Much appreciated, lol I should have figured it was RNG.
Exactly, that would be huge and actually make it manageable to order troops while participating in the fight as well.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Still havent defended a single castle siege yet.
- Thread starter Yukmouth++
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
five bucks
Knight at Arms
part of the reason is that morale lacks impact in Bannerlord, and castles lack strategic and defensive value, so battles are too often concluded in the field before it ever gets the chance to go to a castle fight, because there's little reason to run to one.
battles should only end in the field if the forces are evenly matched and gradually wear each other down; if the battle is quickly becoming lopsided, it should end in a retreat to castle, and a siege.
* army A with 1000 men and army B with 1000 men clash in the field
* army A loses the initial engagement and has 300 casualties in a short period of time, which makes morale effects kick in: the army will rout and retreat, ending the fight early and sending both sides back to the world map.
* From here, the player or AI commander of the smaller 700 man force becomes faster and more mobile, so he has the choice to either send his men back into the battle to continue the fight, or (smarter option) retreat to a castle to continue the fight on better defensive terms. Sending your men in against greatly superior odds with no castle should have a morale penalty (also serving as a reminder to the player of the smart decision), while retreating against superior odds should be a bravery trait loss but no morale loss, so that the player is actively encouraged to retreat to a castle for a defensive siege.
* the most strategically viable place to retreat is a castle, as it can be used to harass an army attempting to occupy your territory and send out raids; and is also, ideally, the most defensible location available. so the player wants to go there, as do their troops.
for this to work the following needs to happen to the game:
* defenders need to get more of an advantage to holding a defense in castles, perhaps by making it slightly harder to starve out castles, harder to reduce walls with trebuchets and gates with rams/troops, etc. It shouldn't be impossible to siege a castle though, don't overbuff them
* morale systems need to work better instead of just taking effect when the battle is already lost: the army should on more occasions retreat en masse before they have all died and morale should be gained/lost for options that intelligently favor the men's survival or endanger it.
* castles need to be able to send out autogenerated harassing patrols that can wear down enemy armies in their territory and raid fiefs, so that attackers are forced to take castles in order to secure territory, and defenders are incentivized for retreating there and simply waiting for the enemy to be forced to attack.
battles should only end in the field if the forces are evenly matched and gradually wear each other down; if the battle is quickly becoming lopsided, it should end in a retreat to castle, and a siege.
* army A with 1000 men and army B with 1000 men clash in the field
* army A loses the initial engagement and has 300 casualties in a short period of time, which makes morale effects kick in: the army will rout and retreat, ending the fight early and sending both sides back to the world map.
* From here, the player or AI commander of the smaller 700 man force becomes faster and more mobile, so he has the choice to either send his men back into the battle to continue the fight, or (smarter option) retreat to a castle to continue the fight on better defensive terms. Sending your men in against greatly superior odds with no castle should have a morale penalty (also serving as a reminder to the player of the smart decision), while retreating against superior odds should be a bravery trait loss but no morale loss, so that the player is actively encouraged to retreat to a castle for a defensive siege.
* the most strategically viable place to retreat is a castle, as it can be used to harass an army attempting to occupy your territory and send out raids; and is also, ideally, the most defensible location available. so the player wants to go there, as do their troops.
for this to work the following needs to happen to the game:
* defenders need to get more of an advantage to holding a defense in castles, perhaps by making it slightly harder to starve out castles, harder to reduce walls with trebuchets and gates with rams/troops, etc. It shouldn't be impossible to siege a castle though, don't overbuff them
* morale systems need to work better instead of just taking effect when the battle is already lost: the army should on more occasions retreat en masse before they have all died and morale should be gained/lost for options that intelligently favor the men's survival or endanger it.
* castles need to be able to send out autogenerated harassing patrols that can wear down enemy armies in their territory and raid fiefs, so that attackers are forced to take castles in order to secure territory, and defenders are incentivized for retreating there and simply waiting for the enemy to be forced to attack.
Good read, yes, I like the premise of seeking refuge at a castle, but finding a proper balance between field battles and sieges is important, take total warhammer 2 as an example. The focus there was too heavy on siege warfare
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Yeah my post was poorly worded actually. I should have worded it this way: "Battles should ideally be roughly half in the field and half in sieges, as very imbalanced battles should play out as sieges, while balanced battles should be disposed to play out in the field"
Did you make any changes that made it in the hot fix? Did 1 break in and it seemed more reasonable, maybe it was just rng?
Last edited:
There are no changes at these codes @Blood Gryphon yet, you and partiers in your army lost 100 (90 + 10) of 356 men. Ratio is : 25.2% (90 / 356)
Only there was fixed 10 it will be 5 in 1.5.10 but it is so minor. I did not checked randomization yet you mentioned.
What I see is you lost 20 men and other 4 party in same army lost 80 men. This means each party lose same number of men even their parties have different number of men. As example even you have 50 or 200 men in your party you will lose 20 men. This seems a bit weird. I will try to change it.
Reason why there is no homogenous distribution while selecting sacrificed troops, I will change it too :
MemberRoster.Count returns how many type of different troops that party has.
Only there was fixed 10 it will be 5 in 1.5.10 but it is so minor. I did not checked randomization yet you mentioned.
What I see is you lost 20 men and other 4 party in same army lost 80 men. This means each party lose same number of men even their parties have different number of men. As example even you have 50 or 200 men in your party you will lose 20 men. This seems a bit weird. I will try to change it.
Reason why there is no homogenous distribution while selecting sacrificed troops, I will change it too :
MemberRoster.Count returns how many type of different troops that party has.
Last edited:
Yeah im more talking about the randomization. Looks like I got lucky with the ratio this time losing 8 inf, 9 archers, and 3 cav, which mirrored my party much better (60 inf, 60 archers, 20 cav)There are no changes at these codes @Blood Gryphon yet, you lost 80 (70 + 10) of 356 men. Ratio is : 19.7% (70 / 356)
Only there was fixed 10 it will be 5 in 1.5.10 but it is so minor. I did not checked randomization yet you mentioned.
I'm cool with the 15% - 30% personally.
What I see is you lost 20 men and other 4 party in same army lost 80 men. This means each party lose same number of men even their parties have different number of men. As example even you have 50 or 200 men in your party you will lose 20 men. This seems a bit weird. I will try to change it.
This is definitely something I've noticed, although I'll admit I was fine with it since it impacted me less when trying to break in.
It should be fixed, but you better make sure the cav ratio stays low now that your gonna kill more of my troops 
Reason why there is no homogenous distribution while selecting sacrificed troops, I will change it too :
MemberRoster.Count returns how many type of different troops that party has.
Wooooo you found it! You da best
P.s. The ratio is actually 100/493 = 20.2% (you can see the army size before the sacrifice in the bottom right), not that it matters
. Actually im a little curious, do wounded troops factor in? If not then it would have been 100/451 = 22.1%
Last edited:
@Blood Gryphon, Before fix / After fix
Will try to add this as hotfix otherwise (if not) it will be added at 1.5.10
Will try to add this as hotfix otherwise (if not) it will be added at 1.5.10
@Blood Gryphon, Before fix / After fix
Will try to add this as hotfix otherwise (if not) it will be added at 1.5.10
Thank you!
You said quite a lot '''1.5.10''... any estimated time when will be out?@Blood Gryphon, Before fix / After fix
Will try to add this as hotfix otherwise (if not) it will be added at 1.5.10
redmark
Squire
No doubt Mexxico will be too diplomatic to say
.1.5.9 will go to beta when 1.5.8 is considered stable; no major bugs highlighted since the last hotfix (which fixed the main existing ones), so could/should be next week. Unless a beta has had significant delays/issues (which has been the case for 3 or 4 of the last 13 or so), the update schedule has generally been a new beta every 2-3 weeks. People will say longer, but I checked the Steam timestamps
.So I'd guess 1.5.10 could be in beta some time between the very end of March to mid April; at worst late April/early May if there are significant issues with 1.5.9 before then.
I finally managed my first siege defense. It was a close thing but we won, barely. Unfortunately it was also kind of a bad experience.
Basically my troops got bugged and several hundred were stuck inside the towers and wouldn't come out. Also because there is no local "follow me" command where only troops in a small radius actually follow you, my attempt to have those in the towers to follow me, meant all my castle defenders tried to follow me, completely giving up the defense on the wall and gate which let the enemy just come on into the castle with no resistance. Further since there was no way for me to reverse the command and have them go back to defending their respective areas, all could do was order the blob to "Charge" which caused me to lose at least twice as many troops as I should have and nearly cost me the battle.
My final thoughts on the matter is that siege defense really needs some attention that it isn't getting and I think the reason it isn't talked about more on the forums is because it is so hard to actually participate in a siege defense that not many people realize how screwed up it is and have reported it or discussed it.
Basically my troops got bugged and several hundred were stuck inside the towers and wouldn't come out. Also because there is no local "follow me" command where only troops in a small radius actually follow you, my attempt to have those in the towers to follow me, meant all my castle defenders tried to follow me, completely giving up the defense on the wall and gate which let the enemy just come on into the castle with no resistance. Further since there was no way for me to reverse the command and have them go back to defending their respective areas, all could do was order the blob to "Charge" which caused me to lose at least twice as many troops as I should have and nearly cost me the battle.
My final thoughts on the matter is that siege defense really needs some attention that it isn't getting and I think the reason it isn't talked about more on the forums is because it is so hard to actually participate in a siege defense that not many people realize how screwed up it is and have reported it or discussed it.
redmark
Squire
'Delegate command', for the group(s) in question, should do it.
Probably this minor fix (break in sacrificed troops) will go with hotfix. It is something small.
About other thing, 1.5.9 could not go beta because of texture bug at 1.5.8 still could not fixed what I hear. It is blocking all process. I hope next week 1.5.9 can go beta. After that still 2-3-4 weeks need to pass till 1.5.10 (which has wage slider and behavior dropbox for clan parties, auto recruitment for garrisons) to go beta.
Alright, thanks. Appreciate the update.
Didnt expect such a good comment from you!! Nice to hear that so, And fingers crossed with that texture bug to be fixed quicker!
I am 48 years old and have been a beta testing game for about 30 years now and without a doubt you are the best "Community Manager" I have ever seen. I say community manager when I know your actually a dev because never in 30 years have I seen any one from a development studio, even dedicated community managers, that was as effective at you at the job as you.
You treat us all with respect, take us seriously, acknowledge our concerns, share with us detailed information and provide honest feedback whether that feedback is what we want to hear of not. You also never arrogant or act like you always know better. In short you are awesome.
Nalgasucia507
Squire
+1
