As more you play the game it becomes more obvious that everything is though to keep the player in an infinite loop of battles, I don't know why they developed economy, relationships, etc if in the end they didn't want to provide us anything else than a battle simulator...Nothing to do it's a game feature, the only way to prevent it, is executing the nobles, you can conquer a entire enemy kingdom, and them, without any city or castle, still recruiting troops, in your cities and towns, and eventually will declare war on you.
They do play on Easy Recruiting (+2 free slots) but they don't get privileged access beyond that. If you strip all the recruits from a town or village, AI lords will still go there and wait until new ones become available.i read somewhere that the ai lords have cheat recruitment slots of 2 per notable, and they all can recruit from the same notable while you share an arbitrary pool with them. meaning if you go by a village and recruit all the troops, ai lords that go by after you will still be able to recruit as many as they want. whereas if they swing by a village first and recruited, then you'll have nothing left.
Yeah I was pretty furious when the response to "the lords we gank keep coming back five minutes later with hundreds of recruits" was "well we'll just cheat them a cadre of high-level troops every time they respawn".Agreed that there's eventually 2 solutions. Short term, execute the nobility entirely. Long term, always hang out as a single party and hope they'll die in battle. As long as they live, have all the AI bonuses and war/peace declarations remain as is, they'll keep coming. Even when you beat them in the field and try keeping them imprisoned, they get ransomed or escape in a few days and build up faster than your army replenish it's loses.
That wasn't a response to the lord's coming back with hundreds of recruits. It was a response to the lords never coming back because they were repeatedly beaten down by looters.Yeah I was pretty furious when the response to "the lords we gank keep coming back five minutes later with hundreds of recruits" was "well we'll just cheat them a cadre of high-level troops every time they respawn".
I think it was both but I don't know the dev's exact thinking. It was at least presented as fixing both complaints, along with passive exp to train troops, which may or may not have been removed or adjusted since..That wasn't a response to the lord's coming back with hundreds of recruits. It was a response to the lords never coming back because they were repeatedly beaten down by looters.
That wasn't a response to the lord's coming back with hundreds of recruits. It was a response to the lords never coming back because they were repeatedly beaten down by looters.
Hahaaa I don't remember that being an issue, but I wouldn't be surprised if I missed it.I think it was both but I don't know the dev's exact thinking. It was at least presented as fixing both complaints, along with passive exp to train troops, which may or may not have been removed or adjusted since..
100% this. If the players can't respawn with a cadre of mid-to-high tier troops, then the AI shouldn't be able to either. Worst case, they should respawn in a friendly settlement and stay there until they've recruited enough mercenaries or locals to survive on their own.I think they need to be changed to HAVE to pull from garrisons for thier respawn party, if Clan own fief, spawn party IS taken from biggest garrisons, no if and or butts. If Clan had no fiefs then they should spawn alone like the player character at the game start, since that's all they are, a landless lord who needs to go villages to village at the mercy of bandits and looters.
110% this. The degree to which nobles are constantly raiding and sieging and fighting is ridiculous.Bottom line for me, they need to SPEND TIME doing more non-war things after defeats and really in general. There is no simulation or living world if the lords don't s spend noticeable time rebuilding parties and maintaining thier areas. Noticeable time is like a full season. How long does it take you to make a war party at the start of the game. 20 days? 15 days? That's the minimum it should be before we see the same defeated lord returning to war activities.
Good idea, it would make sense if there are more raiders in more prosperous lands. Instead the current way where the entire land gets more and more bandits despite nothing changing at all.Also if lords kept getting capped by looters - then bandits shouldn't scale on player level FFS... they should scale based on things like raids and security and prosperity. That might have been part of the problem.
@mexxico since you are still active and have the energy to be in the forum - I want to ask, did this feature ever existed in Bannerlord before? Or it was just Lust's random PR strategy?At 27:50 minute mark, does anyone remember Lust's responses to defeating even SINGLE lords. Nothing as natural or strategical as his explanation in-game really exists. If a clan has one village raided, it really doesn't matter because they can (and WILL) just travel to the next village and recruit troops, you know, without consequence. Would the clan of that village not be upset that another clan is relying on THEIR men, which could cause quarrels within the kingd... why do I even bother.
@mexxico since you are still active and have the energy to be in the forum - I want to ask, did this feature ever existed in Bannerlord before? Or it was just Lust's random PR strategy?
Starts around 27:30 and Lust gives a lot of information about things that are not in the current game in continuing two minutes - including things JustinTime49 mentioned, Marshal role within factions, revolt system based on villages/AI Taxes etc
I also don't think he could say those things out of thin air - however, it could be that he slipped some information without that mentioned information/feature implemented in the game yet. But UI was outside of the scope of my question, and other things - I know that they are changed and subject to change. What I wanted to know is simple ( if you are allowed to say ) - since none of these things are in current Bannerlord, have you worked on these things, implementation-wise, and witnessed that these things are dropped/left out with some decisions or are they still holding in TW's "We somewhat promised but we won't add it into the game but we won't publicly deny that it's not taken out either" list?I do not think Lust can tell something without information and just for PR strategy. Probably these days some of these are implemented / planned and then given up. Also Lust had more information and focus on combat side of game and he was our best multiplayer player. He had less information about campaign side compared to combat side. As you know design and UIs changed too much during development.
I can also +1 to that extra information. He was a nice guy. Wasn't a good CM person though but I'm not sure if that's his fault. Since TW acts like it's keeping national secrets nowadays but all we get is a sheep texture and barber "feature"Also additional extra information we still talk Lust via social media even its rare. He is a good guy and returned England 3 years ago.
That is a nice point I hadn't thought about.This is why I still prefer Warband's marshal system over BL's system where anybody can form an army whenever they want, provided they have some influence to spare. In Warband you could capture the marshal and force the enemy's entire war effort to grind to a halt until they went through the process of voting on a new marshal, and that could take a few days or even up to a whole week sometimes. That gave you a nice breather from major sieges so you could prepare for the next attack or go on the offensive.
I wonder if it would be an improvement if there was more of a process involved in raising an army. What if lords (player included) needed to get approval from the king with a vote by the vassals before raising an army? This would at least force a pause between the back to back armies coming again and again. It would also make it less trivial to create your own companion armies, but I don't think that's such a bad thing.
I agree with the problem but not the solution.This is why I still prefer Warband's marshal system over BL's system where anybody can form an army whenever they want, provided they have some influence to spare. In Warband you could capture the marshal and force the enemy's entire war effort to grind to a halt until they went through the process of voting on a new marshal, and that could take a few days or even up to a whole week sometimes. That gave you a nice breather from major sieges so you could prepare for the next attack or go on the offensive.
Snowballing issues would definitely be less of a problem if recently-defeated armies holed up in strategic castles or towns to heal + recruit + train etc.I kind of wish lords would respawn in their castle with an elite retinue, would send recruiters (or hire troops in the castle, which could be a nice function), muster their forces and move out once they feel safe. This would also reduce their disponibility, including for armies.
Well, for the sacrifice to make sense, units to have an actual worth: elite units hard to get but efficient and men hard to recruit after some time (lack of available men because... well, they don't grow on trees). With that system, retreating would make sense: losing so many men just to lose or retreating and saving some of them is much better, in this hypothetical situation.Snowballing issues would definitely be less of a problem if recently-defeated armies holed up in strategic castles or towns to heal + recruit + train etc.
Also, for that matter, I'd love it if AI and player armies had the option of retreating at all - maybe after a certain kill count against the aggressors. At this point, there's no reason to fight while grossly outnumbered since your only option for retreat is to sacrifice some soldiers or sacrifice ALL soldiers - because fighting almost always only worsens the cost of the sacrifice option.
I could have sworn this exact feature was implemented in either WB or a WB mod, so getting caught with your pants down wasn't the end of the world. You could take a defensive position, massacre enough enemy troops to make a clean getaway, then retreat under fire.
Or change how player get influence. Is it really sad to see that if I farm 30 party of looters, I get to call a party from the ruler clan and it does not matter where I farm these looter parties. Hell, I can be a vassal of Khuzait and I could farm looter parties in Vlandia. This does not make any sense. The way to get influnce should reflect our status quo in our kingdom.I feel like the easiest solution would be that making armies is more costly in influence
The dev posted his exact reasoning, multiple times:I think it was both but I don't know the dev's exact thinking. It was at least presented as fixing both complaints, along with passive exp to train troops, which may or may not have been removed or adjusted since..
I am not fan of AI cheats and try to remove as much as possible but we have to give passive XP to NPC parties because player party and NPC parties so different in lots of terms. Player make more battles compared to an average lord party (average lord party life (time between spawned - prisoned) is less shorter than player party) and if we do not give passive XP as AI cheat 80% of troops at Npc parties be tier-1 or tier-2. This damages gameplay so badly, we have tons of troop variety but we cannot show them to player. With passive XP cheat this ratio (tier-1, tier-2 troop ratio) reduces to 50%. I want to reduce passive Xp more but I fear to damage gameplay especially at combat side.
If I already have money, like most clans? Around three days. If it takes me a full season to develop a party I'll quit playing the game because that is too long to be anything like entertaining.How long does it take you to make a war party at the start of the game. 20 days? 15 days?