Live battles = slowly killing your kingdom?

Currently viewing this thread:

PaTi6op

Recruit
I think a lot, including this, could be achieved if recruit respawn times were significantly increased.
I would enjoy it if there was some recuperation time after big wars, in which you recruit and train new troops and do smaller quests and personal stuff.
Currently, you almost never spend any time below your troop limit, and if you ever fall below it, you can usually refill your whole army in 1-3 villages. Same for the enemy lords. And the best way to retrain these new troops is of course a new battle, which is why after a certain point in the game it's just
battle -> sell loot -> battle -> sell loot -> battle etc
which gets tiring. I enjoy the variety of the early game more. And fewer recruits might naturally result in a time in which you do again do smaller quests while rebuilding your army after a war even in the mid and late game. It would also make wars and large battles less frequent, but more meaningful.

I still remember how cool it was to fight in my first large battle, and in my first siege. But immediately after those, there was the next, and the next, and the next.... War is constant, towns and castles change owners every few months without much apparent rhyme or reason...Yes, you get more spectacle, but in the long run I think it hurts enjoyment of the later game phases.
Yes ... I miss that too. The best time in the game is the initial stages. As soon as you become a vassal in a faction, there is less and less time for everything else, and in the end you are already at war with everyone without the possibility of making peace. But after a long war I really want to take a break to go about my business.

I therefore remain a loner for a very long time and carry out the problems of villages and cities until all the recruiting cells are opened. Sometimes I join as a mercenary to pump up my army a little if necessary. I would love to do this as a vassal, but I know there won't be time for that. What kind of quests are there when you have a war with the whole map.

Reducing the amount of time for the revival of recruits would be a good solution, of course, it is unlikely that the developers will do it officially, but there is hope for mods. But honestly, sometimes it's fun to fight off an army of 2k soldiers, and see how in 10 minutes two more armies go 1k each, and then another and another. The problem is that the lords escape from the dungeons, they need to be kept there either indefinitely until the end of the war, or at least 1 month, then a balance must be found.
 

niekdegrijze

Sergeant at Arms
I think a lot, including this, could be achieved if recruit respawn times were significantly increased.
I would enjoy it if there was some recuperation time after big wars, in which you recruit and train new troops and do smaller quests and personal stuff.
Currently, you almost never spend any time below your troop limit, and if you ever fall below it, you can usually refill your whole army in 1-3 villages. Same for the enemy lords. And the best way to retrain these new troops is of course a new battle, which is why after a certain point in the game it's just
battle -> sell loot -> battle -> sell loot -> battle etc
which gets tiring. I enjoy the variety of the early game more. And fewer recruits might naturally result in a time in which you do again do smaller quests while rebuilding your army after a war even in the mid and late game. It would also make wars and large battles less frequent, but more meaningful.

I still remember how cool it was to fight in my first large battle, and in my first siege. But immediately after those, there was the next, and the next, and the next.... War is constant, towns and castles change owners every few months without much apparent rhyme or reason...Yes, you get more spectacle, but in the long run I think it hurts enjoyment of the later game phases.
I yes, the first big battle was epic, now after a couple long campaigns I find myself wanting to start a new campaign but putting it off because I know it will bum me out when I hit the wall that is the endgame. There is no dept to diplomacy and to peacetime. I don’t have high hopes anymore of a viable bandit PT but I still hope for some good endgame mechanics. I really enjoy the game, but after a while you start to see the missed potential. BL is a good game, but there is potential to make it a great game.
 

Bluko88

Regular
I'm playing as a vassal, and I feel like me helping my allies in battle is destroying the kingdom. Almost every time I join a large battle, a few lords from my kingdom die. Over time this leads to our faction having less and less lords available to create a party. Who thought this is a good idea? Punishing the player for helping? I know you can disable death, but I do like the idea of people dying over time. However the player should not be the only cause of their death, they should also die when alone...

Yeah it needs to be toned down. I'm losing Companions far too often, to the point where I can't really replace them with a similar character more often than not.

What's especially frustrating is when you absolutely crush the enemy or manage an otherwise "good" win yet 2-3 of your Allied lords die by sheer random chance. I really do not (and nor do I imagine most people) want to spend hours replaying battles I've already won just to keep Allies/Companions alive so I don't ruin my Clan/Faction.

I'm of the strong opinion there should be a Campaign Option to disable Friendly Lord/Companion death in battle. That or Characters only die when they are on the losing side in a Player battle. The later would make some sense as causalities can't really be helped if no one is left to tend to them. The real problem is when you have an Army of many smaller parties and or a number of companions you're basically setting yourself up to lose someone every other battle.

I have heard the Devs are planning to adjust the current Death Rate from 10% to like 2%, so that'll make it less frustrating. But the sheer randomness of death is just going to lead to a lot frustrating experiences even with the rate toned down.


Frankly I'm a bit torn. I don't want Characters to be immortal, but I also don't want to be the Grim Reaper (besides Executions already exist). If it were up to me this how things would work:

A.I. Simulated Battle Winner: 0.25% Chance of Character(s) Dying*
A.I. Simulated Battle Loser: 0.5% Chance of Character(s) Dying*

*I'm not sure what the long term effects of this would be, but hopefully those are low enough to not ruin the gameworld.

Player Simulated Battle Win: 0.5% Chance of Friendly Character(s) Dying, 1% Chance of Enemy Character(s) Dying
Player Simulated Battle Lose: 1% Chance of Friendly Character(s) Dying, 0.5% Chance of Enemy Character(s) Dying

Player Battle Win: 2.5% Chance of Friendly Character(s) Dying, 5% Chance of Enemy Character(s) Dying
Player Battle Lose: 5% Chance of Friendly Character(s) Dying, 2.5% Chance of Enemy Character(s) Dying

There should probably also be a perk in Medicine that prevents your specific Clan members (so just your Family/Companions) from dying in battles you participate in. Medicine has it's uses, but like a number of Skills it wouldn't hurt if it provided more useful bonuses. I know Medicine helps Troop survival, but shouldn't it apply to Characters too? IDK maybe it have so when you reach 100 Medicine or have a Surgeon Character with 100 Medicine - Friendly Characters have a 100% chance of recovering from Battle Death. That seems reasonable to me, I certainly can't see that bothering anyone who invests in Medicine currently.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
I think part of the problem is that I heard that lords only die in player battles, not simulated ones so the only way for your faction to lose a lord is if your helping that lord out in battle.

On the converse, I guess if you never joined an army or helped your faction lords in battle and concentrated on picking off enemy single lord armies, you could eventually deplete their roster of lords without harming your own.
 

Bluko88

Regular
I think part of the problem is that I heard that lords only die in player battles, not simulated ones so the only way for your faction to lose a lord is if your helping that lord out in battle.

On the converse, I guess if you never joined an army or helped your faction lords in battle and concentrated on picking off enemy single lord armies, you could eventually deplete their roster of lords without harming your own.
That's exactly how it works.

If you never join/form Armies and just attack enemy Parties with no Companions, you will straight up be the Grim Reaper of Calradia. Again not as extreme as Executions - but you will most likely cripple an enemy Kingdom after a few years.

I swear Lords were dying in simulated battles at one point. But they either shut that off or I'm thinking of Notables "being lost".
 
IMO I feel the death rate is actually too low. It makes purposely head-hunting lords a gamble and I have to jump parties multiple times to get a kill. The kills are also random - I can do 700 damage with a slashing polearm at full speed and knock them out but somethings i'll graze them with a javelin in the foot and they'll die. Wish there was some way to ensure they died.

Really just brings up a ton more missing features - there is no life in the game. I can put a spear into Ira's husband's face and she will greet me just the same, not even a specialized dialogue option like Skyrim had (it was one line!) referring to it. Someone suggested Funerals recently, and I hope that is implemented.

Another thing is that lord deaths don't play into the war/peace calculus at all. Lords in BL are like Manpower in EU4 - the less Lords the less (permanent) manpower you have, and you'll be at a disadvantage going to war with a stronger kingdom. Births are too sporadic and hard to trigger, female Lords die a lot more in childbirth, so it makes recovery pretty bad. If TW found a way to make deaths more impactful to curtail wars and add some personality, I'd be fine with them rolling back to 2% and adding 0.5-1% in auto-calc, at least *everyone* would experience attrition instead of the Player's kingdom.

...and don't get me started on minor factions. The permanent, hard-coded wars are a pain in the ass, but I hate killing other Minor Factions in case I ever need them as mercs. They don't marry, you cannot barter with them, and once they're gone they're gone - outside of a Rebel faction you never get another (and the rebels join kingdoms, they cannot merc up yet)
 

Yertyl

Regular
IMO I feel the death rate is actually too low. It makes purposely head-hunting lords a gamble and I have to jump parties multiple times to get a kill. The kills are also random - I can do 700 damage with a slashing polearm at full speed and knock them out but somethings i'll graze them with a javelin in the foot and they'll die. Wish there was some way to ensure they died.
I am pretty sure they way you are meant to ensure lords die is the "execute" option.
I am a bit amused reading this, because I assume that like me you never used the option, perhaps because you also read that the penalties are far too severe...but still, you are effectively complaining about not being able to cheese the game effectively enough.
 

PaTi6op

Recruit
I also want the developers to come up with a replacement for the dying mercenary clans. By the 3000th day, almost all the clans of mercenaries had been destroyed. I don't need them in principle, but they could be needed by dying factions, because very often thanks to mercenaries, factions rise from their knees. In any case, if you play for the long term, you need to look for a solution. Or let a new clan of mercenaries be created in place of the deceased, or let the mercenaries marry and have children.
 

Adrivan

Sergeant
Lol, it's probably just a % they need to change.
My main problem is not necessarily with the death rate (although that can use adjustments too), but with the fact that only live battles can result in lords dying, and not in AI vs AI simulated battles. This creates an imbalance, with the most lords dying in the player's kingdom.
 

Moton

Squire
My main problem is not necessarily with the death rate (although that can use adjustments too), but with the fact that only live battles can result in lords dying, and not in AI vs AI simulated battles. This creates an imbalance, with the most lords dying in the player's kingdom.

Yeah I know what you mean. Even tho he was probably trolling I had to tell @Fate that it is probably pretty damn easy to change it.

I agree with you however that AI's has to be able to die in AI vs AI battles. Also, they should lower the war times and have a little bit more peace to make sure that everyone doesen't die off within the first years.
 
I am pretty sure they way you are meant to ensure lords die is the "execute" option.
I am a bit amused reading this, because I assume that like me you never used the option, perhaps because you also read that the penalties are far too severe...but still, you are effectively complaining about not being able to cheese the game effectively enough.
I do it every once in awhile (execution), but right now it's more of a detriment until AI lords do it as well, otherwise the Player ends up being the only person who takes negative relationship hits for the most part.

I wasn't regarding the issue as wanting to cheese it, if I did, I would just reload a save until whoever I wanted to die, dies. Nor was it a complaint - it's more an observation that damage and location of hits do not mean much in a live battle - but in auto-calc damage over a specific threshold will result in a death instead of an injury. There is no rhyme or reason to how it is - it's more frustrating when I am trying to *not* kill someone and bonk them with a low damage hammer and they end up dying, but when I couch lance or slash polearm someone they just fall asleep for a little bit.
 
Yeah it needs to be toned down. I'm losing Companions far too often, to the point where I can't really replace them with a similar character more often than not.

What's especially frustrating is when you absolutely crush the enemy or manage an otherwise "good" win yet 2-3 of your Allied lords die by sheer random chance. I really do not (and nor do I imagine most people) want to spend hours replaying battles I've already won just to keep Allies/Companions alive so I don't ruin my Clan/Faction.

I'm of the strong opinion there should be a Campaign Option to disable Friendly Lord/Companion death in battle. That or Characters only die when they are on the losing side in a Player battle. The later would make some sense as causalities can't really be helped if no one is left to tend to them. The real problem is when you have an Army of many smaller parties and or a number of companions you're basically setting yourself up to lose someone every other battle.

I have heard the Devs are planning to adjust the current Death Rate from 10% to like 2%, so that'll make it less frustrating. But the sheer randomness of death is just going to lead to a lot frustrating experiences even with the rate toned down.


Frankly I'm a bit torn. I don't want Characters to be immortal, but I also don't want to be the Grim Reaper (besides Executions already exist). If it were up to me this how things would work:

A.I. Simulated Battle Winner: 0.25% Chance of Character(s) Dying*
A.I. Simulated Battle Loser: 0.5% Chance of Character(s) Dying*

*I'm not sure what the long term effects of this would be, but hopefully those are low enough to not ruin the gameworld.

Player Simulated Battle Win: 0.5% Chance of Friendly Character(s) Dying, 1% Chance of Enemy Character(s) Dying
Player Simulated Battle Lose: 1% Chance of Friendly Character(s) Dying, 0.5% Chance of Enemy Character(s) Dying

Player Battle Win: 2.5% Chance of Friendly Character(s) Dying, 5% Chance of Enemy Character(s) Dying
Player Battle Lose: 5% Chance of Friendly Character(s) Dying, 2.5% Chance of Enemy Character(s) Dying

There should probably also be a perk in Medicine that prevents your specific Clan members (so just your Family/Companions) from dying in battles you participate in. Medicine has it's uses, but like a number of Skills it wouldn't hurt if it provided more useful bonuses. I know Medicine helps Troop survival, but shouldn't it apply to Characters too? IDK maybe it have so when you reach 100 Medicine or have a Surgeon Character with 100 Medicine - Friendly Characters have a 100% chance of recovering from Battle Death. That seems reasonable to me, I certainly can't see that bothering anyone who invests in Medicine currently.
medicine 225. reduce death chance of heroes by 50 %. I think thats what you are looking for
 

Parkerg12

Recruit
Life and death should use progress curves. Start to game off with a slight drought in nobles. then as birth ticks up and more nobles enter the fray increase the overall death rate to balance it out. make it rare for nobles to have more than 2-4 kids. This means early on the death chance is extremely low, then as the world is populated it increases. Given certain characters tags making them far less likely to die. And there we go it should find a happy median over time.
 

Lord Irontoe

Master Knight
IMO I feel the death rate is actually too low. It makes purposely head-hunting lords a gamble and I have to jump parties multiple times to get a kill. The kills are also random - I can do 700 damage with a slashing polearm at full speed and knock them out but somethings i'll graze them with a javelin in the foot and they'll die. Wish there was some way to ensure they died.
I don't agree on the death rate being too low, but you're right about the RNG randomness of it. A death should only occur on a really big hit. We don't have "critical hits" in the game, but maybe there should be some way to distinguish a lethal blow from regular hits. For example, a death should only be possible on hits to the body, neck or head, and it should be a clean hit within the weapon's sweet spot range and do at least 60-70% of the target's max health. And even then, its still just a chance of death, not guaranteed.
 

Bluko88

Regular
medicine 225. reduce death chance of heroes by 50 %. I think thats what you are looking for
If anyone's leveled up their Medicine that high, I fear they may need to be in a Mental Institution.

It's decent, but you know by the time you're that far leveled up why would you even care?
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
If anyone's leveled up their Medicine that high, I fear they may need to be in a Mental Institution.

It's decent, but you know by the time you're that far leveled up why would you even care?
Well to be honest, if you put a ton of attribute and focus points into medicine and actually play with your party and allies taking full damage, I don't think it would be too hard to get 225 medicine but your absolutely right, by the time you reach that point, most of the really good companions with good stat lines would already be dead. You also wouldn't want to wait until you get 225 medicine to get companions because you need them for specific roles like scouting, quartermaster, etc and for them to be useful you need to have them start leveling up from as early game as possible. It is a real lose-lose situation any way you go.
 
Top Bottom