Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
But sure, "bad" horses ("roncins", "ronzini", "rocinantes"...) given provisionally to rulers for wargames are destroyed, because they are not actually 'theirs' (weren't trained, weren't bought) and they have 0 value.
They are given for immersion (to show in the GUI), since these are all warhorse games, and many participants can't even have them - non-rulers won't ever equip artifacts unless forced to.
It's not because horses are needed, since these give +1 prowess to everyone.
About skills: wargames have almost* the same behavior as Vanilla duels. I'm quite sure it's not prowess only what counts, but I agree I could maybe add relevant traits there, like tournier/chowgan player or groom traits, and things like that. I haven't done that because I think this would actually duplicate chances of winning (prowess/martial + the trait itself).
*It's not the same because I eliminated some "quick death" movements to avoid weirdness in games. This sometimes makes games somehow boring, with only one option.