Looters aren't recruited their criminals no one to equip them they are self-equipped with out a proper leader other than who's toughest. The looter even if a farmer and Recruit is a farmer. The recruit would get very basic training even if it was a day's training. They would be equipped.
The player isn't a proper leader either. We may as well just be another bandit at the start of the game. We aren't carrying around big stacks of shields to hand out to recruits.
From who?
We're talking about the ease of obtaining the top-tier troops in this regard, whether a player 'naturally' trends to have top-tier archers vs infantry (survivability basis) is not the point. Those can be tweaked, archer stats/armor can be tweaked, tier caps can be tweaked (that De Re Militari mod for example).
I'm not against upgrading quality of units, that's not the point of this. If you increase the quality of whatever units (top or bottom), have either their cost or time to obtain counterbalance accordingly. Just advocating to add shields to recruits or better armor for X troops as it is without adjusting the other systems won't work well without making the player stronger.
Again, you're missing the point. If you want your Elite Cataphracts to tank even more damage and also keep with how 'easy' they are to get, we have to make them more costly. If you want the EC to be tankier but don't want to pay more than the current model, they should take longer to obtain. If you want EC to stay cheap but also easy to obtain/replenish, they shouldn't be even more overpowered in armor.
No, I am not missing the point. These are just not really viable choices.
You are missing the point. I'm not dealing with the issues as their own isolated incidents.
If you make it take longer to get the higher tier troops as it's one isolated solution, yes, archers would predominantly survive more (in scenarios where player recruits equal amounts all the time and splits the upgrades equal all the time; and also not adjusting their battle tactics too). I'm saying, of the 3 'options' (time/money/quality) to improve a unit, pick 2 to improve/buff/keep; the remaining should counterbalance it.
I did not say to make them 'bad', if you/us want to make the top tier units/armor more effective than they currently are (relatively ok spot atm), either make them cost more or take longer to get. I'm not for making them steamroll even further than they currently are without adjusting the other aspects to counterbalance. You want OP troops, don't make them both cheap and also quick to replenish; just dumbing down the game's 'complexities' even further.
It would for experienced players - if they have a few garrisons, own/companion parties, caravans, etc...those minor % increments to the cost-efficacy of the units (be it in the upgrade cost, maintenance/upkeep cost, recruit cost, food consumption cost, morale cost, etc...) can make the difference of netting $5k denar after to maybe $2k. Or how much food variety you should keep for morale, or how many horses to upkeep or keep in inventory, etc...Maybe add a few more actual conscious decisions for them to 'balance' whether they should upgrade certain troops or not, or go for different builds TBD on that cost-efficacy and the route the player ended going or RPing. As it is currently, you can just upgrade all with no thought or no impact on your playstyle.
Again, don't look at those 3 aspects as individual issues without adjusting the rest, as they should all counter/balance with and against each other. Or you end up getting an inflated player power scaling; more so than it already is (and always will) for players.
So, you are mostly fine with the value of quality (I am fundamentally ok with it, as is; I would like a tier 6 infantry for christmas though).
The game doesn't cover this, but the player buys the recruits or other lords. There is no way a basic troop wouldn't have shields no way. Unless it was a peasant's hiring peasants. Then they would have basic farm tools but even then, some would knock up a crappy shield.
It's not as bad as it was, but that is still besides the point.
Not down to two options; but IF you consider it as such, yes, if the quality of the troops as they are now are fine (or even if one wants it even better), either make the unit cost more or take longer to replenish to counterbalance/reflect those adjustments.
Again, it's 'pick 2 options' among the 3; not an individual change in its isolation. But you're treating it in a very isolated manner - as if picking one option to change makes all other affected/tangential aspects immutable to change. Going back to OP with recruits+shields, IF TW was to give them shields (ie quality), either tone down their replenishment/upgrade rate (time) or make their cost reflect as such.
Yes, pretty fair to say money in this game gets way too easy to obtain and hold even for newish players. And you know one of the reasons why? There's not enough 'challenges' against the ease to accumulate said wealth. One of the reasons, imo, why the early/mid game is substantially better than late-game is because it was one of the challenges I had to play around/work with to get the wealth and upgrade (excluding tournament and smithing cheese); it also meant the losses were more impactful.
Money doesn't have to be the sole measure, but TW made it a huge element of how they balance/tie the game's systems, so any adjustment that is to be made to other elements must also pass that balancing filter; it's not something that can be just dismissed/ignored when considering adjusting other values/aspects.
But this is the problem. Every time you tweak one aspect there is a solid chance that you create a new imbalance. Case in point, you could slow down the general rate at which units gain xp, but that would change the balance between units, in this case highly likely in favor of ranged units; which as you say are hardly in a bad spot as is. Its just not that easy.
I am saying that the differences between what players, or different playstile, can accomplish financially is astronomical. You talk about workshops, caravans and fiefs; those are incomesources that I would personally consider completely irrelevant.
Exactly, which is what I've been saying, you tweak one aspect, you have to counterbalance it (whatever that new imbalance is that 'popped' up). Never said anything about it being easy, but they did have literally 2+ years of free/mass QA testing from us players to help weed those issues out (subjective as it can be sometimes - though most can see similar issues). IF it takes more XP to upgrade troops, and it results in even more archers (without splitting up XP calculation they have inherently from battles currently), nerf the quality of archers (whether that's their damage, aim, speed, or HTK due to other troops better armor).
What? That 'astronomical' difference is from what one does in game, workshops+caravans+fiefs+mercs(+tournaments/smithing) ARE relevant - why are you separating/isolating that financial aspect from the same issue you have with how easy it is to make money in game and how it relates to how one could build their party comp?
It very much is on a macro sense.
So, after those 2+ years; what makes you think that TW would suddenly succeed in striking just the right unit balance, after tweaking the xp calculation
Up till now, you have been able to do very well economically through fighting. Hence, why I say those things are of no relevance.
Source? This sounds like your headcanon you're using to justify why recruits "need" shields. Nowhere is it even hinted that the player is buying recruits from lords. What actually happens in the game is you go to a notable, they tell you about available recruits, and if the notable likes you enough, they'll tell you about more recruits available.
They aren't even a "troop" yet. They are a recruit, which means someone who is not even yet a soldier.
That's essentially what the player is. You can have a peasant background, start the game, walk into town and hire 10 recruits instantly.
Read the thread, previous posts here prove that idea wrong. Even the worst shield in Bannerlord would be quite difficult and time consuming to make and require tools that would be expensive for a peasant.
Recruits is generous- more like conscripted peasants without a fighting tradition. To be fair, very few militaries even bothered with such men because it took too much time and cost to train them, especially for offensive campaigns. Their only use was as a very weak garrison/police when most of the real fighters were busy.
Very interesting information and good context, thank you.
I don't, this is all just ranting into the void, as it has for the last 2+ years, TW does what they do.
Yes you could sustain through just battles besides those other factors, but that highlights the issue more as to why money is practically no value since there's no hindrance to obtaining it after a certain degree. Sure, can put up your hands and say it is what it is, might as well just remove money altogether from the game then since it's no relevance whatsoever. Same with influence currency, same with generations, same with smithing, same with tournaments, same with quests, same with outlaw playthrough, etc...
It will, yes, in essence, it's making the 'grind/effort' longer. If, say, just on money alone, cost of troop wages went up 5%, basically means will be 5% more grind by the player (5% 'slower' to get your gear, 5% slower to buy next workshop, 5% smaller roaming party 'strength', 5% slower to get to the late game, 5% slower to rule Calradia in 5 years, etc...). Again, don't treat the adjustment as an isolated change, it's not like they can't tweak the battle loot or trading too; there's just too much money in the game atm.
Yeah, but I just dont see grinding/a longer campaign as a goal in itself. To me, personally, Bannerlord is just not the kind of game where it really makes sense to have really long campaigns. You end up repeating the same actions too much.
No, but why are they so focused/waste resources making the game seem so? With the dynasties/death&aging, rebellion clan replenishing, cultural permanency, the war/peace 'balancing', castle/town 'management' (takes good couple days to upgrade), undying clans/factions, etc...making sure there's no snowballing 20+ years down the line. Sure, there's no 'endgame' really besides taking the umptieth town/castle.
Which is what the cost (not just money) can do, make the early part take longer to get past. Make it harder to accumulate wealth, make it feel impactful getting to the next clan tier, make the wage perks more meaningful to obtain, add some challenge vs being able to get a 50stack party in 2 months. Can agree that the Clan T1-3 is where the most fun is but that can all be done through within a year or two in game; T4 adds 'some' fun (ie own a castle/own kingdom) but after that few hours, it's just a grindfest.
I'm saying, by making it more challenging for the early-stages you 'delay' how easy/quick it is to get to the 'catch and release' grind. And as a by-product, make it actually challenging to maintain an army, party, top-tier troops, net money, take towns, etc...so one can't get to that phase so quickly as you can already. It's a boring grind because it's mind-numbingly easy and quick to get there as it is - if they make it actually hard to call armies and defeat parties and replenish troops and harder to steamroll ****ty AI lords, that repetitiveness is toned down or 'delayed' much further along.
To be honest, I thing they originally might have thought that it would be long. But you dont include all the balancing that they have done to speed up the campaign not the least speeding up the rate at which skills level.
When you put your focus on it it only takes you around 2 weeks or less, to get to the lordhunting stage. Its going to be difficult to stretch out the early game much, as long as the goal is to get an army. Thats why I think it will be better to fit in another partial goal, worth aiming for, instead.
