Patch Notes v1.2.9

Users who are viewing this thread

I believe 5% death chance in battle for NPCs and 25%-50% for player would be fair enough. Because AI players are reckless, they don't try to evade death, while human players do. With higher death change NPC clans will run out lords/ladies very quickly, then you will conquer Calradia without any resistance, which is not fun imho.

PS.
TW, I have received a new update, but can't find the Changelogs. What's new in the latest patch (16.02.2024)?
 
2 observations:

- sometimes a few of the defender siege engines on the campaign map are invisible

- the AI needs to respond better to low loyalty in a fief especially if its a foreign culture, i'm pretty sure they just continue constructing random buildings like workshops. instead they should do what the player does which is to stop all construction, turn on Festival & Games project until loyalty gets to a middle point, then build fairgrounds until loyalty gets low again, turn back on Festival & Games, and so on


anyways keep up the good work, i think the game is approaching a level of polish that could be considered a full release
 
2 observations:

- sometimes a few of the defender siege engines on the campaign map are invisible

- the AI needs to respond better to low loyalty in a fief especially if its a foreign culture, i'm pretty sure they just continue constructing random buildings like workshops. instead they should do what the player does which is to stop all construction, turn on Festival & Games project until loyalty gets to a middle point, then build fairgrounds until loyalty gets low again, turn back on Festival & Games, and so on


anyways keep up the good work, i think the game is approaching a level of polish that could be considered a full release
The problem with that is: if the AI starts to do the same as the player RE: loyalty, we would never ever see a rebellion aside from when it's actually the player that forgets/doesn't have time to visit a town to change it back to festivals, whereas the AI that I assume can operate without even visiting the town in the first place, would never find itself in such a situation.

The system is flawed and barebones, like many other parts of the game (workshops/caravans/alleys).
You fix the AI, you basically remove a feature/break something else.

They should rework it in such a way where, for example, festival and games actually cost money and poor clans wouldn't be able to afford it, leading eventually to rebellions, or find another way to make it harder to keep up the loyalty. Because loyalty is an issue for Towns only, that's still unlikely to happen since the clans owning towns tend to be the richest anyway but I guess that the player can wear them out by beating them repeatedily.

In any case rebellions in general should happen more often, not less, in my opinion.
I would actually link them more to how often and how badly they got raided/plundered/changed hands, and expect them to be happier thanks to a long period of not being besieged rather than just wanting to be owned by a same culture faction. If that faction is so hopeless that it constantly allows them to be besieged/raided/conquered, it should change how much they value the culture aspect.
Plus, sometimes rebellions keep happening over and over as soon as the faction regains the fief, but surely a squashed rebellion would make peasants think twice before doing it again. There should definitely be a waaaay longer timer forcing the fief not to rebel (if things stay as they are, meaning the AI not doing anything to increase the loyalty).

Rather than fixing it for the AI it should be harder for the player to keep all their fiefs under control...
But again I certainly don't expect big changes on that front at this stage, although given the fact that we are still (in theory) waiting for the claimants and other stuff with the next updates, who knows, maybe they will improve this side of the game rather than just adding the claimant quests on top and calling it a day.

Given the development trend so far since EA, I'd be surprised if the whole system was revamped but we'll see.
 
Last edited:
In any case rebellions in general should happen more often, not less, in my opinion.

disagree there, there's already enough babysitting of your own faction involving army maneuvering that i don't want to also feel like i have to first build 3 levels of fairgrounds before i think it's safe to hand over the town to another clan. rebellion for the sake of breaking monotony or to flex that a mechanic exists are not good reasons, they should happen as often as it takes for someone to mess up. maybe some of your suggestions could be implemented or they could require the clan to be in town to manage it, but the AI should definitely be reacting to these things, maybe not as smartly as the player but still be somewhat self-sufficient
 
rebellion for the sake of breaking monotony or to flex that a mechanic exists are not good reasons
Of course it's a good reason, we're talking about a video game here, not reality. A little rebellion brings life and variety to the map, besides that doesn't happen to all AI either (fortunately^^). You take any game the gameplay it's always the most important. There is always a moment when the AI purposely sucks to allow you to hit or use a feature (the most obvious being often stealth games). If you give the solution to AI, coding is binary, it will necessarily use it so no more rebellions...
 
so you would prefer your faction to be unable to hold on to foreign culture towns that dont have previously-built fairgrounds, because of the excitement of it flipping to rebels who will be mostly militia and get steamrolled anyway? then the cycle repeats until the player intervenes & finally builds the correct building, that is a bad gameplay loop.

improving the AI so that it reacts to low loyalty doesn't have to be the only change, they can pair it up with changes to loyalty so that theres new penalties and so that the AI can't manage it without being inside the town, this would keep the existence of rebellions, but also reduce that feeling the player experiences of "if you want something done right you have to do it yourself" since the AI can do more things on their own without being carried by the player
 
so you would prefer your faction to be unable to hold on to foreign culture towns that dont have previously-built fairgrounds, because of the excitement of it flipping to rebels who will be mostly militia and get steamrolled anyway? then the cycle repeats until the player intervenes & finally builds the correct building, that is a bad gameplay loop.

improving the AI so that it reacts to low loyalty doesn't have to be the only change, they can pair it up with changes to loyalty so that theres new penalties and so that the AI can't manage it without being inside the town, this would keep the existence of rebellions, but also reduce that feeling the player experiences of "if you want something done right you have to do it yourself" since the AI can do more things on their own without being carried by the player

But already we don't have the same observation. You describe a situation in which the "AI would not succeed", but in the games I played this is false Calradia is not overwhelmed by rebellions, there are some from time to time, quite few compared to the number of cities managed by AI. I don't care which way as long as the balance is found.

I find there are parts of the game where the balance has not yet been found (for example the appearance of reinforcements). Problems which are for me much more annoying for a battle game (above all) and therefore much more priority.
 
I think that as part of the necessary changes and additions to the diplomacy, we need an overhaul of policies. Currently we can adopt as many policies as we want despite some of them being mutually exclusive according to the flavour text (e.g. forgiveness of the debts is the abolishment of serfdom, but we can adopt both policies at the same time). All policies should have some drawbacks in addition to their bonuses, and there should be policies mutually exclusive with each other. We should be able to select a new policy to adopt or repeal once every 42 days (6 months in game). Furthermore, there should be a maximum number of policies kingdom can adopt. Either the ruler or a clan leader with high clan tier should always attempt to adopt or repeal a policy every 42 days according to their traits (unless the player min-maxed the clan leaders in their kingdom and they're fully satisfied with your policy choices).

Unrelated, but if a kingdom ruler dies, it should take 2 weeks for the vote to select a new one to start, in the mean time, said kingdom should be unable to pass any votes, declare war or peace while the kingdom has no ruler.
 
disagree there, there's already enough babysitting of your own faction involving army maneuvering that i don't want to also feel like i have to first build 3 levels of fairgrounds before i think it's safe to hand over the town to another clan. rebellion for the sake of breaking monotony or to flex that a mechanic exists are not good reasons, they should happen as often as it takes for someone to mess up. maybe some of your suggestions could be implemented or they could require the clan to be in town to manage it, but the AI should definitely be reacting to these things, maybe not as smartly as the player but still be somewhat self-sufficient
My point wasn't rebellions for the sake of it, but meaningful ways to cause rebellions that aren't a simple "do festival/playground and you are fine, don't and rebellions will happen".
But if the current system isn't overhauled (I only gave some vague ideas, I am not a game designer or developer, but there would certainly be ways to improve things), coding the AI to do the same as the player would only lead to rebellions never happening at all.

So in my opinion they either need to overhaul the system, or rather than tweaking the AI to exploit the system like a human does (to never incur in rebellions), they should add a timer that doesn't allow the same town to rebel more than once every XX years no matter how many times it changes hands or not after it has happened once (and no matter whether it had been successful or not).
 
My point wasn't rebellions for the sake of it, but meaningful ways to cause rebellions that aren't a simple "do festival/playground and you are fine, don't and rebellions will happen".
But if the current system isn't overhauled (I only gave some vague ideas, I am not a game designer or developer, but there would certainly be ways to improve things), coding the AI to do the same as the player would only lead to rebellions never happening at all.

So in my opinion they either need to overhaul the system, or rather than tweaking the AI to exploit the system like a human does (to never incur in rebellions), they should add a timer that doesn't allow the same town to rebel more than once every XX years no matter how many times it changes hands or not after it has happened once (and no matter whether it had been successful or not).
Honestly, I wish they would just do a creation club sort of idea like how Bethesda does, as there are a lot of mods that fix a lot of the issues the game has. It would be an inexpensive solution to most of the problems the game has.
 
Is there any news regarding the release of Patch 1.3? Is it likely to be released to beta relatively soon? If you're not even willing to give a vague eta, could you at least confirm if we will be getting a patch 1.3? @Dejan @Piconi
 
I can confirm we will be getting a 1.3.0 patch.
Thank you for confirming it. Is there anything at all you can confirm about it if you don't mind my nosiness.

Will we get claimants?

Will we have the replay editor?

Will we be getting any more features/mechanics than the above two? (You can give a yes/no answer if TW doesn't feel 100% confident on what the feature(s) will be)
 
Back
Top Bottom