the new death in battle sucks

Users who are viewing this thread

well no one will play for more than 20-40 in game years that's barely 2 generation + yes an rpg should have the most possible options and ways to play it trying to say that people after 100 years in a game may get 1million lords thats unrealistic because most people wont stay in a game for that long. and EA does not mean u change every single feature in a game EA means u fix and add features to a game and some changes not complete change to a feature they could have just added the lords death as a feature and be done with it and told us it will be the most stable option for games longer than 40 years. and if 90% of people are asking for something that means it should happen and not what you and the other 10% want .

This is not a democracy. And 90% of people wanting something from the development is nothing but a shortsighted appeal to popularity. @Earth Dragon is completely right with what he's saying here (though a little uncivilized I guess), and you should frankly take it to heart. The game is already several orders of magnitude more survivable for everyone involved than the real middle ages as there are no diseases as of now, and food shortages are an issue of distribution, not supply, as harvests and all the possible issues surrounding them like droughts aren't modeled in the game, not to mention that it is currently impossible to actually starve to death afaik. As such, the only two ways to die in this game are violence and old age. Which historically is estimated to be less than 20% of all actual deaths occurring before germ theory and the ascension of modern medicine.

Child mortality is therefore basically nonexistent, and the calradian noble population increases at ludicrous levels.You're practically looking at exponential growth here, not to mention that new noble houses can now rise out of rebellions which makes that issue even worse. It's going to take less than 20-40 years for your game to run into serious memory issues and performance problems due to overpopulation if people can no longer die prior to their 50's, as the game will have to track enormous amounts of nobles if death is off the table for many of them for a significant time.

There is a game which actually works as a dynastic simulator. It's called 'crusader kings', you may have heard of it. And even though crusader kings does everything in its power to limit population growth, including but not limited to: Death in battle, various diseases, random death events, deadly duels, conspiracies to kill people, soft and hard limits on the amount of children the AI can have and even straight up deletion of unimportant characters from the game from time to time, it still slows down considerably during the end game under normal circumstances because the number of characters has still increased tremendously.

Your idea is bad. Death in battle is the bare minimum of pop control needed.
 
Last edited:
This is not a democracy. And 90% of people wanting something from the development is nothing but a shortsighted appeal to popularity. @Earth Dragon is completely right with what he's saying here (though a little uncivilized I guess), and you should frankly take it to heart. The game is already several orders of magnitude more survivable for everyone involved than the real middle ages as there are no diseases as of now, and food shortages are an issue of distribution, not supply, as harvests and all the possible issues surrounding them like droughts aren't modeled in the game, not to mention that it is currently impossible to actually starve to death afaik. As such, the only two ways to die in this game are violence and old age. Which historically is estimated to be less than 20% of all actual deaths occurring before germ theory and the ascension of modern medicine.

Child mortality is therefore basically nonexistent, and the calradian noble population increases at ludicrous levels.You're practically looking at exponential growth here, not to mention that new noble houses can now rise out of rebellions which makes that issue even worse. It's going to take less than 20-40 years for your game to run into serious memory issues and performance problems due to overpopulation if people can no longer die prior to their 50's, as the game will have to track enormous amounts of nobles if death is of the table for many of them for a significant time.

There is a game which actually works as a dynastic simulator. It's called 'crusader kings', you may have heard of it. And even though crusader kings does everything in its power to limit population growth, including but not limited to: Death in battle, various diseases, random death events, deadly duels, conspiracies to kill people, soft and hard limits on the amount of children the AI can have and even straight up deletion of unimportant characters from the game from time to time, it still slows down considerably during the end game under normal circumstances because the number of characters has still increased tremendously.

Your idea is bad. Death in battle is the bare minimum of pop control needed.
u said it, there is allot more ways to implement a more linear way of death diseases and starving and other put that in but don't shove a 10% chance of losing lords when fighting with them and saying yeah soon they will decrease it. its a dump idea to just punish us for helping an army against a snowballing faction . and as i said majority of people wont play for 40 years in game by 10 years you will have almost 3 kingdoms
i played a 2 year game and i owned half of sturgia and im not the best player or near that, i stopped playing bannerlord since posting this .
all i want them to do is a second option fore the majority who just want to have fun without losing companions and lords because playing more than 40 years is boring what will u do with a map under your control ? bring back a notables daughter for the 100th time ? there is 100 more important things to work on than this feature like snowballing factions and ai and glitches and the entire game economy
 
u said it, there is allot more ways to implement a more linear way of death diseases and starving and other put that in but don't shove a 10% chance of losing lords when fighting with them and saying yeah soon they will decrease it. its a dump idea to just punish us for helping an army against a snowballing faction . and as i said majority of people wont play for 40 years in game by 10 years you will have almost 3 kingdoms
i played a 2 year game and i owned half of sturgia and im not the best player or near that, i stopped playing bannerlord since posting this .
all i want them to do is a second option fore the majority who just want to have fun without losing companions and lords because playing more than 40 years is boring what will u do with a map under your control ? bring back a notables daughter for the 100th time ? there is 100 more important things to work on than this feature like snowballing factions and ai and glitches and the entire game economy

You'll likely be kept busy by the constant rebellions.
 
Yeah, because you asking for something makes it 90% agreeance?! Right.

I think the death in battle is too high myself, I’m just not a sniveling child and understand the process.
im asking for something they ruined for me and people who hate it too but a guy like u who call 90% of suggestions dump and wont work wont see that .
games are made to be fun not be 100% realistic and live in it for 100 years no one will care what will happen in a game after 100 years because majority of people wont play that long . if im child its far better than being a jerk
 
You'll likely be kept busy by the constant rebellions.
i dont play 1.5.6 to know about the rebellions system but as i said an option to bring it back to 'death by old age only' wont hurt anyone u want to almost live in a save go the default way u want to have fun and not lose every companion go death by old age its just an extra check box dont think much coding is required since the feature was there, its cool they want to make a stable game for long periods in-game but i hate the fact they force it on all of the players .
if i sound angry thats because i really stopped playing the game after i made this post im checking nexus page daily for a mod to bring it back and i spent few hours trying to find an xml file related to those death chances that my eyes started hurting from reading texts ,
 
i dont play 1.5.6 to know about the rebellions system but as i said an option to bring it back to 'death by old age only' wont hurt anyone u want to almost live in a save go the default way u want to have fun and not lose every companion go death by old age its just an extra check box dont think much coding is required since the feature was there, its cool they want to make a stable game for long periods in-game but i hate the fact they force it on all of the players .
if i sound angry thats because i really stopped playing the game after i made this post im checking nexus page daily for a mod to bring it back and i spent few hours trying to find an xml file related to those death chances that my eyes started hurting from reading texts ,

It's going to hurt your PC, and severely at that.
 
It's going to hurt your PC, and severely at that.
what will destroy the game is lords giving birth even in death chances at 10% each clan gives birth to 3 and some i saw with 9 kids(battanian clan), that's what will ruin my game if i played long for all these kids to grow
 
im asking for something they ruined for me and people who hate it too but a guy like u who call 90% of suggestions dump and wont work wont see that .
games are made to be fun not be 100% realistic and live in it for 100 years no one will care what will happen in a game after 100 years because majority of people wont play that long . if im child its far better than being a jerk
Easy breezy doesn’t equate to fun for a lot of people. But again, the assertion that 90% of people are fully against combat death is a false one anyway. Sometimes you as the player need to overcome obstacles, not just whine until they are removed.

Your life will run much smother with that approach
 
Easy breezy doesn’t equate to fun for a lot of people. But again, the assertion that 90% of people are fully against combat death is a false one anyway. Sometimes you as the player need to overcome obstacles, not just whine until they are removed.

Your life will run much smother with that approach
this post had nothing to do with game being difficult i was talking about a feature i liked that they removed
complaining about something in a game doesn't make one having trouble in life, as u paid money for this game i did too and if there is something i don't like i will say it that's why there is a forum u dont like it u can just exit the page being a **** to others u don't agree with wont help anyone .
there are allot of people before u in this post who either agree with some parts or disagree with it all but they are respectful and i respect there ideas even some had same ideas u mentioned but they did it as humans
 
this post had nothing to do with game being difficult i was talking about a feature i liked that they removed
complaining about something in a game doesn't make one having trouble in life, as u paid money for this game i did too and if there is something i don't like i will say it that's why there is a forum u dont like it u can just exit the page being a **** to others u don't agree with wont help anyone .
there are allot of people before u in this post who either agree with some parts or disagree with it all but they are respectful and i respect there ideas even some had same ideas u mentioned but they did it as humans
Well I’m glad you like their style, but keep in mind that I never questioned your humanity, as you have mine, and only your maturity about the complaint
 
one of my engineer just die in battle
RIP the cursed man I can't remember your name, but you have follow me for 4 years and die
I feel so sad now...... I need ice cream

I lol'd

I like the death in combat feature, it makes combat more dangerous and interesting. The death rate is actually much too high however. There are also too few wanderers around, or better, too few useful wanderers. It should be possible to recruit certain normal units as companions, as some mods offer it.

I would highly appreciate if "death in battles" and the "death and birth dynasty system" would be separated options. So people could play without lord's and companion's deaths and still get the chance of a dynasty with death of chars from age and growing of a new gueneration. I for myself don't like the dynasty idea at all and will prefer all the time a classical Warband "one char forever" system, coupled with battle deaths. There should be options for all tastes.

^This, especially the bolded underlined part.

yeah but how about a chance of death % slider and maybe add more kids from start and limiting amount of kids a clan can have because after 1.5.5 other lords are marrying and more children are coming to each clan(its sucks too a lord stole liena from me :grin:) i like the analysis u did tho most players wont go over 20 years in a game for me im not the best player and in year 2 i have half of sturgia (started my kingdom 30 in game days ago)
so in 10 20 years if u have a kingdom or playing with a faction u will have at least taken 80 to 90% of the map
i think a slider of death chances and a limit on newborn and an increase in starting children would be great

^Sooooo this!
 
Like I said somewhere else, looking at this as just adding another option is very short sighted.

The reason for keeping both death by age and death in combat grouped is an attempt at not having to balance three different campaigns. Right now there is a thread going on about the snowballing issue, with lots of people providing data and mexxico working very hard to reduce a major issue that has been around since the EA started. Last news I read on that thread is that he will finally be able to work on something else because snowballing has been reduced to a level that it is no longer a major issue (in case you are wondering, he said he would be looking at the party commands and something something mod for ideas on implementing greater control over our clan parties).

Party inflation would be a huge problem, parties have to buy food, parties have to recruit troops and parties can go around raiding every village out there, which in turn will cause recruit and food shortages and once an army was defeated lords would respawn all at the same time and try to go out recruiting, but they can't because their enemies had enough parties to raid many villages all at once and now they can't rebuild anymore to defend their settlements.

You can see this issue happening in the current versions if you defeat an army of a faction that has plenty of clans but not enough fiefs, there are a lot of heroes roaming around with less than 100 troops.

Do you really want to drag mexxico away from new features again to balance a new campaign setting? And don't even say that the player will take responsibility for his own choices, you need to be very naive to believe that there won't be demands for balancing a setting TW is responsible for providing. This is one of the reasons why it is so tempting to delegate stuff to mods, TW doesn't have to care about anything you do to your game.
 
Last edited:
I originally did not like the death in battle but I adapted, all my companions are placed in groups relative to their strengths, quite a few archers because their survivability is a bit better when managed well, I rarely lose companions in battle now that I manage them correctly.
However, I do lose quite a few allied lords that are managed by AI, this doesn't make a great deal of difference early and mid game because there are enough members in their clan to field more armies and replace the dead lord, however, towards the end of a campaign there are definitely mass die-offs when the last adult lord of a clan dies and all the children mysteriously vanish.

I think the main problem with the mechanic is that lords only die when the player is involved, you are literally the bringer of death to friend and foe alike and it feels bad man, do i save that army and risk lords dying or just let them be captured and get on with my life.
 
As many pointed out, death in battle is necessary to keep the population from overgrowing. If you are afraid to loose your companions, just keep them as archers or horse archers, or change them to a custom unit that you will keep away from danger as your personal guard (though, I noticed they have higher survivability in archers divisions).

War is war and I actually like the fact that my companions and even wife are at risk. It makes the game a little more immersive. Just yesterday I lost one of my old companions that ran with my for quite a lot of years. The guy was my medic ad he kept complaining about me raiding villages and slaughtering peasants (economical warfare for the win :wink: ) so I was actually planning to kick him out of clan whenever I could find a replacement for his position. But when he died I felt kind of sad.

Another memorable moment was when I was leading a quickly assembled Surgian army to recapture Tyal from Khuzaits. We took the city by surprise, and it was poorly defended so I led the assault without any preparations. Sturgians took the city walls and I was taking out defenders with my bow. I kept shooting, taking down one enemy with every arrow until I accidently headshoted one of our Sturgian lords... and the poor guy died... At the end we captured the city but I felt guilty about this guy. This unfortunate accident also forced me to reconsider my war plans, as the guy's party added up about 25% of my manpower. After his death his men dissasembled so I was no longer able to continue my march to victory.


So yeah, I love this game for the fact that it writes it's own stories and death in battle actually ads a lot to that immersion.
 
Last edited:
As many pointed out, death in battle is necessary to keep the population from overgrowing. If you are afraid to loose your companions, just keep them as archers or horse archers, or change them to a custom unit that you will keep away from danger as your personal guard (though, I noticed they have higher survivability in archers divisions).

War is war and I actually like the fact that my companions and even wife are at risk. It makes the game a little more immersive. Just yesterday I lost one of my old companions that ran with my for quite a lot of years. The guy was my medic ad he kept complaining about me raiding villages and slaughtering peasants (economical warfare for the win :wink: ) so I was actually planning to kick him out of clan whenever I could find a replacement for his position. But when he died I felt kind of sad.

Another memorable moment was when I was leading a quickly assembled Surgian army to recapture Tyal from Khuzaits. We took the city by surprise, and it was poorly defended so I led the assault without any preparations. Sturgians took the city walls and I was taking out defenders with my bow. I kept shooting, taking down one enemy with every arrow until I accidently headshoted one of our Sturgian lords... and the poor guy died... At the end we captured the city but I felt guilty about this guy. This unfortunate accident also forced me to reconsider my war plans, as the guy's party added up about 25% of my manpower. After his death his men dissasembled so I was no longer able to continue my march to victory.


So yeah, I love this game for the fact that it writes it's own stories and death in battle actually ads a lot to that immersion.
they all talk about games after 2 generations being overpopulated but why kill companions tho u realize one handed and two handed and even polarm companions are useless now i know there should be a risk but there 10% is happening way more than a real 10% chance
 
(answer to most posts )
i know the game wont be balanced the without this feature in long games , but they shouldn't have implement a 10% chance of death they should have worked on it and improved it make it a 2% disable companions death and then release it i could have liked it but 10% is retarded from them and they should fix snowballing before implementing this because if they add lords death in calculated combat (ai vs ai ) and khuzait or vlandia are in those then rip to all factions .
after i read 1 post saying why they are doing that (almost a week ago) i understood why they need to put such a thing but why did they implement a 10% chance and only if player helps an army + why companions they dont give birth and its not like they are the most op thing in game they are limited in party and as i know there is a limit on how many of them can spawn on the map .
i still wish to just get the old system as an option because with the current 10% chance i stopped playing for almost a week now.
 
The idea of “I should have the game exactly as I want it” is an absurd notion, as 90% of t he suggestions made in these forums flat out won’t work. Should I be able to change which trade goods have the highest value? How much gold I get from which activities? How much and what each skill gives?

Their job is to create a well-rounded immersive experience with all its systems functioning in concert. If you want to break these systems, that’s what mod are for, and the reason 90%+ mods are just glorified cheat codes.

So much THIS! If a friend asked me how to play Chess and I said "Well you can move any piece anywhere you want at any time" -that would kill the fricken whole idea of chess. Sure, you bought it, in theory you can change the rules and play anyway you want - but i'd like for a game to have fun tightly calibrated rules that makes the whole affair interesting - a bought challenge that they have crafted and ive set out to master.

Now one could also make the argument "well just leave in options for everything -then everyone is happy!" Thats both true and false. Because in reality -these games are of finite resource in its making - meaning, the more we leave the entire thing an open ended option rich affair -the less chance the game realizes its original vision and challenge and then everyone starts complaining 5000 ways around one issue "Khuzait are snowballing AGAIN!", "Well thats because you have child death at 2% instead of 20% blah blah" - and the developers will abandon trying to calibrate a good game for us leaving it up to us to "find the proper settings in the Options menu".

Let the creators make a strong visionary product with tightly would rules and let modders and personal coders adjust as they see fit.
 
So much THIS! If a friend asked me how to play Chess and I said "Well you can move any piece anywhere you want at any time" -that would kill the fricken whole idea of chess. Sure, you bought it, in theory you can change the rules and play anyway you want - but i'd like for a game to have fun tightly calibrated rules that makes the whole affair interesting - a bought challenge that they have crafted and ive set out to master.

Now one could also make the argument "well just leave in options for everything -then everyone is happy!" Thats both true and false. Because in reality -these games are of finite resource in its making - meaning, the more we leave the entire thing an open ended option rich affair -the less chance the game realizes its original vision and challenge and then everyone starts complaining 5000 ways around one issue "Khuzait are snowballing AGAIN!", "Well thats because you have child death at 2% instead of 20% blah blah" - and the developers will abandon trying to calibrate a good game for us leaving it up to us to "find the proper settings in the Options menu".

Let the creators make a strong visionary product with tightly would rules and let modders and personal coders adjust as they see fit.
im all for it but what they did is just drop death feature with 10% death chance and said we will fix it later, im not against a nice calibrated game i hate when they put a half ass solution for a problem that wont happen in most gameplays. many people think im against them making the game stable in long campaigns (+40 years in game ) at first i was completely against this feature but a guy explained why it will be important, but what i am against is the 10% chance and the companion death they should have worked on it made it all work and then implement it, 10% really seems like 30 or 40% and why kill companions they just made melee companions useless if we now have to use them as archers why did they add one and two handed companions who would cost 500-2500 but almost die like a normal soldier, i will say i will accept this new feature if they did it right
 
froggyluv, you compliment the devs in assuming they are headed toward "a strong visionary product"... and I hope they are, but I fear that is just...hope. To me, there is so much extemporized in this game that I can't see the "vision" that it started with.

Someone considering scope of a campaign RPG would need, from the start, to be thinking about how long a typical campaign will need to hold together. Since a higher population means higher PC resources, having a runaway population will at some point ruin anyone's game. Some mechanism had to be provided for dynamism: new notables/heroes/nobles shuffling in, older ones checking out. When BL went into EA, I don't think there was any mechanism at all for in/out (edit: except for executions). Adding death in battle only after three-quarters of a year (and sneaking it in on a hot-fix without warning, as I understand from the beta folks) indicates to me that either there was no vision at the start, or that the devs are just correcting population imbalances that happened - predictably - because important people weren't dying in battle. Setting the death "tax" at 10% "to start with" indicates (again, to me) that no serious ability to mathematically model outcomes is being invested. Why should BloodGryphon, a player, have to be providing statistical analyses to the devs to help them out?

Population control is of course just one element of the game. The economy and the smithing are two other areas where math modeling should have started before coding. TW is still flailing on both.

A game design document shouldn't consist solely of "I want to make the best damn medieval campaign game with the best damn combat for Single and Multiplayer." It needs to have some idea - some vision - of what that will look like. TW appears to be feeling its way towards an understanding of the details, but dammitall, putting in one system at a time breaks the others and requires endless iterations until it's somewhat workable.
 
Back
Top Bottom