• The forum has been updated. For an explanation of some of the changes, head over here.

Recent content by D0c1

  1. cavalry units wages shouldn't be the same as foot units

    cavalry gets a 20% bonus in simulated battles, they give a speed bonus on the overworld map, the AI doesn't need to have a horse to upgrade into them AND their wages are the same as foot units of equal level. they're too OP. at the very least, their wages need to be increased as mounted units...
  2. I have been banned for two months

    you need to tag one of the community managers (callum, marda taleworlds or duh_talewolrds) to know the reason of your ban. they ban manually so it's unlikely to be unfair.
    most common reason is team killing.
  3. The 'Consolization' of Mount and Blade and Bannerlord

    Can't be arsed to dig up the quotes right now, but the official response to the scrapped settlement feature was exactly that that it was "too complicated the program"
    but he's saying that they said that features that already existed in warband is too complex now.
    we never had village building in warband.
    Can we still build castles in villages we own?
    We had to drop that feature. At some point in development, fief management became too complex, with towns, castles and villages each having their own specific management screens. The ability to build castles in villages also gave rise to complex rules. For example, demolishing the castle in a village could potentially revert the village to another kingdom and we had to add complex logic to handle that. Overall, we felt that the design had become too bloated and unappealing.

    i hate this change but they didn't change it specifically because of consoles. they did it because they think people are dumb. they're right in their thought but they should have added tooltips or auto-builder/management to villages instead of scraping the feature.
  4. The 'Consolization' of Mount and Blade and Bannerlord

    What I do have a very large problem with is that we are hearing that features which were present in Viking Conquest and Warband are now ' too complicated to implement'.
    this is a serious issue. can you link me the source, please?
  5. Is it unreal to lvl up like most of the noble NPC ?

    Those nobles have had the best possible educations for 20 years.

    You on the other hand are the orphaned child of sheep herders or town guards.

    In this respect, I think the disparity of traits is reasonable. You're a late bloomer. I find that after 10 years in game my list of traits starts to match and even in many cases surpass the NPC character traits.

    Any desire to have easier trait gain, or lower noble capabilities is pure communism and that's 1000 years ahead in game time.
    i would be ok with this if your children can have stats as other lords.
    nowz i haven't tested child education myself, but i doubt that this is the case.
  6. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    ppl are never happy with what they have.....only thing i kinda dislike in the game, is the fact everytime we go to a ally town/castle our companions dump the troops on it, making impossible to get them back.other then that game is amazing...

    it worked in 1.5.6
    i haven't tried 1.5.7 yet.
  7. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    It isn't the loot or the fiefs that's the problem. The problem is armies aren't an expense, they're a limitless supply of money.
    and they're limitless supply of money because battle loot gives too much gold.
    This game doesn't account for the time and money it takes to supply the army with equipment, food, horse feed, lodging, and the economic impact of a country losing the majority of its work force....
    m&b doesn't really take into account equipment. it's part of the troop upgrade cost and it's too little.
    horse feed should be simulated by making mounted units more expensive as warband did, but they're not for some reason...
    you do have to buy food for your troops.
    as for the economic impact, i believe that the troops in m&b are the "household troops" of lords. not levied (coscripted) troops. so they're full time soldiers.
    and armies in bannerlord are just a bunch of lords and their personal troops banding together to achieve greater things.
    and they carry their stuff on horses or pack animals. i wouldn't mind massively reducing carrying capacity for soldiers to make pack animals a must.
    If you put a monetary cost on raising and keeping an army in the field, it would allow small defensive kingdoms to bank money while they aren't at war.
    how will they bank money if their income is only 66% from fiefs? they won't be able to support higher tier troops for war.
    but like dabbos said, economics of weak vs strong kingdoms should be examined to make sure that weak kingdoms have the 66% figure as well.

    i don't mind making battles expensive. because they should be. but battle loot is what making them profitable.
    maybe loot from villages and town sieges should be buffed significantly to compensate lowering battle loot.
    fief income should be buffed too. if not for anything, just to make sense of holding lands.
  8. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    Increasing fief income does not help factions lost territories or player who build his kingdom new it helps kingdoms with lots of fiefs.
    maybe it can prevent the start of snowballing because they have more or less the same amount of towns.
    and when one is taken, the loyalty mauls will prevent the new faction from making full use of the town taxes (maybe tax cuts due to loyalty can increase?). giving an opportunity for the original faction to get it back?
    the player can always game the system. or ransoms can be increased so they would mean something.
    also, the player can snipe a weak fief for his kingdom and sustain himself on its incomes.
    taxes were the main source of income in warband and it worked fine.
  9. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    Yeah but they escape with how many men?
    most of their troops. ~75%.
    Will these mean that there is never deciding battle?
    sieges will be the most important and kind of deciding because the garrison can't rout.
    it can be done so when a lord dies or gets captures, his troops become deserters/bandits or there can be a chance for them to join a garrison if a friendly fief is nearby. so there will be a chance for a faction to lose much power in a single battle.
    When defeated defender would respawn with free troops and could mount counterattack
    currently, lords get ~20-25% of their party filled for free (or do they get 20-25 troops? can't remember which). the rest they have to go about and recruit like the player.
    if they retained most of their troops, it'd be better for them than the free troops.
  10. Suggestion for avoiding defeated armies getting completely WIPED

    yes. battles should revolve around morale mainly.

    routed troops that fled with their lord can stay as a party. troops that got their lord knocked out or dead should have a chance of transforming into deserters and a chance to join the garrison (and wait for a member of that clan to take them into their party. a feature of leaving troops in friendly settlements was shwon years ago) if a friendly settlement is nearby.

    defeated armies getting dissolved makes sense too i agree.

    but why would removing disorganized state from fleeing parties be op?
  11. On Rebellions

    i think i ran into a bug. i was sieging a town and it only listed the garrison at the top bar in the wolrdmap siege screen.

    but in the actual fighting scene, the militia was with the garrison. it listed them as two parties (does it normally do this?).

    so i think militia in low loyalty towns still join the fight.

    haven't tested this because idk how to reproduce it.
  12. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    Thanks mate.

    @mexxico I think I have detected something really weird with Khuzaits. I have added tons of elite Cataphracs in AI lords party templates, and removed the Khuzaits cultural bonus, but for some weird reason Khuzait parties are still faster. Please check this:

    (Khuzait party speed was 5.6 and now 5.5 after removing Khuzaits cultural bonus)

    Save game (I was using cheats to teletransport so all parties should be the same in thew save game):

    photo 1
    14 cav
    32 horse archers
    46 total horse troops
    113 total troops
    0.407*100%=40.7% horse troops

    second photo
    30 cavalry
    7 horse archers
    37 horse troops
    130 total troops
    0.284*100%=28.4% horse troops
  13. Castles value

    Castles should do at least some of the following:
    Reduce the wages of the garrisons in them by default.
    Train the troops inside them much faster.
    Allow you to recruit noble troops from them.
    Automatically recruit troops to fill the garrison from the surrounding villages.
    Automatically send out troops to defend nearby villages from raids or aid nearby armies in battle.
    Send out small patrols to wipe out any bandits.
    Serve as a hideout for smaller armies and parties fleeing from bigger ones.

    As they are right now they don't have any value at all, as most of their value comes from villages that the AI can easily raid no matter how amazingly upgraded and staffed your castle is.
    those are good suggestions. please post them in the suggestions section. it seems devs do go through them.
  14. What will sally out mission battles be like? (edited, they are planned)

    Hey @Dejan do you guys have any plans to develop mission scenes for sally out battles at fiefs? got any details on sally out missions?

    Right now we just get a normal battle map, but it would be really cool if we got a mix of a castle/battle map where the attackers are surrounded and defenders of the castles/towns actually sally out like they do when attackers are retreating during a siege mission. I imagine this as a fight before the actual siege mission occurs, so it wouldn't need to have actual siege AI, if the defenders lose they should just retreat back into the castle to end the mission, then return back to the typical siege campaign screen to either prepare longer or start the actual siege.

    Considering the design choice to not have AI lords enter castles to defend, all we every get for actual castle defenses in AI armies is battles. If the design choice is final that's fine but the result is rarely getting to defend sieges (although when it does happen it is epic). I'd prefer just siege defensives but given the design choice I feel like mission scenes of the sally outs are necessary to give us any feeling of actually defending castles.

    Community do you guys think this is necessary or are the current battle fights for sally outs ok with you?

    Edited: As @scarface52 points out they are planned
    please add to your post and ask about a special scene for when an army comes to relieve the besieged.
    getting caught beneath the walls should be super deadly.
    one is basically caught between a hammer and an anvil.
    the auto calculation for AI battles should reflect this.
    also, the scene should depict this.

    it should be a continuation of the siege scene. just the besiegers are sandwiched between the walls and the relieving army.
    the garrison should start sallying out when you attack.
Top Bottom