us get a +1 to party size for every 25 renown like in Warband (but maybe with a ceiling to max party size?) rather than these weird and unnecessary thresholds. Just let us get the max limit of companions from the get go, but limit it through the companions arguing with each other and having a higher chance of leaving the party if there are too many companions, where we could increase this effective maximum through charm and/or leadership. Let us have an "unlimited" amount of workshops but add a debuff to income which scales with the number of owned workshops like the tax inefficiency mechanic in Warband called idk "admin costs" or something, so we would have an effective maximum number which we could increase our overall number of effective workshops. I'm aware that this would be very broken in combination with the perk which gives +1 renown each day for every profitable workshop but they can maybe limit it at +5 renown at max a day or something.
Exactly, too many questionable barriers - completely anti-player and it's solely to try and keep that 'world' balanced by limiting what the player can min/max or do to avoid breaking their very delicate/buggy/imbalanced 'world' system.
Why do we get a limited number of companions? When we still have to pay them quite a high wage in comparison, while still having to use them for caravans, use them for governors (and limited to culture related governors with how they set up loyalty), extra parties, party roles, OOB captains, capped growth on #/clan tier, etc...
We should be able to hire as many companions as we can, let us deal with the wage balancing, managing all their skills/armor, or try and somehow manage 20 companion parties without going broke. Whether that breaks the game balance or even steamrolls, it's a single-player game, if it breaks the balance, that's on the player/playthrough. We don't even have that choice.
 
Exactly, too many questionable barriers - completely anti-player and it's solely to try and keep that 'world' balanced by limiting what the player can min/max or do to avoid breaking their very delicate/buggy/imbalanced 'world' system.
Why do we get a limited number of companions? When we still have to pay them quite a high wage in comparison, while still having to use them for caravans, use them for governors (and limited to culture related governors with how they set up loyalty), extra parties, party roles, OOB captains, capped growth on #/clan tier, etc...
We should be able to hire as many companions as we can, let us deal with the wage balancing, managing all their skills/armor, or try and somehow manage 20 companion parties without going broke. Whether that breaks the game balance or even steamrolls, it's a single-player game, if it breaks the balance, that's on the player/playthrough. We don't even have that choice.
Exactly. I wish we could have a companion only playthrough in native (well technically we can, but having like 5 companions doesn't cut it). I wouldn't mind us having 4 parties (5 with leadership 250) as maximum to keep the player's mechanical capabilities on par with the AI (I'm assuming increasing the maximum number of parties would result in a performance hit, also the game is already grindy enough with the AI being able to field 3-4 parties at once, I wouldn't want more parties on average), but gatekeeping additional parties through arbitrary barriers such as clan tiers is just immersion breaking.
 
Last edited:

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
Exactly, too many questionable barriers - completely anti-player and it's solely to try and keep that 'world' balanced by limiting what the player can min/max or do to avoid breaking their very delicate/buggy/imbalanced 'world' system.
Why do we get a limited number of companions? When we still have to pay them quite a high wage in comparison, while still having to use them for caravans, use them for governors (and limited to culture related governors with how they set up loyalty), extra parties, party roles, OOB captains, capped growth on #/clan tier, etc...
We should be able to hire as many companions as we can, let us deal with the wage balancing, managing all their skills/armor, or try and somehow manage 20 companion parties without going broke. Whether that breaks the game balance or even steamrolls, it's a single-player game, if it breaks the balance, that's on the player/playthrough. We don't even have that choice.
Exactly. I wish we could have a companion only playthrough in native (well technically we can, but having like 5 companions doesn't cut it). I wouldn't mind us having 4 parties (5 with leadership 250) as maximum to keep the player's mechanical capabilities on par with the AI (I'm assuming increasing the maximum number of parties would result in a performance hit, also the game is already grindy enough with the AI being able to field 3-4 parties at once, I wouldn't want more parties on average), but gatekeeping additional parties through arbitrary barriers such as clan tiers is just immersion breaking.
I'm happy that there are ppl who are starting to understand why I'm always complaining about BL...
Once you see these things, it becomes harder to enjoy playing it - which's why I'm constantly ranting and suggesting changes.
The more bizarre part's that I have been defending the same points since 2014/2015/2016 and TW has never even bothered replying to anything I have ever said - than on earlier EA I did back in 2020 give tons of feedback and was again completely ignored and than I gave up - what's different now is that I came back and a tickling unbearable sense of urgency took over me because I saw their progress (which was almost as if they were moving at 0.000001 centimeters per hour) and than to make things worse they've announced the release...
I'll probably give up again soon, and since I lack the desire to create mods, I'll probably not get involved and only play the game once other ppl fix it for free while TW cashes in on their own incompetency through legal "slave labor" from others...
 

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
The game has so many artificial barriers in it for no reason, which just takes the immersion out of the game for the players, such as the renown and clan tier system. Just let us get a +1 to party size for every 25 renown like in Warband (but maybe with a ceiling to max party size?) rather than these weird and unnecessary thresholds.
Dont necessarily agree with this. Or rather I am indifferent.
Just let us get the max limit of companions from the get go, but limit it through the companions arguing with each other and having a higher chance of leaving the party if there are too many companions, where we could increase this effective maximum through charm and/or leadership.
This however, I cant for the life of me understand how they came to the conclusion that it would be a good idea to gate companions. Levelling companions is an interesting early game pursuit, not something that I can care about when I am clan tier 6.
 

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
Dont necessarily agree with this. Or rather I am indifferent.

This however, I cant for the life of me understand how they came to the conclusion that it would be a good idea to gate companions. Levelling companions is an interesting early game pursuit, not something that I can care about when I am clan tier 6.
Wouldn't say care* but rather "bother with" - to level a comp we really need to go completely out of the way and focus exclusively on pursuing it - or leave them as a "caravan" for 10 life-times - that if they don't die before "finishing" the leveling
 

sh1ny4

Sergeant
1) Give computer AI nobles access to the medical skill but not enough access that they can attain level 275 HP bonus. This will increase survivability for computer vs computer battles so more troops attain higher tier levels.

2) Mid to late game computer AI armies should be fielding more and more veteran higher tier troops. Give computer nobles the ability to convert battle loot (armor/weapons) into troop xp from the Leadership skill.
So basically you found the endgame (which is full of battles, that's all you do really outside of recruiting) boring, and instead of thinking that *maybe* the issue is that you keep doing the same thing over and over, you managed to think that the issue is that it is too easy ? And to make it more "fun" you just want to make it even more tedious ? The mid to late game is aready in the same gameplay loop, the only difference being the size of armies....
I have to admit that I can not understand this way of thinking. Why would you even think that meeting for the 7th time in a row an army full of tier 5s would be fun ? It's already annoying enough when a 3rd army come to you, be the troops peasants or khans guard. Even more so considering it can happen in the time of a single siege in the late game.

Here is a proposition : add some gameplay element that would allow us to *not* fight in battlesto progress, like you could keep on doing it if you want but you could also solve wars in an other way (variety is the spice of life they say).
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Ive always believed that the game needs an endgame Legacy Screen with not only all sorts of Stats, but an illustrious breakdown of the players career and certain badges as well as a Named Legacy Title -some in which would be very rare/hard to attain and could be used like a benchmarking app with people having fun comparing and showing off theirs. The game would need more features to facilitate this like building Wonders etc but lets say you were just a boring army endgame General with non-stop wars youd get a "Froggyluv -The Meat Grinder". Again the game would have to give more rewarding Peace time operations to make this work.
 

thomas13

Regular
So basically you found the endgame (which is full of battles, that's all you do really outside of recruiting) boring, and instead of thinking that *maybe* the issue is that you keep doing the same thing over and over, you managed to think that the issue is that it is too easy ? And to make it more "fun" you just want to make it even more tedious ? The mid to late game is aready in the same gameplay loop, the only difference being the size of armies....
I have to admit that I can not understand this way of thinking. Why would you even think that meeting for the 7th time in a row an army full of tier 5s would be fun ? It's already annoying enough when a 3rd army come to you, be the troops peasants or khans guard. Even more so considering it can happen in the time of a single siege in the late game.

Here is a proposition : add some gameplay element that would allow us to *not* fight in battlesto progress, like you could keep on doing it if you want but you could also solve wars in an other way (variety is the spice of life they say).
Last time I checked early, mid and end game is all battles regardless. That's the game. If you don't like that then trade your way to owning every fief. There's your new spice. What would would you like add to the game? Maybe a fundraising beach volleyball tournament with Derthert for all the war town villages of Calradia.

What you want is great sweeping change and I hate to break it to you it's not going to happen. My idea at least works within the structure of the game we have not a dream of the game we want to have. Any idiot can say this game just needs more bells and whistles and that will increase playability. I'm saying bells and whistles will just mask the issue. Fix the issue then add some bells and whistles.

Ive always believed that the game needs an endgame Legacy Screen with not only all sorts of Stats, but an illustrious breakdown of the players career and certain badges as well as a Named Legacy Title -some in which would be very rare/hard to attain and could be used like a benchmarking app with people having fun comparing and showing off theirs. The game would need more features to facilitate this like building Wonders etc but lets say you were just a boring army endgame General with non-stop wars youd get a "Froggyluv -The Meat Grinder". Again the game would have to give more rewarding Peace time operations to make this work.
Didn't Taleworlds already announce they were doing exactly this? With regards to a endgame legacy screen.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Didn't Taleworlds already announce they were doing exactly this? With regards to a endgame legacy screen.
Ive never heard them commit to a Legacy screen -they did say they were working on Game Over screens. If they have -Great
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
That's what I heard too. Legacy/Game over screen they both seem like the same to me.

Well its just my suggestion since the game was released .An end screen like:

Killed: 9,000,003 Looters...

...would be pretty boring.

Something that determined, how the player played, different strategies, how many scum saves, tactics used, honorability or lack of etc ..but built into a type of prose that made it entertaining both to review, save and share -would do ALOT to alleviate the grind of the game specifically Mid/Late
 

sh1ny4

Sergeant
What would would you like add to the game?
I think making it possible to buy a town without needing to reach level 275 of trading would be easily possible to start with, or maybe buy it with something else than gold ? A lot of minor tweaks that would make the game more logical, QoL features etc...

What you want is great sweeping change
That is just you projecting, I just want three things and I already have two of them in my game, both of which are *very* easily within TW's reach. The third one is also doable (several modders did the same thing, with a much bigger scope, using TW's modding tools, while the game still is in beta) but I know that I am the only one here wanting it so it won't happen and I will probably do it on my end.

My idea at least works
Your idea does works indeed, just against your goal. Mine maintain the illusion that there is more to the game than just killing hords of brainless soldiers.

I'll repeat myself but what you are proposing will just make every battle harder, meaning having to recruit more, spending more time in battles etc... when peoples are already not finishing most campaigns because they spend already too much time doing exactly this...

You really need to calm down your anger though, if almost everybody here says that your idea is disastrous then maybe start considering it might be instead of criticizing every (valid) point other users made?
 

thomas13

Regular
I think making it possible to buy a town without needing to reach level 275 of trading would be easily possible to start with, or maybe buy it with something else than gold ? A lot of minor tweaks that would make the game more logical, QoL features etc...


That is just you projecting, I just want three things and I already have two of them in my game, both of which are *very* easily within TW's reach. The third one is also doable (several modders did the same thing, with a much bigger scope, using TW's modding tools, while the game still is in beta) but I know that I am the only one here wanting it so it won't happen and I will probably do it on my end.


Your idea does works indeed, just against your goal. Mine maintain the illusion that there is more to the game than just killing hords of brainless soldiers.

I'll repeat myself but what you are proposing will just make every battle harder, meaning having to recruit more, spending more time in battles etc... when peoples are already not finishing most campaigns because they spend already too much time doing exactly this...

You really need to calm down your anger though, if almost everybody here says that your idea is disastrous then maybe start considering it might be instead of criticizing every (valid) point other users made?
What level do you propose reaching it by? Or no restrictions? That would break the game. You could smith and just buy the world.

You have mods? What's the issue? Besides, you're the only one who wants it anyway.

And you propose buying it from brainless hordes. Changes nothing. You just want a handicap.

That is exactly what I'm proposing. The player has all the advantage in the game and AI nobles are absolutely nerfed. People don't finish for lack of content but lack of substance. What you have proposed adds zero substance.

You've admitted nobody wants your idea but you. If you've followed the dialogue plenty have agreed with me.
 

xdj1nn

Knight at Arms
WBWF&S
my gather here's interesting:
We have the typical "souls" mentality player that sees pure "difficulty" (rather dmg sponge) as a way of making late-game nice
We have the typical "achievement addict" who thinks that some silly badges will make late-game nice
We have the typical RPer who thinks that variety and maybe meaningful choices make late-game nice...

Why not have all of them at once with: variety - immersion benders - increased amount of BiS items - unique items - achievement tracking through settlement capital + scene upgradable keep for it - challenge through invaders rather than fighting the same clan for 500 years straight?

I still lean on a stronger RPing option because I know it makes for a better overall experience to all, so on top of all of that I'd also add meaningful flushing of the lore through epic quests, hidden mini-quests and details that show locational history + unlocks stuff related to such for different regions, locations and cultures.
Have you noticed that we have 2 volcanoes in the game? Probably not - one's at Tyal (rather higher in the mountain - yet it's "Hidden" and "inactive") and there's one near Rhotae - imagine furthering the game through exploring it and discovering some legends about past heroes or civilizations? - Get some interesting details + special mechanics through cultural merges - like Tyal / Danustica / Husn Fulq / Amprela where at least in Lore those places were ripe with inter-marriages and generations of inter-cultural mingling.... We also have ruins in the desert that do nothing for now which could play major roles as a catalyst point for some epic explorer quest... Idk, there's a lot to explore but for some reason TW didn't seem to even think about that, instead they are more concerned with "nerfs", yet they were the ones to place such things and leave a massive gap for exploring the lore through their silly encyclopedia entries - worse still's that they didn't even follow their own lore logic - Tyal was supposed to produce horses...
 
Last edited:

sh1ny4

Sergeant
What level do you propose reaching it by? Or no restrictions? That would break the game. You could smith and just buy the world.

You have mods? What's the issue? Besides, you're the only one who wants it anyway.

And you propose buying it from brainless hordes. Changes nothing. You just want a handicap.

That is exactly what I'm proposing. The player has all the advantage in the game and AI nobles are absolutely nerfed. People don't finish for lack of content but lack of substance. What you have proposed adds zero substance.

You've admitted nobody wants your idea but you. If you've followed the dialogue plenty have agreed with me.
Could you please read what I wrote instead of what you imagine I wrote ? If all you do in a discussion is answering to something that others didn't say

  • I did not say I would change the level, just that the mechanic exist and consequently tht it can be used in other ways
  • I mentioned mods because if I can make the game much better by changing some XML then TW can do it, and SHOULD do it
  • I offered buying territory *because* while it is not great per se it would still be a nice change from the constant fighting that is the issue you are offering to deal with by adding more of it. And giving the AI higher tier troops won't change much since as you said the AI is nerfed so the player can always win even if outmatched. They will still get wrecked by a full stack of KG or Fians, it will just be longer and require more cheesing, what we both agree on IS the issue.
Somehow I made three points and you managed to understand none of them. if it is because I am not clear then it is my mistake, but seeing the rest of the thread I doubt it.

No one want my idea that is why I won't call out everybody that disagrees on it, unlike you.

If plenty means two persons then yes plenty agreed with you.
Meanwhile I can see 6 that disagree much more strongly and explained why they disagree (that you didn't take into account).
And since TW already nerfed in the past the level of recruit because peoples were complaining about the endless tier 3-4 armies it is pretty safe to think this opinion is majoritary.
Why would you post on the SP forum if you don't want to properly discuss it ? Post it on suggestions and mute the thread so that you don't see it
 

Bluko88

Sergeant
The reason people complain about late game isn't because of lack of content. It's a difficulty scaling issue. Early to mid-game is very fun because it's challenging. You as the player starts out basically at zero and you have to establish yourself in order to compete with the AI computer players but the AI computer players are already established. The issue comes in when the player becomes too strong (if he develops his characters skills/attributes properly) and surpasses the AI computer players and the AI doesn't scale with the player from mid-game to late game. Ways to fix this:

Well this is why the Main Quest creates the Conspiracy Alliance against you. I'm sure you can throw a wrench in the Conspiracy if you know about it, (I really don't like Main Quest - only played it once in totality) but 90% of players are not going to know or prepare that much. So yeah the Conspiracy Alliance can be brutal depending on what the map is like when it goes off. While it can create a "challenge" it's mostly artificial and just devolves into tedium of you forming big armies trying to beat a specific Kingdom into submission and hoping your fellow vassals don't eff up too much on other fronts.

This is a sandbox game. If the game is "too easy" it's because you've min/maxed too many things to your advantage, probably because you've got a couple hundred hours or more under your belt.

Try playing on foot (without RTS Camera), etc. the game can be plenty challenging. I don't think it's in TW interest to cater to what's likely only a few hundred/thousand people at most who the game to be harder. Though TW should do a better job balancing the game overall i.e. so there aren't so many broken perk combos and such, but I digress.

Creating a kingdom and dominating all of Calradia should be more challenging than it is currently. Then when you do it's a more satisfying achievement. In addition it will force the player to have to think more carefully about which attributes and skills to focus on.

Creating your own independent Kingdom is pretty challenging if you ever try to do it legitimately. The problem is most cheese their way to creating a Kingdom - by sniping Towns via Rebellions, saving millions of denars, etc. all while remaining independent. With the A.I. able to team up in sieges now, it's pretty hard to hold a Castle/Town even if you've built up a very strong Party. A Kingdom with multiple Lords/Fiefs should not be negotiating with some "Rogue Baron" anyways who managed to run off with/steal a Castle or two either.

The real issue is there needs to be much better Diplomacy/Kingdom Management. The problem with the late game is less that it isn't challenging, it's mostly how tedious it is since it's really no different than mid-game. All you do is form big armies and fight constant battles without any tangible consequences. Sorry it just gets dull to be sieging Razih for the 20th time in your 10th war with the Aserai.

Also being a Sovereign is pointless. All you do is slap your vassals on the wrists any time they try to declare a stupid war or vote in a bad policy.

So here's what I propose...

1. In order to hold a Castle/Town you must be part of a Kingdom; either an existing one or form your own.

That means if you take a Town after a Rebellion, you have to surrender it to the Kingdom that last held it OR form your own Kingdom. If you don't meet the requirements for forming a Kingdom you automatically surrender it. (I don't think this is a thing currently, but have been gone a few Updates)

If you leave a Kingdom same thing applies. You either give up your Fiefs or you start a civil war with the Kingdom in question when you break away as your "new" Kingdom. (Gee imagine if there was a real point to actually building relations up with other Lords...) And this all brings me to my next point.

*This also mean when a Kingdom loses it's last Fief it's destroyed. However the last ruling Clan can always attempt to re-form Kingdom again if it ever manages to take a Fief. (Ruler clan can buy Fief or convince Rebellion of Fief culture to re-establish)


2. Civil Wars need to be a thing. When Kingdoms reach a certain size (30+ Fiefs) Lords should consider breaking off and forming their own Kingdoms.

Now obviously a Lord with just a single Castle and a tiny clan should never do this, but a Lord with a couple Towns/Castles and big clan - why not? Also when a Lord does break away they should be able to bring some fellow vassals with them to make the whole thing more legitimate (this should be available to player too). Having a big Kingdom effectively break in half will do a lot to make the game more interesting and give struggling Kingdoms a chance to recover as well potentially.

It seems really odd to me that the Calradic Empire eventually got so big that it broke apart, yet this never happens in-game with other Kingdoms no matter how large they get.

Admittedly the mechanics of "Civil Wars" may be difficult to implement. I also very much doubt TW will do this, due to the many technicalities it undoubtedly involves.


I also personally think it should be difficult, if not impossible to conquer the whole map. Maintaining a Kingdom should always be difficult, there should never be a point where you effectively go on autopilot. And no one Kingdom should rule all Calradia. I think the only way to hold a large continent Empire together is a combination of clever vassal assignment (lots of low tier clans) and maxed out Charm.

3. Alliances and actual ceasefires need to be a thing

The constant on and off wars gets really annoying, even calling them wars feels a bit misleading, since it's more just conflict. Smaller and weaker Kingdoms should be able to join up together against a common enemy, obviously this is somewhat possible to do since it already sort of exists in game with main quest.

Also just for the sanity of the player it'd be nice to know how long actual peace will last.

4. Wars need to have some kind of objective/goal

Maybe the point of a war is simply to weaken a rival and inflict causalities on them. Maybe it's to take/reclaim a particular Town/Castle. Or maybe it's simply to extort tribute or stop paying tribute. War should not just be some random event though.

Maybe introduce some "War Fervor" mechanic, max 100 kicks off war declaration, -100 minimum kicks off peace talks. (Nevermind I think this already sort of exists as is.)


i.e. War Fervor builds up slowly for any neighboring Kingdom, every day at peace adds +1, every day paying tribute adds +1x depending on total amount (5000 denars would mean +5 a day)

While at war War Fervor declines by -1 a day (nobody likes long wars), declines by -1x for every Lord captured, declines by -1x for every 1000 casualties suffered. But War Fervor increases if the war is going well +1x for every 1000 causalities inflicted or Lord captured.

War Fervor drops by -100 for all neighboring Kingdoms any time a Kingdom has war declared against it. War Fervor should also drop substantially when a War Objective is met.

I think War Fervor could help with Alliance mechanics. If two Kingdoms are at war with a neighbor, both are losing (- War Fervor), and are not at war with each other - they should form an Alliance against their enemy. Forming an Alliance adds +100 to War Fervor against current target Kingdom. The Alliance also effectively freezes War Fervor between the two allied Kingdoms. However the Alliance breaks as soon as one allied Kingdom surrenders/makes peace with target Kingdom. So they wouldn't be very common or last too long in most situations.


I think War Fervor could also create more logical Tribute. Say every War Fervor point difference equals 50 denars in Tribute. So max is 10,000 denars a day if Kingdom surrenders at -100 and opposing Kingdom is still at 100.

5. Limit max denars for Clan based on Clan rank


Not sure if this is really necessary, but may help curtail some power gaming and give new players realistic goals.

Clan Tier 0: Max Denars 250,000
Clan Tier 1: Max Denars 500,000
Clan Tier 2: Max Denars 1,000,000
Clan Tier 3: Max Denars 2,000,000
Clan Tier 4: Max Denars 4,000,000
Clan Tier 5: Max Denars 8,000,000
Clan Tier 6: Max Denars 16,000,000

6. Kingdom Sovereigns should be able assign targets for Armies

Pretty simple, when at war you should be able to direct an army to siege a particular Town/Castle or raid certain villages. Setting a target costs influence 25 for raiding Village, 50 for besieging a Castle, 100 for besieging a Town. If the army leader completes task they get influence you spent as reward. Could be good when applied to the player as well when they join a Kingdom, a nice influence boot when starting out.

Also would help wars feel less random. I feel this would be most helpful to the player since you can really steer your Kingdom in terms of war without having to lead Armies constantly.
 

Ningauble

Sergeant at Arms
Well this is why the Main Quest creates the Conspiracy Alliance against you. I'm sure you can throw a wrench in the Conspiracy if you know about it, (I really don't like Main Quest - only played it once in totality) but 90% of players are not going to know or prepare that much. So yeah the Conspiracy Alliance can be brutal depending on what the map is like when it goes off. While it can create a "challenge" it's mostly artificial and just devolves into tedium of you forming big armies trying to beat a specific Kingdom into submission and hoping your fellow vassals don't eff up too much on other fronts.

This is a sandbox game. If the game is "too easy" it's because you've min/maxed too many things to your advantage, probably because you've got a couple hundred hours or more under your belt.

Try playing on foot (without RTS Camera), etc. the game can be plenty challenging. I don't think it's in TW interest to cater to what's likely only a few hundred/thousand people at most who the game to be harder. Though TW should do a better job balancing the game overall i.e. so there aren't so many broken perk combos and such, but I digress.



Creating your own independent Kingdom is pretty challenging if you ever try to do it legitimately. The problem is most cheese their way to creating a Kingdom - by sniping Towns via Rebellions, saving millions of denars, etc. all while remaining independent. With the A.I. able to team up in sieges now, it's pretty hard to hold a Castle/Town even if you've built up a very strong Party. A Kingdom with multiple Lords/Fiefs should not be negotiating with some "Rogue Baron" anyways who managed to run off with/steal a Castle or two either.

The real issue is there needs to be much better Diplomacy/Kingdom Management. The problem with the late game is less that it isn't challenging, it's mostly how tedious it is since it's really no different than mid-game. All you do is form big armies and fight constant battles without any tangible consequences. Sorry it just gets dull to be sieging Razih for the 20th time in your 10th war with the Aserai.

Also being a Sovereign is pointless. All you do is slap your vassals on the wrists any time they try to declare a stupid war or vote in a bad policy.

So here's what I propose...

1. In order to hold a Castle/Town you must be part of a Kingdom; either an existing one or form your own.

That means if you take a Town after a Rebellion, you have to surrender it to the Kingdom that last held it OR form your own Kingdom. If you don't meet the requirements for forming a Kingdom you automatically surrender it. (I don't think this is a thing currently, but have been gone a few Updates)

If you leave a Kingdom same thing applies. You either give up your Fiefs or you start a civil war with the Kingdom in question when you break away as your "new" Kingdom. (Gee imagine if there was a real point to actually building relations up with other Lords...) And this all brings me to my next point.

*This also mean when a Kingdom loses it's last Fief it's destroyed. However the last ruling Clan can always attempt to re-form Kingdom again if it ever manages to take a Fief. (Ruler clan can buy Fief or convince Rebellion of Fief culture to re-establish)

2. Civil Wars need to be a thing. When Kingdoms reach a certain size (30+ Fiefs) Lords should consider breaking off and forming their own Kingdoms.

Now obviously a Lord with just a single Castle and a tiny clan should never do this, but a Lord with a couple Towns/Castles and big clan - why not? Also when a Lord does break away they should be able to bring some fellow vassals with them to make the whole thing more legitimate (this should be available to player too). Having a big Kingdom effectively break in half will do a lot to make the game more interesting and give struggling Kingdoms a chance to recover as well potentially.

It seems really odd to me that the Calradic Empire eventually got so big that it broke apart, yet this never happens in-game with other Kingdoms no matter how large they get.

Admittedly the mechanics of "Civil Wars" may be difficult to implement. I also very much doubt TW will do this, due to the many technicalities it undoubtedly involves.


I also personally think it should be difficult, if not impossible to conquer the whole map. Maintaining a Kingdom should always be difficult, there should never be a point where you effectively go on autopilot. And no one Kingdom should rule all Calradia. I think the only way to hold a large continent Empire together is a combination of clever vassal assignment (lots of low tier clans) and maxed out Charm.

3. Alliances and actual ceasefires need to be a thing

The constant on and off wars gets really annoying, even calling them wars feels a bit misleading, since it's more just conflict. Smaller and weaker Kingdoms should be able to join up together against a common enemy, obviously this is somewhat possible to do since it already sort of exists in game with main quest.

Also just for the sanity of the player it'd be nice to know how long actual peace will last.

4. Wars need to have some kind of objective/goal

Maybe the point of a war is simply to weaken a rival and inflict causalities on them. Maybe it's to take/reclaim a particular Town/Castle. Or maybe it's simply to extort tribute or stop paying tribute. War should not just be some random event though.

Maybe introduce some "War Fervor" mechanic, max 100 kicks off war declaration, -100 minimum kicks off peace talks. (Nevermind I think this already sort of exists as is.)


i.e. War Fervor builds up slowly for any neighboring Kingdom, every day at peace adds +1, every day paying tribute adds +1x depending on total amount (5000 denars would mean +5 a day)

While at war War Fervor declines by -1 a day (nobody likes long wars), declines by -1x for every Lord captured, declines by -1x for every 1000 casualties suffered. But War Fervor increases if the war is going well +1x for every 1000 causalities inflicted or Lord captured.

War Fervor drops by -100 for all neighboring Kingdoms any time a Kingdom has war declared against it. War Fervor should also drop substantially when a War Objective is met.

I think War Fervor could help with Alliance mechanics. If two Kingdoms are at war with a neighbor, both are losing (- War Fervor), and are not at war with each other - they should form an Alliance against their enemy. Forming an Alliance adds +100 to War Fervor against current target Kingdom. The Alliance also effectively freezes War Fervor between the two allied Kingdoms. However the Alliance breaks as soon as one allied Kingdom surrenders/makes peace with target Kingdom. So they wouldn't be very common or last too long in most situations.


I think War Fervor could also create more logical Tribute. Say every War Fervor point difference equals 50 denars in Tribute. So max is 10,000 denars a day if Kingdom surrenders at -100 and opposing Kingdom is still at 100.

5. Limit max denars for Clan based on Clan rank

Not sure if this is really necessary, but may help curtail some power gaming and give new players realistic goals.

Clan Tier 0: Max Denars 250,000
Clan Tier 1: Max Denars 500,000
Clan Tier 2: Max Denars 1,000,000
Clan Tier 3: Max Denars 2,000,000
Clan Tier 4: Max Denars 4,000,000
Clan Tier 5: Max Denars 8,000,000
Clan Tier 6: Max Denars 16,000,000

6. Kingdom Sovereigns should be able assign targets for Armies

Pretty simple, when at war you should be able to direct an army to siege a particular Town/Castle or raid certain villages. Setting a target costs influence 25 for raiding Village, 50 for besieging a Castle, 100 for besieging a Town. If the army leader completes task they get influence you spent as reward. Could be good when applied to the player as well when they join a Kingdom, a nice influence boot when starting out.

Also would help wars feel less random. I feel this would be most helpful to the player since you can really steer your Kingdom in terms of war without having to lead Armies constantly.
Ah, War Fervor ............... Crimean War, Franco - Prussian War, August 1914, September 1939, Falklands War, First Gulf War, Georgia, Ukraine, Taiwan ............. it is like The Real World is still ( still ! ) in EA and in need of some good Diplomacy mod ..........
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom