Some major suggestions

[jrawlings]

These suggestions, as opposed to my previous post, represent more difficult items to implement, but I think are doable and would enhance gameplay.

1. Have non-player parties re-evaluate their targets periodically, and do so in the following ways:
a. If the non-player party is in pursuit of the player and does not have the speed to catch the player, they should disengage. Currently, it seems that disengagement occurs when the player is out of range according to the spotting skill. Often, this means that you end up leading them all the way across the map before you lose them. I once lead a party of black khergit raiders from Tulga all the way to Tihr! Perhaps a timer could be put into place such that if the player isn't caught, they go away.
b. When multiple "targets" are available to the non-player party, the party should evaluate which is the best target to go after and pursue it. For some, the best target will be the weakest. For others, it is the slowest. Each party type could have what it considers the "best" target.
c. Non-player parties should have "home regions." For example, steppe bandits prefer the steppe. When a player leaves a steppe region and steppe bandits are in pursuit, the bandits should re-evaluate whether or not they should continue the pursuit. Perhaps if steppe bandits were given a tactical or morale advantage for fighting on steppe terrain (and likewise a disadvantage for fighting elsewhere), this could be used to evaluate whether or not to continue pursuit. Maybe a party of 10 steppe bandits would consider fighting against a party 13 strong if on the steppe, but only 7 strong if not on the steppe.

2. When the character gets high enough level (maybe 20-30ish), they should get the chance to recruit men directly from other parties that are wandering around. For example, if I'm level 30 and a Swadian and I come across some Swadian foragers. I should be able to talk to them and ask them if they want to join my party. Whether they accept or not could be determined by charisma, your level relative to theirs etc... or even on your rank in the Swadian army.

3. I think that the struggle between the Vaegirs and Swadians and other factions should be portrayed on the map. Each faction should get a color and the map should be tinted that color in the area controlled by the faction. This could be an overlay or something like that. If a major battle takes place on Swadian land between Vaegirs and the Swads and if the Vaegirs win, that part of the map changes color to the Vaegir color. All factions would be represented including neutral areas and perhaps different bandit factions as well. I really like this idea because I think it would really help get the player immersed in the conflict that is going on.

4. Deserters. If I am a Swadian and I encounter a Vaegir deserter party, there should be a chance that they join me. Maybe they are deserting because they don't think the Vaegirs anymore and want to fight on the winning side. Or, it could be that they just want to be free and in that case, they should be treated as they are now. Finally, if I am a Swadian and I encounter Swadian deserters. If I fight them and knock them unconscious, I should have the choice to add them to my party (not prisoner). Think of it as beating some sense into them!

 

[Ingolifs]

I agree.

I'm also thinking maybe there could be an 'agressiveness' factor.
Agressiveness would apply to Ai parties, and would determine certain aspects of their behavior. If your relationship with the vaegirs is -92, and you've killed many of them before, this is likely to do one of two things.
1. They'll run away at all costs. This would be because theyr'e much smaller than you and wouldn't stand a chance.
2. They'll hunt you down and follow you at all costs. You're an enemy of the kingdom, and therefore have a huge ransom on your head.

Agressiveness could be positive or negative. If positive, they follow you, if negative they run away. If only mildly positive, they would give chase for only a short distance, if only mildly neative, they'd just try to stay out of your way.

Agressiveness could determine other things, like how willing the enemy is to bargain with you. If a bandit's agressiveness is low when they meet you, they'd be more keen to just take your money. If agressiveness is high, they might ask for a larger sum of money, or just ignore it altogether and attack you.

 

[graphia]

4. Deserters. If I am a Swadian and I encounter a Vaegir deserter party, there should be a chance that they join me. Maybe they are deserting because they don't think the Vaegirs anymore and want to fight on the winning side. Or, it could be that they just want to be free and in that case, they should be treated as they are now. Finally, if I am a Swadian and I encounter Swadian deserters. If I fight them and knock them unconscious, I should have the choice to add them to my party (not prisoner). Think of it as beating some sense into them!

Yes, exactly. It struck me as odd that vaegir deserters would attack my party of swadians...didn't they desert?

 

[Ilex]

Well maybe they don't want to fight for the king anymore and want to get the loot all by themselves. So why would they not fight the swadians.

 

[Laurence of Arabia]

Hence FREE brothers.

 

[GonZ]

Good suggestions

1. Sorta like this
2. Yes agree
3. Yes totally agree. However you'd need to have a dynamic world situation to make this worthwhile, so borders move, bandit zones of control shrink and expand etc.

Also would be great to have some kind of initial fog of war at the start of the game. The map would reveal itself in a number of ways.

Direct exploration - gives high level map details, roads, streams, bridges (and all the other tasty things we wish were on the map)

Talking to travellers - could give vague (and possibly highly inacurate) locations of certain things "Oh yes Wercheg is 2 days ride north, follow the old coast road" etc.

Various levels of map - found, stolen or given by various characters. e.g. The merchant of Zendar requiring a grain transport to Wercheg might give a map of the old coast road to the player character.

War maps - gained when you reach a certain level within either army - this would give you detailed info on that particular sides military position and border. Would also lead to a nice line of side missions "Get me a map of the northern territory" etc.

I think it would add a lot of depth to start with a blank canvas map and have various info plotted onto it as the game goes along.

4. I think like point 2 recruiting deserters should depend on charisma

 

[Rollipeikko]

just great ideas, I love them all
but does armagan ever notice some of these suggestions?

 

[Nairagorn]

but does armagan ever notice some of these suggestions?

Oh yes. Not all suggestions get put into the game of course, but he does pay attention. Several player suggestions (including my own) have been used.

 

[Volkier]

Agree to most, except that I doubt that the troops that you just bashed up would be very willing to join you. (You most likely killed their friends, and your own troops may have lost some people to the attackers, so you will have a civil war before you know it. If they join in the first place, which I personally doubt would happen. I wouldn't join if I were them no offence to you lol)

As for swadian deserters attacking vaegir parties even though they deserted, maybe some of them could have their names changed to 'free brothers' as somebody mentioned. eg:
-Swadian deserters would attempt to flee to Vaegir territory. If they encounter any Vaegirs, they would join them (or if your party is vaegir etc). Having some swadians persue them would be nice as well. (Vise versa for vaegir deserters)
-Deserters who attack everybody on the map, are renamed to 'free brothers' who would attack convoys etc. And the prisoners those convoys carried would join the 'free brothers revolution' :

Really nice ideas though :

And actually come to think of it, WHY is it that a player is able to have 10 vaegir knights, 10 swadian knights, 10 brigands and slave drivers? I mean shouldn't your troops (being natural enemies and all) attempt to kill each other or there be at least some effect on it?

Regarding the top I have thought of something .... err.... long and complex, so if somebody can think of anything more simple please do so lol

**Loyalty meter
- Each troop has a so called 'loyalty' meter. This will be based upon the player's leadership skills, as well as the duration of the troops being with you. Loyalty would actually mean how loyal the troop is to YOUR rule, and how ignorant they are towards everyone else. They would choose to believe in what you believe etc. (I was thinking about adding a propoganda skill, but that would over-complexify things) Loyalty will decrease when you recruit a 'natural enemy' of an already loyal troop.


**Hate meter
- This is a separate meter. Inspites hate in certain units towards other certain units. This will increase after another unit from your party is killed in battle. Hate meter would then increase within the units who were on the battlefield at the time, towards the party to which the enemies were aligned to. Hate meter will decrease over time. If a certain unit's hate would go above that unit's loyalty, there would be a conflict between the number of troops who hate each other. TWO different situations of conflict may arise.
1) Unit A suddenly hates unit B, unit B is already in the party, therefore unit A will attempt to kill unit B, and they would have a fight, the outcome of which would be calculated with the current battle calculators (there may and will be more than 1 unit at a time)
2) Unit A hates unit B, unit B is NOT in the party, but is about to be recruited by the player. Unit A, would then loose loyalty, and if enough of that is lost, he / they would attempt to attack the party / desert.


*Obviously, after any incidents involving death, the hate for the rest of the party would increase amongst each other, and 'may' trigger a chain reaction unless the player does something.

Morale would affect the time at which loyalty goes up, and hate comes down.

**Pacifying your troops
Since the player would need to do something in order to keep his troops from murdering one another, here are a few suggestions.

1) Separate unit box groups. You will be able to 'separate' your units from one another (not completely sealed, but maybe just out of talking distance). However, you will only be able to take one group to a battle with you. (This would also provide strategical planning, since you can separate any units, even if they make love to each other at night, thus choosing who you have fighting for you in every single combat round.) This will NOT completely resolve the crisis, however this will decrease the hate by 2 points within each group.

2) Order units to journey themselves to a certain destination (like you can do with other heros) to meet you there. The troops who you ordered would not loose any loyalty or hate, however the troops which are left with YOU would have their loyalty increased.

**Summary, inclusive of additional calculators.

Loyalty = 0 - 10
Hate = 0 - 8
Loyalty default increase +1 point per week per troop
Hate default decrease -1 point per troop per week
Default hate = 5 for warring parties (eg swadians vs vaegirs)
Hate increase = +0.1 point per troop killed withing party, towards the enemy units.
Leadership effects (1 additional point gives) = +0.5 point to loyalty per week per troop, -0.5 point to hate per week per troop, one troop killed within the party would go un-noticed, and un-hated. (Every 2 points of leadership, allow for 1 separate unit box group)
Morale effects, 1 unit of morale = +0.5. or -0.5 to loyalty and hate per week per troop respectively.
Separate unit boxes = PERMANENT -2 to hate between box group A and box group B. (Box group A can consist of 2 or 3 unit boxes, same for box group B, C, D etc..)

Probably forgot to mention everything that may have effect on it, but this is a rough draw up. Probably too complex and messy though, so if anybody can think of something bit more simple..

 

[Talon68]

I agree, something in this game needs to be done to immerse the player more in the conflict. Also I think that some groups shouldn't attack you all the time. I am forever finding myself with 3 to even 7 groupd of forest and mountain bandits following me. I think they should stick to the mountains and forests and not attack large parties of knights and sargeants. I think they should prey on the weak, which is what they would have done, not go charging after a group of 18 heavily armed war troops just because there are 22 of them.

I also think that some scenarios other than the ones we have now. what I mean is that the enemy should attack cities and you be able to defend them on the walls or wait for them to come through the gate and attack them, that needs to be done for this game to be good.

 

[Archonsod]

Intriguing.

To take one point further, should bandits target the player at all? Surely they would be more likely to attack the merchant convoys than a heavily armed group of troops, which they would probably run away from since there's a good chance your out to turn them in.

Regarding the deserters issue, it would be nice if you could deliver them back to their faction to stand trial\be executed etc. Just a Vegir\Swadian officer in certain towns who acts like the other slave dealers. They should pay more for deserter prisoners than the other slave traders, and either reject totally or pay less for non-deserter prisoners (you could always sell your prisoners off as conscripts...)

 

[steelmax]

why are there no 3 way battles?

 

[Poil]

Hasn't been added yet? It would rock.