PoP Official 3.9 Changelog [OLD]

[Vissy]

The male / female system in Warband just really sucks all around IMO - much better system is just letting any gender marry any gender as well, and marrying companions if possible. I believe mods and scripts already exist for both of those features, all it takes is integration into the mod - which of course is hard and takes time, and also isn't a big issue in the to-do list... still, I'd love for that to be possible so the gameplay experiences wouldn't be so vastly (and most of all, detrimentally) different. 

 

[Dusk Voyager]

With this change there's no good reason to play a female character anymore since garrison poaching was the one single advantage that female characters had over males. Women will now have it considerably worse, since its already much harder to find a spouse, and once you do its a pain in the ass tracking your husband down whenever you want to throw a feast or manage your kingdom. And on top of that you now have to pay half his garrison costs. The only reason to play a female will be if you want to make your playthrough harder and more annoying.

It's not that unfair though. If you're male, you can only control garrisons in your own fiefs. If you're female, I can understand discouraging a highly exploitable option male characters can't use. Also, why should the income suddenly start going to you when it's been his so far, just because you happened to put a few troops there?

 

[aaaa1]

With this change there's no good reason to play a female character anymore since garrison poaching was the one single advantage that female characters had over males. Women will now have it considerably worse, since its already much harder to find a spouse, and once you do its a pain in the ass tracking your husband down whenever you want to throw a feast or manage your kingdom. And on top of that you now have to pay half his garrison costs. The only reason to play a female will be if you want to make your playthrough harder and more annoying.

It's not that unfair though. If you're male, you can only control garrisons in your own fiefs. If you're female, I can understand discouraging something male characters can't do. Also, why should the taxes suddenly start going to you when they have been his so far, just because you happened to put a few troops there?

males get a guaranteed first fief (mostly a village) while females do not. females have a harder time in the beginning but are better off lategame as they get one guaranteed ally, should they rebel against their kingdom (and probably a few more fiefs aswell). I think the change is a good thing as it levels out the costs between the genders. As a female you can put all your Elite (=Expensive) Troops into one of your husbands fiefs (and take them when needed or when secondary fiefs are being besieged and rush there)

Just think of this: putting 2000 Noldor Rangers into your Husbands fief without him nor you going broke is realistic?

 

[Lord Irontoe]

Even if you don't abuse your husband's fiefs, you'll still get stuck paying for half his garrison costs. The free garrison was balanced out by the other inconveniences of playing a female. This change just decisively tips the balance in favor of male characters. There's no way I'd play a female character with these new rules

 

[Dusk Voyager]

you'll still get stuck paying for half his garrison costs.

I got the impression from the original quote that it's only the case if you've dropped your own troops into his fief (why else would there be the 'accumulated wealth' part?).

 

[Lord Irontoe]

you'll still get stuck paying for half his garrison costs.

I got the impression from the original quote that it's only the case if you've dropped your own troops into his fief (why else would there be the 'accumulated wealth' part?).

It doesn't read that way to me. It sounds like you're paying 50% of the garrison either way. "Accumulated wealth' just sounds like the wife's money going into the husband's pocket

 

[Gorvex]

you'll still get stuck paying for half his garrison costs.

I got the impression from the original quote that it's only the case if you've dropped your own troops into his fief (why else would there be the 'accumulated wealth' part?).

It doesn't read that way to me. It sounds like you're paying 50% of the garrison either way. "Accumulated wealth' just sounds like the wife's money going into the husband's pocket

To be honest, I also read it in the way that you'll have to pay half of your husband's garrison regardless if you put some of your troops there or not. I hope that this wouldn't be the case, but on the other hand, it's hard for me to imagine such a feature implemented that would know which and how many troops originated from your party, and which came from your husband's party or autogarrison... Or you put there 1 peasant, and from that moment, you pay half of the wages for the whole garrison?

 

[sher]

Not having first village as a fief is an advantage actually, not paying for garrison is total BS, now it's more fair since you still pay less for no reason even if you'll have to pay for some other soldiers that still will protect that castle or whatever. Cheese lovers will be offended no matter what.

 

[Lord Irontoe]

Not having first village as a fief is an advantage actually, not paying for garrison is total BS, now it's more fair since you still pay less for no reason even if you'll have to pay for some other soldiers that still will protect that castle or whatever. Cheese lovers will be offended no matter what.

How is not getting a village an advantage? That's plain stupid. Even if it gets raided alot it can still make you 2 - 3k a week during peacetime. That's like having 4-6 extra enterprises. Better even, because it doesn't get sequestered during wartime, and even if they can't pay one week, the money piles up until they can.

And no, I'm not going to pay for half my husband's garrison. That's bull**** and it has game repercussions beyond just closing off a single exploit. Let's say I'm a queen, and my husband has joined my rebellion with his one ****ty castle. Do you think I'm going to give him any more castles knowing that I'll have to pay half the cost of the garrisons? I sure as hell won't be giving him any cities. Just how many hero adventurers would I need to store there to even out the extra costs?

This feature's been in the game since native. Why change it now?

 

[sher]

How is not getting a village an advantage? That's plain stupid.
...
This feature's been in the game since native. Why change it now?

You can have limited amount of fiefs within faction and instead of useless village you can have a castle. Of your own choosing.

Female options were extremely unfair and cheesy so they made them less cheesy but still more powerful than what male can have. AI lords don't use absurd garrisons and faction soldiers are faction soldiers and females magically have them for only half of usual upkeep. Now PoP lords are not ugly native bastards but I still will not play as female solely because it's not aesthetically pleasing like in TES and I can live without cheese pretty fine.

 

[Dusk Voyager]

@ Gorvex: I took a look at the 3.9.1 patch (from the dev forum), and seems like they really made it apply for all your husband's fiefs. Well, at least you can always stay single.

 

[Gorvex]

@ Gorvex: I took a look at the 3.9.1 patch (from the dev forum), and seems like they really made it apply for all your husband's fiefs. At least you can always stay single.

Thanks for checking! Well, now I know that I won't let my husband have more fiefs than a single castle

 

[aaaa1]

[quote author=Konr@d]
7. Qualis Heroes and enemies to the player (relation<0) commanding own armies during the battles
[/quote]

RIP Qualis/Armies Farming

 

[Ralyks18]

[quote author=Konr@d]
7. Qualis Heroes and enemies to the player (relation<0) commanding own armies during the battles

RIP Qualis/Armies Farming
[/quote]

More like you actually have to join the stronger side if you're weak, rather than join the strong one and make them stupidly so that they lose and then switch sides, or join the slightly weaker one and make wonders with them to win the battle.

If you joined Eyegrim vs Aeldarian, you think that if you join Eyegrim, he will let you (a nobody which he doesnt trust) take command of his army and even Eyegrim himself? And do you think Aeldarian will trust you to lead his own troops?. I admit IA is not very smart, but that goes as well for the enemy, so it evens out, with you and your party to make the difference.

There was even an exploit some users reported me. "Lure a jatu army to a Noldor Lord, join the Noldor Lord, tell them to use blunt weapons and to move to the map's border (this way they'll go backwards and be facing backwards against the jatu, foot ones do turn) with "hold this position". Jatu will just use their bows and charges on the Noldor lord to take them down relatively easy, as noldor wont fire back and unless some jatu riders get stuck in the charges, not many casualties should occur. When Noldor are almost done, swap sides to the Jatu. You may capture the Noldor lord without even having to bring in your own troops or fight)"

I welcome this change, but even being neutral should make them not trust you. This should be raised to (at least) 5 or 10 positive relations imo, or have x renown (as well?), to avoid early game exploits like the one i was reported and wrote above. Because even if you are friendly to them, if you're a nobody without battle experience, they wont trust you, and renown is the best stat to determine how nobody or not you are

 

[lconracl]

Conditions (being marshall, enemy leader and relations) are checked on EVERY soldier spawn, so need to be as short as possible, without tons of extra "if". Only the most essential stuff.

 

[Gilcimarrb]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE... Is it possible create a quick button which auto upgrad all troops?

It's very boring and very tiring, for example, click 99 times when there are 99 troops to upgrad.

Please, can you just try to hear my suggestion?

Thank you so much for you job. How can I make a contribution?

 

[lconracl]

Hold CTRL (or Shift, don't remember atm) and upgrade the whole stack in one go. Unless you are talking about 99 stacks of different troops.

 

[Gilcimarrb]

Hold CTRL (or Shift, don't remember atm) and upgrade the whole stack in one go. Unless you are talking about 99 stacks of different troops.

I'm talking about 99 stacks of differents troops.

Change subject, is it possible to gain more XP when I encrease the difficulty level?

 

[Gorvex]

Hold CTRL (or Shift, don't remember atm) and upgrade the whole stack in one go. Unless you are talking about 99 stacks of different troops.

1. I'm talking about 99 stacks of differents troops.

2. Change subject, is it possible to gain more XP when I encrease the difficulty level?

1. How do you expect to upgrade 99 different stacks of troops at one go, when each one of them can have multiple upgrade paths? Who will decide for that?

2. No.

 

[Leonion]

Conditions (being marshall, enemy leader and relations) are checked on EVERY soldier spawn

They're not if you put conditions inside conditions. 
Also it's such a tiny script that any reasonable changes you can do to it will not affect performance at all.
Just think about scripts like decide_faction_ai which process thousands, if not tens of thousands of operations in a jiffy.