Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Plus the Auto Resolve is dodgy at best, and by extension, the Tactics tree.
All of these elements need work to help this issue, as I feel "nerfing" the Khuzait is the wrong way to go.
One thing I will say though... they do seem to get a hell of a lot of land to start with, meaning more settlements and thus more income. Feels like they get more places by default than the other Factions. Maybe TW could look at that, too.
But I agree with Tempered where horse archer tribes historically have proven to be a significant foe on the battlefield.
What I don't agree with this perspective is... That horse archers and that barbarism won't help the tribe no matter how numerous or agile they are, when they are at the exterior of a stone castle wall against longbowmen.
And this needs to be adjusted. If they could raid villages, win on open field but had difficulty taking castles, then it would be far more balanced.
Snowballing (which Khuzait is the biggest snowballer). Is a problem. the player will ALWAYS snowball, until there is a "rebellion" mechanic.
But since we are talking about Khuzait, you can search the "khuzait is OP", or "how to stop snowballing" threads... and they all discuss it.
Taleworlds has an official Dev post on their forums, which has been linked in steam MULTIPLE times, outlining the issues, and the planned fixes.
They said Khuzait (and battania) have snowball issues. And without player involvement it gets out of hand very quickly. They are testing, and plan to implement more than a few changes in patch 1.5.6
This will affect a ton of things that affect "snowballing in general" and "khuzaits in particular".
Lords influence, Lack of money. When a faction has not enough "points" (the value of fiefs) to recover.. Etc.
They also discussed fixing the Cavalry bonus in auto calc for sieges.
Then they surprisingly put that cav adjustment out early in 1.5.5 (and possibly 1.5.4 I'm not sure. I left that patch)
In other words, khuzait should be snowballing a bit less (and according to posters I trust... they are. In 1.5.5) due to the cavalry nerf.
And next patch 1.5.6 it will be even more pronounced.
That bonus removal doesn't matter much when they stomp all their enemies armies and siege unopposed. Still don't understand why they have kept the cavalry simulation bonus at all. All it does is buff cavalry heavy armies (Khuzait and Vlandia) and penalise armies with none (All Empire factions).
Doesn't help that Khuzait get cavalry at T2, while the rest get them at T4-5.
JUST REMOVE THE CAVALRY SIMULATION BONUS ALTOGETHER.
Well you are definitely one of the posters I trust. So if you say it is still snowballing I will believe it.
I will say that I just started a 1.5.5 and will NOT do sturgia/northern to stop khuzait. I will try OP battania I guess. And see for myself.
I will also say, some reliable posters did say they noticed a difference. How big? I dunno.
But it appears that snowballing is still a thing currently (after the cavalry siege nerf) but some people have seen a measurable difference. I will try to get to that point, and post my observations as well.
Thanks for your reply Afflicted
Edit: oh, and your comment about "cavalry heavy armies" like khuzait and valandia getting a boost. is probably not going to help the devs fix snowballing. Valandia is one of the weakest factions in the game (they have the data to show it). So yes, perhaps that is map issues, or lord issues etc.....
But if we are trying to get the whole issue looked at, with all it's variables (map position, war declaration algorythm, influence gain per lord, economy per lord , troop strengths, cavalry bonus etc....) It wouldn't help the argument "nerf cavalry auto calc its too stronk!" If valandia is "cav heavy" and suxx
Just my 2 cents
AI auto-resolves, so the fact that horse archers hard to deal within actual battle has nothing to do with AI vs. AI fights.
Here's my two coppers on this and all related campaign problems...
The game is not balanced for nor does it take pains to consider a player actually playing the game.
Taleworlds is far, far, too concerned about trying to create a "simulation" and not as concerned with trying to create good game "play."
For the umpteenth time, I just watched Sturgia go down the toilet... And, this time, they ended up paying fifteen bajillion monies in "Tribute" for -1400 day Peace Treaties. They have literally "peace treatied" their sorry @$$ into oblivion. (TW has a clock issue, now... wtf? I could literally grow my toenails faster than Sturgia could get out of its peace treaties.)
But, still, TW is working hard to create a "simulator."
The game does not require me to play it...
Contrast that with Warband. Warband absolutely required the player for the overwhelming bulk of its campaign and faction development. One "might" see some factions becoming pre-eminent over the course of play without any intervention from the player. It was possible, but infrequent enough and took long enough for it to not matter very much.
By the time I'm ready to join Sturgia as a proud Sturgian Lord helping my people against the cruelties inflicted upon them, they're already planning their funeral services and there's not a darn thing I can affect to change that. Not one thing. Nada. Unless, of course, I was able and willing to carry an entire military campaign against the rest of the world.
/rant - I'm really getting tired of repeatedly seeing this in so many "faction" elements. I'm tired of knowing that the game will play "itself" and that I, as the player, must be content with my original intent for my play experience being independent of what the game will provide me after I press the "Play" button.
So, there's why things still get borked up - This game is being designed as a "simulator" with the intent being that the player is not necessary for the gameplay to evolve. The player must be willing to accept whatever conditions the game enforces upon them. It's more of a "survival simulator" in that aspect than any notion of "Warband."
PS: I'm honestly coming to the point of just uninstalling it and waiting until EA is over. It's getting to the point where just seeing it installed in my Library is depressing. I do agree that I am exhibiting the flaw of expecting too much from an EA product, though. I need to find something else to play..
Well I certainly think you have a good argument, based on Taleworlds post where to balance "snowballing" they are running simulations with no player input. But, tbh How else could you tell if all factions are equal? If you ran any simulation and had player input... you could never verify if battania is good or bad.. because you'd have to study every action the player did, that may have helped or hurt battania.
As to the other stuff. I'd agree CURRENTLY the testing they do, to stop khuzait/snowballing etc... Is using data from simulations to try to get a baseline
They also know sturgia is weak.. and northern etc.. They have the data.
I "feel" that they probably are going to push out 1.5.6 then see their fixes certainly "fix" some things.. But break another one or two.
They will then patch that out... Then fix that.. then patch that...
eventually they will get to "release" and hope to have the campaign map "balanced"..... Now they can work on all of our "hey, I don't feel uber". or "hey, why does it feel I don't matter in campaign" etc.. Issues.
But IMO, they need to learn to walk before they run. Currently, the only way to stop khuzait is be suuuuuuuuuuuuper lucky, and have the dominoes fall right, where khuzait loses a huge army early, and his neighbors sequentially declare war on him (one at a time of course, ugh). Or you the player stop him. And when I play sturgia it is quite easy to stop him. just protect Tyal.. That's pretty much it. Literally....
They then move on.
Is that a solution? of course not. But it is an example, of why they need to factor balancing without PLAYER input. Or they might think "wow sturgia is Stronk, They never lose omor, or Tyal... wow" Then they learn it's because I donate a ton of troops to both towns, and babysit them, putting my party inside whenever someone gets close.. then Kiting the enemy army around.. until they starve etc.......
Selective quote is selective.
Full quote:
And horse archers are not hard to deal with for a player, or at least they shouldn't be.
A decent melee to hold/defend a group of decent foot archers is all you need. Your own cav is optional.
Regarding AI, as I stated, until the Auto Resolve Formula is given some love all that matters in Simulation Battles are numbers, nothing else.
While a 100 Legionaries will be realistically overwhelmed by 1000 choddy recruits, they should not fall to say, 300 or so. Not realistically. The morale damage alone would freak out lower class units, even before skills and gear is considered.
Auto Resolve needs rewriting, Tactics tree needs a good seeing to, this will buff the AI enough to handle HAs in a realistic and fair manner; Not overpowered, not underpowered.
My "AI can't handle horse archers for squat" is clearly about that.
How is that so hard to understand?
Cavalry bonus. Like I said before I don't know why we have that. Cavalry aren't going to be amazing all the time. Have you seen them in forest and mountain battles. Yet they get 20% bonus all the time.
Map layout. I think map layout plays a big part in a factions success/demise. Factions that seem to be spread out across the map like NE and Sturgia always seem to lose first. They just can't protect their territory fast enough.
Khuzaits are on the edge of the map so they only have to focus in one direction. They aren't really spread out, so it's a lot easier for them to protect it.
War/Peace tweaks. I think they have gone a bit too far with these. Before, factions could be at war against 3+ factions at once and some factions would get overwhelmed.
Now it seems if a faction is at war on more than one front they are scrambling for peace.
It's common to see a faction declare war and it instantly be met with peace. What is the point.
This means that factions can't declare war against a stronger one to slow them down as they will instantly make peace and continue to slaughter the faction they were already at war with.
Either a certain amount of days being at war need to pass before peace can be made. Or factions should be able to decline peace proposals, which they can't, they will always make peace.
I could go on further but I am going to stop or i will be here all day.
Except for, you know, the supposed bonus for spear units against cav, and other such bonuses.
In Auto Resolve units still handle other units, even if it is all on paper.
Look, I know I meant AI vs AI in Sim Battles, if you or others didn't pick up on that then that is your bad luck I guess.
Sure I use flippant language, but there is worse on these forums.
all these are common opinions, and ones I share.
Devs added quite a few more
1- When a faction is down to 10 points (3 castles at 2 points each, and 1 town at 4. or some variation of similarity) they can't recover. Ever
2- lords defect. Due to certain fiefs switching hands often, and those lords not being correct clan tier to be allowed to vote again, and get a fief. so they leave
3- Wild fluctuations in Denars. Both within a faction and without. Some factions make a TON of cash. And thus always field armys. Some factions have a few lords who make money, and others who make none.. etc. To fix this there is a new mechanic of "shared money" being introduced
4- Same as 3... But substitute Influence for Denars.
5- Starting lords are not balanced, Valandia has 11 clans, many at clan 4-5-6. Sturgia has 9 clans with a few at clan tier 1 or 2. ( so valandia can field MORE lords, and each lord can carry more dudes... etc)
There are other issues, but yes, all that you mention is common and we all agree. And devs have identified more issues. I feel the ones they identifies are too prone to over nerfs... or player nerfs and not AI.
My original thoughts (I've posted before) is what if I'm valandia, and a new vassal. I struggle to get to 50 influence... and therefore have a minimal effect on voting, and creating armys. If AI is always at 100+ influence. Now imagine that one lord in valandia is 70.. or 20... and the others are 300. Well now instead of me having "at least enough to beat this scrub in a vote" it taxes the top clans influence, sticks them into a "pool" and then gives it to the scrub at 70. now he has 200 influence. "Yay, I'm even less influential than I have been, and that was bad before. "
The only thing to do is form a kingdom even earlier.. or buy towns/castles for influence etc.
(PS yes, I know how to exploit influence.. but what if those are patched out,.. Or I don't want to cheese the AI in a way devs Obviously didn't design the game for.. What if I want to play it like warband, or as I feel devs intended? etc)
spear units have no bonus against HA. and in reality have very little to no advantage against Cavalry either. (other posts outline why.)
Not trying to go off topic. since Horse archers, or cavalry etc.. aren't the whole problem, but just a bit of it.
I just want to clarify spearman are highly overrated because of what it "should do". vs what they DO do.
(search the Momentum/velocity/thrust mechanic)