![]() ![]() (In one calc, I think)Ĭlan Tier matters, so there's most definitely a benefit in advancing there. There's an effect if you have no fiefs and one if you've go many compared to other Lords. I assume TW expects you to experience the negative results of that behavior "directly." (Which is laughable, since you can just Blacksmith your way to financial success and keep on being a crappy Lord. AFAIK, unlike Warband, if you're a crappy Lord guilty of mismanagement, the game does not appear to care one bit AFAIK. Unit count was used before, but with changes to garrison mechanics, I don't know if that matters as much as power and it may be that TW doesn't know, either.) (The game, AFAIK, does not consider the Prosperity of your fiefs. The game may not reward rich players as easily, but it does reward "Strength." (Power score) If you have decent garrisons in your fiefs, you'll look like a better candidate for gaining more. AND, make sure you've got decent garrison strength in your other holdings. If you have other fiefs, expand from their center of mass using the above creative means. My assumptions are based on this formulae moderated by experience, but TW could have made significant changes, nonetheless.) (* Note: It's 30k at the time of this post (OLD, tho): Couldn't find my bookmark :) All credit to Operation40. You can have fifty-eleven fiefs and the game will think you're "Poor and in need of a Government Aid Package" if you have little cash in inventory at the time the "Vote" comes up. Buy up expensive junk until you've got less than 20k (maybe 50k? ( * 30k, see below)) I can't recall the "Poverty Level" atm, which is based on the amount of ready cash and not holdings, items, troops, etc. Party on.īefore Voting on a fief, dump your cash. It doesn't matter how many units you have in your party or if you're the baddest dude at the party, just so long as you're leading the party that besieges the fief. So, even if you have to justify it in a roleplay'y way by deciding that you're the one most capable to defend the King, so you should have all the good stuff, use the enemy to further your own plans. All you care about is what's in it for you. ![]() ( Because it's the better "game".)Īllow the juicy fiefs to be taken by the enemy.ĭon't give a crap about no stinkin' factshun. That would not be likely to happen at all in Warband. It is, for instance, possible to get a "top ten" fief in Bannerlord as a wet-behind-the-ears nobody FNG Lord. ![]() IOW - It's very likely that if another Clan has more fiefs closer to that newly gained/regained fief, based on the average distance between fief holdings by all clans in that faction, that Lord will be in contention for it. ![]() Players getting crappy fiefs is "somewhat" true in Bannerlord, but I think it's more due to the nature of how/when they're gained and they are most definitely weighted against a sort of standard deviation of fief holdings by Clan for that particular faction. (Early game players also hadn't had a lot of time to make nice with all the Lords in all the factions, making it more likely they'd have their fiefs ransacked.) The game could just cough up any ol' village to hand over to a player and it was always, on the initial distribution, a "border" type village. Villages were not nearly as strategically important as the fiefs in Bannerlord, after all. In Warband, the player was most likely to initially receive crappy fiefs. If you only have several Castles, you're the opposite of that. If you have several towns, you're set for life. Originally posted by 59th Pew Pew You're Dead:playing on realistic btw, 2.5k hours warband so I know how to play M&B ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |