Інсталювати Steam
увійти
|
мова
简体中文 (спрощена китайська)
繁體中文 (традиційна китайська)
日本語 (японська)
한국어 (корейська)
ไทย (тайська)
Български (болгарська)
Čeština (чеська)
Dansk (данська)
Deutsch (німецька)
English (англійська)
Español - España (іспанська — Іспанія)
Español - Latinoamérica (іспанська — Латинська Америка)
Ελληνικά (грецька)
Français (французька)
Italiano (італійська)
Bahasa Indonesia (індонезійська)
Magyar (угорська)
Nederlands (нідерландська)
Norsk (норвезька)
Polski (польська)
Português (португальська — Португалія)
Português - Brasil (португальська — Бразилія)
Română (румунська)
Русский (російська)
Suomi (фінська)
Svenska (шведська)
Türkçe (турецька)
Tiếng Việt (в’єтнамська)
Повідомити про проблему з перекладом
Правила і настанови обговорень
Поскаржитися на цей допис
Why other kings, even some of my vassals, could have an army larger than 400, and I, the king of the most powerful kingdom in this continent, who never lose a single battle in couple of years, have over one million cash, who conquered most towns and castles, who achieved over 2000 renown, 99 right to rule, 99(or whatever the most) honour ratings,... and many many butters in the wagons, but I can only maintain a merely 200-man army because this party morale hard limit?
Use your military/historical/social/science/witchcraft/blablabla knowledge to convince me, please.
That will not happen. I got this game (the original mount and blade)from the Pre alpha stage, that was 10 maybe 15 years ago. My opinion is, the devs(especially after Paradox abandoned MnB and returned it to Taleworld) are satisfied about current situation, from years ago. Since this title can still bring them some money(and things in Turkey are quite cheap), there are no urgent, enthusiasm, or whatever else factors to drive them to change/challenge the situation.
Of course I maybe totally wrong(that's what I expected too), but before the Bannerlord reaches the market, I won't expect anything from it(even the launch date).
Not at all what the thread is about, but okay. Nobody is arguing for or against what you're bringing up here though. This is a discussion about the party size morale penalty given in party size, not how big you can make your army compared to the npcs.
1) 2000 renown is nothing. My renown usually stabilizes around 4500. In a game where I tried pretty hard to keep it up while still uniting the map, I had it fluctuating between 5400 and 5600. In a mod where renown computations mirror Native, I had it a bit over 6000, but I used only companions. (I'm NOT talking about mods like Perisno where 15,000 renown is possible.)
2) There is no cap on honor that I know of. 300 is needed to max relationships with saints, and more can come in handy if you treat them poorly in other ways.
3) There is no hard limit to party morale. Current morale has inertia, which is modeled by using the 'recent events' variable creatively. Morale appears to be a straight sum, but even a little testing shows that it is not.
4) I've personally led a 280+ army in Native. There are no morale problems if you move quickly and fight often with nearly no casualties. I knocked out two cities and a few castles within a couple of days. When you have a combat beast archer, sieges are an easy way to pump up the morale.
You don't need to justify a game mechanic. The developers probably could not see why the player would want more than 300 men (the hard cap is over 500) so did not see a reason to make it easy.
But do you want to know what makes you different from the other lords, in fluff terms? You're a foreigner. You have no loyal retainers, NCO types who have served your family for generations, you are still leading by pure example, and control men by striking personal relationships. You are an aberration, if you turn your back, things fall apart.
In contrast, the other lords are a known value and lead armies with a full hierarchical chain of command. Many mods give that ability to you as well - Perisno, Floris, etc. with special troops, Viking Conquest with companions acting as NCO (combined leadership) , etc. So I end up being able to lead 800 men in Perisno, or 1600 in Viking Conquest... but I still stick with 300 in both mods.
But as I said, no justification is needed. It works. Just because you seem to be unable to keep 300 men happy does not mean that it cannot be done. Do you ask why three eldar ranged guys' hit points add to 26,000 in DoW2, while your three assault marines weight in at 600? Or why light cavalry out-melees your cuirassiers in Empire Total War, at legendary difficulty?
13, actually. And you still think that the party size hard cap in Native is around 200? OK then.
Or they want to make something qualitatively better, and are having trouble achieving that.
I'm not too worried. Warband mods keep my itch scratched, and I am sure that whatever Bannerlord turns out to be, I'll make my day... although it may need a few mods to do so.
you're introducing an arguement already discussed.
though your statement is slightly wrong
"leadership" is how many you can handle.
Renown are basically bonuses soldiers in addition to that
In Viking Conquest this is never a problem because you can garrison troops anywhere and you can build a refuge to garrison troops too.
In Gekokujo there are neutral buildings you can take to garrison troops as a mercenary.
It's all about garrisons. Too many men? Put them in garrison, it's that simple.
I'm pretty sure Renown affects how much you can handle, leadership adds bonus morale, cheaper wages etc. Charisma is the thing you're thinking of which increases your max troop count.
some mods give you a positive income as a merc, and as long as you aren't idle, - hunting bandits or keeping plenty of food, you can make plenty of money. and keep your morale up.
Native its easy to maintain the income if you're independant with enterprises and tournaments, you need to just keep active in combat an stuff.which might not be as easy as some mods but is potentially do-able. especially if you don't mind making enemies of factions out side of the ones you like,
A party with 280 members, is still not over 400.
There IS a party morale limit, though not clearly displayed in one clear number, which if the party size get over a certain limit, then you have to win a nearly impossible number of battles per day to maintain the morale. And no matter how hard you try, YOU CAN'T MAINTAIN AN ARMY THAT HAS OVER 300 MEMBERS, WITHOUT TWEAKS/CHEATS/MODS, just do the mathematics. While the AI can have over 400 in their party with no obvious penalty(except the speed, but they are always slower than player's party if you didn't mess too much).
So my point was, and is, and still will be, this narrow minded limitation (party size morale penalty thing) hampered the immersion. The devs know it well, because they made several almost blank tiny patches, which only relocated\removed or maybe even encrypted the relevant lines in the .ini files(or whatever file I can't rightly recall). If you used MnB-tweak or have edited the files yourself, you'll understand why I call this narrow minded, because they want you to play a video game, in THEIR way, from THEIR point of view. If you don't mind, then just get over it, but I don't like it, and I noticed some people don't like it too. So we just want to give devs a signal that we don't like it. I played this game for over a decade, and I like it, but this doesn't mean I have to accept things which I think is meaningless and don't like. That's all.
30 base, 30 charisma, 50 leadership, 7250 renown results in 400 men. I have never had 7250 renown in Native, but I have had 6200 in a mod that uses the same math. I got to 6200 renown in, let me check, 342 days. The problem is that in that run, I did more fighting that I needed to take over everything. I had other goals.
Not at all. The number of battles does not matter. You have to get enough +morale from battles to counteract the morale drop per day. That morale drop is capped. I do not remember what the value is in Native. In Perisno, it is 99 per day. Two very successful sieges per day do it handily.
I do not need to do the mathematics. I've done it with 280 in Native, I've done it with 600 in Floris and Perisno, and I have not seen a difference.
I am tired of this. I have told you repeatedly that the morale penalty does NOT AFFECT AT ALL the maximum party size. The soft cap is from the renown you can maintain. нext time I play Perisno, I will take a screenshot of my 560 strong army that has been in the field long enough to take three castles and besiege the fourth.
Yes, Perisno gives you extra mechanisms to maintain morale. I do not believe that their effect is more than 10 or 20 in my army. You can tell how much I care, I do not even know what it is. Proper logistics take care of morale.
And that screenshot will the last thing I will post on this matter. It is simply not worth my time. I keep telling you that an army of any size can be kept happy, and the size is soft capped by renown, but you do not seem to hear it.
The kings are ESTABLISHED NOBLES who in most cases have been well-known and renowned for years, and have established lineage.
Your character? A foreigner, who may or may not CLAIM to be a noble from their homeland, a claim that would not be verifiable by the lords in Calradia. Thus, they require a lot more work to make large numbers of men follow them into combat against the 'rightful' rulers.
Furthermore, 'play a video game, in THEIR way, from THEIR point of view'? THIS IS EVERY GAME EVER IN EXISTANCE! Every game has developer designed restrictions intended for better play. This is normal stuff. Like always, if something is deemed bad enough, somebody will either mod it out, or give instructions somewhere on how to do it.
You make claims they made tons of tiny patches to make changes to stuff regarding morale in the .inis (which just goes to show how little you know of what you are speaking), including BS about encrypting individual lines in the scripts? How ignorant are you of how code works?
If they did that, they would have to change every bit of code that references that line, potentially thousands and thousands of lines of code, would have to be modified to reference that alternately named variable! That's not worth the effort, especially for the tiny team that worked on warband proper.
This is of course, ignoring the fact that they have not in fact made tons of minor tweaks via tiny patches.
Either tell the truth and avoid trying to comment on things you CLEARLY know nothing about, or GTFO, you ignorant fool.
I notice others pointing out ways to circumvent this problem and keep your army happy.
So, I'll go the other direction and do what I don't see anyone else doing, and say why I think that morale loss by army size makes sense for the game.
From a realism standpoint:
1. The more troops you have, the more strained your resources will be. This is a simple logical tendency; if you have one hundred pounds of food, it will be divided and enjoyed differently by fifty people than it will by one hundred. Less food per man generally means less happy men.
2. The more men are in a force, the more likely each man in it is going to consider the upcoming event to be a major one. This probably inspires confidence and readiness for a big battle in the short term. However, the longer time goes on waiting for a big battle with little sign of it coming, the more weary and disappointed each individual may become, and inspiration and readiness may give way to trepidation and anxiety that they'll die when the clash finally comes- or that they're in a pointless march and are not seeing proper use or treatment.
3. More people means more conflicts. Fights, disagreement, and resentment will break out in any group of people. The more people there are, the more likely a fight will happen and damage done. That's just in a small squad; imagine how it would be for two hundred people. Even professional soldiers are bound to get sick of the other guys now and again.
4. Not so much as to why large armies make sense having low morale, but rather why I think smaller groups make sense having higher: The smaller a squad is, the more personal it probably feels. Even with the aforementioned fighting matter above, if you're around them often enough and you fight side by side, you're likely to develop at least some sense of loyalty, and/or at least contentment and concession of their presence. In a large army, that personal element is generally gone, and you are, ironically, alone with people around you probably don't know.
From a gameplay standpoint, the greater morale drain simply makes sense as a balancing mechanic, in my opinion. It gives incentive to downsize and travel in a smaller, lighter group, even when you can technically afford a larger one. It helps to make for a more open, strategic game, in my opinion.
IMO, if we could just mass up more and more troops with the only concern being food, the game would be far too easy.