Randomized chance of death needs to be reworked

Users who are viewing this thread

JPA32

Recruit
So currently the system of death is a random chance with heavily leaning towards kills if the clan is too large. To me this feels a bit unfun ultimately because of how random it ends up being, you often lose family members out of nowhere

I think a better system would be a percentage chance of death starting at -15% upon turning 18 and becoming a lord. For every year that passes you gain a 1% chance of death increase, and for every time you fall in battle you also gain a 1% chance of death increase (the latter capping at 20%). This would ensure that your new children who're just finding their way in the world don't get killed before we even get to use them, and it gives you time to actually teach them skills so they can fight without getting knocked out while providing death a little more structure so the player can feel less ripped off when it does happen.

Similarly, since one of the prime methods of avoiding companion/family deaths is to cheese them away with a group retreat, I think there should be a passive benefit to lords and companions who stay alive for a battle based on the size of the conflict. Tactics makes sense (and really could have more uses tbh) but also Horse Riding/Athletics depending on if they're mounded or not. Their weapon skill could probably get a multiplier based on how much they did during the fight and even fighting with your family and companions could increase personal relationship numbers due to battle bonds if they survive (Which hopefully will have a purpose eventually.) I'd also propose a new skill named tutoring (Combine Steward/Leadership into Social since they're the same damn thing, Replace old Steward with Tutoring in INT) which could be leveled up passively from learning other skills above 50.

When your companions and family grow old and past their prime, you should be able to assign them to tutor kids and younger clan members so that you don't have to jump from an Engineer with 200 skill down to someone with almost none and it gives old clan members purpose when you don't want them to die in battle.
 
I think a better system would be a percentage chance of death starting at -15% upon turning 18 and becoming a lord. For every year that passes you gain a 1% chance of death increase, and for every time you fall in battle you also gain a 1% chance of death increase (the latter capping at 20%). This would ensure that your new children who're just finding their way in the world don't get killed before we even get to use them, and it gives you time to actually teach them skills so they can fight without getting knocked out while providing death a little more structure so the player can feel less ripped off when it does happen.
This is an easy and rather nice "shortcut" compared to how it is now. At least if OP means for it work for AI and for simulated AI battles as well as for player and their familly :razz:
 

JPA32

Recruit
This is an easy and rather nice "shortcut" compared to how it is now. At least if OP means for it work for AI and for simulated AI battles as well as for player and their familly :razz:
On one hand a universal system like that would be good for immersion in the world, but the AI might need a little buff behind the scenes (no wounded penalty maybe?) since AI lords get knocked out so often they'd all be at the 20% cap before the first year and that'd probably result in a massive swathe of deaths.
 
On one hand a universal system like that would be good for immersion in the world, but the AI might need a little buff behind the scenes (no wounded penalty maybe?) since AI lords get knocked out so often they'd all be at the 20% cap before the first year and that'd probably result in a massive swathe of deaths.
Haha! No, it would rather save them from death, they would constantly be below 20% health and not participate in many battles....

Jokes aside, they could have a 50% health threshold for participating in battles instead of the around 20% for players. Especially in simulated battles, a wounded lord(below 50% health) could use the "send troops" - option as deafult.

Age - 33(15+18 ) can alone be a very high death-rate when looking closer. A 53 year old lord would suffer a 20% death-risk if falling in battle. IE, there would hardly be any charachters 40+. I think there needs to be another parameter as well. How about dividing with the characher median armour-tier? That means the same 53 year old lord that has fallen i battle 20+ times but have an insane T6 armourwould land a deathrisk slightly above 6%? For your 40 year old companion with lootergear but who has never fallen before its 7% too((7+0)/1).

And there could be some kind of mechanic to reduce the "death-count malus" - maybe keep count of no of battles without falling and after each battle subtract that number for the "death-count malus" - number. This can ofc be cheased by a player but a companion can fall even against 5 looters :razz:
 
Last edited:

JPA32

Recruit
Haha! No, it would rather save them from death, they would constantly be below 20% health and not participate in many battles....

Jokes aside, they could have a 50% health threshold for participating in battles instead of the around 20% for players. Especially in simulated battles, a wounded lord(below 50% health) could use the "send troops" - option as deafult.

Age - 33(15+18 ) can alone be a very high death-rate when looking closer. A 53 year old lord would suffer a 20% death-risk if falling in battle. IE, there would hardly be any charachters 40+. I think there needs to be another parameter as well. How about dividing with the characher median armour-tier? That means the same 53 year old lord that has fallen i battle 20+ times but have an insane T6 armourwould land a deathrisk slightly above 6%? For your 40 year old companion with lootergear but who has never fallen before its 7% too((7+0)/1).

And there could be some kind of mechanic to reduce the "death-count malus" - maybe keep count of no of battles without falling and after each battle subtract that number for the "death-count malus" - number. This can ofc be cheased by a player but a companion can fall even against 5 looters :razz:
I should have been clearer, I meant no increased death chance on being wounded not the ability to enter battle wounded. 1HP AI lords in battle would be pretty goofy.

Alternatively, there's probably a much more complicated way of doing this that takes into account clan size and maybe less of a linear percentage chance and more of a exponential chance the older you are/more you've been hurt/larger your clan. I have no idea what that equation would be so I just kind of spitballed a basic straight forward concept because as flawed as it is it'd still be better than the current system.

Armor could have another effect on the chance, though it'd seem to be a one dimensional change when it comes to AI lords who never change their armor, and it would only cause your early game companions (and you for that matter) to die easier early on in the run which is kind of the intention against this system so I'm not sure how well that would work with the current armor system in place.

I do quite like the reverse death count for surviving battles, that makes the death clock on being wounded less permanent and lets the player effectively play the game without having to worry about them or their companions being wounded every now and then without being irreparably affected by increased death chance.
 
1HP AI lords in battle would be pretty goofy.
Of cause, but 20 HP AI lords in battle is not much better, if they risk dying when falling. Default it to 50% for participating in simulated battles however makes more sense. If they don't enter battle, they don't die, though being among the prisoners if loosing.

Alternatively, there's probably a much more complicated way of doing this that takes into account clan size and maybe less of a linear percentage chance and more of a exponential chance the older you are/more you've been hurt/larger your clan. I have no idea what that equation would be so I just kind of spitballed a basic straight forward concept because as flawed as it is it'd still be better than the current system.

Nah, your OP-suggestion would give a lord who has fallen 20+ times and is 53 years old a death-risk of freaking high 40%. Current flat 10% is insane and what everyone votes against :razz: Nobody wants a situation where all AI lords are statistically dead after 10 times fallnig in battle :smile: It needs to go down quite alot. Very few lords would have any "protecten" from that suggestion, most would be far more fragile(All charachters starting at 43+ to be specific).

Armor could have another effect on the chance, though it'd seem to be a one dimensional change when it comes to AI lords who never change their armor, and it would only cause your early game companions (and you for that matter) to die easier early on in the run which is kind of the intention against this system so I'm not sure how well that would work with the current armor system in place.

It gives you a good reason to take care of them and equip them well as it makes quite big differense. And the purpuse of armour is to save life after all.

It´s an issue that AI has the same armour at all time. I think they should at minimum have a risk to lose a random armourpart when loosing a battle, replacing it with a T3 noble armour-part and some mechanic for them to get them upgraded as well.

I do quite like the reverse death count for surviving battles, that makes the death clock on being wounded less permanent and lets the player effectively play the game without having to worry about them or their companions being wounded every now and then without being irreparably affected by increased death chance.
It could even be turn into a boost for charachters in a winning party. I mean, it could range from 20 to -20%. instead of from 20 to 0%.
 

JPA32

Recruit
Of cause, but 20 HP AI lords in battle is not much better, if they risk dying when falling. Default it to 50% for participating in simulated battles however makes more sense. If they don't enter battle, they don't die, though being among the prisoners if loosing.



Nah, your OP-suggestion would give a lord who has fallen 20+ times and is 53 years old a death-risk of freaking high 40%. Current flat 10% is insane and what everyone votes against :razz: Nobody wants a situation where all AI lords are statistically dead after 10 times fallnig in battle :smile: It needs to go down quite alot. Very few lords would have any "protecten" from that suggestion, most would be far more fragile(All charachters starting at 43+ to be specific).



It gives you a good reason to take care of them and equip them well as it makes quite big differense. And the purpuse of armour is to save life after all.

It´s an issue that AI has the same armour at all time. I think they should at minimum have a risk to lose a random armourpart when loosing a battle, replacing it with a T3 noble armour-part and some mechanic for them to get them upgraded as well.


It could even be turn into a boost for charachters in a winning party. I mean, it could range from 20 to -20%. instead of from 20 to 0%.
I believe wounded AI lords attempt to seek shelter and recover. I could be wrong but I remember it in one of the patch notes.

I mean, at 53 years old you've gotten pretty far and are probably on your death bed soon (Lot of AI lords die of natural causes in late 50's early 60's it seems). My mental reasoning here would be around 40-50 you stop being a party leader (Maybe unless you have traits that encourage you to stay as a war party), retire, and become a tutor for younger clan members to take over your shoes. This would help keep new lords from being terrible right from the getgo at age 18 and let the old guard step down without having to lead parties until they die. It also helps infuse new blood into long campaigns in a structured way at a reasonable time frame for the player too and gives clans a little more immersion and potential for old tutors to give unique sets of quests (Gather me supplies for teaching, I'd like to teach your companion/family member "x" for a week, escort me to "x" town during war, etc). But yeah like I said an exponential scale that starts low when young and ramps up harder as the lord gets older/has more clan members/died more would probably be better since a linear system would probably result in a lot of younger lords dying in their early/mid 30's.

I mean, by the time I'm 30 I've already got lower tier 4/5 armor for all my companions and stacks upon stacks of it in my fief for new companions so it's not really much of a change since you shouldn't be neglecting your companions to begin with. Good armor is very easy to acquire in Bannerlord by just popping lords in a war or winning tournaments which can be done very early. I'd like a system that allows AI lords to have their armor be shifted but it's dangerous to reward their extreme high tier armor to a player since it's pretty much objectively the best armor in the game and it would instantly break any sort of gear progression as you topple over AI lords with ease. I think the economy would need to be fixed, or AI lords should start with slightly worse gear and upgrade over time to begin with. Maybe some interaction with clan tier(though clan tier probably needs to have it's own rework since it's effectively a progress bar instead of a shifting weight of how influential a clan is and that results in late game static clans) or age or influence or even just clan purse to buy the higher tier gear. Lot of options here that could be explored.

a temporary death prevention for winning battles might be a bit too extreme in the moment. I think it'd just operate better on a universal scale since balancing a universal death counter and the temporary death prevention counter would result in easily exploitable situations and drastic turn arounds when it comes to death chance which would feel a little weird.
 
I mean, at 53 years old you've gotten pretty far and are probably on your death bed soon (Lot of AI lords die of natural causes in late 50's early 60's it seems). My mental reasoning here would be around 40-50 you stop being a party leader (Maybe unless you have traits that encourage you to stay as a war party), retire, and become a tutor for younger clan members to take over your shoes. This would help keep new lords from being terrible right from the getgo at age 18 and let the old guard step down without having to lead parties until they die. It also helps infuse new blood into long campaigns in a structured way at a reasonable time frame for the player too and gives clans a little more immersion and potential for old tutors to give unique sets of quests (Gather me supplies for teaching, I'd like to teach your companion/family member "x" for a week, escort me to "x" town during war, etc). But yeah like I said an exponential scale that starts low when young and ramps up harder as the lord gets older/has more clan members/died more would probably be better since a linear system would probably result in a lot of younger lords dying in their early/mid 30's.

Problem is you would not live that long if a loosing lord has 20% deathrisk at age 33 :smile: They will be dead at 23 if they has fallen 20 times by then. Just count, age - (15 + 18 ) + 20. You can have 5% death at age 18 if you are unlucky/enter a loosing/falling streak. For AI I guess its not uncommon to loose or at least fall in 20 battles/year. Considering they fall in >95% of their "real" battle, whether winning or loosing. I don't know if their statistics are as bad in simulated battles. But if we make a system att allows at least 60% of band-leading lords to live untill they are 55, I would like a system like you propose here. They retire from warlording and settle down as a steward. I like your suggestion with tutoring youngsters but I don't want to see 18 your old monsters, who are as good as their mentor :smile: Onther issue here is that alot of the lords has a starting age of ~50. This means you will likely not encounter the "old foxes" on the field but only their younger relatives and sons.

I mean, by the time I'm 30 I've already got lower tier 4/5 armor for all my companions and stacks upon stacks of it in my fief for new companions so it's not really much of a change since you shouldn't be neglecting your companions to begin with. Good armor is very easy to acquire in Bannerlord by just popping lords in a war or winning tournaments which can be done very early. I'd like a system that allows AI lords to have their armor be shifted but it's dangerous to reward their extreme high tier armor to a player since it's pretty much objectively the best armor in the game and it would instantly break any sort of gear progression as you topple over AI lords with ease. I think the economy would need to be fixed, or AI lords should start with slightly worse gear and upgrade over time to begin with. Maybe some interaction with clan tier(though clan tier probably needs to have it's own rework since it's effectively a progress bar instead of a shifting weight of how influential a clan is and that results in late game static clans) or age or influence or even just clan purse to buy the higher tier gear. Lot of options here that could be explored.

I think we should seperate the player out of the equation for now. The players should not risk death in battle really(I have fallen too many times to count and yet never died from it so I guess that is the case already). But for other charachters - in what scale do we want them to die? I say maximum in same scale that a new noble comes to age. if we had a situation (globaly in Calradia) where 10 nobles comes of age each year, then an avarage of 10 nobles should die(in total, battle and age). Othervice the world would either depopulate or overpoulate - both bad! I suggest a global death-risk multiplayer depending on this statistics. Then we multiply a very low base deathrisk with this multiplier to calculate the actual deatrisk.

This would currently mean that in the beginning of a new game, death in battle would be very rare as there are no kids closing in to 18 while several years in, it´s higher when regrowth is closing in. Which is good! New players gets a chanse to know the lords, they get time to build up companion gear, to marry, to get a few children etc before lords starts to die around them. Old players gets a chanse to roleplay abit aswell.

a temporary death prevention for winning battles might be a bit too extreme in the moment. I think it'd just operate better on a universal scale since balancing a universal death counter and the temporary death prevention counter would result in easily exploitable situations and drastic turn arounds when it comes to death chance which would feel a little weird.

Listen to forum - people don't want lords to die. The death-rate needs to be low. Loosing companion should be rare and defininatly not punish inexperienced/new players.

I would like a very low death-risk and introduce a "wounded" charachter-state. While "wounded", charachter suffer an lower HP regen, increased deathrisk and require additional HP to enter battles.

Base Death-risk variables:
AGE
= charachter age
BM = Base modifier(15 default)
AM = Age midifier(18 default - adult age)
FM = Fallen Modifier(0-20 number of times a charachter has fallen)
ARM = Armour modifier(1-6 avarage armortier)

Base death-risk: My edited OP proposal (AGE - ( BM + AM) + FM) / ARM / 10
Examples:
  • 40 year old, never fallen charachter with T3 armour: 0,7%
  • 50 year old, 20 times fallen charachter with T5 armour : 0,74%
  • 22 year old, 15 times fallen charachter with T2 armour: 0,2%
  • 60 year old, 20 times fallen charachter with T2 armour: 2,35%
I can see at least 4 wounded states

InjuryBattleready at HPEffectsRemoved byDeathrisk modifierRemoval effect
None(as is)20Base(see above)
Wounded30HP regen x 0,75HP = 50Low(Base x 5)FM = 0****
Badly Wounded50HP regen x 0,5*Medium(Base x 20)FM - 5****
Severly Injured75HP regen x 0,25**High(Base x 50)None
Maimed***NeverHP regen x 0,1NeverN/AN/A

* At HP 75: Removed and sets HP = 30
** At HP 100: Downgrades to Badly Wounded and sets HP = 40
*** Even a maimed charachter can still do anything but participate in battles without any malus but they will die earlier from age
**** By resetting/reducing Fallen Modifier when removing wounds, we give the player some additional control over the deathrisk. Given time to recover injuries, all characters benefits. Ignoring them sets them at additional risk. And yes, charachters rarely will reach a high FM - score


When falling in battle, wound trait has a big risk(75%?) of beeing added or upgraded (if falling with one active). The player does not get them by default(can be a setting ofc but playing as maimed sounds... boring!) this would force AI lords to stay out of battle. It could be used as an AI anti-snowballing thing as well. A Badly Wounded lord leaves an offensive army for example while only a Severly injured lord leaves a defensive army.

They don't die, but they are fighting alot less! This would give battles more meaning, give lords more personality and preserve the gamestate abit longer(less snowballing without player influence).

This Wounded traits would provide AI writers with a great opportunity to solve alot of AI related issues in the game.
 
Last edited:

JPA32

Recruit
Problem is you would not live that long if a loosing lord has 20% deathrisk at age 33 :smile: They will be dead at 23 if they has fallen 20 times by then. Just count, age - (15 + 18 ) + 20. You can have 5% death at age 18 if you are unlucky/enter a loosing/falling streak. For AI I guess its not uncommon to loose or at least fall in 20 battles/year. Considering they fall in >95% of their "real" battle, whether winning or loosing. I don't know if their statistics are as bad in simulated battles. But if we make a system att allows at least 60% of band-leading lords to live untill they are 55, I would like a system like you propose here. They retire from warlording and settle down as a steward. I like your suggestion with tutoring youngsters but I don't want to see 18 your old monsters, who are as good as their mentor :smile: Onther issue here is that alot of the lords has a starting age of ~50. This means you will likely not encounter the "old foxes" on the field but only their younger relatives and sons.

I mean, that was the point of the reverse death count concept (which was a good idea), winning battles reels back in the battle wounded chance of death. (Surely all the AI lords don't fall in every single against the AI right? that should grant them some reverse death counts.)

Numbers obviously need to be worked out better but I had no information to go on before. So if it's a 10% death chance how about we aim for something like this as a baseline.

18 -0.5%
24 1.5%
30 3.5%
36 6.5%
42 10.5%
48 15.5%
54 21.5%
60 28.5%

So with this, We can give Lords at age 18 some buffer to completely prevent death chance. We can change the wounded death chance increase to be a 5% metric with increments of 0.1% per battle if wounded and if they survive a battle they receive a 1.0 reduction in their wounded counter (i.e Lord is wounded 27 times in a row which gives him a 2.7% extra chance of death, lord survives next battle to bring his wounded chance down to 1.7%) We could also modify this to be increased or decreased based on clan size to promote healthy clan numbers. For every clan member of age above "x" or below "y" there's a percentage increase/decrease in death chance and this system will help self right clans by leveling off abnormally large ones while attempting to protect smaller ones
I think we should seperate the player out of the equation for now. The players should not risk death in battle really(I have fallen too many times to count and yet never died from it so I guess that is the case already). But for other charachters - in what scale do we want them to die? I say maximum in same scale that a new noble comes to age. if we had a situation (globaly in Calradia) where 10 nobles comes of age each year, then an avarage of 10 nobles should die(in total, battle and age). Othervice the world would either depopulate or overpoulate - both bad! I suggest a global death-risk multiplayer depending on this statistics. Then we multiply a very low base deathrisk with this multiplier to calculate the actual deatrisk.
Players can certainly die in battle (I've had it happen to me) I believe the game will only cold clock you if your clan is too large though. You take over whoever would be second in command (Usually your wife) As for death and birth rates, Birth rates are incredibly easy to modify. I'd rather create the outline for death rates and simply modify birthrates around that instead since that seems significantly easier. Part of the problem I see with not having a chance to kill lords immediately is that it's very immersion breaking that for the first couple years lords simply don't die then all the sudden they start falling left and right as kids come into fruition. I think the chance of killing older lords in battle can provide it's own merits even early in the game but we'd need to actually provide AI lords with some personality so players care about them in the first place since it should only take 1 interaction to build a basic idea of a character through their first impression.

I would like a very low death-risk and introduce a "wounded" charachter-state. While "wounded", charachter suffer an lower HP regen, increased deathrisk and require additional HP to enter battles.

Base Death-risk variables:
AGE
= charachter age
BM = Base modifier(15 default)
AM = Age midifier(18 default - adult age)
FM = Fallen Modifier(0-20 number of times a charachter has fallen)
ARM = Armour modifier(1-6 avarage armortier)

Base death-risk: My edited OP proposal (AGE - ( BM + AM) + FM) / ARM / 10
Examples:
  • 40 year old, never fallen charachter with T3 armour: 0,7%
  • 50 year old, 20 times fallen charachter with T5 armour : 0,74%
  • 22 year old, 15 times fallen charachter with T2 armour: 0,2%
  • 60 year old, 20 times fallen charachter with T2 armour: 2,35%
I can see at least 4 wounded states

InjuryBattleready at HPEffectsRemoved byDeathrisk modifierRemoval effect
None(as is)20Base(see above)
Wounded30HP regen x 0,75HP = 50Low(Base x 5)FM = 0****
Badly Wounded50HP regen x 0,5*Medium(Base x 20)FM - 5****
Severly Injured75HP regen x 0,25**High(Base x 50)None
Maimed***NeverHP regen x 0,1NeverN/AN/A

* At HP 75: Removed and sets HP = 30
** At HP 100: Downgrades to Badly Wounded and sets HP = 40
*** Even a maimed charachter can still do anything but participate in battles without any malus but they will die earlier from age
**** By resetting/reducing Fallen Modifier when removing wounds, we give the player some additional control over the deathrisk. Given time to recover injuries, all characters benefits. Ignoring them sets them at additional risk. And yes, charachters rarely will reach a high FM - score


When falling in battle, wound trait has a big risk(75%?) of beeing added or upgraded (if falling with one active). The player does not get them by default(can be a setting ofc but playing as maimed sounds... boring!) this would force AI lords to stay out of battle. It could be used as an AI anti-snowballing thing as well. A Badly Wounded lord leaves an offensive army for example while only a Severly injured lord leaves a defensive army.

They don't die, but they are fighting alot less! This would give battles more meaning, give lords more personality and preserve the gamestate abit longer(less snowballing without player influence).

This Wounded traits would provide AI writers with a great opportunity to solve alot of AI related issues in the game.
I think part of the problem with this method would be that every lord would be absolutely destroyed incredibly quickly from battle, and it'd significantly slow the actual gameplay part of the game down which would end up not being very fun for the player who wants to fight battles or in the opposite direction, this system could be abused very easily by decimating enemy armies and taking them out of the game for longer causing heavier snowballing from the lack of response these newly wounded lords can't muster causing the player to steamroll entire kingdoms by themselves. The concept of a temporary wounded state could have a lot of merit for lord personality, quest purposes, and relation purposes but you'd need to be incredibly careful when affecting how it impacts battles since that's a very delicate scale.
 
18 -0.5%
24 1.5%
30 3.5%
36 6.5%
42 10.5%
48 15.5%
54 21.5%
60 28.5%
Surely all the AI lords don't fall in every single against the AI right?
This question is the key. or rather the 2 questions: How many battles are in avarage fought and how many times does every single lord fall, in average, each year. Lets take 3 numbers out of thin air and try them on your table and assume each lord fights 20 battles in a year.

before we do that, consider that in battles between armies, ALL lords on the loosing side falls and how many on the winning side? 25%? 50% 75%.
For the avarage, I think we can ignore winning and loosing streak- modifiers. they nullifies each other, statistically.

1. 10 out of 20? Do you think think this is high or low? in agerage, they fall in 50% of the battles. I think it´s low. Here we can ignore streaks.

That means that in the 6 years between 30 and 36, there will be 60(!!) rolls against 3.5% in average(not considering death-streaks in any direction). the chanses of surviving these all rolls are minimal, at best. Then the 36-42 doubles that up.

2. 5 out of 20. Very low I think. This might be close for the winning factions!

Its half the number of rolls, 30. Still very far from safe! and even these lords would likely die during 36-42 interval, even if we consider winning streak bonuses

3. 15 of 20. The unlucky faction that gets steamrolled. 90 rolls. even 24-30 age lords are statistically dead before 30, even without loosing streak penalty.

However, it does not matter number you put in such a list as long the number of participating battles are at the rate it is currently.

The problem is not death-risk ofc, for a single battle your numbers are likely low, it´s the sole number of battles and the result i devestating. Considering most lords and ladies are 30+ at game start, In theory only a handfull would live 10 years into the game. And at that point excactly 0 kids would have joined the the ranks as there are no noble kids(that I know of) in the game day 1.

I think all faction rulers are above 40. Within 2-3 years all faction leaders would be replaced. Player would need to rush the first familly quest to talk to 10 veterans to be able to solve it. The entire backstory, the reason of the rebellion etc. Gone!

0.1% per battle if wounded and if they survive a battle they receive a 1.0 reduction
as long as this reduction does not go into negative with a winning streak and becomes a boost, it won't matter. I don't know how long loosing streaks there can be but a single win would just remove the malus. Assuming loosing streaks in pure AI wars of above 3 is rare, it won't at all affect above statisitics(loosing factions don't need the additional malus to be entirely eradicated.
As for death and birth rates, Birth rates are incredibly easy to modify. I'd rather create the outline for death rates and simply modify birthrates around that instead since that seems significantly easier. Part of the problem I see with not having a chance to kill lords immediately is that it's very immersion breaking that for the first couple years lords simply don't die then all the sudden they start falling left and right as kids come into fruition. I think the chance of killing older lords in battle can provide it's own merits even early in the game but we'd need to actually provide AI lords with some personality so players care about them in the first place since it should only take 1 interaction to build a basic idea of a character through their first impression.
Sure but even if all married couples reproduce like rabbits, most of the kids would not reach adulthood before their clan is eradicated.

I think part of the problem with this method would be that every lord would be absolutely destroyed incredibly quickly from battle, and it'd significantly slow the actual gameplay part of the game down which would end up not being very fun for the player who wants to fight battles or in the opposite direction, this system could be abused very easily by decimating enemy armies and taking them out of the game for longer causing heavier snowballing from the lack of response these newly wounded lords can't muster causing the player to steamroll entire kingdoms by themselves. The concept of a temporary wounded state could have a lot of merit for lord personality, quest purposes, and relation purposes but you'd need to be incredibly careful when affecting how it impacts battles since that's a very delicate scale.

It would not neccessarely affect the number off battles, but only the number of battles with a lord leading them. Armies and parties are still there, a "wounded" lord just don't join the field.(Like a player that presses "Send Troops") BUT the system COULD be used to make battles more important, A badly wounded lord don't follow in offensive endevours. They stay home, heals and defends.

Lords should of course not allways be carefull. I´d love to see some maimed veterans! I mean even a 60 year old with good gear has a chance to survive one single roll with x50 multifier

this system could be abused very easily
Yep. We should probably not know the "wounded-state" of the enemies. Maybe only about our army members and clan companions/members and maybe friends.
 
Last edited:

XDaron

Sergeant Knight
deaths should have more meaning than math equations and chance calculations, bring back executions, bring in the villains and the heros, bring this robotic game to life
 
deaths should have more meaning than math equations and chance calculations, bring back executions, bring in the villains and the heros, bring this robotic game to life

Ofc! But that´s mostly not related to how often they die, it´s about making their lifes meaning- and purpusefull. Here we try to make up how to let them live long enough to make such content usefel.
 
Top Bottom