Disappointing progress.

[Ogagon]

If it's autocalc that's the issue, I might have a terrible idea of calculating it, that is a bit harder to implement, and heavier.

Measure each troop type against each other, and have them duke it out, so Archers vs Archers fight each other, Infantry vs Infantry fight each other, Horse Archers vs Archers/Horse Archers.
The side that doesn't have any remaining troops of X category gets to hit other category of units, so my Archers beat the enemy's Archers, and they start hitting enemy's Infantry units now.
The troops damage modifiers in auto calc should also implement rock-paper-scisccors mechanic with archers > infantry > cavalry > archers.
Something like that.

But only for auto calc, because having this go for every single battle would be a death sentence to your PC.
Also, I don't think this is something new here, as I'm pretty certain other games use a similar auto calc method. For example CK2 has a really good auto calc method that takes into account almost all relevant factors, save for the fact that it has a morale mechanism that does make it harder to reproduce Canae, but it does mean that a well thought out retinue with commanders that fit the terrain, and unit types can win out against the odds.

 

[Orion]

I personally only blame Orion for not having a good taste for dope memes.

Just have the looters surrender if engaged with a moderately leveled player party and gradually despawn every single last group of looters off the map once the player hits Clan Tier 3.

Bandits and looters should definitely surrender more often when engaged with parties at least 1.5x their size with at least half of those troops being tier 3 or above. They have a narrative reason to exist (opportunists trying to make a buck in war time, which is unfortunately all the time in Calradia) and can still be useful to the player regardless of clan tier if they're trying to train up a fresh batch of troops in a hurry. The two oddities of looters are their large party size potential and insane willingness to fight to the death. Both should be relatively easy fixes that leave them in the game for the whole campaign, with a niche, while making them less of a nuisance later.

 

[Rungsted93]

I think at this point it's rather obvious what happened: Bannerlord development was going absolutely nowhere and they decided to just deliver the minimum viable product they could get away with and move on to something else. It's just sad because this game could've been so much more but I guess for newcomers it's a pretty decent game.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

They sure do. But a double envelopment doesn't mean every troop is defending from multiple attackers. In Bannerlord the troops (as a whole) do attrition exchange while being outflanked just fine.

Here's a video.

Formations don't do anything and tthe morale effects are far too weak to matter. That makes it impossible to replicate Cannae, except in the sense that Cannae was an annihilation battle. But annihilation battles are standard in Bannerlord so...

Agreed and armour is pitiful. If they fixed it, it would be possible to replicate. As it stands though, you can somewhat replicate it, but by the use of horse. If you time it right, it's possible for both your cav and infantry to hit the enemy line at the same time from different directions and often it's an immediate rout. It rarely happens of course because your troops tend to charge in different directions.

I disagree annihilation battles are standard. It's currently more along the lines of attrition. Only the player is capable of annihilation. Which is why autocalc sucks.

That's because you keep muddling it. If your point is about AI vs. AI, then why do you give a damn what factors go into things? A player will never notice unless they go out of their way to stare at two AI parties/armies battling. The one serious negative effect (snowballing) was fixed. There's no reason to give a **** that autocalc looters occasionally kill an AI's high-tier troop, at all.

Because factors will change the outcome of snowballing in a proper way. The way it was addressed is incorrect. Giving more cavalry to everyone is not the optimal solution. Of course there's a reason to care if AI is losing troops unnecessarily. Butterfly effect and all that. Plus the devs approach is more cheating and by increasing the replenishment rate etc. which leads to why battles feel meaningless right now because 2 seconds after a fight, the same stack will come barreling your way. It's ridiculous.

If I'm muddling it up, it's because everything is connected and there are several root causes, one of which is autocalc. We need to address the cause instead of the symptoms.

If your problem is that they kill YOUR troops, then attack the problem at its source: why the hell does anyone feel the need to engage looters when they have tier 3+ troops at all?

Well for 1, there's no other way to clear looters and if you don't, it's unsightly and if left unchecked will cause starvation.

Why does the game even allow it? Just have the looters surrender if engaged with a moderately leveled player party and gradually despawn every single last group of looters off the map once the player hits Clan Tier 3.

A fine question! Why indeed? Or have manhunters deal with them.

"But how will I level my troops???"
By time you're a vassal, there should be ways (skills, fief, money, influence, relations, companions) that you can acquire a decent starter pack of troops, already leveled up, every single time you wipe and a sustainable flow of them to replace the losses you take while campaigning. It would eliminate the literally pointless grind of having to stroll obsessively around the map, stripping every village you come across of appropriate troop types, then finangling ways of pinning large groups of looters in place in order to level. It is only grind we'd be losing: nothing interesting will ever happen, there are no decisions to be made and it takes IRL time. Just give decent troops.

Then there would be absolutely ZERO reason to even have these ****ty looters after the very start of the game and we can stop seeing complaints made by people who feel the need to obsessively grind them to level up all 400+ of their T6 Fashion Plates before they feel comfortable doing anything else.

If your issue is that autocalc doesn't produce blowouts, then yeah, right there with you. It doesn't.

I don't level my troops on looters. So no argument there. I think there are enough ways to level troops now with the ability to sacrifice loot for xp.

My issue is autocalc is a lousy simulation of actual battle and since the majority of battles are between AI, it needs to be addressed properly.

Another example, there are now stacks led by nobles with poor tactics. I've seen meganhelda with troops before and as far as I'm aware, she's got 0 tactics. She should get utterly crushed by any other noble...but she's not.

 

[Apocal]

Also, I don't think this is something new here, as I'm pretty certain other games use a similar auto calc method. For example CK2 has a really good auto calc method that takes into account almost all relevant factors, save for the fact that it has a morale mechanism that does make it harder to reproduce Canae, but it does mean that a well thought out retinue with commanders that fit the terrain, and unit types can win out against the odds.

CK2's autocalc is the kind of factor-flooded slurry that -- in AI hands -- comes down to numbers winning almost every time. Obviously, players can manipulate the system a bit more via combat tactics and get a lot more mileage out of it but all those "relevant" factors get dwarfed if the right (or wrong) combat tactic fires or if one side has a serious numbers advantage.

(The exception being the times when the AI attacks across a river, into hills or mountains.)

I disagree annihilation battles are standard. It's currently more along the lines of attrition. Only the player is capable of annihilation. Which is why autocalc sucks.

Almost every single battle in Bannerlord ends with the losing party/army being wiped out. That's the definition of annihilation. It's an outcome, and not incompatible with attrition. It is also the reason for the high replenishment rates; without them (and this is easy to test for yourself by making notables spawn new troops slow as ****), the snowballing happens right from the go on the campaign map.

Because factors will change the outcome of snowballing in a proper way. The way it was addressed is incorrect. Giving more cavalry to everyone is not the optimal solution. Of course there's a reason to care if AI is losing troops unnecessarily. Butterfly effect and all that. Plus the devs approach is more cheating and by increasing the replenishment rate etc. which leads to why battles feel meaningless right now because 2 seconds after a fight, the same stack will come barreling your way. It's ridiculous.

If I'm muddling it up, it's because everything is connected and there are several root causes, one of which is autocalc. We need to address the cause instead of the symptoms.

Why is giving every faction more cav the incorrect solution? It solved the problem without breaking anything else.

The big battles happen often because TW wants them to happen often. It is the M&B experience after all. If you expect them to turn away from that, you're going to be disappointed because they've shown zero (0) interest in making large battles infrequent.

Although with the benefit of hindsight, the "problem" of snowballing being expanded from the original (like this) to players who wanted to **** off for twenty years of game time without having Sturgia disappear was probably a mistake and a waste of time.

 

[Doofus]

I could be wrong on this & if so, someone feel free to correct me. But...my understanding is the diplomacy mechanism which keeps track of how many units each side has killed is flawed as well. My understanding is it counts units wounded as lost for both sides. But if you win the battle, the units wounded heal up and are not lost.

So when it calcs whether the other kingdom should want peace when you are destroying them, it looks at it as a closer conflict than it is. So in a battle between 1k troops on each side; where you defeat the other side. It shows them losing 1k troops. OK, thats fine. But on your side, you have 150 troops left standing, so it credits the other army with defeating 850 of your troops. But 500 of those were only wounded. So they actually only killed 350 and the other 500 will recover and still be usable. It should be crediting the losing kingdom with only defeating the troops it actually killed. It credits them with 850 kills when it should only be 350 lost by you.

I know at one time it did this. I'm not sure whether thats been corrected, although I don't think so (not in game presently, so can't check this).

 

[Blood Gryphon]

I could be wrong on this & if so, someone feel free to correct me. But...my understanding is the diplomacy mechanism which keeps track of how many units each side has killed is flawed as well. My understanding is it counts units wounded as lost for both sides. But if you win the battle, the units wounded heal up and are not lost.

So when it calcs whether the other kingdom should want peace when you are destroying them, it looks at it as a closer conflict than it is. So in a battle between 1k troops on each side; where you defeat the other side. It shows them losing 1k troops. OK, thats fine. But on your side, you have 150 troops left standing, so it credits the other army with defeating 850 of your troops. But 500 of those were only wounded. So they actually only killed 350 and the other 500 will recover and still be usable. It should be crediting the losing kingdom with only defeating the troops it actually killed. It credits them with 850 kills when it should only be 350 lost by you.

I know at one time it did this. I'm not sure whether thats been corrected, although I don't think so (not in game presently, so can't check this).

I don't think they actually consider troops defeated when looking at whether to make peace or not, pretty sure its just based on current strength. I believe they just show you that number so that you have an idea of potential losses but the AI dont actually care. So you are probably right it is bugged but i don't believe it actually has an impact on anything.

 

[JunKeteer]

I could be wrong on this & if so, someone feel free to correct me. But...my understanding is the diplomacy mechanism which keeps track of how many units each side has killed is flawed as well. My understanding is it counts units wounded as lost for both sides. But if you win the battle, the units wounded heal up and are not lost.

So when it calcs whether the other kingdom should want peace when you are destroying them, it looks at it as a closer conflict than it is. So in a battle between 1k troops on each side; where you defeat the other side. It shows them losing 1k troops. OK, thats fine. But on your side, you have 150 troops left standing, so it credits the other army with defeating 850 of your troops. But 500 of those were only wounded. So they actually only killed 350 and the other 500 will recover and still be usable. It should be crediting the losing kingdom with only defeating the troops it actually killed. It credits them with 850 kills when it should only be 350 lost by you.

I know at one time it did this. I'm not sure whether thats been corrected, although I don't think so (not in game presently, so can't check this).

I do doubt they haven't considered this; many features lack any depth so something like this that was 'missed' is quite up there.
Besides straight casualty counts (as they replenish instantly too); add in a counter for armies defeated with that factor; like they have with raids/sieges/prisoners.
Would also RP with how certain the outcome of a large pitched battle could break a war.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

Almost every single battle in Bannerlord ends with the losing party/army being wiped out. That's the definition of annihilation. It's an outcome, and not incompatible with attrition.

Oh right. Fair enough. You quoted Cannae in the same breath so I assumed you meant annhillation without the attrition bit but yes, Bannerlords is 100% annihilation and attrition but only in autocalc. They should implement retreat better and or remnants breaking off to regroup which could either become deserters or returning to garrison. But TW went for the cheap decision - total annihilation and high replenishment.

It is also the reason for the high replenishment rates; without them (and this is easy to test for yourself by making notables spawn new troops slow as ****), the snowballing happens right from the go on the campaign map.

Ok. My preferred solution would be to make notables spawn new troops slower so as to make outcomes of battles more impactful. To slow snowballing, we need to do 3 things, first fix autocalc, second, make sieges harder and 3rd slow down replenishments. As I've mentioned before, it's quite ridiculous how easy it is to shoot an archer inside a shelter. Let's face it, the walls currently offer very little defensive bonus.

Who snowballs btw? Still the Kuzaits? Be interesting to know.

Why is giving every faction more cav the incorrect solution? It solved the problem without breaking anything else.

One, lore. Battanians aren't horse heavy. Neither are the Sturgians but here we are, everyone's the Kuzaits now because it's easier. Every army is practically the same Maybe we should just get rid them all and have more empire factions. Don't get me started on how the background story doesn't even seem to matter. Shouldn't the Banu Sarran and the Banu Qild be feuding? Btw, I might have just found another minor bug. Tariq has apparently swore vengeance against Tais (what does this actually mean though?) but the clan leader Adram has not. Anyhow, what does sworn vengeance mean? Banu Sarran cannot attack Banu Qild.

Two, because it didn't really solve the problem. That's why they need to up replenishment rate to such a high level and force winning factions to declare war on everyone else.

The big battles happen often because TW wants them to happen often. It is the M&B experience after all. If you expect them to turn away from that, you're going to be disappointed because they've shown zero (0) interest in making large battles infrequent.

Although with the benefit of hindsight, the "problem" of snowballing being expanded from the original (like this) to players who wanted to **** off for twenty years of game time without having Sturgia disappear was probably a mistake and a waste of time.

Nothing wrong with having big battles but the bigger the battle, the more meaningful it should be. Snowballing by itself should be an eventuality? Big tends to win small. The bigger you get, the easier it ought to be to unite Calradia.

The issue is not snowballing per se but how fast it happens. I recall in 1.0, Kuzait took all of Southern Empire even before I got my first fief.

 

[Apocal]

Ok. My preferred solution would be to make notables spawn new troops slower so as to make outcomes of battles more impactful. To slow snowballing, we need to do 3 things, first fix autocalc, second, make sieges harder and 3rd slow down replenishments. As I've mentioned before, it's quite ridiculous how easy it is to shoot an archer inside a shelter. Let's face it, the walls currently offer very little defensive bonus.

Who snowballs btw? Still the Kuzaits? Be interesting to know.

I'm right there with you on defensive walls not doing much because the AI doesn't understand how to use them.

And it was the Aserai/Khuzaits; back then there was a separate bug that made them more likely to be at peace, so everyone else would lose a bunch of troops fighting battles and sieging things, while Aserai/Khuzaits declared peace early then just grew and grew in strength until nothing could stop their armies with hundreds of tier 5/6 troops when they finally did declare war.

The current campaign AI doesn't understand how to manage a consumable resource that can only be replenished long-term. And even if it did, the result probably wouldn't be fun because turtling becomes a very strong strategy, which deprives players of game content for long periods.

Nothing wrong with having big battles but the bigger the battle, the more meaningful it should be. Snowballing by itself should be an eventuality? Big tends to win small. The bigger you get, the easier it ought to be to unite Calradia.

The issue is not snowballing per se but how fast it happens. I recall in 1.0, Kuzait took all of Southern Empire even before I got my first fief.

Well, they got snowballing under control out to ten in-game years way back in August 2020ish. People just wanted to push it out even further, to twenty years, which took another five or six months of testing and changes.

 

[RozBritanicus]

And it was the Aserai/Khuzaits; back then there was a separate bug that made them more likely to be at peace, so everyone else would lose a bunch of troops fighting battles and sieging things, while Aserai/Khuzaits declared peace early then just grew and grew in strength until nothing could stop their armies with hundreds of tier 5/6 troops when they finally did declare war.

The current campaign AI doesn't understand how to manage a consumable resource that can only be replenished long-term. And even if it did, the result probably wouldn't be fun because turtling becomes a very strong strategy, which deprives players of game content for long periods.

Well, they got snowballing under control out to ten in-game years way back in August 2020ish. People just wanted to push it out even further, to twenty years, which took another five or six months of testing and changes.

I my current campaign which spans 28 years the Southern Empire is the strongest on the map followed by Aserai then Battania then Khuzaits then Vhlandia the rest are dead. Sturgia was wiped real early . Weakest faction by a long way still.

 

[JunKeteer]

I my current campaign which spans 28 years the Southern Empire is the strongest on the map followed by Aserai then Battania then Khuzaits then Vhlandia the rest are dead. Sturgia was wiped real early . Weakest faction by a long way still.

Almost near identical to mine with about that same span of years. I don't mind the other two empires wiping out as that adds a bit of a 'narrative' to the playthrough but the rest is always consistently the same as previous patches to some degree.
And the terrain map is a significant factor for this that has not been addressed or ignored to 'balance' it better'; clean up some pathing, add roads in forests, remove dead end blockers, make towns accessible from more than one 'gate', river/lake crossings, etc...

A lot of kingdoms instantly sue for peace (multiple wars factor) I think in part because of the rebellion clans that have war dec'd and after a good couple years in certain playthroughs, a kingdom can be at war with 7 clans or so. Maybe they added those as part of the calculations for war/peace decisions whereas it should really only factor the major kingdoms.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

I'm right there with you on defensive walls not doing much because the AI doesn't understand how to use them.

Very good points. In that thread, someone else mentioned height advantages. That's a +1 from me too.

And it was the Aserai/Khuzaits; back then there was a separate bug that made them more likely to be at peace, so everyone else would lose a bunch of troops fighting battles and sieging things, while Aserai/Khuzaits declared peace early then just grew and grew in strength until nothing could stop their armies with hundreds of tier 5/6 troops when they finally did declare war.

It's always the Khuzaits. TW has a crush on mongols lol

The current campaign AI doesn't understand how to manage a consumable resource that can only be replenished long-term. And even if it did, the result probably wouldn't be fun because turtling becomes a very strong strategy, which deprives players of game content for long periods.

Turtling is a strong strategy. That's why castles were built? To hold strategic locations with a minimal amount of men until such time that it can be relieved by a field army. I don't think it deprives players of game content. There's still raiding plus search and destroy missions to do. On that note, I don't think raiding ought to have all the negative implications that the game currently confers. I mean, no one wants to have a red trait right? But why should we get a red trait from raiding enemy villages? That's how wars were conducted during that period - chevauchee. But let's face it, who actually raids in bannerlords? The rewards suck and the punishment harsh.

In Warband, I would raid at least once in the beginning just to get some decent gear but raiding in bannerlords is totally pointless.

Well, they got snowballing under control out to ten in-game years way back in August 2020ish. People just wanted to push it out even further, to twenty years, which took another five or six months of testing and changes.

Yea it was pushed out through "artificial" means. It's just another example of TW's conflicted vision. They want generations but also fast paced gameplay. Why bother having children when the world gets conquered before your child even turns into an adult?

Almost near identical to mine with about that same span of years. I don't mind the other two empires wiping out as that adds a bit of a 'narrative' to the playthrough but the rest is always consistently the same as previous patches to some degree.
And the terrain map is a significant factor for this that has not been addressed or ignored to 'balance' it better'; clean up some pathing, add roads in forests, remove dead end blockers, make towns accessible from more than one 'gate', river/lake crossings, etc...

A lot of kingdoms instantly sue for peace (multiple wars factor) I think in part because of the rebellion clans that have war dec'd and after a good couple years in certain playthroughs, a kingdom can be at war with 7 clans or so. Maybe they added those as part of the calculations for war/peace decisions whereas it should really only factor the major kingdoms.

Well, sturgia suffers from poor geography, worst strategic start and lousiest troops. So it's a given that it'll be destroyed. Tyal is way too isolated from the rest of Sturgia and at the speed sieges are currently conducted, it often falls before the reinforcements from Varcheg gets there.

Vlandia, Aserai and Khuzaits are blessed with better troops and better geography.

Having said that, in my current playthrough of 1.8 unmodded, the Khuzait homeland is nearly swallowed up by SE while Sturgia has fallen to Khuzaits. I wonder if it's because I've been harassing WE and Aserai?

I've also noticed that my faction has more restraint now and we automatically sue for peace to avoid multiple wars. That's quite an improvement.

Rebellions are occurring more often which, while fun, opens up a rather cheesy way of uniting Calradia, i.e. capture them without forming a Kingdom. If I recall correctly, as long as I don't form a Kingdom, the other Kingdoms can't declare war on me. That needs to be fixed.

 

[Ferisko]

raiding in bannerlords is totally pointless.

Raiding it's the best form of no paying tribute, it weights so much to tribute calculations and I don't care about red traits since they affect almost nothing.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

Raiding it's the best form of no paying tribute, it weights so much to tribute calculations and I don't care about red traits since they affect almost nothing.

Well yea..but RP.

 

[Apocal]

Turtling is a strong strategy. That's why castles were built? To hold strategic locations with a minimal amount of men until such time that it can be relieved by a field army. I don't think it deprives players of game content.

"Turtling" in this case would be avoiding any wars and even when forced into it, avoiding any battles.

That's what happens when manpower (or anything really) is an easily exhausted resource, especially when further conquest can only pay for itself over the long-term, while being crippling in the short-term. So in order to make that work, BL would need to get rid of battles where the loser loses everything and come up with a very different gameplay loop than the typical M&B.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

"Turtling" in this case would be avoiding any wars and even when forced into it, avoiding any battles.

That's what happens when manpower (or anything really) is an easily exhausted resource, especially when further conquest can only pay for itself over the long-term, while being crippling in the short-term. So in order to make that work, BL would need to get rid of battles where the loser loses everything and come up with a very different gameplay loop than the typical M&B.

Oh before I forget, here's another poor decision TW made to stop snowballing - mercs tend to flock towards losing side even when the loser can't afford to pay them. Shoddy.

Nothing wrong with avoiding wars and avoiding battles. Make raiding an integral part of war again!

And yes, BL needs to get rid of battles where the loser loses everything. Why aren't they fleeing?

 

[Flam]

Been playing this game from time to time from the date of release. When released, it was simply a piece of buggy trash-code not even worthy of downloading it from torrent trackers. Now it has many more fun aspects (props to devs) but the game core is flawed overall.
Poor economics - 1 day for repetitive buy&resell until u raise crafting skill to 125-150, then u simply craft and resell weapons and buy whatever u need instantly. This eliminates the sense of progression and kills all other money earning activities - why bother if one can simply click-click 10 swords and get 250k instantly? On the other hand, if you dont craft, you will always be poor, your workshops and caravans wont even be able to cover your party's wages.
Poor politics - no reason to render a wise and deep policy, no reason to join a kindom as merc, no stimulations, ranks, whatsoever. Just make tons of money with crafting, level ur clan to tier 4, raise ur mounted army to lvl 6 (all infantry in game = ****), track and grab 1 poorly protected town/castle>sign peace>pay little tribute>replenish ur army>repeat>reach level 6>grab 20 towns>finish folly's quest>instant win.
Poor AI - really poor in all aspects. Click all ur enemies to death or kite them with ur 100% mounted army. Formations are useless, tactics is useless. AI never cares about building up a good army, top lords and merc similarly use 1-3 tier units which continuously spawn in each village.
Stupid, repetitive quests. Nothing to comment on that.
Too much of copy and paste of literally everything. Why making such a big world if you cannot fill it with content? Two tracks of battle music, three types of hideouts, thousands of similar NPCs you will never remember, because these are just mouth-opening toons with no background.
No good storyline, you simply don't feel urself a part of this world.
And many other issues already mentioned in this topic.

Summary: this game is kinda a sandbox where a player tries hard to entertain himself, because the copy-paste dead world simply gives no feedback.
And yeah, patches wont fix it. Devs should make a big overhaul of everything (which will obviously never happen).

 

[RozBritanicus]

Been playing this game from time to time from the date of release. When released, it was simply a piece of buggy trash-code not even worthy of downloading it from torrent trackers. Now it has many more fun aspects (props to devs) but the game core is flawed overall.
Poor economics - 1 day for repetitive buy&resell until u raise crafting skill to 125-150, then u simply craft and resell weapons and buy whatever u need instantly. This eliminates the sense of progression and kills all other money earning activities - why bother if one can simply click-click 10 swords and get 250k instantly? On the other hand, if you dont craft, you will always be poor, your workshops and caravans wont even be able to cover your party's wages.
Poor politics - no reason to render a wise and deep policy, no reason to join a kindom as merc, no stimulations, ranks, whatsoever. Just make tons of money with crafting, level ur clan to tier 4, raise ur mounted army to lvl 6 (all infantry in game = ****), track and grab 1 poorly protected town/castle>sign peace>pay little tribute>replenish ur army>repeat>reach level 6>grab 20 towns>finish folly's quest>instant win.
Poor AI - really poor in all aspects. Click all ur enemies to death or kite them with ur 100% mounted army. Formations are useless, tactics is useless. AI never cares about building up a good army, top lords and merc similarly use 1-3 tier units which continuously spawn in each village.
Stupid, repetitive quests. Nothing to comment on that.
Too much of copy and paste of literally everything. Why making such a big world if you cannot fill it with content? Two tracks of battle music, three types of hideouts, thousands of similar NPCs you will never remember, because these are just mouth-opening toons with no background.
No good storyline, you simply don't feel urself a part of this world.
And many other issues already mentioned in this topic.

Summary: this game is kinda a sandbox where a player tries hard to entertain himself, because the copy-paste dead world simply gives no feedback.
And yeah, patches wont fix it. Devs should make a big overhaul of everything (which will obviously never happen).

Yes apart from battle and trade the rest is lack luster. Plus i hate the smithing i really do and have since they added it. I would have rather had master smiths you visit and have custom weapons made that cost lost of gold. The npc's are boring apart from looks they don't act good or bad, you don't think i don't want to lose to that lord he will torture me (lower states or give a scar ) or execute me. This as been my dislike for over 1 and half years the immersion is very low. when i watch youtubers its always about the numbers not about the npc's doing something ever npc's are looked at as numbers. Smithing needs removing too.

 

[Doofus]

Tbh, I've never tried smithing & don't plan to. I don't play the game for crafting.

Money can be an issue at times, but once you get up to where you control 2 or 3 towns usually money isn't an issue, particularly because of the regular, if not constant, wars. Any decent battle, between ransoms and selling stuff you can make 10k-20k, sometimes significantly more. I don't buy caravans because its too easy for them to be destroyed during war. I buy workshops, which don't come close to supporting anything, but if you buy them fairly early, the math makes them worth it over the long haul. If you get 100 per day, times 80(?) days in a year, in about 2.5 years you've made your money back and the rest is just gravy, so why not? Just don't buy them in a border town in your kingdom.

I don't use formations. I do use basic tactics, to a certain degree. If you can get the enemy to attack you, wait for them so the battle is where you spawn. It keeps your troops more tightly bunched and enhances your advantage in battle. In fairly close battles where I have to attack them, I will periodically draw my troops back to pull them together. When you get a dozen troops following one deserter on one side and another dozen following a deserter on the other side, plus 1/2 your troops still on their way to the battle from spawn, you can take a lot of losses.

I agree with the comment about horse troops, although I like the legionaires as well. I always try to have at least 1/2, & preferably 2/3rds, of my army be horse troops. I think rather than any low level troop having the potential to become a horse troop, they should make it so that randomly at a certain level (level 3? 4?) a troop gets maybe a 1/3rd chance to follow an advancement line to cavalry. 2/3rds of the troops would never have the opportunity to become cavalry, but you wouldn't know until they reach a higher level. It would force players to use more ground troops.

I agree the NPCs don't have much individuality or background and I generally don't remember the NPCs. The exception to this for me is the companions. They seem more individual to me. Some regularly do well in tournaments, some are good for quests, some look much nicer than others. As a guy I generally hire only women. The ones with bad hair I put a fur cap on & they look OK. Others look good without the cap. But the faces in general offer a decent amount of variety. Occasionally I'll give them armor thats 1 or 2 points below the max I have available just because it looks better on them. Lol. I suppose I'll put this here. For personal clothes I generally outfit the companions in short tunics (mini-skirts) and the female family members in envelope dresses, which I feel are the best pretty/classy look. I'll admit I feel a little sad when one dies.