Base Bannerlord is better than base Warband

[Apocal]

I agree that lategame M&B is not fun or interesting in both Warband and Bannerlord. But my point is that you can't call it an improvement. Having zero need to play the lategame at all because it has zero challenge (and zero want because it's boring) is not *better* than needing to play the lategame but it being a boring, low-challenge experience. If you can AFK the endgame you are not playing it. If you have no desire to play it then you would just not play it in Warband either. So nothing is improved.

I consider a game letting me skip a boring part an improvement over not being able to skip it.

But yes, I was being a bit flip there. Allow me to elaborate and say that I consider the AI's ability to actually accomplish things (even with the issues it brings) a net plus compared to Warband's campaign AI barely being able to tie its own shoelaces.

I was listing food as one of multiple things that could go wrong, because yes you can have enough food to manage it, but players aren't always playing perfectly optimally. Did you miss what I said about the enemy sieging another one of your locations while you're busy waiting a season to starve out the settlement? Or the more important point, that starving out a settlement really is just a way of skipping one of the core features of the game? "You get to not fight sieges by sitting and doing literally nothing for long enough"- how is that a glowing endorsement for Bannerlord?

Buying food regularly is hardly some optimal playstyle, it is just common sense. And I didn't miss the part about the enemy attacking one of your settlements -- sieging out doesn't always work. And? That doesn't make it impossible or even difficult. It's just sometimes the enemy can do something to counter it and you have to make a decision.

It is an option for a different playstyle. There are upsides and downsides to it and if you really like siege battles there is nothing stopping you from assaulting to your heart's content.

That relations bonus would hang around until the next time you talked to them and unless you were playing the game like a speedrunner (which I know is a problem of yours) it wasn't crucial to have right that instant. I never even bothered going and hunting down the individual lords because I knew I'd see them at the next feast and get the relations then.

I'm not a speedrunner (that's Ananda). I don't even play optimally, for the most part (that's Ananda). Maybe in individual combat but anyone who knows what the right mouse button is for in SP is playing close to optimally there.

Khergits were a weak point in Warband, Sturgians are a weak point in Bannerlord (both in their underwhelming troop tree and in their map situation). So no, you can't claim Bannerlord as a big upgrade on Warband in the balance department.

And you could also beat the entire game using exclusively Rhodok Sharpshooters/Sergeants, or Nord Huscarls, or Mamluks, or Vaegir Marksmen. So what?

So, you can't say "Overall, the balance between different types of troop was better in Warband, with infantry, cavalry and ranged all playing a more equal role than Bannerlord" when a player could just use one type and still smash everything. The idea that there was a better combined arms balancing act in Warband is a pure nostalgia trip, and those snaggle-toothed troop trees were the direct cause of it being so ridiculously imbalanced. At least in Bannerlord people sometimes put a line of infantry in front of their archers and Khan's Guards occasionally die.

Also if you're talking about whether players care much, do you think that same group care too much about being able to starve out sieges so they don't have to do them, or being able to AFK a lategame they just wouldn't finish in Warband anyway?

I think most people were excited for the idea of being able to actually starve out a garrison when it was mentioned in the devblog. Whether that translates to caring... well, up to your interpretation.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

Let's just leave it everyone.

MadVader is right, this is obviously just a flame thread - made to amuse the OP.... but it really achieves and contributes nothing at all. It just pisses off a large number of people in the community. This was his intention. (Even if he may try to disingenuously argue that he is just 'stimulating a debate').

Let's not indulge this any further.

The majority of the threads on general discussion are flame threads. The most popular thread over the last couple of months was not even disguised as a debate.

But the poll outcome on this thread does surprise me. A slight majority (%53.7 at time of writing) agrees that Bannerlord > Warband. So it achieves something in that it gives insight and contributes to a perhaps more positive outlook of the game.

 

[AndrewArt]

No doubt.

 

[julijs]

Do doubt.

 

[Ser Jon]

Let's just leave it everyone.

MadVader is right, this is obviously just a flame thread - made to amuse the OP.... but it really achieves and contributes nothing at all. It just pisses off a large number of people in the community. This was his intention. (Even if he may try to disingenuously argue that he is just 'stimulating a debate').

Let's not indulge this any further.

Agreed. It is very obvious what OP's intention was, especially when he made another one. He's trying to rile people up on both sides to start fights because he can't stand the opposite. There's no honest attempt in this thread for actual discussion, which makes it completely different from every other positive or negative thread. It's a bait, through and through.

 

[pRaX]

This thread is just bait. And the vote is ridiculous. What is this vote worth when so many people jumped ship or got thrown overboard...
There are so many people that still have to learn about this company but that's okay. We've all been there at one point.

 

[five bucks]

Allow me to elaborate and say that I consider the AI's ability to actually accomplish things (even with the issues it brings) a net plus compared to Warband's campaign AI barely being able to tie its own shoelaces.

I'll agree it's a minor improvement in that area. Bannerlord campaign AI is no genius either though and has its own flaws.

It is an option for a different playstyle. There are upsides and downsides to it and if you really like siege battles there is nothing stopping you from assaulting to your heart's content.

If it means getting net zero progress using a time-wasting method to gain a castle in exchange for losing one somewhere else, it's not much of an option.
Most people do really like siege battles. They're a core feature of the game. This is why I say that occasionally being able to skip them, in a boring way where you just sit there and do nothing, isn't much of a pro for Bannerlord. But sure, it's a tiny positive.

I'm not a speedrunner. Maybe in individual combat but anyone who knows what the right mouse button is for in SP is playing close to optimally there.

How else can I describe your commonly expressed values of finding no entertainment in roleplaying, and wanting to get through the game as quickly as possible? Because the point is that getting relations from lords after sieges was not an issue because you would just see them at the feast not too long later. So unless you wanted to get through the game ASAP at the expense of everything else, which is not how most people play, it wasn't a problem.

So, you can't say "Overall, the balance between different types of troop was better in Warband, with infantry, cavalry and ranged all playing a more equal role than Bannerlord" when a player could just use one type and still smash everything.

The idea that there was a better combined arms balancing act in Warband is a pure nostalgia trip, and those snaggle-toothed troop trees were the direct cause of it being so ridiculously imbalanced. At least in Bannerlord people sometimes put a line of infantry in front of their archers and Khan's Guards occasionally die.

You just changed your argument from "beat the game" to "smash everything".
Top tier troops in Warband occasionally die too, so how is that meant to be a point in favor of Bannerlord's balance? Both games have insanely good units, the main difference being that Bannerlord has a smaller variety of insanely good units.

In Bannerlord, ranged inf and ranged cav are more useful than melee cav and infantry, both in the field and sieges, by a big margin. In Warband, there were some really good melee cav, some really good ranged inf, some really good melee infantry. Swadian Knights were the strongest in field battles, but the margin of performance could sometimes be quite small (e.g. Veterans would lose a field battle but could inflict heavy casualties on the Knights in return), and in sieges (both as attackers and defenders), Swadian Knights were worse than Nord Huscarls/Veterans, Rhodok Sharpshooters and Sergeants, Vaegir Knights and Guards, and Sarranid Mamlukes. (In fact, Vaegir Knights and Sergeants are so good that they can overcome the siege disadvantage as attackers against a force of equal numbers and equal tier, and no player intervention).

For comparison, this is obviously old, but apart from horse archer AI becoming dumber and requiring you to personally lead them to avoid accidentally charging in melee if you want best results, not much else has changed: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...are-insanely-op-infantry-is-pointless.438812/

You don't even really need a line of infantry in front of your archers in Bannerlord if (a) you're using the superior Khan's Guards who have mobility on their side so there is no frontline protection necessary, or (b) you're using Fians who also double as their own infantry protection.

Warband troop balance obviously wasn't perfect and was skewed in favour of Swadia (which was an enticement for the player to pick the faction sandwiched in the middle of the map), but Swadian units definitely weren't invincible as you meme them to be, the effectiveness gap was smaller, and Warband troop balance between different types of troop was/is better than Bannerlord troop balance.

 

[Apocal]

How else can I describe your commonly expressed values of finding no entertainment in roleplaying, and wanting to get through the game as quickly as possible?

"playing the game"

I won't do useless stuff for its own sake but I'm not trying to get through the game as quickly as possible. I'm one of the very few around here with a 30+ year playthrough.

If it means getting net zero progress using a time-wasting method to gain a castle in exchange for losing one somewhere else, it's not much of an option.

It usually works out fine for me. Just pick the right target (hint: not at the border) at the right time and they'll come to you instead of going for your settlements. As an aside, it is a little odd you wanted to zero in on perceived speedrunning while criticizing sieging down a settlement with the phrase "a time-wasting method."

You just changed your argument from "beat the game" to "smash everything".

I didn't change anything but the phrasing. There was not a single tactical (as in, battlefield or siege) problem in all of Warband that couldn't be solved with Swadian Knights. So how can you seriously make the claim "Overall, the balance between different types of troop was better in Warband, with infantry, cavalry and ranged all playing a more equal role than Bannerlord"?

Even then, my original claim was factional balance was better. And it is, since, you know, nobody in BL is in the situation like the Khergits of WB with an explicitly busted troop tree. At least own it and say "WB factions being unbalanced is good because of differentiation between them."

 

[Stromming]

While Bannerlord lacks a metric ****-ton of things that it SHOULD have, I do think it is better than Native Warband. However, is that really a big accomplishment? Warband was made great by modders and the fact that TW managed to make a product better than Warband is not something to be overly proud of considering the background of the game.

If TW did not manage to make it better than Vanilla Warband, that's honestly pathetic.

 

[five bucks]

"playing the game"
I won't do useless stuff for its own sake but I'm not trying to get through the game as quickly as possible. I'm one of the very few around here with a 30+ year playthrough.

Sieges are part of "playing the game" though. Like 25% of the game for normal players is sieges.
Alright then, not trying to finish the game as quickly as possible, but from what you've said, you do clearly treat your playthroughs like a job where the consideration is to maximize efficiency of numbers, and actual battles, quests, fun etc., are barely a side consideration to that and are skipped where possible, which is why you also sang the praises of autoresolve in the past. And most people just don't play the game that way.

It usually works out fine for me. Just pick the right target (hint: not at the border) at the right time and they'll come to you instead of going for your settlements. As an aside, it is a little odd you wanted to zero in on perceived speedrunning while criticizing sieging down a settlement with the phrase "a time-wasting method."

Well I'm glad you can make it work sometimes, the point about it not being a big positive either way stands, though.
Not wanting to do sieges is skipping one of the core parts of the gameplay, so that's like speedrunning yeah. Starving out a settlement on the other hand is literally just sitting there doing nothing, it isn't gameplay, and if it does result in another one of your settlements being lost it's quite literally a waste of time.

I didn't change anything but the phrasing. There was not a single tactical (as in, battlefield or siege) problem in all of Warband that couldn't be solved with Swadian Knights. So how can you seriously make the claim "Overall, the balance between different types of troop was better in Warband, with infantry, cavalry and ranged all playing a more equal role than Bannerlord"?

Because it's true? You can beat the entire game with a single troop type in both games. Regardless, Warband's troop type balance is still better. Balance isn't an on/off binary state where something can only be totally broken or totally functional, it's a matter of degrees. Warband is several degrees better balanced.

Even then, my original claim was factional balance was better. And it is, since, you know, nobody in BL is in the situation like the Khergits of WB with an explicitly busted troop tree.

Sturgia, as a faction, is just as busted as Khergits. Its troop tree isn't as bad as Khergits but still extremely mediocre, and it has various other factors like its vulnerable map position which place it in the C-tier of factions (though thankfully it is no longer the F-tier it once was).

 

[eddiemccandless]

So, you can't say "Overall, the balance between different types of troop was better in Warband, with infantry, cavalry and ranged all playing a more equal role than Bannerlord" when a player could just use one type and still smash everything. The idea that there was a better combined arms balancing act in Warband is a pure nostalgia trip, and those snaggle-toothed troop trees were the direct cause of it being so ridiculously imbalanced. At least in Bannerlord people sometimes put a line of infantry in front of their archers and Khan's Guards occasionally die.

I wouldn't call Warband balanced, but you are not being honest here and I think if you take a moment and forget about the forum argument you will see that too .

It is totally viable to paint the map in Warband using nothing but Nord Archers by the way, they are perfectly capable of killing other units and are extremely easy to train. The main reason why people tended to use a single troop type is because of the way training worked, not really the fact that a single troop was better than others.

Also, Warband was much easier to tweak for balance. Unbalance in Bannerlord is caused in big parts by flaws in the game engine physics that are very difficult if not impossible to fix from our side (compare blocking a cavalry charge in Warband with a blob of Huscarls vs doing the same thing in Bannerlord with your favorite infantry). One of the reasons why archers are favored is that mass melee combat is broken.

 

[Apocal]

Alright then, not trying to finish the game as quickly as possible, but from what you've said, you do clearly treat your playthroughs like a job where the consideration is to maximize efficiency of numbers, and actual battles, quests, fun etc., are barely a side consideration to that and are skipped where possible, which is why you also sang the praises of autoresolve in the past. And most people just don't play the game that way.

What? I started an entire thread about the structural issue with BL's autocalc, and how its knock-on effects make the game worse. I complain about autocalc constantly. Are you mixing me up with someone else?

As for the rest of that, I usually avoid talking about how I play BL but I play it the same way I play chess (not saying BL is as good as chess, of course), reasoning in the face of limited information and making meaningful decisions is how I have fun. Do I pass on battles sometimes? Sure, if they don't have a point to them. For example, if my objective is taking Charas with 750 men, I'm probably going to let an enemy army of 900 going to burn one of my villages just slide on by because engaging and defeating that army won't get me any closer to taking Charas. Even in victory, if I take too many losses in the process, it might cost me the actual goal. But I use the word "probably" for a reason; it might change for any number of reasons. The enemy army's composition might be 90% infantry and 70% recruits, presenting very little risk but plenty of reward for all those captured lords. The enemy army might be going after a settlement owned by one of my faction's poor clans.

And that loops into other, larger considerations. How important is Charas? Which clan on the ballot needs a town? Do I need another clan to hold the area? And then there are even larger questions of strategy like the correlation of forces between my faction and the enemy. Are the global odds still in my favor? Is the trendline on those odds to my advantage? If it isn't, how do I address that -- specifically hunting enemy armies, burning villages, knocking off stray parties, going over to Defensive stance?

I enjoy Total War with first person battles.?‍

I wouldn't call Warband balanced, but you are not being honest here and I think if you take a moment and forget about the forum argument you will see that too .

My main example was the Khergits being useless and even he acknowledged that their troop tree was busted. Except now he's going back and saying the Sturgians are currently as broken as a faction with no infantry, archers or heavily armored troops, in spite of having the best infantry at the start of EA and arguably second best second best mainline cav throughout.

 

[eddiemccandless]

What? I started an entire thread about the structural issue with BL's autocalc, and how its knock-on effects make the game worse. I complain about autocalc constantly. Are you mixing me up with someone else?

As for the rest of that, I usually avoid talking about how I play BL but I play it the same way I play chess (not saying BL is as good as chess, of course), reasoning in the face of limited information and making meaningful decisions is how I have fun. Do I pass on battles sometimes? Sure, if they don't have a point to them. For example, if my objective is taking Charas with 750 men, I'm probably going to let an enemy army of 900 going to burn one of my villages just slide on by because engaging and defeating that army won't get me any closer to taking Charas. Even in victory, if I take too many losses in the process, it might cost me the actual goal. But I use the word "probably" for a reason; it might change for any number of reasons. The enemy army's composition might be 90% infantry and 70% recruits, presenting very little risk but plenty of reward for all those captured lords. The enemy army might be going after a settlement owned by one of my faction's poor clans.

And that loops into other, larger considerations. How important is Charas? Which clan on the ballot needs a town? Do I need another clan to hold the area? And then there are even larger questions of strategy like the correlation of forces between my faction and the enemy. Are the global odds still in my favor? Is the trendline on those odds to my advantage? If it isn't, how do I address that -- specifically hunting enemy armies, burning villages, knocking off stray parties, going over to Defensive stance?

I enjoy Total War with first person battles.?‍

My main example was the Khergits being useless and even he acknowledged that their troop tree was busted. Except now he's going back and saying the Sturgians are currently as broken as a faction with no infantry, archers or heavily armored troops, in spite of having the best infantry at the start of EA and arguably second best second best mainline cav throughout.

I was referring mostly to the bit about infantry line plus archers killing horse archers. And yes, Khergits were underpowered but that is something that can be easily fixed with some light modding (increase power draw and give slightly better gear for a few troops in the tree). Bannerlord is broken at a fundamental level since the issues are with core combat elements.

 

[Nalgasucia507]

Who actually liked grinding every single settlement in M&B? It is almost zero challenge past a certain point, there is no interesting gameplay involved once no faction (or combination of factions) can meaningfully oppose you and every victory makes you that much more unassailable. If you think fighting the same sieges where you make 0 meaningful decision is interesting, cool.

I sure as hell don't.

It is awful game design and the entire M&B experience would be 100% improved if the game was called when you were more powerful than the AI factions rather than having to paint the map via repetitive sieges. The last few Total War I played did just that, successfully, by having the objectives be three kingdom capitals. Everything revolved around taking them once the late game is declared, which not only gaves a very obtainable set of end goals but also provided a very interesting set of goals in the mid-game as players jockeyed for a better late game position.

It is a completely viable option now. This time last year, yeah, it was basically impossible under all but the most favorable of circumstances but that's been fixed. I've demonstrated it.

Player-made doomstacks can reliably (and sometimes effortlessly) beat the AI's doomstacks and the AI generally only fields one or two armies at once. Sure third and fourth armies (and fifth, etc.) armies might form-up and reach you, but they won't be stronger than the first couple and significantly weaker (~30% less power) is typical. If you don't think it is possible, throw me your savegame and I'll record myself successfully sieging down a town.

As for running out of food, the game is ridiculously generous with how much food you can carry -- easily over 100 days for an army of 1100.

It takes roughly a season to starve out a settlement, so anything over 30-40 days of food is fine -- enough for the siege itself, along with a healthy buffer in case something goes wrong. And I'm just going to drop an shonen anime-style "this isn't even my true power!" here because if I cared to optimize things that could go up to 300+ days of food -- enough to take on a whole faction worth of town, one after another.

...Nobles visit your hall in BL. What makes you think they don't? ? And I had to chase down lords in WB all the time, which was infruiating because there were a number of game mechanics that made it more difficult, like the scatter of armies post-siege when you had to talk to them to gain relations from fighting together, or the way character locating barely worked.

Engineering is certainly weak but Charm is one of the easier skills to level. Just drop full power votes in favor of a different clan and it shoots right up past 150, fast as hell. And BL still avoids that trap of the single optimal character build that WB had.

Yes, I am making that claim. Khergits had no armored troops and only low-tier infantry in Warband. It made them near useless in certain battles and a complete clownshoe pushover faction for the player who wanted to siege their settlements early on. And because ranged was somewhat weak while armor was strong, Khergits weren't even good in field battles. It was ridiculously unbalanced.

And infantry,cavalry and ranged all playing a more equal role? Are you joking? You could beat the entire game using exclusively Swadian Knights. And I know because I did just that in native. Sure, there was another faction with a very similar troop type that filled the same niche, but ultimately, you had three OP troop types and everyone else was niche or plain busted. Certainly BL hasn't done that much better making actual combined arms a thing in their battles but at this point I doubt many (if any) players care that much.

At least in BL, I have a reason to use infantry some of the time (garrisoning and construction speed for low recruiting/wage cost) and while ranged dominates, every faction has usable ranged troops. Not equal by any means, but still viable. You can still delete whole other armies with massed Sturgian archers compared to, uh, Nord... did they even have archers? (sarcasm)

In the end, for all the differentiation, most players spammed one of the two (or three, if you count Mamluks) best troop types because that's what the game taught them.

+1

 

[five bucks]

What? I started an entire thread about the structural issue with BL's autocalc, and how its knock-on effects make the game worse. I complain about autocalc constantly. Are you mixing me up with someone else?

This is what I'm referring to: "Anyway, it doesn't even take that long to get T5 troops. You can do it in about twelve battles relatively safely and probably in like six if you just don't give a damn if half die in the process. I'm not the only person who has brought that up; people choose to train up troops in the grindiest manner possible then complain it is grindy."
I didn't ever see those other posts from you so apologies if I've misconstrued your stance. But that post is you advocating the use of autocalc to skip battles and get troops to higher levels ASAP with no care if you lose troops, which in itself is totally fine and more efficient but contributes to the argument that you don't play the way most other people do.

As for the rest of that, I usually avoid talking about how I play BL but I play it the same way I play chess (not saying BL is as good as chess, of course), reasoning in the face of limited information and making meaningful decisions is how I have fun. Do I pass on battles sometimes? Sure, if they don't have a point to them. For example, if my objective is taking Charas with 750 men, I'm probably going to let an enemy army of 900 going to burn one of my villages just slide on by because engaging and defeating that army won't get me any closer to taking Charas. Even in victory, if I take too many losses in the process, it might cost me the actual goal. But I use the word "probably" for a reason; it might change for any number of reasons. The enemy army's composition might be 90% infantry and 70% recruits, presenting very little risk but plenty of reward for all those captured lords. The enemy army might be going after a settlement owned by one of my faction's poor clans.

And that loops into other, larger considerations. How important is Charas? Which clan on the ballot needs a town? Do I need another clan to hold the area? And then there are even larger questions of strategy like the correlation of forces between my faction and the enemy. Are the global odds still in my favor? Is the trendline on those odds to my advantage? If it isn't, how do I address that -- specifically hunting enemy armies, burning villages, knocking off stray parties, going over to Defensive stance?

I enjoy Total War with first person battles.?‍

I'll save this from becoming a court-martial on your playstyle choices, and just sum up by saying that my point is: what you value/find fun about the game is different from what most people value/find fun.
To most other players, large scale goals are about 33% of the fun of the game, battles are 33%, and roleplaying is 33%, or some variation of that. To you, achieving large scale goals with maximum efficiency is 90% of the fun, battles are 10%- because as you said, you see no "point" in them if they aren't serving other goals. To your average player, the battle itself IS the point.
So being able to skip siege battles by sitting around doing literally nothing, and being able to AFK the lategame, is a notable positive of Bannerlord for you, but for most other people it's a small positive or not a positive at all. Does that sound reasonable?

My main example was the Khergits being useless and even he acknowledged that their troop tree was busted. Except now he's going back and saying the Sturgians are currently as broken as a faction with no infantry, archers or heavily armored troops, in spite of having the best infantry at the start of EA and arguably second best second best mainline cav throughout.

Saying they have no infantry or archers is not strictly true, as Veteran Horse Archers and Lancers can serve as archers/infantry dismounted. It's not great, but it's doable. And I'm not sure why you're acting like Khergits are special in lacking some troop types, as every faction did too. Nords/Rhodoks lacked cav of any kind, for example, and you can't exactly re-mount their infantry to create cavalry.

Khergits had a weaker troop tree but were not useless, that's exaggeration. For example, Khergit Lancers- who are T4, by the way - can win a 51v51 field battle with no interference by the player against T4/5 Vaegir Horsemen and Knights. 51 kills to 47 losses on Farmhouse, 51 to 25 on Oasis. Lancers vs Warriors/Huscarls on Oasis can win with just 18 casualties. Of course, Nords/Vaegirs **** them up in a siege battle in return.

They can even beat an equal force comprised of T4/5 Swadian Knights and Men-At-Arms if the terrain is uneven enough to disrupt couched lance charges and make their Hafted Blade glaives superior (On Farmhouse, Khergits won using each starting position! 25 casualties starting from the farm, 45 starting from the hill). There were advantages to the Khergits' troop tree, such as getting cheap massed cavalry out quicker than any other faction which could improve your map speed.

Remember, your claim was "factional balance" was better. You're focusing only on troop trees and ignoring what I said about the other factors than troop trees that make Sturgia weak. Their troop tree isn't as bad as Khergits, but there's not a huge difference as it's still one of the weakest in Bannerlord. Melee cav are, as we all know, a much less useful option in Bannerlord relative to ranged cav or ranged inf, so having the second best is nothing to really write home about, is it?

 

[Mad Vader]

So Apocal is a soulless minmaxer who skips foreplay roleplay entirely and he's not having enough fun. It's a mystery why.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Who actually liked grinding every single settlement in M&B?

Me. Early I personally shoot all the ranged off the walls with a line of shields to protect me. It's great in wb you can shoot over thier shoulder and be perfectly protected and decent shield troops last a long time to frontal range fire, even without a SW. Contrast in bannerlord 1. good ****ing luck getting infantry to stand where you want in a siege 2. Thier SW is worse then 'just standing here' in wb, they get shot up eventually and from weird angles and you will get shot in the face try to shoot over thier shoulders because the shield is just not good enough at blocking ranged.
The later in warband when I have many spare troops I get more lazy and bring rhodok sharpshooter to help me fire squad the garrison. It's really fun, especially the rhodoks on highest campaign difficulty, getting in there and out gunning them (without massive losses) is a very good challenge! I do a lot of fun and creative things in warband to murder the garrisons without having to charge a bunch of grunts up ladder to thier deaths. That's what I want in bannerlord siege is smart tactical controls, I don't want to ram troops up ladders or have them stand their getting shot up and not listening to me. It's upsetting that you had better control on warband then bannerlord, but I am aware most warband players just rammed em up the ladders.

And you could also beat the entire game using exclusively Rhodok Sharpshooters/Sergeants, or Nord Huscarls, or Mamluks, or Vaegir Marksmen. So what?

Yeah, people overlook this nowadays (or in bannerlord contex). Swadian knight were the best field unit and the easiest to use, but you could also use the other top tier troops just fine. I might not try to use pure marksmen in a field battle (1 stack of arrows) but the rest you listed I certainly have.

Its troop tree isn't as bad as Khergits but still extremely mediocre

I always want to bring up, that the Khergits were nerfed in mount and blade, due to player complaints that they were to hard or not fun or whatever.
The better circling behavior like seen in the 1257 ad mod is actually the original behavior but was disabled to make them less frustrating for the player play against. It's upsetting that they downgraded bannerlord HA circling, but at least it's not that bad...yet.

 

[five bucks]

Yeah, people overlook this nowadays (or in bannerlord contex). Swadian knight were the best field unit and the easiest to use, but you could also use the other top tier troops just fine. I might not try to use pure marksmen in a field battle (1 stack of arrows) but the rest you listed I certainly have.

Yeah, actually after going back in-game to test I was wrong about Marksmen. They're really good against shieldless troops, but against troops with good shields they run out of ammo, so they're a strong option but it would be hard to do a whole playthrough with just them. I really should have said Vaegir Knights, who are surprisingly one of the strongest troops in sieges (stronger than Swadian Knights) and passable in field battles. Guards are great in sieges too and can beat Huscarls in melee, but you couldn't run a whole game with them because of the lack of shields.

I always want to bring up, that the Khergits were nerfed in mount and blade, due to player complaints that they were to hard or not fun or whatever.

My friend who played M&B 1 since the Black Knight days and stopped playing around the early days of Warband (and who got me into the series) still thinks of Khergits as OP for that reason.

 

[Apocal]

This is what I'm referring to: "Anyway, it doesn't even take that long to get T5 troops. You can do it in about twelve battles relatively safely and probably in like six if you just don't give a damn if half die in the process. I'm not the only person who has brought that up; people choose to train up troops in the grindiest manner possible then complain it is grindy."
I didn't ever see those other posts from you so apologies if I've misconstrued your stance. But that post is you advocating the use of autocalc to skip battles and get troops to higher levels ASAP with no care if you lose troops, which in itself is totally fine and more efficient but contributes to the argument that you don't play the way most other people do.

Uh? There is nothing in that post about autoresolve...? Oh, the post by Bannerman Man I quoted? That wasn't an endorsement of autoresolve, I just quoted it as an example of someone else who noticed how grinding looters wasn't necessary. It was me endorsing not grinding looters until you have a full party of max-tier units. Because that is boring. Certainly optimal for a given way of measuring such things but -- once again -- I don't actually play Bannerlord even near optimally.

(Unless you define optimal as things like "buy food for your army." In which case, yeah. Guilty as charged.)

Also have to say describing looter fights as "fun" is a bit off the beaten track of forum consensus though. You might be alone there.

So being able to skip siege battles by sitting around doing literally nothing, and being able to AFK the lategame, is a notable positive of Bannerlord for you, but for most other people it's a small positive or not a positive at all. Does that sound reasonable?

Me: "You can starve out settlements in Bannerlord."
You: "Not really."
Me: "Yes, really. Here's where I show how."
You: "Well, most people won't do it, so it barely counts."

Reasonable.

I'll save this from becoming a court-martial on your playstyle choices, and just sum up by saying that my point is: what you value/find fun about the game is different from what most people value/find fun.
To most other players, large scale goals are about 33% of the fun of the game, battles are 33%, and roleplaying is 33%, or some variation of that. To you, achieving large scale goals with maximum efficiency is 90% of the fun, battles are 10%- because as you said, you see no "point" in them if they aren't serving other goals. To your average player, the battle itself IS the point.

Most players complain about battles for their own sake. "Oversatured with crappy battles, "endless battles," "a never ending game of wack a mole," "too many battles," "going battle after battle after meaningless battle just gets boring," "even spectacular victories feel meaningless," "aimless battles," etc. Definitely not on a lonely island avoiding some of the more pointless ones. That said, I generally enjoy the battles that I do fight in and think they are significant part of the appeal of M&B. But I don't know why you felt the need to put a percentage on your claims, especially when it is wildly inaccurate.

As an aside, it is absolutely hilarious that I've gone from being accused of mindlessly grinding battles for their own sake to this, lol.

Remember, your claim was "factional balance" was better. You're focusing only on troop trees and ignoring what I said about the other factors than troop trees that make Sturgia weak. Their troop tree isn't as bad as Khergits, but there's not a huge difference as it's still one of the weakest in Bannerlord. Melee cav are, as we all know, a much less useful option in Bannerlord relative to ranged cav or ranged inf, so having the second best is nothing to really write home about, is it?

I'm ignoring what you said about the other factors like geography hurting them because it is wrong. Sturgia's weakness was fixed, around eight months ago, without changing the faction's geography or climate or village count or anything else. And yes, I was an original proponent of Sturgian geographic disadvantage but I was wrong, flat out. The faction performs fine being covered in trees and shaped like a tube. It surprised me too.

And Sturgia has jav cav, the effective cav type. Horse Raiders used to be better before getting a lance, but that came packaged with other changes to make Sturgians troops (overall) better, so the faction as a whole didn't lose out on too much. The Horse Raiders work really well, if a bit micro-heavy. Sure, Sturgians have a bad troop tree if you restrict yourself to their infantry and archers but in Bannerlord you don't have to.

It isn't a weak faction and hasn't been for eight months at this point.

So Apocal is a soulless minmaxer who skips foreplay roleplay entirely and he's not having enough fun. It's a mystery why.

Bruh, I'm not the one who isn't having fun with Bannerlord (that's five bucks). Also, I don't minmax (that's Ananda), but I do like RPing in RPGs. I just don't consider M&B to be an RPG when the lords' dialogue and reactions are derived almost exclusively from personality templates, while their motivations are basically non-existent.

 

[five bucks]

(Unless you define optimal as things like "buy food for your army."

Changing the argument. Carrying enough food at all times for an army to starve out a siege in case you need to =/= just "buying (any) food for your army".

Also have to say describing looter fights as "fun" is a bit off the beaten track of forum consensus though.

I didn't actually say that. I said using autoresolve against looters and not caring if your troops die from stupid autocalc isn't the way most people would play, most of us get attached to our higher-tier units.

Me: "You can starve out settlements in Bannerlord."
You: "Not really."
Me: "Yes, really. Here's where I show how."
You: "Well, most people won't do it, so it barely counts."

Not how that went. I didn't say you can't do it, I said it's not a common option, and I also said in that first post that it's just "sitting and waiting to skip siege gameplay", so I was implying since the very start that it's not something most people would find desirable.

Most players complain about battles for their own sake. "Oversatured with crappy battles, "endless battles," "a never ending game of wack a mole," "too many battles," "going battle after battle after meaningless battle just gets boring," "even spectacular victories feel meaningless," "aimless battles," etc. Definitely not on a lonely island avoiding some of the more pointless ones.

Only one of those quoted posts could be construed as saying your stance- that they would skip a battle if it merely didn't directly support a strategic goal.
What the rest are all saying is that (A) the pace of battles makes it too hard to also pursue their strategic goals, or (B) battles need more roleplaying factors around them (keywords: "build-up,", "intrigue", "context as part of greater events",) to make them feel more meaningful, or (C) it hurts their roleplaying (the guy talking about permadeath). A doesn't preclude my argument because it doesn't mean they don't enjoy battles to the point they would skip them if they served no strategic purpose, and B/C supports my argument that most players value RP.

In fact, the second post is literally saying what I'm saying. "The campaign is a mix of battles, strategy and rpg all in one (and all sides should be equally represented)". That sounds exactly like my statement that people are after "33% roleplaying, 33% larger goals, 33% battles."

I'm ignoring what you said about the other factors like geography hurting them

You're also ignoring what I'm saying about Khergits not being as weak as you claim.

Sturgia's weakness was fixed, around eight months ago, without changing the faction's geography or climate or village count or anything else. And yes, I was an original proponent of Sturgian geographic disadvantage but I was wrong, flat out. The faction performs fine being covered in trees and shaped like a tube. It surprised me too.

Snowballing was fixed, but that's partly thanks to factions being very willing to end a war they're actually winning so they can receive sweet tribute, or even pay tribute to the loser to make the war go away. Sturgia itself is still a weak faction, and the AI doesn't exploit that, but when the player gets involved-- and your original complaint about Khergits was that it was easy pickings for the player- the widely and thinly distributed territory cut in pieces by impassable terrain and exposed to multiple enemies, underwhelming troop tree, and weak cultural bonuses are things the player can exploit.
Ultimately, both Bannerlord and Warband have faction balance issues, you're downplaying Sturgia's weakness and exaggerating Khergits' but they are pretty much similar in the level of challenge for the player. And the troop type balance is better by virtue of three types of troop having really good options, instead of just two types of troop.

And Sturgia has jav cav, the effective cav type. The Horse Raiders work really well, if a bit micro-heavy. Sure, Sturgians have a bad troop tree if you restrict yourself to their infantry and archers but in Bannerlord you don't have to.

But the AI doesn't micro jav cav and make them hold fire until at a distance where they will be effective and not miss their javs, only the player does. The AI also doesn't take into account which troops are actually good in battle when building armies.