Subversion - checking out the development version of the mod (161)
- 主题发起人 othr
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
- 状态
The 'field' around the shield is a bit annoying and the lack of it was what forced me to use larger shields in sieges and in general when I wasn't fighting on horseback, but the general balance between archers/crossbowmen and armors/shields protection seems good.. I try to picture a shield's wooden beams breaking under a bolt's force of impact or the glue loosening to justify the fact of shields giving in against arrows but all considered, it seems well balanced. I might be imagining it, but I had the impression that long shots are much less threatening then short range hits, enough that I acutally roam at around 100 meters from opponents and never get damages, while getting hit at pointblank range I usually drop unconscious on first shot.
I must say I really hope we'll eventually get more accurate shields without that ugly metal rim around them or even worse the metal cross over it.. that's sort of bothering, to think lower tiers actually have shields that would technically be more expensive to produce and much more protective then what knights and kings equip..
Will try new update soon. Thanks again!
I must say I really hope we'll eventually get more accurate shields without that ugly metal rim around them or even worse the metal cross over it.. that's sort of bothering, to think lower tiers actually have shields that would technically be more expensive to produce and much more protective then what knights and kings equip..
Will try new update soon. Thanks again!
hmm, 3,26 Gb with Music, i think...
othr
Master Knight
Right mouse button must be down, then click the left button.
One more thing I forgot, the mod is now to be played at the moderate AI campaign setting, full damage unless you want to play it on easier settings. AI troops gain xp only by combat, so a successful AI lord may have a large number high level troops.
One more thing I forgot, the mod is now to be played at the moderate AI campaign setting, full damage unless you want to play it on easier settings. AI troops gain xp only by combat, so a successful AI lord may have a large number high level troops.
othr 说:
But I liked those !!
Dammit.. Wish a good modeler would pick up the challenge.. oh well.. I could still stand the shields if I had SPURS!
othr 说:
Equip who? What? Where?
You're not saying those chuasses+spurs are in-game and I didn't find them, are you?!
Joker86
Sergeant Knight at Arms
othr 说:
This is perhaps a point you could think about changing it.
I would like the army strength directly related to the amount of fiefs a lord owns. As soon as he doesn't own any fiefs any more, his army size is determined by the overall fiefs left for that faction. So the weaker a faction becomes the easier it is to finish it off. On the other hand rich and great factions are pretty hard to defeat! This would change gameplay so that "decisions" concerning the outcome of a war are made sooner, but on the other hand, with some diplomatic options, the realism could benefit from it.
When a faction starts losing...
... other factions will more likely declare war upon them, as they are "easy prey"
... they will more likely make an alliance with another faction being at war with their enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
... they first offer a truce, later even becomming vassal. Later on, if enough lords are convinced by the player ("Okay, if the other lords will do so, I will, too"), simply all remaining lords join the enemy kingdom, but keep their fiefs. (Lords who said "no" join in, too, but take a large relationship hit). It's like "We give up! You are the new king! Let me my fiefs and I will serve you!"
I think this is much more real than the actual "genocide" you commit when defeating other nations. With my Teutonic Order we already defeated Nowgorod, the Golden Horde, Lithuania, and from Denmark isn't left much, but the only "new" lord having joined us is some guy with a French name. We rule over the whole northeastern Europe with still the same amount of lords. What happened to all those people in the countries? The Germans searching land in the east and killing everything that wasn't German came 700 year later
Joker86
Sergeant Knight at Arms
Ah well... if it's already so then it's okay. I thought the more units a lord has, the longer he didn't suffer any casualties (= no or a few battles, with only a few losses).
Whoever played "Medieval 2: Total War" knows, that you can't defeat another nation over the economy. Even if you siege all the cities they have simultaneously, cutting them off from all of their trade routes, their two or three 20-slot-armies full of knights and mercenary crossbowmen standing around will persist forever. If this would happen to the player, the enourmous upkeep would force him to disband those expensive armies. But as the AI doesn't pay wages at all, there is no way in driving a nation to declare itself bankrupt (and so defeated). I think this is a pity.
M&B has got the same problems, because the lords - as far as I know - don't have to pay wages either. So there is no way to at least weaken the enemy forces by burning villages, siegeing cities and robbing caravans.
This is why I want lords being dependant on the financial situation (as the player is, especially in this mod!).
And I think with enough money you can buy both: quality and quantity! So fighting battles should be ONE factor for army quality, but not the only one!
How about a simple system, where the units a lord leads are determined by the fiefs he owns? Villages raise the percentage (and more village raise the amount, of course) of bowmen/spearmen, towns offer militias (swordmen/crossbowmen/guisamers) and castles of course offer knights. Castles add only a few, villages more and towns by far the most units.
Example:
A lord with a village and two castles would have a lot of spearmen, archers and knights, while the knights would make up to 40% of his whole force! But as villages and castles don't offer a lot of recruits, he would have a unit cap of 120. So he would have 48 knights and 72 Peasants. His force is quite small, but strong.
Another lord owns two towns and nothing else. He would own only a few knights (5-10), but 240 militia units! His army would be huge, but suffer a lack of quality.
Of course those examples are exaggerated (48 knights! ), but I wanted to make clear how I imagine the system. In reality the impact on the army isn't that "absolute", of course (like 1 castle = 12 knights 
).
Whoever played "Medieval 2: Total War" knows, that you can't defeat another nation over the economy. Even if you siege all the cities they have simultaneously, cutting them off from all of their trade routes, their two or three 20-slot-armies full of knights and mercenary crossbowmen standing around will persist forever. If this would happen to the player, the enourmous upkeep would force him to disband those expensive armies. But as the AI doesn't pay wages at all, there is no way in driving a nation to declare itself bankrupt (and so defeated). I think this is a pity.
M&B has got the same problems, because the lords - as far as I know - don't have to pay wages either. So there is no way to at least weaken the enemy forces by burning villages, siegeing cities and robbing caravans.
This is why I want lords being dependant on the financial situation (as the player is, especially in this mod!).
And I think with enough money you can buy both: quality and quantity! So fighting battles should be ONE factor for army quality, but not the only one!
How about a simple system, where the units a lord leads are determined by the fiefs he owns? Villages raise the percentage (and more village raise the amount, of course) of bowmen/spearmen, towns offer militias (swordmen/crossbowmen/guisamers) and castles of course offer knights. Castles add only a few, villages more and towns by far the most units.
Example:
A lord with a village and two castles would have a lot of spearmen, archers and knights, while the knights would make up to 40% of his whole force! But as villages and castles don't offer a lot of recruits, he would have a unit cap of 120. So he would have 48 knights and 72 Peasants. His force is quite small, but strong.
Another lord owns two towns and nothing else. He would own only a few knights (5-10), but 240 militia units! His army would be huge, but suffer a lack of quality.
Of course those examples are exaggerated (48 knights!
), but I wanted to make clear how I imagine the system. In reality the impact on the army isn't that "absolute", of course (like 1 castle = 12 knights ).
- 状态
