Losing one battle ruins entire game

[Askorti]

Not really, because it's easier to stay alive in warband than in WFaS. But any ways, in my opinion there should be no 100% probability of being captured after defeat.
(I know, I repeat myself)

 

[Kneed]

in my opinion there should be no 100% probability of being captured after defeat.

Agreed, the chance of capturing an enemy lord is about 20-25%, it should be no different in the event we are captured. 

Instead of 100% capture reduce party morale to 0 plus which ever food bonuses apply from personal inventory.  Make the player have to win successive battles to regain party morale, a much better game mechanic in my opinion. 

This game cant be compared to Warband as the lowliest Militiaman can kill a player wearing the heaviest armor with one shot at the onset of battle from the other side of the map, short of couched lance damage there was no risk of insta kill in either M&B or Warband.

 

[Glox]

Great news.

 

[Coraline]

Thanks to the dev, I will be so happy knowing losing a battle will be less costly.  Though oddly does not explain losing most of my gear losing one battle, Warband I rarely lost anything important when I was defeated, rarely, almost every time I've lost a battle on R&S I've lost a dramatic amount of items, money/inventory items/gear/weapons, last time I lost my boots/gloves/weapons/horse not including food/money, for such low precentage I would not think losing all those after one defeat could even be possible without the worst possible luck. 

We also wonder do you think also Warband punishes player too harsh too after losing battle? Feedbacks about that issue can be valuable.

Warband is fine, I make more money than I can ever dream, so easy to be wealthy on Warband.  Losing a weapon, horse, or any individual item after a defeat is no big deal.  I just hate searching for my companions again, but that is what the traveller is good for to help find. 

Quite a far cry from Fire & Sword, which there seems to be less options to aid at getting wealth unless you serve under a faction, something I hate doing until I'm like level 20 plus and having a good source of income to supply an army of any reasonable size, something which is very difficult to get on to such a point so far for me on Fire & Sword.  Caravanning by way of mayor is too hit or miss, and doing it your self takes hours of long work with out many added benifits of investing the money into anything but a bank. 

Saying that unless you serve a faction you will also not level up at any reasonable rate either without extensive questing.  Which does not really suit every player much.  I like doing small quest to gain trust for individuals, but I don't like relying on it, often ignore story quest all together, and make believe my own story for myself.  hehe

 

[Kneed]

Quite a far cry from Fire & Sword, which there seems to be less options to aid at getting wealth unless you serve under a faction, something I hate doing until I'm like level 20 plus and having a good source of income to supply an army of any reasonable size, something which is very difficult to get on to such a point so far for me on Fire & Sword.  Caravanning by way of mayor is too hit or miss, and doing it your self takes hours of long work with out many added benifits of investing the money into anything but a bank. 

Saying that unless you serve a faction you will also not level up at any reasonable rate either without extensive questing.  Which does not really suit every player much.  I like doing small quest to gain trust for individuals, but I don't like relying on it, often ignore story quest all together, and make believe my own story for myself.  hehe

One of the best aspects of M&B was its sandbox nature, WF&S lost that, you're forced to pick a side early game to get quality troops, and there are major penalties for declining storyline missions (at least for Cossacks, haven't tried the other 2 yet).  If you decline the Black Mace starter you lose all faction standing with the Cossacks.

 

[Coraline]

I failed a mission for Sweden and well they went completely aggressive against me afterwords.  I was shocked, it was a special mission though, but darnit I searched and searched and never found the guy I was to find. hehe

I enjoy the musket aspect of the game so much, but it's just not as fun as the other one I played, and I hate the middle ages, and love the late 16 and early 17 hundreds.  That is saying a lot.  This game does not do the time period enough justice and the lack of freedom is semi painful.

Though I found a nice way to make some wealth, caravans raiding them.  They oddedly unlike the last game seems to give no penulties for attacking even my more moral companions do not make a peep about me attacking caravans, exp/money very easy wins at that often.  Though this also means I have to be an enemy of at least one faction to do so, sadly. 

 

[Kneed]

I failed a mission for Sweden and well they went completely aggressive against me afterwords.  I was shocked, it was a special mission though, but darnit I searched and searched and never found the guy I was to find. hehe

Jaques de Clermont is usually circling Smolensk (he's the guy from the tutorial, his party is blue on the map) if that's the mission you're talking about. A small hit to standing (-3) or so only costs like 750 to bribe your way back into their good graces.