Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Speaking of being godly in combat, can you only shield bash one person at once?

It would be interesting if high athletics/weapon skill characters could push multiple people back at once and go full viking with the multiple hit weapons.

[nenjin]

I'm not sure how Warband MP fixed it (never played), but Kergit sucked at defending in sieges.  In singleplayer, that was ok because they made up for it in field battles.  The Nords wrecked in sieges, but without horses generally died in the field.

Unfortunately, Sturgia did indeed combine that siege strength of both the Nord soldiers and Vaegir archers, and threw in sufficiently early horsemen to really wreck everyone's day.  From what I can tell, its only pure attrition that kills them off in single player.  The map is by far the most unbalanced thing in single player.  Some factions only border like 2 or 3 factions, they tend to win overall.  Others border almost everyone else, Western Empire being the best example of a surrounded faction that just can't survive.

I thought that was kinda the point of the era though. The Empire collapsed, fragmented and now its remnants are being picked off by the factions that eventually come to represent the kingdoms in Warband. The can come back with the player's help, but by and large I thought they were supposed to lose.

[Ibid Straydrink]

I'm not sure how Warband MP fixed it (never played), but Kergit sucked at defending in sieges.  In singleplayer, that was ok because they made up for it in field battles.  The Nords wrecked in sieges, but without horses generally died in the field.

Unfortunately, Sturgia did indeed combine that siege strength of both the Nord soldiers and Vaegir archers, and threw in sufficiently early horsemen to really wreck everyone's day.  From what I can tell, its only pure attrition that kills them off in single player.  The map is by far the most unbalanced thing in single player.  Some factions only border like 2 or 3 factions, they tend to win overall.  Others border almost everyone else, Western Empire being the best example of a surrounded faction that just can't survive.

I thought that was kinda the point of the era though. The Empire collapsed, fragmented and now its remnants are being picked off by the factions that eventually come to represent the kingdoms in Warband. The can come back with the player's help, but by and large I thought they were supposed to lose.

In my personal experience, the Northern and Western Empires usually do well, the Khuzait and Vlandians dominate, and the Aserai and Sturgians are almost always destroyed.

Since the early days of Warband, I've had this paranoid conspiracy theory that the AI is rigged to apply extra pressure to any faction the player supports though.

What I would like to see, is the weaker factions teaming up against stronger ones to maintain the balance of power. The ideal would be a game world in which the borders don't change except marginally unless the player exerts a great deal of effort and resources to make it so.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Also Western Empire feels like it is supposed to tank. I mean it could theoretically be under attack by all the factions sans Khuzaits at the same time.

[Mephansteras]

Which is fine, really. It just means that supporting the Western Empire is kind of hard mode.

[Ibid Straydrink]

Which is fine, really. It just means that supporting the Western Empire is kind of hard mode.

Honestly, I think the first year or two is what determines who will dominate just based on initial losses and the inability of the AI to rebuild their armies with higher tier troops before they get steam rolled. The West Empire is in a bad position, but I had one game in which the Battanians, Vlandians, Sturgians, and Aserai whittled each other down, then the WE jumped in and, after it gained a couple of settlements, they couldn't stop it. Geography is a huge factor, but attrition is the biggest one, and the frequency and duration of wars means that defeated factions never get much of a chance to recover.

I suspect that adding Warband's daily exp bonuses and rebalancing war durations would fix this. And it would be nice, too, since about 12 hours in to a new campaign, I can't remember the last time I fought a lord who had an army made up of more than mostly fresh recruits that my slightly smaller force couldn't mow down with little to no casualties.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Hrm. I really haven't experienced this raw recruit army thing. Pretty much all the big battles I've been in have been huge slogs for all involved. It seems fairly even to me--but then I'm using mods like War Attrition which make the AI chill a bit so.

[nenjin]

I've seen it. Probably 60% of an army being made up of T1 volunteers. Since they recruit from the same places you do, where the AI decides to go + what's available dictates what they have. (Although I'm sure there's a fair amount of cheating there, at ~10 soldiers per village on average, it'd take an entire country to field a 300+ army regularly.)

In my game which I haven't played for a few updates, everyone mostly seems to be holding their own around Day 200. Sturgia getting beaten up by Vlandia but WE actually is defending its territory about 1000% better than in my previous game, whereas Battanian just seems to be unable to organize a large army and gets individual nobles crushed and captured 1 by 1.

I assume if you really want to bring a nation down, you execute their nobles rather than ransom them? Because they're back in the field with troops like, a couple days later.

[Ibid Straydrink]

I've seen it. Probably 60% of an army being made up of T1 volunteers. Since they recruit from the same places you do, where the AI decides to go + what's available dictates what they have. (Although I'm sure there's a fair amount of cheating there, at ~10 soldiers per village on average, it'd take an entire country to field a 300+ army regularly.)

In my game which I haven't played for a few updates, everyone mostly seems to be holding their own around Day 200. Sturgia getting beaten up by Vlandia but WE actually is defending its territory about 1000% better than in my previous game, whereas Battanian just seems to be unable to organize a large army and gets individual nobles crushed and captured 1 by 1.

I assume if you really want to bring a nation down, you execute their nobles rather than ransom them? Because they're back in the field with troops like, a couple days later.

Pretty much. I have a mod that lets me execute anyone with the "cruel" trait without an honor penalty, not that it really matters, and I find that killing off just that handful of enemy nobles (and mercenaries) keeps them from snowballing too badly. Actually just found Monchug running around with 8 soldiers (and about 190 wounded) and axed him a few minutes ago, which was cute.

I think I would prefer if nobles 1.) stayed in their culturally respective factions, and 2.) were replaced when they died. Executing people should probably be more of an RP/faction vendetta thing, as it is too easy to cripple factions that way. You could implement some meaningful mechanic to discourage it, but... why? It's actualkly kind of silly to me that the "honorable" imperial noble might care at all if you're lopping the heads off of what they consider to be rampaging barbarians.

[EuchreJack]

I'm pretty sure that the mechanic of nobles abandoning a losing faction still exists, so nobles will eventually gravitate to the factions that are winning and out of the ones that are losing.  It goes by clan.  I think just taking settlements for one faction will eventually cause a clan to move from your enemy to your liege's kingdom.  Settlements are all defended by the same troops, except whatever lords bring to the table.

[Ibid Straydrink]

I'm pretty sure that the mechanic of nobles abandoning a losing faction still exists, so nobles will eventually gravitate to the factions that are winning and out of the ones that are losing.  It goes by clan.  I think just taking settlements for one faction will eventually cause a clan to move from your enemy to your liege's kingdom.  Settlements are all defended by the same troops, except whatever lords bring to the table.

Yeah, but in the meantime, they still foot armies. And if they jump ship to another enemy faction, they're still a problem. Plus, sharing a faction means sharing fiefs.

[EuchreJack]

Just noticed a few things:

1) I got a leadership skill point from recruiting troops!  While it could be coincidence, I got the point just as I recruited the new person.
2) Smithing material costs got a major nerf.  While it will still be slightly more profitable to smelt down the weapon than sell it intact, that is not an absolute rule, as the cost of lumber has to be considered.  It might still be profitable to buy simple bastard swords, smelt them, and sell the parts, it would probably be based on the town and not the ungodly sums from before.  Overall a good change, but it means I can't grab oodles of denars for basically doing nothing.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Re: smithing.

Smelting seems to be nearly useless now, unless it's to get more hardwood. Otherwise, it seems like hardwood -> charcoal refining is really the only sell-in-bulk money maker.

[Ibid Straydrink]

Re: smithing.

Smelting seems to be nearly useless now, unless it's to get more hardwood. Otherwise, it seems like hardwood -> charcoal refining is really the only sell-in-bulk money maker.

I think they're trying to balance smithing to make it more about crafting than profit. We can only hope that, #someday we'll be able to forge weapons that are more than 2 or 3 points better than what you can buy. v.v

[Urist McScoopbeard]

For smithing to actually be interesting non-profit-based I needs me way more parts, damage potential, and armor. It seems  a long way off.