Recent content by burh321

Duh_TaleWorlds said:

When part of a kingdom, the player does not actually own the settlement after a conquest - it is distributed in a kingdom decision (that takes into account who conquered it, but also evaluates the distribution of fiefs in the kingdom as well as relationships between lords). Once you are given a fief in a kingdom, you do have the option to relinquish it to be distributed to someone else or to grant it to one of your vassals if you are a king.

Having said that, I am happy to bring up the suggestion to not take control of a settlement after a siege. It would only really make sense as a player (roleplay/4d chess) option imo, though. Devastated or not, settlements are the best value in the game. Not to mention that the investment to siege it will often hardly be worth it, if it isn't kept.

Click to expand...

I definitely think there should be an option to just destroy everything, take the gold and then just leave it. Maybe it could work similairly to some of the total war games where you either can occupy it which gives less money but makes them like you more. Or sack and pillage it to just take all the money, or destroy everything to make it as useless as possible to the enemies. For that to work tho, pillaging and devastating actually needs to be good. Pillaging the town should give way more money. As for devastating the town, i only really see this being useful if you are planning on leaving it to your enemies. Then you can devastate the town to decrease its productivity and the amount of money it makes. I could also see devastate to be a good option if you wanted to spread your culture to the town, if stuff like that were possible. Overall i just think it would make it more strategic and immersive. The more choices you can make the better IMO

Short_n_quick said:

In real life scenarios, troops ran away much more often than they do in BL. Here 80% of them gets slaughtered, while remaining 20% tries to fight for a while, then dies trying to run away. Historical battles usally had usually much less casualties, while rest just ran away as the formation broke. To be fair, the armor mostly gave some protection, so the death rate was much lower.

Nobles on the battlefield are commanding units and should be fighting if necessary. The case of BL nobles storming first to battle is weird to me, but I guess this is the life now. In real life the richest nobles were often worse fighters than poor ones, so I am not so sure if fact that the nobles are in fight actually translates to "he is better warrior".

Click to expand...

Yes but i was talking from a balance perspective. Killing the lord early on in the battle results in the units fighting worse and fleeing more easily, making all the battles MUCH easier for the player and your allies. Because the human player can defend themselves infinitely better than any ai lord, you will always have an advantage there. I dont really care if rich nobles were worse fighters than poor ones in real life, because in bannerlord there is a system that is implemented to make more experienced people better than less experienced people. My point is, there is already a system in place that makes higher level units, lords and companions better in every way except survivability. Higher level equals more damage, higher attack speed and alot more. So there obviously is an idea here that more experienced people are more skilled and superior in combat than unexperienced people. If they were going for realism here that just wouldnt be in the game. There is also a vague idea there to increase survivability because of the perks that give 2 hp and 5 hp. Which is literally nothing when i can go around cutting people for 70 hp per swing. It would be balanced if those perks gave like 20 hp. I just think that it makes alot of sense that higher level means that you not only can dish out harder and faster attacks, but also withstand more attacks.

Short_n_quick said:

I guess that your point about easiness of lords being slain is a fair one, but I don't think that them being a noble justifies any survivability boost, beside armor granted one, which is the current state of game. After all, they are not much more buffed than average soldier that fights for 5 years non-stop. They are just average dudes with some power to command.

Click to expand...

I get that and i also like that about the game. I just think that because lords play a part in how well units fight and how easily they flee they should have more survivability just for balance purposes because as i said, currently its just super easy to just snipe the lord. It should be more of a challenge/reward type thing imo.

And i do like the concept that if you are a noble you have more money and can afford more armor and more survivability, but then theres the problem that i dont think armor does a good enough job of that. It does its part, but i also think that any soldier, noble or not, that has fought for 5 years non stop should be way more experienced and therefore more competent in battle. So imo, higher level should = more HP to better represent them dodging hits and blocking more hits than the basic recruits with no experience. If we were thinking logically, wouldnt also higher athletics and higher speed mean that you were harder to hit in battle?

mexxico said:

Yes, game needs alliances. This was obvious and most of us come to this conclusion at diplomacy developments thread.

I offered alliances idea to armagan too. It is “partly accepted” but we will talk about details at October. I offered when there is an alliance 2+ allied factions should be able to make a siege to a fortification together or they should join battles on map when allied kingdom party is attacked or they can defend allied settlements or they can get more open slots at settlements of allied kingdom + we should find negative side effect(s).

This feature will probably increase battle variety on game which will result in better gameplay experience and it will be slow down snowballing (if nobody make alliance with most powerful factions) which again results in better and more balanced gameplay experience.

Imo biggest problem of alliances feature will be “what will be its negative effect?” What will stop factions making alliances all the time? There should be a cost or some other negative effect. Otherwise making alliances will be always logical. One possible solution is there can be a cost which both allied factions pay and it can be more expensive when factions are stronger. There can be more side effects.

Click to expand...

I think there are alot of negative effects that could be implemented. Simply make it so that if a faction is being defeated, make them seek outside help. Simple as that. Then maybe make it so that if a huge faction makes alot of alliances it has a negative effect on that leaders reputation. Like the world sees him as a coward or whatever. And clans in that kingdom is ashamed of being ruled by him, and maybe betrays him or plots against the him. Bad reputation could also maybe make the rest of the world want to attack them and make alliances with the remaining factions, which in turn could make it into a 2v2, which would be cool. And maybe also make it so that if you decide to break an alliance and attack that faction make you get worse reputation (deceitful, dishonorable), and people with opposite traits dislike you. Clans in your faction dislike you and maybe start to plot against you and makes demands. Honorable leaders wont make alliances with you out of fear of being betrayed, so its harder to make alliances the more you break alliances, which could result in the world teaming up against you. Another suggestion could be to make certain clans in a kingdom hold grudges against clans in another kingdom. And so if you decide to ally with a kingdom certain clans in your kingdom are going to be extremely displeased to be forced to fight together with people they despise.

I think empire should be the mainstream faction thats just good overall. Good infantry, good archers, good cavalry. Reason being that they are in the middle of the map and should be surrounded by enemies with different strengths so their army have been adapted to be able to deal with everyone. Also 4 different factions share empire units, and so they can be recruited in a huge part of the map. So the "few in numbers" part doesnt really make sense (also romans did not have few soliders). Another thing people misunderstand is that sturgians actually dont have much resemblance to the norsemen at all. They are more on the rus/slavic side of things, which was different. The equipment sturgian lords have are basically copies of that of the rus, its like they googled "rus armor" or "slavic armor" and imported them into the game. So i dont really agree that the sturgians should be "brutal, weak armor, berserkers" because they didnt have weak armor, more of the opposite (same goes for the norsemen actually). So I think sturgia should take the role of being the heavy shield infantry faction. Have their infantry line/shield wall be their strongest point but make them susceptible to rear cavalry charges and have their mobility be their failing.

Empire: All rounder
Sturgia: Heavy infantry, throwing weapons. Bad mobility.
Battania: Archers, skirmishers. Basically trying to stay out of close combat
Vlandia: crossbowmen and heavy cavalry. Have their infantry units be lacking and rely on crossbowmen to wittle them down and cav doing cycle charges to help infantry.
Khuzait: Horsearchers. Bad at sieges and technology.
Azerai: Yeah camels, elephants and maybe other unique features

Askorti said:

It also doesnt mnake sense to recruit a peasant fresh off the fields and in the course of a week train and equip him as a top-notch fighter, while paying a tiny fraction of what youd normally pay for the equipment he gets. But it's a gameplay abstraction that we just accept.

Click to expand...

Yes, but speeding up the process of a unit leveling up, for gameplay reasons, is fine. Because it benefits the gameplay and makes the game more enjoyable. You know what else would make the game more enjoyable? If they maybe implemented a system where villages and towns not offers soldiers that are of that locations base culture, but rather have those villages and towns offer soldiers of the current culture. Or maybe make a building that can be built to change the culture in a certain location.

Askorti said:

Have ever even seen a cover of a history book, in a bookstore, across the street? Because what you say is so contrary to history I don't even know how to start...
Back in the day there was pretty much no such thing as nationality, only ethnic and cultural differences, but those in no way stood in the way of recruiting levies. Sure, the population of a different culture could be more reluctant to obey, but in the end, unless they could revolt, they would join whatever lord currently rules their area to war because that's their obligation. And if they don't fulfill that obligation, bad stuff happens.
A regular peasant wouldnt even know what "country" they fight in, they probably wouldnt necessarily even know who their lord is at present. All they needed to know is that a recruiter visited their village and its time to grab a spear and shield and go. (or pay some money to avoid going, if they can)

Also, there's the fact that it was a very common practice to recruit troops from particular regions and ethnicity for their specialties, like Balearic slingers and Cretan archers in the ancient times, and genoese crossbowmen in the middle ages. I mean, the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine emperors was composed solely of Norse, and later Norman warriors.

Click to expand...

I dont think thats his point. As i understood it, it doesnt make sense if a vlandian army recruits battanian recruits, and then those battanian recruits level up to become battanian units. They would pick up vlandian gear and go on to fight as vlandians. It doesnt make sense that an army would have their men dress up looking identical to their enemy. If vlandia then went on to conquer the whole world. it doesnt make sense that only a small portion of their armies look like actual vlandians. Because as they conquer new land they would spread their culture to the land and convert the people to their way of life.