-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Patch Notes e1.5.4
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Please accept my apologies, we missed some notes from the original post. I have gone ahead and updated it.
Latest Changes:
- Fixed a rare crash that occurred when changing video options.
- Fixed a bug that spawned the main hero in an unplayable area after selecting their heir.
- Fixed an issue that showed swapped values for "Casualties Inflicted" for a diplomacy war item.
- Fixed a rare crash on the multiplayer badges screen.
- Fixed an issue that caused party speeds not being updated after leaving an army.
- Fixed the issue of Mercenary Guard troops not being listed as an infantry type unit. This also applies to formation choices.
- Fixed an issue that led to incorrect templates being used when creating a companion.
- Fixed an issue with daily gold change occurring immediately after loading a save file. Now, it is paid only once in a day.
- Enabled the 'forfeit' button on the opponent’s turn when playing board games. This indirectly fixes the “stuck” situations when playing board games.
- Fixed a crash that was related to column arrangement in multiplayer Captain game mode.
- Soldier troops now have new templates which limit their maximum possible age to early 40's.
I encounter more crashes today after the update.... Mostly during battle loading.
Also some interesting hotfix just got released if im correct
Hotfix 20/11/20
- Fixed a crash that occurred while loading the last savegame.
- Fixed a crash that occurred sometimes after clicking "You are my prisoners now" button in caravan encounter conversations.
- Fixed a crash that occurred when starting the Notable Needs Daughter Found quest.
- Fixed a crash that occurred when the main hero talked with a disbanding party.
- Fixed an issue that caused caravans to drop to 1-2 speed because they were buying too many animals. Now, caravans do not buy more animals than their herd limit. If they have more animals than the limit, they sell excess animals when they enter a town.
- Fixed an issue that caused tanneries to stop making any profit and close all over the world after an extended period of time. All workshops are a bit more profitable as well now.
- Fixed an issue that stopped kingdom decisions from properly resolving when the player joined the kingdom as a mercenary.
- Fixed an issue that blocked the player from entering settlements if peace was declared while the player was besieging a settlement.
- Fixed an issue that caused settlement claimant decisions to be cancelled and re-proposed indefinitely.
- Fixed a bug that spawned another headman in the tutorial village.
there it is.
Did I miss something and the experience gain through battles was at least doubled somewhen in 1.5.4? I can`t remember having 95% of level 1-3 troops ready for upgrade after every huge battle. Same for fights against looters after which you have at least 70-80% ready for upgrades. Terribly weak enemy armies with mostly recruits are also worse than before.
Kain987
Recruit
Ok, I made an account for the very purpose of commenting on the following change:
"
I've got a question for the game designers about their vision for the game... How exactly should battles play out? An arcade whack-a-mole one-shot simulator where armor is irrelevant? Or a somewhat decent combat game where tactics and formations matter?
My main gripe is this: armor is irrelevant. Unarmored looter? Goes down in 1 hit from horseback or 2-3 hits in melee. Fully armored legionaire? Goes down in 1 hit from horseback or 3-4 hits in melee... Omg, such armor, much impress. I mean really, the difference between wearing the hair on your chest and lamelar over chain mail with presumably a gambeson underneath while wearing a steel helmet is 1, at most 2 extra hits? Every peasant with a pitchfork having a chance at killing "heavily" armored knights? In what universe is this a thing?
Medieval armor, even the lowly (compared to Renaissance full plate) chain mail and lamellar armors could reliably stop a blow from bladed and pointed weapons to great effect and minimal injuries to the wearer. That's why people used armor... Because it worked. As it currently stands, there's not much difference between wearing top-of-the-line armor and going into battle naked. You'll at most endure 1-3 extra blows.
I would strongly advise the devs, and specifically whoever is in charge of balancing and overall gameplay to take a look at the downright awesome "Realistic Battles" Mod that's on the nexus. While it does take realism a bit too far (and over-buffs spears), leading to drawn-out fights and domination of heavily armored units, it is a step in the correct direction.
Balancing should probably start top to bottom. Decide that a legionaire should take an average of 8-10 hits to put down with an axe. Increase that to 10-13 with a sword or 5-7 with a mace or 3-5 high power bow arrows. Use that as a benchmark for everyone else, up to the point where on unarmored targets (looters and recruits) you need 1-2 hits from horseback and 2-3 hits on foot (sort of where we are now, but with the need to give armor some meaning) or 2-3 center of mass arrows from high power bows.
This is, of course, a generalization, and implies an "average" weapon. Looters and low level bandits should have little chance against elite troops, while keeping the amount of hits necessary to down an opponent on more or less equal tier opponents to what I wrote above.
The thing is, battles should last a bit longer. Most encounters are decided in the first 10-20 seconds of the infantry lines clashing, when the kill feed lights up. There's literally no time to set up, for example, a maneuver where you move your archers from the back line to the left flank to shoot into exposed enemy sides because by the time they're done running, the battle is over and the infantry is coming for them.
This change to the armor values was, in my opinion, a step in a wrong direction. Armor's effect in combat is poorly explained, pretty much negligible and leads to short and pretty unsatisfactory battles.
OK, end of rant. I just hope someone actually bothers to read this and maybe consider it. Oh, and if you check out the mod I mentioned, look at how they've balanced unit and army AI. Comparing elite soldiers on challenging difficulty with mid-tier soldiers on normal difficulty with the mod is a night-and-day difference. They indeed fight as if they're trying to survive, not to participate in the "let's see who gets killed the fastest because he forgot he has a shield" contest.
"
- Body armours with arm, leg covers now provide more armour to those parts. Armour pieces have been rebalanced and recalibrated. Most troops now use different armour pieces that are balanced for their tier and troop type."
I've got a question for the game designers about their vision for the game... How exactly should battles play out? An arcade whack-a-mole one-shot simulator where armor is irrelevant? Or a somewhat decent combat game where tactics and formations matter?
My main gripe is this: armor is irrelevant. Unarmored looter? Goes down in 1 hit from horseback or 2-3 hits in melee. Fully armored legionaire? Goes down in 1 hit from horseback or 3-4 hits in melee... Omg, such armor, much impress. I mean really, the difference between wearing the hair on your chest and lamelar over chain mail with presumably a gambeson underneath while wearing a steel helmet is 1, at most 2 extra hits? Every peasant with a pitchfork having a chance at killing "heavily" armored knights? In what universe is this a thing?
Medieval armor, even the lowly (compared to Renaissance full plate) chain mail and lamellar armors could reliably stop a blow from bladed and pointed weapons to great effect and minimal injuries to the wearer. That's why people used armor... Because it worked. As it currently stands, there's not much difference between wearing top-of-the-line armor and going into battle naked. You'll at most endure 1-3 extra blows.
I would strongly advise the devs, and specifically whoever is in charge of balancing and overall gameplay to take a look at the downright awesome "Realistic Battles" Mod that's on the nexus. While it does take realism a bit too far (and over-buffs spears), leading to drawn-out fights and domination of heavily armored units, it is a step in the correct direction.
Balancing should probably start top to bottom. Decide that a legionaire should take an average of 8-10 hits to put down with an axe. Increase that to 10-13 with a sword or 5-7 with a mace or 3-5 high power bow arrows. Use that as a benchmark for everyone else, up to the point where on unarmored targets (looters and recruits) you need 1-2 hits from horseback and 2-3 hits on foot (sort of where we are now, but with the need to give armor some meaning) or 2-3 center of mass arrows from high power bows.
This is, of course, a generalization, and implies an "average" weapon. Looters and low level bandits should have little chance against elite troops, while keeping the amount of hits necessary to down an opponent on more or less equal tier opponents to what I wrote above.
The thing is, battles should last a bit longer. Most encounters are decided in the first 10-20 seconds of the infantry lines clashing, when the kill feed lights up. There's literally no time to set up, for example, a maneuver where you move your archers from the back line to the left flank to shoot into exposed enemy sides because by the time they're done running, the battle is over and the infantry is coming for them.
This change to the armor values was, in my opinion, a step in a wrong direction. Armor's effect in combat is poorly explained, pretty much negligible and leads to short and pretty unsatisfactory battles.
OK, end of rant. I just hope someone actually bothers to read this and maybe consider it. Oh, and if you check out the mod I mentioned, look at how they've balanced unit and army AI. Comparing elite soldiers on challenging difficulty with mid-tier soldiers on normal difficulty with the mod is a night-and-day difference. They indeed fight as if they're trying to survive, not to participate in the "let's see who gets killed the fastest because he forgot he has a shield" contest.
Fast action paced battles is the TW vision.
Dreed89
Squire
Did they acknowledge anywhere that they like the current armor mechanics such that it doesn't make that much difference?
For me, as long as the relativeness is preserved such that an unarmored looter receives "x" damage while a fully equipped unit receives "x/3", it is acceptable for me.
I still think killing fully armored units with heavy weapons should be possible with speed bonus of a mount or hitting from head even if the attacker is unmounted.
I also suspect currently there is some hidden calculations when fighting enemy lords. They just take a lot of hits to kill without speed bonus.
For me, as long as the relativeness is preserved such that an unarmored looter receives "x" damage while a fully equipped unit receives "x/3", it is acceptable for me.
I still think killing fully armored units with heavy weapons should be possible with speed bonus of a mount or hitting from head even if the attacker is unmounted.
I also suspect currently there is some hidden calculations when fighting enemy lords. They just take a lot of hits to kill without speed bonus.
The difference between the best armor in the game and a feed sack is like 2 to 3 hits. A looter can kill a heavily armored knight in 3 to four hits with a meat cleaver with both units on foot. It makes no difference what you wear: I took 70 damage from a low tier unit in a siege, I was down in two hits with top armor. That means the player cannot fight in sieges on higher difficulty levels without staying entirely out of melee. That means that high tier AI units have almost no chance when outnumbered even slightly by looters. I am having a hard time understanding why people are not able to see this? These battles end in 20 seconds, there's 0 strategy accept in the initial command orders, it's pointless to have commands after that. This part of the game is very poorly designed. Armor does nothing in this game, it's entirely cosmetic.
+1
Absolutely agree.
Check this out, it's a quote from one of the many tests I've been running in The tactical way: beyond the melee cluster since the pre-release alpha/beta last year.
I'm not saying there isn't, but from the many comments I've read here and there; most people are surprised at how short the battles are. And all this is also related to the values of armor, modifiers and bonuses of weapons and armor; nowadays it' s a mess IMO.
Look at this other test where a +50 is added to the total HP and the damage absorption is reduced by 25%.
Modified starts 01:25
Therefore, a middle ground between the arcade-ish "It's a fast paced game" and a realistic approach should be the goal. Very easy, easy and realistic game environments should be able to be differentiated substantially in that way.
Saltefanden
Regular
I just started a game on e1.5.4 and noticed a large decrease on map moving speed. Does the herd speed limit also apply to main army? Can I see this anywhere in the UI?
Also took my brother to my army group, but can't see him in trading or inventory management screen, I see him in my group, but can't trade items on him or set him up as a caravan leader. That's weird.
Also took my brother to my army group, but can't see him in trading or inventory management screen, I see him in my group, but can't trade items on him or set him up as a caravan leader. That's weird.
Kain987
Recruit
Thanks for the replies!
Yes, the main issue I have with the combat is the speed with which it happens. The fact that all units are so vulnerable leads to a total irrelevance of tactics and maneuvers once the melee has started. I mean... The only viable strategy (short of horse archers and overwhelming arrow fire) available is to make sure you do enough morale damage that the enemy breaks and runs as soon as the lines clash. With enough arrow damage and a simultaneous cavalry charge, low tier units run from the battle around when the infantry clashes and it leaves your infantry able to swamp and kill the remaining enemy high tier units. But let's be honest... The only way you're getting through a battle without losing a large chunk of your troops is by completely overwhelming the enemy in both numbers and quality of soldiers, leaving little room for tactics and strategy short of the aforementioned arrow rain of death.
I sure hope they're not happy yet with where armor and weapons are, because for the moment, they're all over the place.
Killing armored units from horseback should be possible, as well as smacking them really hard on the head, as both things make sense. But a peasant with a dull axe shouldn't be an issue for a fully armored soldier.
The problem with this is balancing it so it's both fun and somewhat realistic.
The mod I mentioned in my initial post is really in depth with regards to the effects of armor (and unit tactics and fighting skill, but that's beyond the point of the current post).
First off, they gave armor purpose. Chopping away with a sword at a fully armored legionaire gets you between 5-7 dmg. Because armor absorbs a large amount of cutting damage. Stabbing him with the sword gives a more reliable 10-15 dmg, to simulate the fact that you're stabbing at exposed bits in the armor. The list goes on.
This was done by giving every weapon damage in cutting, piercing and blunt. Cutting with a sword deals cut and blunt damage. The cut part is severely affected by armor, the blunt part not so much. Leads to very little damage against armor and a lot of dmg vs no armor. Maces are effective vs all types of armor, but do less damage than swords VS no armor (ok, not realistic, but it's there for balance purposes, otherwise maces would rule supreme... Though to be fair, throughout history most actual weapons were spears and polearms, with swords usually a sidearm... Unless we're talking about ancient Romans).
The problem with the mod I mentioned is the fact that by going for maximum realism, it draws fight out quite a bit, sometimes making them feel a bit too long. I tweaked some of the values to reach a point that I enjoyed but that still kept armor relevant. The end result was that while the infantry lines were fighting I had time to order my archers in a better position, take my cavalry and go murder their archers and lord and then come back and help my infantry clean up by sniping high value enemy units (menavliaton, legionaires, etc).
Lastly, cavalry charges were made so that charges break formations of infantry. Your cav doesn't stop at the first looter they run into. They run him over (for 10-20 dmg) and keep riding. Hitting unarmored units with cav leads to lots of murder. Hitting armored units with cav leads to disrupted formations and the occasional kill when couched lances connect with faces.
I mean... Honestly, the only thing I don't like with the mod was the fact that in order to get ranged weapons to a point where high tier bows and piercing arrows are good against armor while low tier bows and cutting arrows are good against unarmored opponents led to some hilarious results of making low tier enemies fly off like you shot'em with a ballista when delivering high damage headshots from a high power bow. But other than that, the changes were spot-on.
Now... I realize that this might not be TW's vision for the game, in which case... Long live the modding community... But the state weapons and armor are currently in is disappointing to say the least.
* with regard to lords... From horseback they go down in 1 shot in vanilla if you have good speed and a polearm. With a good bow you take them down in 3 shots-4 shots or 2 headshots. (one if it's a noble woman who doesn't want the helmet messing up her hair... Yes, there are plenty of those in the game and I think they need a helmet, especially since their tactics-less ass is charging straight into my lines). At most they could've had the damage reduction the player can get added on top, but I haven't really noticed it.
#MakeArmorGreatAgain ? or at least useful.
Oh, and Ffs, they really need to check out the pricing algorithm for armors. 500k for a piece of armor means that the only way you're going to afford it is to either grind away at battles for a few decades or... Abuse smithing. Armor prices should be in the max 100k price range for average quality top-of-the-line chest pieces and can go higher for "masterwork" or whatever pieces. Btw, you guys still haven't fixed the bug where pressing "reset" on the party screen after doing any type of change will reset the modifiers on equipment in the inventory. For the moment, all it does is remove the "rusty, charred, frayed, etc" negative modifiers from loot. But if it will also remove "fine, masterwork, lordly" modifiers from armor and weapons... It's a problem.
Wow, 1 min battle. ? Also the modified version is not so longer.
It is "a little more" that added to "a little more armor value protection" plus "a little more better AI" would lead to "a little more fun" and duration.
hsngrms
Regular
About armor; the mechanics are working as intended, the thing is default armor "amounts" are low. But this doesn't change the fact these amounts are flexible, meaning it is very easy to change via simple XML edits. Thus, I believe devs want fast-paced / action-packed battles and they leave the door open for anyone thinks otherwise.
This game is mod friendly, don't expect everything to be done by devs, use whatever mods you like to evolve the game to your desire.
E.g. I created a mod called "Less Damage" to reduce the amount of damage weapons generate, which brings way longer battle possibility on the table. (in return, it allows you to make tactical changes mid-battle) And this is without touching the armor, that means you can also change armor amounts to make difference between a peasant and a knight more distinguishable.
Note: This comment is valid for singleplayer. I have no multiplayer experience.
This game is mod friendly, don't expect everything to be done by devs, use whatever mods you like to evolve the game to your desire.
E.g. I created a mod called "Less Damage" to reduce the amount of damage weapons generate, which brings way longer battle possibility on the table. (in return, it allows you to make tactical changes mid-battle) And this is without touching the armor, that means you can also change armor amounts to make difference between a peasant and a knight more distinguishable.
Note: This comment is valid for singleplayer. I have no multiplayer experience.
Precisely the damage that most weapons and projectiles produce would be within a plausible range already. The problem, or so I see it, is that the protection value of the armour is below the plausible. First there must be a reorganisation of the armour by material (what protects more than what) and second, I would say that an increase of +35% in the overall armour values of each item would not hurt.
hsngrms
Regular
Yes, you are right, I also mentioned same thing and already said armor amounts are low. I did many many tests with different armor amounts, and "low" was my conclusion in simple words.
However, to me %35 is not enough. You need thousands to be invincible, this seems like not relevant but, it clearly shows us sky is the limit when it comes to armor.There are 4 types of armor in game; head, body, arm, legs. I think, most heavily armored unit should have 155 for body and 100-155 for other types. And it should scale down to 30 for lowest protection armor like fur coats, 5-10 for non-protecting clothing and finally zero for naked. (While doing that, considering the materials -as you said- should be required of course.)
---
Edit: If devs implement such thing and change armor amounts, there will be other people to complain about how long are the battles and how overpowered are some units. This is a double-edged knife, you can't make everyone happy. At this point, mods take command to make more people happy with the game they are playing.
Last edited:
