Voting For Who Gets What

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
froggyluv

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
Old Guard
So when a Kingdom decision like which Lord should inherit recently conquered Castle/Town -it seems arbitrary unless we know which Lord actually conquered it and who got the most Kills/Losses. Maybe a Stat recap of the battle would help
 
The game is set in the high middle ages. Merit has no bearing on things. Who did what is rather irrelevant.
 
Technically speaking, any lord who risks his man gains influence and said lord could use that influence to get the castle. (or rather tip the scales in his favor) This is basically what the player can do.
 
froggyluv said:
Your telling me if Lord X decides to risk his men to take a castle -it has ZERO bearing on deciding who gets it in the middle ages?
Click to expand...

If the guy with the most men keeps getting all the land, then he soon becomes the guy with more men then you

So it has more bearing then what people are letting on here, but you are trying to keep everyone equally indebted and equally gifted under your rule. Some of those houses could have been doing their job holding field armies off and raiding villages giving a distraction to allow the houses with more consolidated forces to march on the castle in the first place.

So even showing numbers about the siege has little worth on the overall war effort.

And this system is far less explotable, both from a practical and game stand point. If getting fiefs and castles is all about being the one that takes them, why bother showing up when your fellow nobles need assistance to defend them. You're better off letting the place fall and being the house that retakes it afterwards
 
Last edited:
Earth Dragon said:
If the guy with the most men keeps getting all the land, then he soon becomes the guy with more men then you

So it has more bearing then what people are letting on here, but you are trying to keep everyone equally indebted and equally gifted under your rule. Some of those houses could have been doing their job holding field armies off and raiding villages giving a distraction to allow the houses with more consolidated forces to march on the castle in the first place.

So even showing numbers about the siege has little worth on the overall war effort.

And this system is far less exploitable, both from a practical and game stand point. If getting fiefs and castles is all about being the one that takes them, why bother showing up when your fellow nobles need assistance to defend them. You're better off letting the place fall and being the house that retakes it afterwards
Click to expand...

These are all good points but im saying that it should have SOME factoring into the decision but my overall point is: Im presented with 3 men to vote for -WHY AM I VOTING FOR THEM? Surely they could add a little note at bottom ie "Lord Fenrick Claimant: Original Owner/Led Siege" or something like that.

Im not big into high political games but do like to know that the math is going on underneath and im presented with a decent understanding. Right now just feels random and arbitrary
 
MountainBladesMan said:
Well that would make for kind of a **** game, now wouldn't it?

People excusing this because 'its the middle ages' are idiots. A game needs to reward the player for playing it and succeeding.

There should be three candidates for who gets a fief; the leader of the siege, the king, and an influential noble with weight given to the leader of the siege.
Click to expand...

Tone it down bro. I'll let you refer to my previous post as to how this isn't an idiotic angle, and from multiple angles at that. The game rewards people for keeping their faction alive, and there are many ways this is done, not just the glory hog who ONLY spends time doing sieges.

Could the formula be a little more complicated? Sure. But what some of you are suggesting is just gonna create yet another snowball
 
Clanker said:
Why play a medieval themed game if you dont want medieval gameplay? You're the only idiot here. It's like walking into a sauna and complaining it's too hot. Go somewhere else. And if you want stuff so bad just cheat instead of crying.
Click to expand...

First off, you aren't fooling anyone. You have no idea how fiefs were awarded 'historically' during the middle ages, not that it matters in the least.

You also don't understand why the current system is a bad one.

I will explain this to you simply so you understand.

Player plays game.

Player wins.

Player gets a reward.

Now we are going to use some 5th grade vocabulary hear, so I hope you're ready.

If you aren't rewarding the player consistent with how they are preforming your game will be frustrating and players will either quit playing, adopt cheesy strategies to circumvent their unsatisfactory mechanics, or savescum.

With the current mechanics in regards to sieges, there is never a reason to participate after getting your first fief as you are unlikely to be rewarded with the settlement, casualties among your party are generally higher than normal battles, and loot is usually worse. Therefore, the player is de-incentivised from engaging with one of the major mechanics of the game.

I used some big words there, I hope it wasn't too much for you.
 
Earth Dragon said:
Could the formula be a little more complicated? Sure. But what some of you are suggesting is just gonna create yet another snowball
Click to expand...

That term gets thrown around here way too often. That makes no sense if you're talking about the faction "snowballing" *cough puke*. Its merely relevant information on why you might want to vote for someone. Your over complicating the issue.
 
MountainBladesMan said:
Absolutely btfo'ed and seething.

Just as I suspected you have no argument or reason for defending the current system. Naturally it is undefendable, as anyone with a brain acting in good faith would tell you with only slavish fanboys and trollish contrarians taking the time and effort to defend it.

The door is over there. Be a dear and see yourself out, you've been exposed.
Click to expand...
Lol okay kid. Have fun crying about how unfair your video game is.
 
In 1.0.10, I conquered a castle, only to lose it to a decision to grant it to a newly joined clan of the Khuzaits, that just like me, didn't have any fiefs yet.
I left the Khuzaits immediately, and joined Battania to beat the living daylights out of the horse-humpers.
I also failed in every marriage conversation while I was in the Khuzaits, so that played a part, too. :oops:
 
It is kind of broken, playing as the Vlandians and I conquered 3 castles and a town by myself. Put the max influence on all the elections for the fiefs and Derthert or whatever just gave them to himself despite only having like 15% support. Now it is realistic but totally off putting for the player.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Not getting relation bump after helping lords or after voting in kingdom decisions
Replies
4
Views
321
fuze
How do I get all my troops to be present during siege battle
Replies
1
Views
814
Ananda_The_Destroyer
Ananda_The_Destroyer
Totalgarbage
A game setting or a mod that lets you temporarily or permanently destroy settlements
Replies
1
Views
525
Ananda_The_Destroyer
Ananda_The_Destroyer
Back
Top Bottom