Yep, exactly.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
How to make castles matter
- Thread starter freeustand
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Yep, exactly.
Watched in a new playthrough southern empire capture a aseri town. the aseri army stands outside and watched the town going to southern empire and then go to a village. The did not attack the southern empire at equal numbers. i think someone in forum addressed this as a bug and some mod responded something like: Talked to the developer and he says its intended.
Don't even get me started on armies ignoring each other, some times they pass right through each other and don't attack just going their merry way to siege castles deep into enemy territory, if one army has the clear advantage they seem to pursue otherwise if they are about equal they go like "nah, not payed enough to die for this ****"
Last edited:
Another issue is that armies don't communicate with each other. They can all have the same objective but will do it separately.
Yep, armies suck, AI sucks. I watched my vassals sit their building and loosing 1 siege weapon until they ran out of food and then wander from village to village as they keep running out. I tried to join them and they just kept building the thing over and over eating my food. Can't make them attack or take control of the siege prep. Stupid bad design.
I feel TW is too stubborn about not just MAKEING the AI do and not do things that would make the the game work better. They want the AI to have pretend decisions instead of "no you can't do that""This happens so you must do this""player chooses X so you must do X, player is your GOD you exist to please player". I mean, there is no "AI" it's just objects doing what they're told anyways. They're told to magically know what object is less defended and attack it and to not attack until they have X power advantage.... but what if power advantage never reaches X but but ......... Hal...... Hal why aren't you attacking? It's the last town of the 1 war we're in, just finish them off, nothing bad can happen, I'll protect you.... Hal! Hal no don't run away and starve until you run out of cohesion!
I feel TW is too stubborn about not just MAKEING the AI do and not do things that would make the the game work better. They want the AI to have pretend decisions instead of "no you can't do that""This happens so you must do this""player chooses X so you must do X, player is your GOD you exist to please player". I mean, there is no "AI" it's just objects doing what they're told anyways. They're told to magically know what object is less defended and attack it and to not attack until they have X power advantage.... but what if power advantage never reaches X but but ......... Hal...... Hal why aren't you attacking? It's the last town of the 1 war we're in, just finish them off, nothing bad can happen, I'll protect you.... Hal! Hal no don't run away and starve until you run out of cohesion!
Disband their army and instantly form a new one from all the parties at "Nearby" distance.
Well I re-loaded the game and disbanded them and just sieged it with my party ?
But I was happy they took initiative and would have liked if they just finished it themselves.
One solution that came up in an old Warband mod (Bluebloods) for making castles matter more, was to have enemy parties significantly slow down in a radius around the castle. That way fleeing enemies could more easily be caught by allied parties, and slows down an enemy campaign through allied territories.
But until the AI starts taking bordering settlements rather than interior settlements, that wouldn't be a fully satisfactory solution.
But until the AI starts taking bordering settlements rather than interior settlements, that wouldn't be a fully satisfactory solution.
That's a cool idea actually, could be a debuff to party speed called hostile fortifications nearby or something like that, i think it would work well paired with that other mod that makes AI armies focus on bordering fiefs (party AI overhaul and commands)
ceprast
Recruit
I think they could do a few relatively easily to give castles meaning. Both are mentioned individually here
The first and possibly hardest is reworking the campaign AI so that lords will seek shelter in them when they are outmatched as they did in Warband. Why they didn't include it here is a mystery.
The second is that Castle garrisons should be able to join battles in it local AO Sallying out to help allied forces. This can use the already present relative strength mechanic but should probably be tweaked so that Castle garrisons only sally if odds are greater than say 75% so that you can't cheese it fight castle garrisons outside walls. The Castles Area of Effect should be tweaked and possibly some castles position moved so that they cover strategic choke points. This can be combined with campaign AI changes that cause armies to actually target those Castles and Stay on them, and it will produce much more coherent battles.
There is also a related change I think they could make to Scouting so that it is useful. They reinforce range of all parties should be tied to scouting skill. The range at which both the reinforcee and reinforcer should be taken into account so that the reinforcement range is the combined total of the two. There should be a base reinforce range, plus a % based on scouting skill and party speed. I think this would make an excellent change because right now the campaign seems little more than WB was.
The first and possibly hardest is reworking the campaign AI so that lords will seek shelter in them when they are outmatched as they did in Warband. Why they didn't include it here is a mystery.
The second is that Castle garrisons should be able to join battles in it local AO Sallying out to help allied forces. This can use the already present relative strength mechanic but should probably be tweaked so that Castle garrisons only sally if odds are greater than say 75% so that you can't cheese it fight castle garrisons outside walls. The Castles Area of Effect should be tweaked and possibly some castles position moved so that they cover strategic choke points. This can be combined with campaign AI changes that cause armies to actually target those Castles and Stay on them, and it will produce much more coherent battles.
There is also a related change I think they could make to Scouting so that it is useful. They reinforce range of all parties should be tied to scouting skill. The range at which both the reinforcee and reinforcer should be taken into account so that the reinforcement range is the combined total of the two. There should be a base reinforce range, plus a % based on scouting skill and party speed. I think this would make an excellent change because right now the campaign seems little more than WB was.
ceprast
Recruit
Um in reality they absolutely did. Armies of that size could not do anything but raid without supply lines. Meaning they had to move on or perish from attrition while the defenders waited for an opportune moment to strike. They could only stay in an area for days not "months on end" before leaving. This is why European warfare was predominately about sieges and skirmishing around sieges in foraging actions, not pitched battles. There was far more likely to be a siege during a campaign than a battle, sometimes there were multiple sieges and no battles.
The English Method of Chevauchee raiding during the hundred years war was a fluke. Those were only effective when the French cooperated and whelped their massive armies in a series of badly led battles and managing to get their kings captured or killed which was effectively a checkmate in the days of Feudalism. However the method of campaigning itself was strategically terrible and resulted in massive blunders. At Crecy, Poitiers, and later at Agincourt the English were all brought to battle against superior French forces and should have been annihilated because they had no way to retreat. Had the French not proven inept during those battles or had simply not gotten their Nobility captured nothing of importance would have come from those campaigns let alone victory. As it was the ineffectiveness of the Chevauchee method was Eventually proven, because despite those victories the French still won the hundred years war.
be interesting if the garrison could sally out to attack a small army nearby or reinforce a village being raided or town being sieged
The fabled Taleworlds logic™
What on Earth??
I think recruitable noble troops, garrison helping friendly parties (help peasants fight bandits, etc..) and distance-based decision making (seriously armies crossing the whole map and then starved before accomplishing anything is just dumb) are good first steps in fixing this.
"Prancing" means "moving."
You need to train that trade skill good sir. You are paying a ridiculous amount of money for that food.Yo, 5x food consumption isn't going to do a damned thing to a player's ability to carry enough food to roam the continent at will.
If you don't want to bother clicking the pic, it shows a party of 210 men carrying over three and a half years (in-game) worth of food, for a total speed penalty of -0.12.
Also, it isn't hard to get more food in the enemy interior currently. Just go to an enemy village and buy it. It will be way more expensive because an extra trade penalty is applied during wartime but food is so cheap that doubling the price (or tripling, or whatever the penalty is) doesn't matter much. Whatever you lose in denars to the trade penalty is going to be a rounding error compared to the loot you get after a successful siege.
Finally, the AI can already barely manage its own food for some reason, so you'd need to completely exempt non-player armies and parties from this system or else the No.1 winning move will simply be following behind a (much slower) enemy army until all its men starve, then swoop in for a free win once they are down to zero available troops.
I see a lot of good ideas in this tread. Some of the following I have copied, other things I have added. (still figuring out quotes)
1 They should be military centers and better at training and recruiting troops. Like medieval 2 total war. City's for making money, castles for military strength
2 Have a stash so that you can store your things.
3 castles should dispatch patrols to deal with bandits (size based of garrison size and effective party speed). I like this better than hiring patrols from villages. The patrol size is taken out of the garrison but still counts toward total garrison size for wages and food.
4 garrisons can help a relieving army bij dispatching a % size of the garrison to follow (trail) a friendly lord within a radius around the castle, this works only if one of bound settlements is under attack. A weak lord can be useful by leading a garrison force
5 zone of control. An Enemy army can not pas unless it passes a strengt check. Like 150%. This would mean that armies can pass, but weaker parties not. This means the pathfinding AI must be able to factor in the zones of controle and the relative strength checks. I could be a big burden on de CPU.
6 Castles should be safe havens for parties to weak to fight the enemy and to slow to get away otherwise.
7 couple suggestions 3 and 4 with Ferisko's idea for giving the governor a bigger role.
As of now castles serve no real purpose. I find myself hoping my liege would not gift me the newly conquered castle, so I have a better change at getting a city.
1 They should be military centers and better at training and recruiting troops. Like medieval 2 total war. City's for making money, castles for military strength
2 Have a stash so that you can store your things.
3 castles should dispatch patrols to deal with bandits (size based of garrison size and effective party speed). I like this better than hiring patrols from villages. The patrol size is taken out of the garrison but still counts toward total garrison size for wages and food.
4 garrisons can help a relieving army bij dispatching a % size of the garrison to follow (trail) a friendly lord within a radius around the castle, this works only if one of bound settlements is under attack. A weak lord can be useful by leading a garrison force
5 zone of control. An Enemy army can not pas unless it passes a strengt check. Like 150%. This would mean that armies can pass, but weaker parties not. This means the pathfinding AI must be able to factor in the zones of controle and the relative strength checks. I could be a big burden on de CPU.
6 Castles should be safe havens for parties to weak to fight the enemy and to slow to get away otherwise.
7 couple suggestions 3 and 4 with Ferisko's idea for giving the governor a bigger role.
As of now castles serve no real purpose. I find myself hoping my liege would not gift me the newly conquered castle, so I have a better change at getting a city.
Last edited:
I don't know if it was in this thread, but I read a suggestion somewhere saying that governors could do the patrols. I think it would make more sense than spawning patrols of thin air, governors grabbing some of the garrison to patrol around.
I agree
, this will make governors more useful. but I would also link the use of the governors to my nr 4 suggestion.but my suggestions for the patrols was not to spawns them from thin air. My suggestion is to take the patrol size directly out of the garrison but make it still count toward total garrison size for wages and food usage.
