Renown and spared captive closure

[Triosta]

I don't really like the renown system. Sure, the more penalty in advantage the higher your fame will spread, but is it the right way? If you fight 50 enemies by yourself and kill them all, how will anyone know you did it? Is there an announcer that watches you and makes play-by-play calls to every establishment? Of course not.

So, why shouldn't the renown system be changed? Let's say if your battle will give you 50 renown if you win, but that's only if all of the enemies are knocked unconscious and not killed, and set free after the battle. That way it reflects how much renown spreads to other cities. After all, dead men tell no tales. Renown ratio should be percentage to the number of survivors. If half the opponents died, you only get half the renown.

And as for battle closure, why aren't dismissed troops showing up as a party on the map? It bugs me how they just vanish into oblivion. It could add to city prosperity, if you release 50 vaegir recruits, they'd band together and go to the nearest city, increasing their workforce. Just like a caravan and peasants. If you talk to them, they might say something related to you, because you were once their boss, or you could tell them you made a mistake and rehire them.

Prisoners of war especially. You should have the chance to recruit people that you captured, but not from the camp screen. If you do try to recruit them from there, they most likely say no because they have no freedom and are spiteful. But if you give them freedom and then request their services, they'll most likely accept, because you're strong but merciful. Who wouldn't want to have a thuggish band of 50 steppe bandits? Or 50 sword sisters, like I want! But it's so hard finding parties that have peasant women prisoners.

 

[italiano]

It's not the right away. Renown shouldn't be awarded based on the odds stacked against you, it should be for battles worthy of renown. Noboby in Calradia should care about us beating a dozen looters, although after time we may get a reputation for being a bandit slayer, but even then it shouldn't be worth much. Renown gained should be in faction battles, where the news is directly reported to the lords of those factions. Here would be my rules for renown (which I will attempt to implement once the module system is released, if possible):

1. Battle must involve at least one faction, and you must fight on their side if there is only one faction.
2. Renown is only gained if your contribution is noteworthy, i.e. you distinguish yourself in combat or contribute a notable portion of the starting force.
3. Odds are only considered if renown is allowable by a previous rule.
4. The larger the battle, the more renown.

This system would favour larger and more important battles, rather than being able to grind your way through bandits.

 

[Triosta]

Well, I disagree on the part where renown should not be awarded against looters and bandits. Why do you think renown increases your army capacity? Because everyone, from the knights to the recruits have heard of you, and would join you even if you had a large army. Renown from the bandits goes from the mouths of the defeated, to the taverns, to the soldiers on break drinking booze, to the lords. Whereas renown gained from defeating other lords goes from the mouths of messengers, to the lords, to other lords. In terms of realistic communication, anyway. There would be no renown in you killed all of the bandits. Dead men can't talk.

 

[italiano]

It's going to take a while to become famous from defeating small packs of bandits, and even when you do it's not as if you're going to be known as anything other than 'The Bandit Slayer'. It's more like glorified cop than a notable warrior. Furthermore, it's probably not going to capture the attention of lords, let alone Kings, who will currently offer you a fief because of it. Defeating a lot of small enemies may build a repuation over time, but given the ease in which we can do it in Native, building renown isn't any trouble - but it should be.

 

[Hunterh]

Nitpicking renown, "renown" is awkward. Why not "fame?" 

I would like renown to have more effects, such as a morale boost. Right now renown basically affects relations between you and soverigns. Having 800 renown is no better than having 400 renown, unless it also affects marshal election and fief awarding...

 

[Saber Cherry]

Nitpicking renown, "renown" is awkward. Why not "fame?" 

I would like renown to have more effects, such as a morale boost. Right now renown basically affects relations between you and soverigns. Having 800 renown is no better than having 400 renown, unless it also affects marshal election and fief awarding...

It affects fief awarding, and you get +1 max party size per 25 renown, so an extra 400 gives you +16 army size...  which is quite worthwhile.  I agree that renown could have more effects (like ease of recruitment, and your ability to make other lords follow you around) but it's actually quite useful already.

I also agree with Zaro, though, that the way renown is awarded is a bit odd.  A 60-on-60 battle should give more renown than a 2-on-8 battle, but currently, that's not the case.  Also, additional (Lord and King) participants in the battle should increase the renown gain, if you personally do well in the battle.

 

[The Wandering Knight]

You don't "dismiss" prisoners.  You finish them.

 

[Hunterh]

It affects fief awarding, and you get +1 max party size per 25 renown, so an extra 400 gives you +16 army size...  which is quite worthwhile.  I agree that renown could have more effects (like ease of recruitment, and your ability to make other lords follow you around) but it's actually quite useful already.

That party capacity is worthless if your soldiers defect right after you hire them because of low morale...maybe for a siege situation that could work, but only for mercenaries.

 

[The Wandering Knight]

It is insanely easy to keep morale up.  Get six different food items for them to eat that are not all +1 to morale, and bingo.

 

[Triosta]

You do indeed let prisoners go. What do you think the button says? Kill? No, it says "Release", from imprisonment, not from life.

 

[Thetwodud]

A 60-on-60 battle should give more renown than a 2-on-8 battle, but currently, that's not the case.

Hmm, what about taking the margin of victory into account? A 60-on-60 battle where the player only loses 5% of his men would be renown worthy indeed, but what kind of a reputation would a leader who constantly gets pyrrhic victories have?

And what of causing your opponents victory to be a pyrrhic one? Like if you had...say...300 Nords up against 15,000 Swadians and you managed to take out a few thousand Swadians before falling, is that not renown worthy?

 

[nonrumpali]

You do indeed let prisoners go. What do you think the button says? Kill? No, it says "Release", from imprisonment, not from life.

I thought it said disband like on regular troops. And I also think that it only says release when you're in a troop/prisoner exchange screen.
I could be wrong though.

 

[Triosta]

A 60-on-60 battle should give more renown than a 2-on-8 battle, but currently, that's not the case.

Hmm, what about taking the margin of victory into account? A 60-on-60 battle where the player only loses 5% of his men would be renown worthy indeed, but what kind of a reputation would a leader who constantly gets pyrrhic victories have?

And what of causing your opponents victory to be a pyrrhic one? Like if you had...say...300 Nords up against 15,000 Swadians and you managed to take out a few thousand Swadians before falling, is that not renown worthy?

You'd be so renowned that a book, movie, and game would be made after it.

 

[spectre:]

Hey i like the 'bandit slayer' thing that popped alog the lines. How about more: sacker of cities, slaughterer of farmers, bane of the vaegirs, raper of chickens and the like? This would influence some dialogues, like if I sacked 10 consecuive villages, I would like to see some peasants scared ****eless if I approach them so say: Howdy neighbour, how's tha harvest?

There could be also other, more and less positive titles (damn, this begins to look more like  Medieval Total War, but it was fun there).

 

[jordan]

A 60-on-60 battle should give more renown than a 2-on-8 battle, but currently, that's not the case.

Hmm, what about taking the margin of victory into account? A 60-on-60 battle where the player only loses 5% of his men would be renown worthy indeed, but what kind of a reputation would a leader who constantly gets pyrrhic victories have?

And what of causing your opponents victory to be a pyrrhic one? Like if you had...say...300 Nords up against 15,000 Swadians and you managed to take out a few thousand Swadians before falling, is that not renown worthy?

I agree with that.  It is frustrating to be in battle against superior odds, come close to but not actually win, and then get no renown for it.

 

[italiano]

Like if you had...say...300 Nords up against 15,000 Swadians and you managed to take out a few thousand Swadians before falling, is that not renown worthy?

Certainly. That brings up another flaw in the renown system: it's only gained if you win. History tends to remember the victors, but as you pointed out there are times when a loss can be impressive as well.

There could be also other, more and less positive titles

It's yet another one of those things that aren't necessary but add atmosphere. I named one of my characters "Zaro the Slaver" until I was granted a fief. I ran around capturing all the bandits, selling them into slavery. There are a lot of possibilites: Zaro the Slaver, the Bandit Hunter, the Protector, the Merciful, the Just, the Raider, the Scourge (I like that last one). And yes, for it to also affect reputation would be great. I'd love to see 'Zaro the Scourge' on the battlemap with all parties fleeing from me. Even better would be to have proper titles as well, such as 'Zaro the Slaver, Earl of Tihr'.

 

[allthesedamnnamesaretaken]

I don't really like the renown system. Sure, the more penalty in advantage the higher your fame will spread, but is it the right way? If you fight 50 enemies by yourself and kill them all, how will anyone know you did it?

Duh. You cut off their ears and put them in your inventory.

 

[bladeofudun]

I don't really like the renown system. Sure, the more penalty in advantage the higher your fame will spread, but is it the right way? If you fight 50 enemies by yourself and kill them all, how will anyone know you did it?

Duh. You cut off their ears and put them in your inventory.

YES!

Can we have this too? I can't COUNT the number of times I've gone looking for a spare ear and been unable to find one...

Seriously... I really want that.

 

[Jericho]

The renown system is in need of some tweaking. Renown should be awarded for tough battles even if
hopelessly outnumbered but made a good showing of yourself. Many is a time I’ve lost and retreated
from a battle but effectively stopped an enemy faction’s campaign because my army chewed them up
so badly. IMO the amount of renown needed to be offered vassalage needs to be drastically raised IF
the renown system is kept as it is because you get offered a fief far to early in the game for beginning
characters. I was offered a fief with a new 9th level character within a couple of game days. 


Additional quests could even be added by the King/Marshall of your faction by telling you to hold a
mountain pass while the King’s army falls back to a city or castle and you earn the reward of favorable
relation and renown points if you are successful in delaying/holding the enemy for a number of hours or even days.

The addition of titles for extraordinary accomplishments would be a great embellishment. 

 

[spectre:]

I agree, renown needs some balancing. Fighting Sea Raiders makes you eligible for vassalage within a week of in-game time. Upping the limit to something around 300 would most likely feel more comfortable.

As for honorifics, wouldn't want to blow my own trumpet, but here's something that just might go along these lines:
http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,37926.0.html