Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

You seriously shouldn't lose Imperial Favour when fighting back invaders

RewanRewan Senior MemberRegistered Users Posts: 4,292
Like make it so it doesn't drop when you butcher people trying to take your territory. It's really dumb you lose imperial favour by fighting back a siege, it's really dumb you don't actually lose imperial favour if you actually siege a settlement (because you are starving the heck of the people in there), it's really dumb you cannot kill those 10 stacks roaming your land because doing so would make you the enemy of the Han.

_________________________________

My personal collection of hazardous tests and quickfixes (yes this is a link).
Wondering why you get some traits on your characters this may give you a vague idea

Balance enthusiast, I like tinkering and messing with stuff and values. Cool heads prevails !

Comments

  • Misaka_ComplexMisaka_Complex Registered Users Posts: 3,301
    The child emperor shouldn't be able to judge your actions at all, period. the entire imperial favor mechanic is a mistake. The child emperor never had any power or influence at all both historically and in the story.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,292
    the entire imperial favor mechanic is a mistake


    We asked for the Child Emperor to be reworked and be more relevant, we got what we asked for. They are not going to remove this.
    _________________________________

    My personal collection of hazardous tests and quickfixes (yes this is a link).
    Wondering why you get some traits on your characters this may give you a vague idea

    Balance enthusiast, I like tinkering and messing with stuff and values. Cool heads prevails !
  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 1,041
    Imperial favour is a good mechanic it's just terribly implemented. Everyone should start with a neutral 50 once the emperor comes of age and it should be harder to maintain 100. The aggressor of a war should incur the negative penalties.

    It seems like it was balanced entirely around the Fates Divided DLC and nothing else.
  • Misaka_ComplexMisaka_Complex Registered Users Posts: 3,301
    Rewan said:

    We asked for the Child Emperor to be reworked and be more relevant, we got what we asked for. They are not going to remove this.

    Depends how you do this, for example the idea of issuing imperial decrees is nice but having him judge everyone just makes the AI factions less likely to go to war and makes the entire game too peaceful. Instead of making the child emperor have a personality and judge other factions, he should be treated as the tool that he was which it's only purpose was to issue false decrees and offer more legitimacy and prestige and those. It would be amazing if he buffed your faction unique currency and mechanic but of course that would require too much work so they won't do it.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,292
    edited May 3
    Depends how you do this, for example the idea of issuing imperial decrees is nice but having him judge everyone just makes the AI factions less likely to go to war and makes the entire game too peacefu



    No the problem is that the favour is too easy to stack up, hence it's also too hard for it to go down (I had to slaughter around 10 stacks AND play Yuan Shu AND have full taxes on so bad public order for it to dip down around 50). Overall it doesn't feel like the AI tries to better its own situation or reduce the one of its enemies.

    Like I've seen enough bloodbaths in 1.7, the AI's are more reluctant to fight but they still do fight. It's just rarer (because of everyone having that +20 bonus in diplomacy)

    Also the missions feel very limiting. You only get offering food and fighting the enemy of the Han.
    Post edited by Rewan on
    _________________________________

    My personal collection of hazardous tests and quickfixes (yes this is a link).
    Wondering why you get some traits on your characters this may give you a vague idea

    Balance enthusiast, I like tinkering and messing with stuff and values. Cool heads prevails !
  • Misaka_ComplexMisaka_Complex Registered Users Posts: 3,301
    edited May 3
    Rewan said:

    No the problem is that the favour is too easy to stack up, hence it's also too hard for it to go down (I had to slaughter around 10 stacks AND play Yuan Shu AND have full taxes on so bad public order for it to dip down around 50). Overall it doesn't feel like the AI tries to better its own situation or reduce the one of its enemies.

    This really depends, if you loot and sack a lot of settlements like I do then you can lose it pretty fast. I would say that the AI tries to better it's own situation unless it's AI Yuan Shu because they tend to get all friendly with each other to avoid getting their values below 100, cause I see a lot of AI sitting at 100.
    Rewan said:

    Like I've seen enough bloodbaths in 1.7, the AI's are more reluctant to fight but they still do fight. It's just rarer (because of everyone having that +20 bonus in diplomacy)

    Yeah that's the problem, it discourages fights and wars when it should be encouraged to spice up the battlefield.
    Rewan said:

    Also the missions feel very limiting. You only get offering food and fighting the enemy of the Han.

    This is just strange, you can be at war with the faction holding the child emperor and the child emperor is still sending you food.... as a captive of the guy who you are at war with? These missions need to be done differently, it should be that you should get bonuses as someone waging war against the faction holding the emperor but at the same time, if you hold the emperor you should be able to abuse him a lot more for personal gain in the direction of those imperial decrees.

    An interesting mechanic would be that as the controller of the emperor you have the ability to hand out titles, in the same way that Cao Cao handed out titles to Yuan Shao in order to appease him. The controller of the emperor should be able to hand out Han court titles to help other factions gain prestige and so on giving the controller a massive advantage in diplomacy.
  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 1,041

    The child emperor shouldn't be able to judge your actions at all, period. the entire imperial favor mechanic is a mistake. The child emperor never had any power or influence at all both historically and in the story.

    You are right that's it's largely nonsensical but they could salvage it. Think of the secret decree from Xian that was sent to Liu Bei and others. Cao Cao ordered the emperor to do anything he liked but he also had to be careful of the emperor covertly opposing him. I think many of the current events from high imperial favour could be tweaked and make sense. The emperor sending you financial/food support could be "the emperor secretly sends you support". Maybe a stretch but I think it fits.

    Where I do think it's utterly ridiculous is a faction needing the emperor's consent to declare someone an enemy of the Han. I get that it's to balance the game but it's just nonsensical. Imagine Cao Cao about to declare Yuan Shu an enemy of the Han and Xian just went "nah". Lol. I think holding the emperor should be a really powerful boon and honestly I think declaring someone an enemy of the Han should be able to be done with anyone provided the faction holds the emperor and a cooldown is in place. But I worry that this might make the AI constantly declare the player as an enemy of the Han so I'd actually rather it stay the way it is now.

    I'd say the biggest problem with Imperial Favour is how half-assed it is. The emperor judging you when he's a child and the imperial favour screen isn't even accessible (?). Losing imperial favour when you are defending your own lands from aggressors (??), including from those who are trying to capture the emperor from you (???). How easy it is to stack 100 imperial favour and just sit about buddy buddy (????). Liu Hong losing imperial favour (?????).
  • talonntalonn Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 733
    At first I was ****, but then I find that it doesn't really matter anyway as it's very easy (too easy) to gain back the favour
  • MasterSlayeXMasterSlayeX Registered Users Posts: 743
    It’s good on paper but needs work .

    To me happiness to gain it needs to be removed. Replaced with tributes and more uses for imperial favor so the player or AI don’t sit on 100 forever

    Defense should also not take it away
  • MKEsbjornMKEsbjorn Registered Users Posts: 527

    Imperial favour is a good mechanic it's just terribly implemented. Everyone should start with a neutral 50 once the emperor comes of age and it should be harder to maintain 100. The aggressor of a war should incur the negative penalties.

    It seems like it was balanced entirely around the Fates Divided DLC and nothing else.

    technically this is what happens. the aggressor is the attacking army. i agree that sallying out when under siege should not give negative penalties.
  • EdhwenEdhwen Registered Users Posts: 381
    I agree. Is a nice mechanic but need some adjustment.
  • Misaka_ComplexMisaka_Complex Registered Users Posts: 3,301

    You are right that's it's largely nonsensical but they could salvage it. Think of the secret decree from Xian that was sent to Liu Bei and others. Cao Cao ordered the emperor to do anything he liked but he also had to be careful of the emperor covertly opposing him. I think many of the current events from high imperial favour could be tweaked and make sense. The emperor sending you financial/food support could be "the emperor secretly sends you support". Maybe a stretch but I think it fits.

    They could make it like "Xian sends you an edict" giving you rewards and riches, experience, food and those bonuses AFTER you rescue him from whoever that holds him, and this would make completely sense. The old "girdle plot" event for Cao Cao also still shows up after the 200 start, which is utterly ridiculous because the 200 start starts just after the girdle plot happened with Liu Bei in Xu.

    Where I do think it's utterly ridiculous is a faction needing the emperor's consent to declare someone an enemy of the Han. I get that it's to balance the game but it's just nonsensical. Imagine Cao Cao about to declare Yuan Shu an enemy of the Han and Xian just went "nah". Lol. I think holding the emperor should be a really powerful boon and honestly I think declaring someone an enemy of the Han should be able to be done with anyone provided the faction holds the emperor and a cooldown is in place. But I worry that this might make the AI constantly declare the player as an enemy of the Han so I'd actually rather it stay the way it is now.

    I like this idea, the player should be able to declare someone an "enemy of the Han" regardless of Xian's opinion because Xian's opinion was largely irrelevant on the matter. There should be a limit set to this though, like you can only declare someone an "enemy of the Han' only if you are at war with them.

    I'd say the biggest problem with Imperial Favour is how half-assed it is. The emperor judging you when he's a child and the imperial favour screen isn't even accessible (?). Losing imperial favour when you are defending your own lands from aggressors (??), including from those who are trying to capture the emperor from you (???). How easy it is to stack 100 imperial favour and just sit about buddy buddy (????). Liu Hong losing imperial favour (?????).

    Yes, I couldn't agree with you more on this... the entire DLC is just an unfinished mess.
  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 1,041



    I like this idea, the player should be able to declare someone an "enemy of the Han" regardless of Xian's opinion because Xian's opinion was largely irrelevant on the matter. There should be a limit set to this though, like you can only declare someone an "enemy of the Han' only if you are at war with them.

    The only reason why I ultimately wouldn't implement it is because I just know the AI would just constantly declare the player as an enemy of the Han if there was no restriction. I'd rather have my immersion broken than suffer how annoying that would be.
  • Misaka_ComplexMisaka_Complex Registered Users Posts: 3,301

    The only reason why I ultimately wouldn't implement it is because I just know the AI would just constantly declare the player as an enemy of the Han if there was no restriction. I'd rather have my immersion broken than suffer how annoying that would be.

    They could always limit the AI's uses of this and make the mechanic mostly for the player to use.
  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 1,041

    The only reason why I ultimately wouldn't implement it is because I just know the AI would just constantly declare the player as an enemy of the Han if there was no restriction. I'd rather have my immersion broken than suffer how annoying that would be.

    They could always limit the AI's uses of this and make the mechanic mostly for the player to use.
    Unfortunately we know what CA are like...
  • MasterSlayeXMasterSlayeX Registered Users Posts: 743
    edited May 3
    Declaring someone a enemy of the han should depend on Xian’s opinion tbh . The cost in imperial points going up the more imperial points they have . Should be fine to declare anyone one but if they are really liked by xian he’s of course not gonna be happy and should cost you a lot to do it . Likewise if he don’t like then it should cost little to nothing . Also you being at war with them should be a thing

    I also think anyone who does not own the emperor should be able to cause a coalition war if the person who owns the emperor is hated by the emperor or if many warlords don’t like the person holding the emperor . Dong zhuo could start in a coalition war in 190 against the warlords . The cost also being reflected on how much the emperor likes that person . To get people to join in with a coalition you have to do a deal with then which is based on their imperial prestige and the warlord holding the emperor

    By defending the emperor enough prehaps the player can cause a truce or it only lasts like 5-10 turns or something
  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 1,041

    Declaring someone a enemy of the han should depend on Xian’s opinion tbh . The cost in imperial points going up the more imperial points they have . Should be fine to declare anyone one but if they are really liked by xian he’s of course not gonna be happy and should cost you a lot to do it . Likewise if he don’t like then it should cost little to nothing . Also you being at war with them should be a thing

    Emperor Xian's opinion literally didn't matter. He did what he was told. If he didn't. he'd be dead. It's obviously not that straightforward because there were Han loyalists in court, but it's also not far off.
  • MasterSlayeXMasterSlayeX Registered Users Posts: 743

    Declaring someone a enemy of the han should depend on Xian’s opinion tbh . The cost in imperial points going up the more imperial points they have . Should be fine to declare anyone one but if they are really liked by xian he’s of course not gonna be happy and should cost you a lot to do it . Likewise if he don’t like then it should cost little to nothing . Also you being at war with them should be a thing

    Emperor Xian's opinion literally didn't matter. He did what he was told. If he didn't. he'd be dead. It's obviously not that straightforward because there were Han loyalists in court, but it's also not far off.
    But then was that not when the plots started happening within the imperial court? When the emperor was basically a puppet ? .
  • Misaka_ComplexMisaka_Complex Registered Users Posts: 3,301

    Declaring someone a enemy of the han should depend on Xian’s opinion tbh . The cost in imperial points going up the more imperial points they have . Should be fine to declare anyone one but if they are really liked by xian he’s of course not gonna be happy and should cost you a lot to do it . Likewise if he don’t like then it should cost little to nothing . Also you being at war with them should be a thing

    Well no, that's not how things worked. Xian had very little influence to begin with and the most he was able to do was to send edicts in secret asking other warlords for help. It's also worth noting that with Cao Cao's successful military campaigns the influence of Xian diminished more and more with the Han loyalists like Kong Rong and Dong Cheng getting picked off little by little with each one of Cao Cao's military successes.

    Instead of imperial favor they can make it like the more prestige and military success you achieve, the more powers of the Han you get to unlock with declaring someone as an "enemy of the Han" being a milestone you can unlock once you reach a certain level of influence within the Han court to completely overshadow Xian.
  • Bright_EyesBright_Eyes Registered Users Posts: 1,041
    Now that I think about what @Misaka_Complex has said, I think I've taken for granted how utterly nonsensical the Imperial Favour mechanic is.

    I've actually noticed the game has gotten increasingly inaccurate ever since AWB. First there was Wei Yan spawning with Liu Bei in the 190s (lol). I thought that was a bit bizarre but shrugged it off. They made Shamoke a Nanman at the same time which is also weird but I thought "eh they probably just want a cool Nanman leader, they can fudge history a bit". But then with Fates Divided, they've made really baffling inaccuracies. Imperial Favour makes no sense for the reasons Misaka has said. Liu Yan's court has nobodies rather than the officials who actually served him, even in the 200 AD start (seriously who even are those guys). Yuan Shao is missing quite a few famous generals in the Fates Divided start and the armies that are placed to fight each other in the chapter pack start (mirroring the battles of Baima and Yan) have the wrong generals in them. I point this out because Yan Liang is placed at Baima and Wen Chou at Yan (roughly where the forts were), so I think some effort was made to make the battles accurate but they messed it up.
  • Warlord_Lu_BuWarlord_Lu_Bu Registered Users Posts: 2,754
    i dislike how you get negative favor fighting rebels/looters too.
    "I am the punishment of Tengri, if you had not sinned, he would not have sent me against you." - Chenghis Khan Temujin
  • Vin362Vin362 Registered Users Posts: 879
    edited May 4

    i dislike how you get negative favor fighting rebels/looters too.

    I suspect that is a problem with the game spawning them as Han instead of bandit culture.
    Supporter of Shu-Han, Waiting for a Three Kingdoms start date for TW3K
  • kweassa1kweassa1 Registered Users Posts: 813
    Rewan said:

    Like make it so it doesn't drop when you butcher people trying to take your territory. It's really dumb you lose imperial favour by fighting back a siege, it's really dumb you don't actually lose imperial favour if you actually siege a settlement (because you are starving the heck of the people in there), it's really dumb you cannot kill those 10 stacks roaming your land because doing so would make you the enemy of the Han.

    I know where you're coming from, but at the same time I think it still kinda makes sense. Because, considering the absolutely messed-up state the imperial court was in those times, I think they'd probably have taken the "mommy" approach in these matters -- ie., "Mommy doesn't care who started the fight. Mommy just wants both of you to stop!" :p
  • Qin_FengQin_Feng Registered Users Posts: 371
    They should get rid of diplo binuses for imperial favor. It ruins the game.
  • RewanRewan Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,292
    I know where you're coming from, but at the same time I think it still kinda makes sense. Because, considering the absolutely messed-up state the imperial court was in those times, I think they'd probably have taken the "mommy" approach in these matters -- ie., "Mommy doesn't care who started the fight. Mommy just wants both of you to stop!"


    "Mommy is fine with the people dying, just don't fight."

    Raiders parties MUST be eliminated from your land else you get hit by public order penalties, growth penalties and you take the risk of having more than half a million people die in your settlement because of the council mission where you poison the granary.

    Overall using "aggressive" faction council actions should definitely remove some of the imperial favour you have. (such as burning an enemy commandery or as I said putting poison into the reserves)
    _________________________________

    My personal collection of hazardous tests and quickfixes (yes this is a link).
    Wondering why you get some traits on your characters this may give you a vague idea

    Balance enthusiast, I like tinkering and messing with stuff and values. Cool heads prevails !
  • 39821739175248623982173917524862 Registered Users Posts: 1,279
    Rewan said:

    Overall using "aggressive" faction council actions should definitely remove some of the imperial favour you have. (such as burning an enemy commandery or as I said putting poison into the reserves)

    Or simply reduce the effectiveness of offensive council actions. The raiders, negative food event, kill off a wounded character, instant walled settlement destruction of walls are too strong.
    The ones that are balanced are the fatigue and campaign movement debuff, supply debuff and replenishment debuff.
    The diplomacy debuff should be buffed, 20 relations is not enough even in the mid game and is a massive missed opportunity cost compared to most actions. But it may seem so due to the intrigue mechanic making everyone friends, so I'd only suggest buffing it to 25 before we see what changes are in store with intrigue in next patch.

  • AgentGBAgentGB Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 465
    edited May 6
    I can sort of imagine the two ambassadors sort of pleading their case at the Imperial court for why they're taking military action with alot of finger pointing, and the Emperor/Puppet Emperor would kinda need to show a certain degree of even handedness. Just taken a swathe of territory and are now defending.

    I like the system, but i can see what you mean that it could potentially be a race to the bottom if in multiple wars, but tbh never really had too much trouble keeping my Imperial favour up, and from what i can see from the ai, neither does the ai too. I think the diplo bonuses does allow you to weather the worst of the effects too as mentioned. Also when i do crash my imperial favour, i generally have control of the Emperor by then and you kinda feel like you have free reign.

    If Imperial Favour is mostly about trying to keep the status quo, then perhaps defensive battles on 'original core territory' 'that was the status quo before a start of a war' should have reduced Imperial Favour loss. It would also allow factions that have lost territory to try and reclaim territory in an ongoing war while not taking such a big loss in imperial favour.

    Like how deep do you go with this, like stated, should long lengthy sieges incur a imp fav hit per turn? Or should the ruleset be purely defined around battles and territory changing hands, and if so, like yeah, that needs to better defined i guess.

    This would then encourage short wars in order to consolidate and core the territory so to speak with a conclusion to a war? But then it does start to become a slightly more detailed system. I can see why its relatively simple at its core atm, i mean, i can see that its meant to try and slow down your expansion, so you cannot blitzkrieg multiple cities and need to build up some favour before continuing your expansion in an ongoing war.

    They system definitely as potential, i'm kinda more for it being alittle more in depth, to cover these loopholes in the system. Also i feel the ai is pulling its punches atm, its not exactly tag teaming you with hits to your favour or excommunication, since it would probably be a difficult quagmire to get out of if the ai did so. So i would perhaps like a logical way to see of such attempts within the Imperial Intrigue system, should the ai be given the ability to be ruthless, or a way to claw back favour to lift an excommunication so that the ai would not continue to beat down on you, atm the ai doesn't do this but if it did, this is what would presumably happen.

    I mean, i really like the system overall, it reminds me a bit of the Pope mechanic from ME2, or another attempt at "War Exhaustion" from Charlemagne in a bid to force a conclusion to a war that didn't work out too well because it only affected the player & you could not get out of it unless the player or ai you was fighting was willing to seek terms. But it got potential, just not sure how it could be improved that it would cover loopholes, exploits and seem intuitive.
    Post edited by AgentGB on
Sign In or Register to comment.