Battle frequency

Ok to jump straight I'm curious to see if an opinion is shared about battle frequency, for me it seemed too frequent in warband,

Which may seem counter intuitive and I understand why it was quite frequent, battles play a dominant part in the game, they are essentially the means for the majority of people accumulate wealth, exp, and honour etc and the game beyond that is to further justify fighting some more. But in its frequency I think it missed out on a real sense of risk, and became grindy in part. But still I love the game for all its jankiness (reserving the right to make up words),

I love the idea of realism, but understand the need for divergences with reality for the enjoyment of what is a game meant to be enjoyed, not meant to replicate the true nature of the setting, in which we would most likely have ended up shitting ourselves to death, if not for the fighting then dysentery.

So yes you could lose everything you worked up to save and build, and yeah permadeath could allieviate the feeling that it lacks risk, up the difficulty so both player and npc alike deal the same potential damage. But I cant help but feel that by increasing the rewards (to help meet the economical result) and decreasing the frequency of battles that it would be a more enjoyable experience, if not just for me.

To further explain other than taking a stray javelin to the face I want an engagement to be riskier, that even though I may outnumber an enemy it may still not be wise to engage, that I would have to pick my battles than blindingly stumbling into everything (partially due to abuse of certain hotkeys), truer risk vs reward, rather than constant battling.

Submitted July 24, 2017 at 01:38PM by Ltb1993 http://ift.tt/2vBGDCp