Topic: Rebuilding settlements

  • Author
    Posts
  • #18312
    blackteapie
    Participant

    Just read the new developer blog.
    I have no problems with the whole late game crisis idea, except the un-rebuildable settlements.
    In the current vision of the game, we only control a band of mercenaries, which means we cannot protect all human settlements. Because these settlements are scattered, I usually need to spend at least a day (in game) to travel from one town to a another. And I don’t see any chance that we can invade the greenskins’ territory to end their invasions once for all. So if the settlements cannot be rebuild, the human territory which is the main source for us to get supplies will be inevitably reduced. In the end, we may be forced to end the game much ealier than we thought.

    #18317
    Namespace
    Participant

    My thoughts exactly. It’s a good thing I found this thread since I was just about to start a new one. Losing a settlement like this would frustrate me so much that I would either start a new campaign or back up my iron man savefile so this stuff does not happen. As long as there is a possibility to reclaim the village, be it by assault or paying 100k crowns or building a new settlement instead I would be fine with this change. As it is now it would really frustrate me.

    #18318
    Ulrich
    Participant

    I think its ok. You can decide in early game which villages, towns and castles you are going to protect. Many villages has no real value, so not big deal to lose same of them.

    All life's problems can be solved with a bayonet charge.

    #18319
    TIDM2
    Participant

    At the very least if you choose to continue after winning an end game crisis all the destroyed settlements should be rebuilt.

    #18320
    RusBear
    Participant

    it is obvious that the crisis mechanic (as it was with the goblins and the new system of perks) will then still be adjusted after a standard period of reviews and whining)

    #18323
    blackteapie
    Participant

    No, I don’t think it would be fun. We cannot expand our territory, if we cannot rebuild settlements or build new ones. So, all we can do is passively repell the greenskin invasions, which will hugely damaged the freedom of the game.

    #18780
    KingNoodle
    Participant

    Hmmm, in my games I tend to only really hang out in one corner of the map (where the richest port is as they pay the most for loot) and only do quests for the local lords there. I can see myself should the skirmishing against the greenskins or necrophiliacs go badly then I would just abandon the areas I could not defend, pull back to my “home region” and only stay there. It would suck if I was successful but 3/4ths of the map was overrun but I suppose that’s when I would retire and start anew, having learned lessons or whatnot. I don’t know.

    I enjoy post-apocalypse games though so living and fighting through the pre-apocaypse to get there might be right up my alley.

    #18818
    Micha
    Participant

    Or maybe add quests which are about rebuilding a destroyed settlement. So that you can decide to rebuild the world or to let it be destroyed.

Viewing 8 posts - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.