Add more levels!

[BiggiPills]

Hey devs please consider adding more levels. Leveling my brothers is the most fun aspect in my opinion and it would be awesome being able to level them to at least level 20. Of course making it much harder each time they gains levels ;^D

[Wargasm]

I agree. I want unlimited levels. Every time I look at the perk tree and think of all the perks that would work brilliantly together for a particular themed campaign, there are always too many to pick them all, and it eats up whole days getting all the way to the top level, and still you yearn for more perks. I expend so much nervous energy around perk choices. I wouldn’t mind if level-ups were restricted to 10, but I want at least 20 perks or ideally unlimited perks, and I want it to be fairly quick to acquire the first 10 or so. Alternatively, perhaps each time you reach a new level, you can choose either 2 level-ups or 2 perks or 1 of each.

But level-ups also invoke much nervous energy, and it’s frustrating how sometimes most attributes have just a +1 or +2 upgrade available, but then other times almost everything is +3 to +5 but you can only upgrade 3 of them. So many wasted opportunities. A +1 or +2 upgrade is never exciting, so I think all upgrades should at least be +3 and that you should be able to upgrade at least 4 attributes each time.

[Mike]

-1

I was supporter of more levels back when perks were divided into trees as we were pretty much forced to pick at least some that we didn’t want. With the latest update the system is very flexible and there is just enough points to make various specialists without going into OP territory.

Wargasm wrote:

I want at least 20 perks or ideally unlimited perks […] all upgrades should at least be +3 […] at least 4 attributes each time.

Would you also like an “I win button” added? Seems like a logical conclusion ;]
On a more serious note a lot of the actual game is making decision on how to spend limited resources, perks and attributes included. Removing those limits would undermine all the efforts at making a challenging and interesting game. If you would simply like to test your ideas I think such unlimited development of characters would belong to some kind of a separate “sanbox” or “custom scenario” mode.

[RusBear]

I think that a good solution would be to add some perks (extra) available only for veterans in your company. mercenary is, an example, in a party at least N days and no less than N level – he gets an opportunity to select an additional special perk.
So it will be possible to solve both problems :
1. “11 levels – not enough”
2. The trend to replace all the brothers for sellswords or knights in the late game.

[Junell]

I kind of both agree and disagree with original poster. Pr. now the company easily gets powerful enough for most of the encounters. More levels would make the company positively overpowered.
–
A solution could be to make xp requirement for leveling up exponential. So the first 8-10 levels is fairly easy to reach, just like now, then the subsequent levels will become increasingly harder to reach. That way it will be possible to reach high levels, but those characters will become both rare and valuable. Losing a level 8 character would suck, but loosing a level 15 would really be a tragedy. And that is really cool dimension of the game, to become attached to the characters in your company and follow them as they progress (and die).

[SuperCaffeineDude]

The 11 level cap, I’m kind of in both camps with, losing your level 15 might be a tragedy, but I think most of the time it will conflict with how fallible and human your men are meant to be if your veterans are too elevated from your recruits, and lead to great frustration (likely save scumming) as you lose what might be an irrecoverable loss as the game progresses in difficulty on the presumption you have super-soldiers.

I love and hate leveling up my brothers, I half think perhaps its not all that authentic due to the fact the glass ceiling is set only when they run into you.
By which I mean to say training a boy from scratch leads to less improvements than training an established mercenary. Like we’re taking a bodybuilder on and expecting him to double in strength.

It seems a little silly allowing tradesmen to be blank canvases, and I wonder if they started with randomised(by trade) perks, would retaining old hands be rendered more optimal. For instance a level two poacher has his points pre-invested into range, stamina and initiative, and has 2 archer perks selected.
To balance for that their recruitment costs could be lowered, idk though just spitballing.

Definitely the level cap could vary by difficulty, if not set separately by the player as an option.

[Wargasm]

Mike wrote:

-1

I was supporter of more levels back when perks were divided into trees as we were pretty much forced to pick at least some that we didn’t want. With the latest update the system is very flexible and there is just enough points to make various specialists without going into OP territory.

Wargasm wrote:

I want at least 20 perks or ideally unlimited perks […] all upgrades should at least be +3 […] at least 4 attributes each time.

Would you also like an “I win button” added? Seems like a logical conclusion ;]
On a more serious note a lot of the actual game is making decision on how to spend limited resources, perks and attributes included. Removing those limits would undermine all the efforts at making a challenging and interesting game. If you would simply like to test your ideas I think such unlimited development of characters would belong to some kind of a separate “sanbox” or “custom scenario” mode.

— If there’s a limit on level-ups, the ones who’ve already been level 11 for some time become boring, since you can no longer develop them
— You find yourself using the max-level ones solely to disarm and injure opponents, and then keep waiting turn so that the new guys can come along and finish them off to gain more experience points
— Once most of your company is level 11 and you have lots of crowns, the whole company becomes boring and you deliberately send them into battle against orc warriors/warlords with only modest armour, so that you can then recruit lots of new, interesting people that have lots of development ahead

— Winning easily all the time is boring, and so there’s nothing to stop you (with more or unlimited perks) from making things more challenging by (a) sending only a restricted # into battles, or (b) having an “outlaw build” or “peasant build” where you only wear green/brown cloth/leather that fits with a forest environment and/or only use simple/tier-1 weapons and no large shields, or (c) having a “naked savage” build where everyone fights naked but can use whatever weapons/shields they like, or (d) having a build where you can’t purchase any weapons/equipment and can only use what you loot, etc. etc.
— If you simply play to win as much and as easily as possible, however, you gradually learn that certain choices are always going to be less advantageous than other ones in some/all contexts, and this prohibits you from playing with certain perks/styles/strategies which otherwise would be very fun to play with, and causes campaigns to become a bit monotonous

— I did suggest a “custom scenario” where you’d be able to experiment with different perk combinations; however, that still wouldn’t allow for a themed campaign where you impose certain restrictions on yourself and therefore need more perks and skills to compensate or just to develop the theme to its fullest

— With more perks and level-ups, you’d still have to choose the order in which they are picked etc. and characters would not be over-powered until they reached a very high level
— Over-powered characters, as well as ones that have reached max level and can no longer develop, become boring and force you to use your imagination to make things interesting again (e.g. by keeping lots in reserve and fighting against overwhelming odds, and/or using more basic tools and equipment)

— With less frustrating level-ups (e.g. more attribute upgrades and minimum upgrades of +3) and/or a more rapid acquisition of upgrades, the game as a whole could still be kept equally “challenging” by increasing the size/skill/quantity of enemy forces emerging as the game goes on, or even by reducing the number of upgrades to 8 but giving a choice each time of 2 perks or 2 level-ups or one of each
— Either way, you’d still eventually end up having to use your imagination to make things interesting again once people were too powerful or could no longer develop; the only difference is that the process of getting there would be less frustrating

[Author]

Posts