Print

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

[etgfrog]

well...if you want a video of me playing one of the largest battles i've done(well...this is pretty much the limit) roughly about 600 vs 600, fought off an entire campain(the king escorted by about 6 lords) in one battle(no handicaps whatsoever and it was set to good ai)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4jKBerTFyM

but yea, if dwarf fortress was to have a 3d version i think this game with some modifications should be how it should be like

[Sordid]

i didnt really expect anything better, but it just goes to show that this is less of a game and more of a sandbox.

Well I guess that largely depends on what you consider "better" to mean. I for one am glad M&B doesn't restrict me or try to nudge me in one way or another. Plot driven games are fun while the plot lasts, but that is by definition a finite amount of time. Sandboxes focus on pure gameplay and are fun indefinitely.

its not really economically possible to defeat all the factions without cheating anyway.

Yes it is, if you're smart about it.

[puke]

i guess neither is really better, and i like open ended games well enough.  but there are advantages both ways.  even in an open ended game, there should be some sort of system of acomplishments.  i guess M&B has some of that, as far as land awards and supporting revolutions goes.

i dont really want to bicker about the economics of the game and how to best abuse them, but im pretty confident your wrong about the size of armies that are possible to support.  conquering a single faction is within the realm of possiblity, but conquering all of them is just beyond the pale.  you need to be able to station sizeable garrisons at each of your holdings, as the AI will always path to the weakest one, no matter the distance.  the larger your empire becomes, the longer it takes to collect taxes, the thinner your defenses become, the less you have available to lead on conquests.

i tried maximizing a characters income generation and minimizing their troop costs by carefully adjusting their stats, and even tried character editing to push the stats up to the cap.  you just cant maintain strong garrisons at all your holdings while also maintaining an army large enough to conquer your armies.

and really, theres nothing wrong with this.  empires have an upper limit to their size, based on their technology level.  when news does not travel faster than horseback there is only so much that a single consolidated power can control.  its a pretty realistic game in many ways.

i didnt mean to say that there is something wrong with the game, rather than to advise against trying to "win" it according to traditional videogame methodologies.

[Sordid]

i guess neither is really better, and i like open ended games well enough.  but there are advantages both ways.  even in an open ended game, there should be some sort of system of acomplishments.  i guess M&B has some of that, as far as land awards and supporting revolutions goes.

Precisely. Now I do think it could've been fleshed out far more, but like other highly moddable games M&B is more of a technology demonstrator than a game in its own right. The Native module doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what the game is capable of.

i dont really want to bicker about the economics of the game and how to best abuse them, but im pretty confident your wrong about the size of armies that are possible to support.  conquering a single faction is within the realm of possiblity, but conquering all of them is just beyond the pale.  you need to be able to station sizeable garrisons at each of your holdings, as the AI will always path to the weakest one, no matter the distance.  the larger your empire becomes, the longer it takes to collect taxes, the thinner your defenses become, the less you have available to lead on conquests.

See? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're not thinking tactically.
Of course you can't support enough garrisons to make all your holdings totally secure. But what you can do is make one of them significantly weaker in order to lure your enemies there, then pick them off one by one. You can also goad your enemies into attacking even an extremely well defended fortress by emptying it and keeping the garrison in your party nearby. The enemies will come, lay siege, and immediately start the assault. You scoot right back there and they will graciously allow all your men to pass through in order to join the siege from the inside. Do this with a fief that is easily defensible and you can annihilate campaign armies with very few losses.
Build a prison tower as soon as you can, capture lords whenever you can, and don't give them back. No lords = no armies = no attacks on your holdings. Hunt them down relentlessly, you need to cripple your enemies quickly before other factions also declare war on you, which is only a matter of time.
Do war quests before you start your crusade to divide your enemies' attention. Pump Wound Treatment, Surgery, and First Aid. Get companions, all of them, level them up, and teach them training and the other party skills. Make sure there is redundancy so that when one leaves or is knocked out another can cover for him.

and really, theres nothing wrong with this.  empires have an upper limit to their size, based on their technology level.  when news does not travel faster than horseback there is only so much that a single consolidated power can control.  its a pretty realistic game in many ways.

Except for the fact that in M&B news mysteriously does travel faster than horsebeck. Instantly, to be precise.

[beorn080]

As Sordid said, tricking the enemy is pathetically easy. Other big things to watch for is battles between two other factions, and enemy parties with a large number of captives. If you see two factions fighting, it is often a good idea to stick around, wait till one beats the other, and then pounce on the winner. Even if they are stronger then you, they are likely to have captives from the previous battle, and you can replenish your army from the men you freed. In both cases, you can attack and not worry as much about deaths due to the instant recruitment of freed prisoners.

I have a personal question. Is there any way to easily recruit manhunters. I'm thinking of starting a slave trader character, and manhunters are the ideal unit for such an endeavor due to innate blunt weapons only.

[Sordid]

I have a personal question. Is there any way to easily recruit manhunters. I'm thinking of starting a slave trader character, and manhunters are the ideal unit for such an endeavor due to innate blunt weapons only.

No. And they wouldn't be worth it even if they were freely recruitable, they suck astronomical amounts of ass. Plus there's a limited supply of them - their parties will only respawn a set number of times, so eventually they disappear from the map altogether.
Basically, you're better off to hire companions and equip them with blunt weapons.

[Kagus]

Before, you could eventually train up river pirates to be manhunters.  But I haven't played the later versions yet, so I don't know if that's still possible.  I don't even know if the river pirates continue spawning indefinitely, or even exist anymore.

[Vucar Fikodastesh]

The river pirates, they are gone.

Zendar, it is gone.

Never more.

[WorkerDrone]

You can always download an older version. They have the links just gathering dust on the forum.

Whatever floats your boat really. I would probably download the older version if just to play The Last Days again, but I think I can wait until its ported.

[Sordid]

Before, you could eventually train up river pirates to be manhunters.  But I haven't played the later versions yet, so I don't know if that's still possible.  I don't even know if the river pirates continue spawning indefinitely, or even exist anymore.

No you couldn't, you could (and can) train them into bandits. And yes, river pirates still exist, but they're called looters now and spawn all over the map and not just around the river. AFAIK the manhunters are the only part that has a spawn limit.

[Kagus]

It was either pirates or farmers you could train into manhunters.  I definitely remember training "someone" into manhunters before...  Ah well.

Has anybody done that "adventurer party" thing yet?  I still think it's an interesting idea.  Be even cooler if you could turn it into a customized "Let's Play", but I don't know just how easy it is to mod this thing.


Since there seems to be a bit of animosity towards getting into the whole political scheme of things, what with the managing of braindead lords and sieging dangerous locations, why not just settle back into the simpler life of fighting against a party of raiders with only six or seven dudes?

And am I the only person here who always dismounts before fighting?  I've just got a thing for toe-to-toe confrontations.

EDIT:  Could potentially be made even more interesting with The Last Days...  But I don't remember them having too many companions back in the old-old version.  Don't know if they've changed that since.

[Sordid]

It was either pirates or farmers you could train into manhunters.  I definitely remember training "someone" into manhunters before...  Ah well.

Farmers and townsmen are made into mercenaries and eventually hired blades. You can train manhunters into marginally better manhunters, but that's it. Their troop tree is self-contained and separate from everybody else's. Been that way for as long as I can remember, so if there used to be an option to train manhunters from some other troop type it must've been in one of the ancient versions. Not worth going back for, not by a long shot. Much better to spend an hour reading modding tutorials. Troop trees are one of the easier things to mod, IIRC.

Has anybody done that "adventurer party" thing yet?  I still think it's an interesting idea.  Be even cooler if you could turn it into a customized "Let's Play", but I don't know just how easy it is to mod this thing.

Since there seems to be a bit of animosity towards getting into the whole political scheme of things, what with the managing of braindead lords and sieging dangerous locations, why not just settle back into the simpler life of fighting against a party of raiders with only six or seven dudes?[/

If by adventurer party thing you mean a party composed entirely of companions (as opposed to regular troops), then yeah, I play that way all the time. I only take my knights along if I need to siege something.
Settling into a simpler life of bandit-hunting is fun for a while, but eventually you're going to get bored of it. Personally I like carving out a destiny for myself in the hostile world, and receiving a message from one of those royal pains in the ass begging for peace after having his punitive armada annihilated is one of the most satisfying things I've had during my gaming career.

[puke]

See? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're not thinking tactically.

i guess you just havent tried it on a large scale.  you cant station armies to hold chokepoints like bridges, as your NPCs dont engage anyone when you leave them alone.  castles near bridges are ignored if they are full, and conquered quickly if they are empty.  once you have conquered about two factions and are at war with three, you are being attacked on far too many sides to respond and defend them all yourself. especially when you are stuck building seige towers for three days, or whatever.

if you want to create one weakpoint that is near your offensive so that it draws all the enemy attacks, then you need strong garrisons at your other holdings. 

but dont take my word for it, go spend a weekend trying the possibilites yourself.

the only way it might be vaguely possible is if you somehow manage to stay at peace with everyone until you decide to conquer them one by one.  maybe i shouldnt have tried it as a rebel power.

[Sordid]

See? That's exactly what I'm talking about. You're not thinking tactically.

i guess you just havent tried it on a large scale.

I have conquered the map, as a matter of fact. Admittedly only once, since I usually get bored. I guess you just haven't tried hard enough.

you cant station armies to hold chokepoints like bridges, as your NPCs dont engage anyone when you leave them alone.  castles near bridges are ignored if they are full, and conquered quickly if they are empty.

Which is why I said you need to capture as many lords as possible so that the enemy has nothing to siege you with.

once you have conquered about two factions and are at war with three, you are being attacked on far too many sides to respond and defend them all yourself. especially when you are stuck building seige towers for three days, or whatever.

Which is why I said you need to incite war between factions to distract them and cripple them quickly before you're overwhelmed.

if you want to create one weakpoint that is near your offensive so that it draws all the enemy attacks, then you need strong garrisons at your other holdings.

Not really, just stronger. In garrisons numbers are more important than quality, and low-tier troops that the fief can pay for are generally enough to ward off attacks or at least hold them off long enough for you to get there.

the only way it might be vaguely possible is if you somehow manage to stay at peace with everyone until you decide to conquer them one by one.  maybe i shouldnt have tried it as a rebel power.

Staying at peace is very easy if you don't mind savescumming. If it's too much for you you can bide your time, consolidate your power, and build your wealth (and your collection of prisoner lords) while in the service of a king. After you manage to significantly weaken the military of a kingdom by capturing its lords betray your king and sign up with the weak kingdom's claimant, conquer the empty lands, and assign all newly conquered fiefs to yourself. Rinse and repeat.

[puke]

done with you, thanks for cueing me in.