PDA

View Full Version : The Caravan: Let them starve.



Finjinimo
01-18-2014, 11:12 PM
So aside from the morale hit, what's the benefit of keeping my caravan alive past the last war event (chapter 4 maybes?).

In my playthrough I ran out of food at the bridge and was sad. Then I realised that almost every event that happened after that was about losing supplies (of which I had none, so *shrug*).

I spent all my renown on upgrades instead and waltzed through chapter 6 and 7 without much a care until the final battle which took a few attempts, but once I worked out what I needed to do I was fine.

So, what's the point of the caravan after the last war event?

Does the size of your caravan affect the difficulty of the final battle? The hit to morale didn't bother me at all... so unless there is something else going on that's a whole facet of the game I needn't bother with (and that also makes me sad).

Thoughts?

Edit: Oh also, what's the point of clansman. I know I can sometimes convert them into fighters but otherwise all they do is eat supplies... I'm looking solely at game-mechanics here rather than narrative devices.

Torator
01-19-2014, 12:36 AM
There is no point to them apart from being proud of yourself.

As far as i know there is no impact, except that morale drop quicly when you're out of food, and you can't seem to be able to have great morale.
Othewise to make the game with no low morale at all, i let everyone starve, once everyone is dead get a bit of food and here is the morale.

I would love if there was an achievement asking you to bring 800 undread of a thousand of clanmen to Boersgard
( I don't know if it's possible to get so much until the end )

Surtr
01-19-2014, 04:41 AM
Good points. I was wondering about the same things.

In contrast to King of Dragon Pass, it doesn't seem to matter how many of your people survive in the end. In KoDP, the effects of handling things badly and letting your clan weaken were always obvious. The caravan in TBS is kinda in the background and the heroes get all the attention. In Chapter 6 my caravan was really starving and I felt that I had failed miserably, but it didn't seem to matter at all.

Of course it's possible that these things will matter in the sequel. Maybe we'll learn to regret having wasted so many people in the first game! :)

netnazgul
01-19-2014, 05:36 AM
This is [certainly] going to be fixed in the upcoming patch

dufake
01-19-2014, 05:45 AM
The clansman can help to build the ship, but it doesn't matter due to the riot.
We should see more options and events from the clansman!! Don't kill them all!

Maybe there should be more hero units from the clansman in the next game.

Mierko
01-19-2014, 08:53 AM
Starved them all to death before I met Krumr and I haven't spent any more than 10 renown on supplies. Makes Hard mode much easier to handle. I was getting destroyed in early game without the Exertion and skills unlocked.

That said it really should be patched. You shouldn't be able to get away with negating a major factor in how Renown is spent. It sure as hell makes playing on Hard the entire game damn near impossible. One match spawned with enemies completely surrounding me and there was no way to position my heroes without taking a few free pot shots right off the bat. Adding to the issue that without being able to funnel enemies or provide any crowd control I was mobbed. I spent hours trying to survive it before I had to change the difficulty for the fight.

P.S. Agreed about Clansmen. They are leeches and provide no benefits.

Ulfrith
01-19-2014, 11:24 AM
in boersgard you need some fighters with you,as the days go by you will have to look out for the caravan,reinforce the wallslook for supplies and keep the riotsdown,youll lose people by choosing those options,and you can lose Krumr there,by constrat if you fight fight fight in the walls,you lose clansmem

EmblaWinterblade
01-19-2014, 12:13 PM
Does it really need to have those sort of consequences?
Its clearly a story driven game that appeals to your emotions, its not necessarily ment to be all about war tactics, if it were would it not have warriors as protagonists instead of civilians etc.
As someone just said, "I felt that I had failed miserably", that is exactly what the game wants you to feel! And those that don't feel sad about that number going down might be better off playing something else.

But. KoDP is awesome and it couldn't hurt to try making this more complicated. So, is there something that can be done in those directions without loosing the original idea?

Aleonymous
01-19-2014, 01:03 PM
Yes, we need more incentive to keep those poor souls alive. Morale/Supplies/Population relation doesn't seem to work very well. Here's some suggestions:

If a certain % of the population dies (e.g. 10-20%) morale is "stuck" to poor/low for good, i.e. it requires MUCH more rest/supplies to re-increase.
Caravan population (fighters & Varl) delimits how many characters you can bring to a fight (human & Varl classes, respectively). For example, for each 10 population units, you can bring one more character, e.g. a 79Fighter & 11Varl population allows you to bring up to 7 human units & up to 1 Varl unit.

Surtr
01-19-2014, 02:13 PM
Any idea when the patch is coming out? I'll start a new game only when it's done.

Changing the mechanics of supply needs some careful testing to see whether it's at all possible to play the game with the currently available supply sources if starvation will greatly weaken your chances in battle.

Aleonymous
01-19-2014, 02:54 PM
Unofficial sources report "Soon(TM)" as in "a couple of weeks". It surely won't be past 14-Feb, I presume... I think Stoic would want to do one "big" patch with all these stuff that's brought up, not a lot of small patches, right?

Rensei
01-19-2014, 04:49 PM
Like I wrote earlier - they don't matter at all:
- all the events that sound like there was anyone in Your party will still pop,
- events converting x to y will pop and grant You y,
- battles will NOT be harder - the dredge numbers will be brought down to Your level (the battle description will show You fighting vs an army of, for instance, 1 dredge, then You will fight the standard numbers),
- did little testing here, but looks like for the sake of grand battles (and determining how hard the battle will be) varl are counted equally to human fighters,
- starving them in camps/villages will actually boost Your morale, as You gain it by resting in camp while having food. The morale wont' go down as they slowly die out. When done in town, You can resupply right after to have a long lasting stock (heroes themselves still eat quite a lot),
- they starve at a steady rate, unrelated to the initial numbers,
- the dredge won't flood the lands even if You take Your sweet time and finish the game round day 800.

I'm assuming the guys at Stoic simply did not expect some of us to be psychotic, homicidal munchkins and that the patch is on its way.
For now... don't do it - it's long, boring and spoils the immersion. On my current run I'm trying to save as many as possible, pretending my Rook cares, and it's much more fun, because I'm also staring to care.

Finjinimo
01-19-2014, 11:14 PM
Yeah, that's what I thought.

The caravan only really matters if you're playing for the narrative -- which I assume with a game like this most people are. However, it would be neat if keeping your caravan alive actually mattered.

Something like:

- 'if you starve for 14 days in a row you lose' type scenario.
- Harsher penalities for starving (like a chance for your heroes to be injured by starvation?)
- Or perhaps for every day you starve, you lose 1 renown... that would pinch a bit.

I want to care about my caravan, and mostly I do. But I seem to get to a point where supplies are so hard to come by that it's not worth the effort of keeping anyone fed. And that's a huge flaw I think.

gunnyfreak
01-20-2014, 02:26 AM
hmm... most of heroes you take have loved ones, right? (Egil and Oddleif have people of Skogr, the twins have their own villagers, etc.etc.)

what if as population decreases (and a function of morale), there's a random chance of a hero deserting with their people (or a group of heroes, like the twins or Oddleif and Egil who have common interest), citing they think you're a terrible leader and they can take care of their own better, and if your population and morale are too low the rest of the caravan mutinies on you, rip Alette from your arms, and lynch you both? (either in anger or they proceed to cannibalize your dead bodies, since you left them so bloody hungry, a suitable end I say)

the hero leaving would be random, therefore the bigger an entourage you keep, the less chance of someone you like (and leveled) leaving you, but the more renown you need to spend on upkeep.

elitesix
01-20-2014, 03:52 AM
Yeah, that's what I thought.

The caravan only really matters if you're playing for the narrative -- which I assume with a game like this most people are. However, it would be neat if keeping your caravan alive actually mattered.

Something like:

- 'if you starve for 14 days in a row you lose' type scenario.
- Harsher penalities for starving (like a chance for your heroes to be injured by starvation?)
- Or perhaps for every day you starve, you lose 1 renown... that would pinch a bit.

I want to care about my caravan, and mostly I do. But I seem to get to a point where supplies are so hard to come by that it's not worth the effort of keeping anyone fed. And that's a huge flaw I think.

I personally find the gaming of starvation a large immersion breaking factor.

Is there any consideration of a hotfix that brings back starvation into either story or combat mechanics? A combat hotfix would be pretty easy. Every x days of starvation, your heroes get an injury.

I know there may be a patch within the next month, and I suppose worse case I'll take a break until it's patched. But all of those seemingly agonizing decisions about supplies early game just seemed to be pointless. Ah well... But a hotfix would be awesome :)

Kuba
01-20-2014, 05:09 AM
- Or perhaps for every day you starve, you lose 1 renown... that would pinch a bit.


This is a bad idea, since supplies are bought with renown. This way you would take resources from player to make things right (buy supplies for renown).

raven2134
01-20-2014, 07:48 AM
Yes patch is coming soon, not "weeks", 1-2 weeks it would seem

roder
01-20-2014, 10:04 AM
just make an endgame score, tally up your clansmen, fighters, varl and how many people you saved throughout your journey (including event prompts) and how many people you killed along the way (dredge, varl, humans)

this is probably the most natural way to make it matter :) and we can also compare scores with friends, who is more viking!

Yellow
01-20-2014, 05:49 PM
just make an endgame score, tally up your clansmen, fighters, varl and how many people you saved throughout your journey (including event prompts) and how many people you killed along the way (dredge, varl, humans)

this is probably the most natural way to make it matter :) and we can also compare scores with friends, who is more viking!

I have to disagree, as a person who has never cared about game stats/archivements, this would only look in my eyes as a "cheap solution" to what can be considered the game biggest flaw. It would feel very hollow and it would by no means fix anything really, is like having a leek on the roof and putting some tape on it...

Poison_Berrie
01-21-2014, 10:07 AM
I don't think just adding negatives to starvation is enough, though.

There's little incentive for having a larger army since battles scale to that number and there is none for having clansmen since they are only a drain on your resources.
Fighters/Varl and clansmen should have a purpose, beyond draining supplies.
There has to be some way that rewards you for having a larger army, without making it impossible because events brought your caravan into starvation. Perhaps some bonus renown or pillaged supplies based on your armies size.
And perhaps have clansmen gather stuff during rest; occasionally adding to your supply, finding something that boost moral or returning with an item (with a chance of losing some of them to various dangers).

So even if starvation brings downside with it, you are still better off never letting anyone on and taking choices that cost you men.

A strength penalty for fighting while starved shouldn't be too hard, right?
I also like the idea of people heroes included) leaving and fighting against your own fighters, perhaps even a game over because you starved to death.

Finjinimo
01-21-2014, 07:35 PM
Perhaps an approach from another game might be a useful thought to throw in the mix. Europa Universalis has a 'stability' modifier for your realm. It starts at 0, but can be increased to +3 or decreased to -3.

The stability affects random events that fire. The higher your stability, the more likely positive events are. The lower your stability, the more likely negative events occur.

Perhaps something like that could be used for banner saga. The lower your morale, the more likely 'difficult' situations will happen. But if you have high morale, you are more likely to receive nice events.

So for example this might mean that the 'mutiny' event could possibly be avoided with high morale and a bit of luck (which makes sense anyway). But if your morale is in the pits, then mutiny is assured.

quartex
01-21-2014, 07:43 PM
That's exactly how Stoic described the events as working in kickstarter update #34 - bad morale causes worse events to happen:

"How we decided to represent it is by attaching morale to the events that pop up along your travels. If you’ve been treating the caravan poorly, marching too hard, making dangerous decisions, their morale decreases. The lower morale gets, the more likely you are to be receiving negative events along the way - in-fighting, people splitting off, people causing trouble. All of these are presented to the player not as numbers changing, but as conversations and events. Hopefully it seems invisible to the player, but they can feel that the caravan is unhappy just by how it has been acting."

"We’ve worked out a design for what we’re calling “Quest Pool” (a “Quest” is our shorthand for an event or series of events that can occur). The crux of it is that we have a bucket that the events fall into, and it prioritizes which ones to give to the player. As the player makes decisions, they alter the “Quest Pool” behind the scenes. Certain events rise to the top to represent the actions that the player is taking, so instead of things happening randomly, you’ll play a part in the kind of problems you face. A player who keeps his caravan in high spirits will have a very different experience from one who thinks they don’t have worry about stuff like “morale”."

Not sure if this is still how the game works.

gunnyfreak
01-22-2014, 01:43 AM
having watched some other people play it (namely TB research stream, among others), the events seem to be all the same

that's only the beginning of the game though, so I don't really know

Aleonymous
01-22-2014, 05:54 AM
That's exactly how Stoic described the events as working in kickstarter update #34 - bad morale causes worse events to happen

Sounds like a vicious cycle! Bad morale ==> Bad events ==> Morale drops more... :( What's the "comeback mechanism" to get out of that? Doing well in battle/war, picking those second-wave attacks, special events like Godstones?

Zekram Bogg
01-22-2014, 05:12 PM
The big issue is that clansmen are dead weight, possibly adding up to an ultimate "better ending" at the end of chapter 3, but that's too long a way off to consider in a playthrough of chapter 1, and thus is pointless for where we are today.

At least the fighters and Varl seem like they do stuff in the wars and are factored into holding the walls at Boersgard. Of course, the player doesn't know this until they get there, and that's at the end of the game, so that's less than optimal too.

Right now, the optimal strategy is to bleed off as many clansmen as possible as early as possible to let your supplies go on a lot longer for the remainder of the game.

Here are some ideas to Buff Clansmen:

> Clansmen act as a renown booster. After all, ostensibly your battles and wars are for their benefit, so the more clansmen you have when you win a battle, the more renown you get from said battle. I forget how many you start with, but I ended the game with about 290 didn't starve much, and won most battles. I lost all my fighters on the walls of Boersgard while I secured supplies and shelter for the Clansmen too. I'm guessing 300 Clansmen is a "B" grade on Clansmen retention.

So lets say at every 75 Clansmen, you get 1 extra renown per battle, as these clansmen "spread the tale amongst themselves". This way, at 300 Clansmen, I'm getting 4 extra renown per battle that I win. Thus letting me buy more supplies and/or items/levels et cetera. However if I lose enough of them, and starvation should hit Clansmen first and hardest, not the tougher fighers and Varl, I begin to get less renown from winning battles or from events.

If we want to make this system even more complex, then it can go negative too, so that if I go below a particular number of clansmen, I start getting Renown penalties. If at zero clansmen I get -5 renown per battle it would make the game tougher, not easier.

> Clansmen have a "forage" chance while you travel. The more of them you have, the higher the chance. This makes it so that they'll find you spots where you find supplies, or items, or even trigger extra events that can earn you renown/force a decision.

> Clansmen limits on the number of heroes in your roster. Basically, other heroes will only follow someone others want to follow themselves. If you don't have enough clansmen, you heroes can bail because they don't see you as an effective leader. If every 25 clansmen net you one extra hero slot on your roster past a base number (I'd think 4) it'd be an interesting reason to keep them. That said, this would make the game much more likely to be unwinnable by starving your clansmen.

Also, that would break how Hakon's caravan with its ZERO clansmen work. So maybe we need to look at the cumulative Caravan here? I dunno.

Anyway, those are some thoughts.

Lochlan
01-22-2014, 06:01 PM
Sounds like a vicious cycle! Bad morale ==> Bad events ==> Morale drops more... :( What's the "comeback mechanism" to get out of that? Doing well in battle/war, picking those second-wave attacks, special events like Godstones?

Uh...do better on one's next playthrough, I guess?

FfSsBb
01-22-2014, 07:27 PM
It never occurred to me to do something like this. Granted, I only played through the game on normal once, but I never felt the urge to game the system in any way. What possible reason could you have for letting your caravan starve besides power gaming a story driven RPG? It is not my place to tell anyone how they should play a video game but I didn't need any mechanical incentive to keep my caravan well fed and happy as long as I could (didn't work of course). So from my point of view there is no need to adjust anything with the caravan mechanic.

aslee4
01-22-2014, 07:36 PM
Here are some ideas to Buff Clansmen:

> Clansmen act as a renown booster. After all, ostensibly your battles and wars are for their benefit, so the more clansmen you have when you win a battle, the more renown you get from said battle. I forget how many you start with, but I ended the game with about 290 didn't starve much, and won most battles. I lost all my fighters on the walls of Boersgard while I secured supplies and shelter for the Clansmen too. I'm guessing 300 Clansmen is a "B" grade on Clansmen retention.

So lets say at every 75 Clansmen, you get 1 extra renown per battle, as these clansmen "spread the tale amongst themselves". This way, at 300 Clansmen, I'm getting 4 extra renown per battle that I win. Thus letting me buy more supplies and/or items/levels et cetera. However if I lose enough of them, and starvation should hit Clansmen first and hardest, not the tougher fighers and Varl, I begin to get less renown from winning battles or from events.


This is probably the most elegant solution to the 'clansmen problem'. With respect to Hakon's caravan with zero clansmen, I don't think this solution breaks at all - Hakon's caravan just gets less Renown per fight. This is actually just fine for Hakon's caravan since they effectively have no supply problems to begin with (so they don't need the extra Renown for buying supplies). As long as the mechanic was clearly shown (e.g. a small splash at the end result that says +X Renown from clansmen acclaim or something) I think this solves most of the issues with clansmen; now it makes sense to want to take on refugees if you can protect them, while still letting bringing too many clansmen potentially harmful, which I think neatly aligns mechanic with story.

roder
01-22-2014, 08:22 PM
I have to disagree, as a person who has never cared about game stats/archivements, this would only look in my eyes as a "cheap solution" to what can be considered the game biggest flaw. It would feel very hollow and it would by no means fix anything really, is like having a leek on the roof and putting some tape on it...

yes you have a good point, many gamers do not care about an endgame score.

for those that do not know, varl/fighters dont matter either. the dredge number encountered in war is adjusted according to your fighters/varl, have a lot of fights/varl, have a lot of dredge. have 0 population, well then you face very low dredge lol the populations of clansmen/varl/fighters are all arbitary at the moment

Finjinimo
01-22-2014, 08:57 PM
What possible reason could you have for letting your caravan starve besides power gaming a story driven RPG?

Because if you do, it makes the game easier. The caravan is currently frivolous, it is aesthetic. It serves no purpose outside of a non-enforced RP experience.

But they should matter. I should suffer consequences for treating my caravan this way. I do not, and that is a serious flaw.


REALLY GOOD STUFF!

I like everything Zekram is talking about. Anything along those lines would add pressure to keep that caravan alive.

quartex
01-22-2014, 10:50 PM
I'm disappointed to hear that the number of people in your caravan doesn't even affect war battles, but I guess this is a case where the narrative is more important than the simulation. (Stoic wants you to be outnumbered for certain battles because it makes a better story, no matter how many people you have) I hope in Chapter 2 they can add actual consequences to the size of your Caravan (besides how much food you eat).

I waited in Singholm for 50 days, just to see what would happen. And the funny thing is that as my caravan slowly starved to death my morale stayed high (presumably because I was resting). I was also surprised that after X number of days I didn't encounter an event forcing me to leave.

Lochlan
01-23-2014, 03:33 AM
for those that do not know, varl/fighters dont matter either. the dredge number encountered in war is adjusted according to your fighters/varl, have a lot of fights/varl, have a lot of dredge. have 0 population, well then you face very low dredge lol the populations of clansmen/varl/fighters are all arbitary at the moment

I was thinking about this earlier today...why not make the number of Dredge in wars independent of the number of fighters/Varl in the caravan? Just have each fight have a random amount of Dredge within a predetermined range (influenced by difficulty, of course). That would give some incentive to maintain as many fighters/Varl as possible.

Yellow
01-23-2014, 04:47 AM
varl/fighters dont matter either. the dredge number encountered in war is adjusted according to your fighters/varl, have a lot of fights/varl, have a lot of dredge. have 0 population, well then you face very low dredge lol the populations of clansmen/varl/fighters are all arbitary at the moment

I know, and i was very disappointed when i learned about this;

What is the point then with recruiting anybody at all?
What is the point in giving you different "war options", including the option to flee, when there is no pressure nor need for it?

While i can understand the developers not wanting to punish too hard the players for making bad desitions, i think the way they did it, contradicts the entire "your choices have consecuences" mechanic.

Not only does we need something done with the clansmen, but the "wars" also need some tweaking, to start with: the removal of the escalating enemies according to your own troops, that would be a fine start...

EmblaWinterblade
01-23-2014, 08:35 AM
I don't think this is the sort og game that wants to be a war simulator and punish us with loosing stuff, it is clear to me that they want us to feel bad. That is the whole point, and if starving people don't make you sad you are most likely playing the wrong game.

All though i find the "more clansmen gives more renown" tempting i also think the whole point with how it is, is to make renown/currency hard to come by so that we are forced to choose and make decisions that feels bad no matter what we choose to spend it on.

So, is there something that can be done to perhaps make the clansmen more interesting and/or active so as to bond more with them??

EmblaWinterblade
01-23-2014, 08:55 AM
What about:
1. Giving every clansman a randomly generated name and a small infopanel about where they are originally from, their profession, and who they are related to, when we hover over them in the travel-screen
2. Making the camp-screen more interactive, by making it possible to deside where the diffrent tents are, their color, building new "special tents" like a yox-breeding-pen, a infirmary-tent etc. (Number of yox should inpact how much we can carry)
3. Have numbers also for children, sheeps, cows, animal-fodder etc, and make them able to sustain themselves a little by herding,hunting and foraging,and trading when in towns, a little like in King of Dragon Pass where these numbers constantly needs to be corrected.

StandSure
01-23-2014, 01:30 PM
And perhaps have clansmen gather stuff during rest; occasionally adding to your supply, finding something that boost moral or returning with an item (with a chance of losing some of them to various dangers).

Yes, I really like this idea. I had a really rough patch where my caravan was starving and I felt like a poor leader. But what really bothered me was that I couldn't DO anything about it, even though I knew it was coming. I remember specifically thinking "can't we go into these woods and hunt or gather more food?" or "the next town is a long way off...can't I put the caravan on really strict rations from the start, instead of eating a normal rate, then starving for several days later?" It was frustrating because I felt like I had practical solutions but no way to implement them. Heck, my people had by chance already scavenged some berries for food miles back...couldn't we look for some more?

Blarg_the_Viking
01-23-2014, 08:53 PM
It never occurred to me to do something like this. Granted, I only played through the game on normal once, but I never felt the urge to game the system in any way. What possible reason could you have for letting your caravan starve besides power gaming a story driven RPG?

No reason whatsoever. And that's exactly the problem.

Ideally, the "optimal" style of play for a videogame should be the way that most strongly supports the game's story and whatever feelings the developers wanted you to experience. Narrative incentives that tell you to act one way and mechanical incentives that tell you to act another way creates a ludonarrative dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludonarrative) that any design team worth their salt should try to avoid.

I played through my first game working hard to do a "High Spirits" run, and barely managed it. I was proud of myself, but looking back I feel kind of annoyed that I put in all that work for what were basically numbers on a screen. My clansmen didn't even thank me for it.

EmblaWinterblade
01-24-2014, 04:19 AM
No reason whatsoever. And that's exactly the problem.

Ideally, the "optimal" style of play for a videogame should be the way that most strongly supports the game's story and whatever feelings the developers wanted you to experience. Narrative incentives that tell you to act one way and mechanical incentives that tell you to act another way creates a ludonarrative dissonance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludonarrative) that any design team worth their salt should try to avoid.

I played through my first game working hard to do a "High Spirits" run, and barely managed it. I was proud of myself, but looking back I feel kind of annoyed that I put in all that work for what were basically numbers on a screen. My clansmen didn't even thank me for it.

But if you to truly believe that the optimal thing is to do as the developers wanted, should we not then stay away from for instance renown rewards for keeping people alive, if the motivation for keeping them alive is reward related all the emotions they want us to feel is gone..?
Should we not rather focus on emotional rewards of some kind?

Eurydice
01-24-2014, 12:19 PM
This is probably the most elegant solution to the 'clansmen problem'. With respect to Hakon's caravan with zero clansmen, I don't think this solution breaks at all - Hakon's caravan just gets less Renown per fight. This is actually just fine for Hakon's caravan since they effectively have no supply problems to begin with (so they don't need the extra Renown for buying supplies). As long as the mechanic was clearly shown (e.g. a small splash at the end result that says +X Renown from clansmen acclaim or something) I think this solves most of the issues with clansmen; now it makes sense to want to take on refugees if you can protect them, while still letting bringing too many clansmen potentially harmful, which I think neatly aligns mechanic with story.

I agree, I really like Zekram Bogg's suggestions, especially the first two. They seem quit straightforward to implement, not gamebreaking (the values could be adjusted by Stoic) and could lead to a far more immersive experience when it comes to trying to keep your caravan alive.

StandSure
01-24-2014, 12:50 PM
But if you to truly believe that the optimal thing is to do as the developers wanted, should we not then stay away from for instance renown rewards for keeping people alive, if the motivation for keeping them alive is reward related all the emotions they want us to feel is gone..?
Should we not rather focus on emotional rewards of some kind?

I would agree, but it seemed like the emotional impact was missing as well. The day my caravan started to starve, I felt terrible. I'd seen it coming, but there was nothing I could do about it. People died under my care. But then...nothing. More people died, and morale was stuck at low, but the caravan kept going. Nobody complained, nobody left (for food reasons). And at Boersgard, I basically found a shelf to sit the remaining clansmen on, and the narrative finished up without them. I had really expected things to get bleak, but instead felt like I "got away with it."

Maybe upon replay I will see how different things could be if everyone ate, but I still would have liked some kind of clearer connection to the number of clansmen in the caravan. Heck even something where at the very end, you are looking over the crowd and think either "the hundreds of familiar faces remind you that you are not alone, the struggle has not been fruitless, and the legacy of Skogr will live on through your people" or "the handful of surviving clansmen reminds you of how much else was lost in the journey...has it been worth it?" There just doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement in the narrative of the success/failure of the caravan.

Smoker
01-24-2014, 11:38 PM
I don't think just adding negatives to starvation is enough, though.

There's little incentive for having a larger army since battles scale to that number and there is none for having clansmen since they are only a drain on your resources.
Fighters/Varl and clansmen should have a purpose, beyond draining supplies.
There has to be some way that rewards you for having a larger army, without making it impossible because events brought your caravan into starvation. Perhaps some bonus renown or pillaged supplies based on your armies size.
And perhaps have clansmen gather stuff during rest; occasionally adding to your supply, finding something that boost moral or returning with an item (with a chance of losing some of them to various dangers).

So even if starvation brings downside with it, you are still better off never letting anyone on and taking choices that cost you men.

A strength penalty for fighting while starved shouldn't be too hard, right?
I also like the idea of people heroes included) leaving and fighting against your own fighters, perhaps even a game over because you starved to death.

Sounds good.

Yellow
01-26-2014, 04:38 PM
Here are some ideas to Buff Clansmen:

> Clansmen act as a renown booster. After all, ostensibly your battles and wars are for their benefit, so the more clansmen you have when you win a battle, the more renown you get from said battle.

So lets say at every 75 Clansmen, you get 1 extra renown per battle, as these clansmen "spread the tale amongst themselves". This way, at 300 Clansmen, I'm getting 4 extra renown per battle that I win. Thus letting me buy more supplies and/or items/levels et cetera. However if I lose enough of them, and starvation should hit Clansmen first and hardest, not the tougher fighers and Varl, I begin to get less renown from winning battles or from events.

If we want to make this system even more complex, then it can go negative too, so that if I go below a particular number of clansmen, I start getting Renown penalties. If at zero clansmen I get -5 renown per battle it would make the game tougher, not easier.

> Clansmen have a "forage" chance while you travel. The more of them you have, the higher the chance. This makes it so that they'll find you spots where you find supplies, or items, or even trigger extra events that can earn you renown/force a decision.

> Clansmen limits on the number of heroes in your roster. Basically, other heroes will only follow someone others want to follow themselves. If you don't have enough clansmen, you heroes can bail because they don't see you as an effective leader. If every 25 clansmen net you one extra hero slot on your roster past a base number (I'd think 4) it'd be an interesting reason to keep them. That said, this would make the game much more likely to be unwinnable by starving your clansmen.

Anyway, those are some thoughts.

I like your ideas!

Furthermore i think the game mechanic of scaling the number of dredge to the size of the caravan, needs to go away for good! Get rid of that, it only breaks the purpose of having a strong army/escort...

Also, having 0 rations for more than 3-4 days should result in some of your heroes(less key ones) dying, or at the very least getting hurt/weak( not only less willpower but less strength also) Because right now you can loose your entire caravan in 3-4 days, but your heroes can keep on for weeks with no food and nobody dies?

As somebody suggested before, you should get notifications about your caravan being hungry, unhappy, events that lead them to leave if you keep on with 0 rations or low morale for too long, it would be great if the game somehow acknowledged better your actions, or the lack of, in this regard.

Simple mechanics like "rationing food", and "forced march" should also be implemented, as well as a more intuitive way to know the distance in days we are currently traveling and a more informative morale slider/system, that shows how much morale we earn/loose from certain events and from resting.

EmblaWinterblade
01-27-2014, 06:07 AM
I would agree, but it seemed like the emotional impact was missing as well. The day my caravan started to starve, I felt terrible. I'd seen it coming, but there was nothing I could do about it. People died under my care. But then...nothing. More people died, and morale was stuck at low, but the caravan kept going. Nobody complained, nobody left (for food reasons). And at Boersgard, I basically found a shelf to sit the remaining clansmen on, and the narrative finished up without them. I had really expected things to get bleak, but instead felt like I "got away with it."

Maybe upon replay I will see how different things could be if everyone ate, but I still would have liked some kind of clearer connection to the number of clansmen in the caravan. Heck even something where at the very end, you are looking over the crowd and think either "the hundreds of familiar faces remind you that you are not alone, the struggle has not been fruitless, and the legacy of Skogr will live on through your people" or "the handful of surviving clansmen reminds you of how much else was lost in the journey...has it been worth it?" There just doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement in the narrative of the success/failure of the caravan.

Agreed. I to think the clansmen mattered to little, but i don't want a less sad and easier game, i would rather see smal changes like in those texts you mentioned.

Also, someone has pointed out that the number of dregde will always be the same as the number of warriors,that could be changed so that the number of dregde could still be high even if we have few and in that way motivate us to keep men alive,and being able to recruit warriors from the clansmen.

CSRosewood
01-28-2014, 03:53 PM
I like a lot of the suggestions here. One that I would suggest that could be a serious game changer is mutiny. Aside from Onef's scripted mutiny, I think starving the clan should have a chance in resulting in a mutiny between you and the clansmen on your lack of performance, and being outnumbered several hundred to maybe 10 characters, I don't think there is much you can do to prevent them from overtaking you in text. Either you get stranded with no supplies, flee into the wastes with no supplies or killed by an angry mob. Either way, most should result in game over.

Surtr
01-29-2014, 10:01 AM
In my second playthrough, it was now much easier to keep the caravan supplied in Chapter 6 and still had enough renown to buy some stuff and level up the heroes. The balance seems to be better now after the patch.

However, some of the events related to supply are still odd. I don't understand how it's so hard to keep some bandits or whatever from stealing like half of the supplies in some of the events. There are dozens of fighters with the caravan, and a column of a few hundred people and animals shouldn't be impossible to keep under tight guard. Yet somehow some random guys are simply able to walk in and leave with supply wagons, and there's nothing I can do about it.

Keeping morale good doesn't seem to be possible if you intend to go to places in time without supplies running out. But considering all the apocalyptic events taking place in the world, having a poor morale among people who've been driven away from their homes is understandable.

Kaffis
01-29-2014, 01:10 PM
I just wish that your renown rewards (especially for the travel events) scaled with the size of your party.

The shared nature of renown as a resource for buying items, buying supplies, and levelling just doesn't make sense when an aspect of the game (clan size) that has absolutely negligible effect on anything but supply consumption is variable but renown income is essentially fixed independent of supply consumption.

Besides, surely the leader of a massive clan becomes more well known and respected than the leader of a few dozen characters, right?

Yellow
01-29-2014, 02:37 PM
I just wish that your renown rewards (especially for the travel events) scaled with the size of your party.

The shared nature of renown as a resource for buying items, buying supplies, and levelling just doesn't make sense when an aspect of the game (clan size) that has absolutely negligible effect on anything but supply consumption is variable but renown income is essentially fixed independent of supply consumption.

Besides, surely the leader of a massive clan becomes more well known and respected than the leader of a few dozen characters, right?

good point!

Smoker
02-03-2014, 04:00 AM
I just wish that your renown rewards (especially for the travel events) scaled with the size of your party.



Why won't you do this devs?! Chapter 6 wouldn't have needed tweaking. :cool:

Ejje
02-03-2014, 08:53 AM
Hah!
I registered litterally just to post the same idea that was just brought up :P

I loved Banner Saga, but couldn't shake the feeling of inconsistency once i finished it. You're supposed to care for and protect your people. I mean, it's even arguably the main theme of the game. They go so far as to bring you the red banner and talk about responsibility and the weight of leadership, but then never relaly punish you for neglecting your people and letting them die, besides a slightly inconvenient willpower hit. I ended up wasting weeks of supplies and tons of renown on keeping my community together. But once you see through the facade your clansmen are litterally just dead weight. At least fighters and Varl are (albeit maginally) siginficant.

Having your renown "stat" tied to the number of clansmen in your caravan makes total sense, and solves this issue. By basically replacing "gold and experience" with renown, Stoic lets you earn "money" through acts of kindness and generosity. Having this be tied to your actual renown (i.e. how many have hard of you and spoken of your great deeds) is the logical extension of that. You could have several "checks" when encountering noble characters, earning more admiration and renown for keeping som many people alive and well in such dire times. You could also have the logical result of earning more renown when winning a great victory if more people (clansmen) witness it.

This would put actual weight into the clansmen-related decisions. Do you play it safe, minimise the number of mouths to feed, and maintain control of your caravan? Or do you take people on (with the renown-related, long term rewards) at the risk of depleting supply, getting more disorder/infighting-related random events, and ultimately having the "legendary exoddus" you had planned crumble under the weight of its own ambition?

Right now, on a second play-through, your caravan just becomes a fancy piece of scenery. Putting this security vs. long term gamble approach would keep the clansmen relevant, even as a pure gameplay mechanic (after you've seen all of the story). I hope Stoic works more on bringing the mechanics in line with the themes and atmosphere, making them support that oppressive feeling of struggle and hardship that seems to be the game's mains selling point.