Recent content by Dodgy

JunKeteer said:

@Jehiel is accurate on that reference, there's a reason why Kenshi (and partly Rimworld) have been common references with Bannerlord.

Click to expand...

And what is that reason if I may ask? They look like completely different games to me Kenshi and Bannerlord.

I wonder who's going to fork out money for their next game after the way the current one has been handled...

cptRogue445 said:

At least they could publish an article or an interview about what they are planning.

Click to expand...

They published this:
In may 2022. Yep, almost 2 years ago.
The extent of their (announced) future plans is basically the claimant quests, coming "soon" ©

Tulga9076 said:

Days

Click to expand...

Sure, between 365 and 999 seems like a reasonable guess.

While the things suggested by Zorion are all good tips to "game the system", the real answer to the OP is: you don't.

You either do as told if you are a vassal or you just overrule your vassals if you are king, in both cases what you need is a lot of influence, which is obviously easy enough to save up once you get to the mid/late game, but that's another matter.

The game could be so much more interesting if actual politics had a real impact on the voting outcomes, which more often than not make absolutely no sense whatsoever both for policies and for war/peace decisions (or assigning fiefs, although in this case the real issue is having to pick between only 3 arbitrary options).

snuggans said:

disagree there, there's already enough babysitting of your own faction involving army maneuvering that i don't want to also feel like i have to first build 3 levels of fairgrounds before i think it's safe to hand over the town to another clan. rebellion for the sake of breaking monotony or to flex that a mechanic exists are not good reasons, they should happen as often as it takes for someone to mess up. maybe some of your suggestions could be implemented or they could require the clan to be in town to manage it, but the AI should definitely be reacting to these things, maybe not as smartly as the player but still be somewhat self-sufficient

Click to expand...

My point wasn't rebellions for the sake of it, but meaningful ways to cause rebellions that aren't a simple "do festival/playground and you are fine, don't and rebellions will happen".
But if the current system isn't overhauled (I only gave some vague ideas, I am not a game designer or developer, but there would certainly be ways to improve things), coding the AI to do the same as the player would only lead to rebellions never happening at all.

So in my opinion they either need to overhaul the system, or rather than tweaking the AI to exploit the system like a human does (to never incur in rebellions), they should add a timer that doesn't allow the same town to rebel more than once every XX years no matter how many times it changes hands or not after it has happened once (and no matter whether it had been successful or not).

It would make sense, especially later in the game when you see bandit parties of 100+ men strong. But then again, it's never going to happen at this stage of development...
I still remember many years ago way before EA when being a "criminal" rather than the useless alley we ended up getting, used to make me dream of making contacts with bandits and perhaps bribe them into attacking a specific lord's villages to damage them financially.
But just like the total lack of politics, it's never going to happen unfortunately, maybe in a DLC a few years down the line.

They are throwable for a reason, to be thrown when needed.
The only reason a unit shouldn't throw the last throwable they are holding (aside from being already engaged in melee at that point) is if they have no other melee weapon equipped or if such weapon performs worse that the throwable used as a melee weapon, in which case the problem is that unit design and its equipment.

snuggans said:

2 observations:

- sometimes a few of the defender siege engines on the campaign map are invisible

- the AI needs to respond better to low loyalty in a fief especially if its a foreign culture, i'm pretty sure they just continue constructing random buildings like workshops. instead they should do what the player does which is to stop all construction, turn on Festival & Games project until loyalty gets to a middle point, then build fairgrounds until loyalty gets low again, turn back on Festival & Games, and so on


anyways keep up the good work, i think the game is approaching a level of polish that could be considered a full release

Click to expand...

The problem with that is: if the AI starts to do the same as the player RE: loyalty, we would never ever see a rebellion aside from when it's actually the player that forgets/doesn't have time to visit a town to change it back to festivals, whereas the AI that I assume can operate without even visiting the town in the first place, would never find itself in such a situation.

The system is flawed and barebones, like many other parts of the game (workshops/caravans/alleys).
You fix the AI, you basically remove a feature/break something else.

They should rework it in such a way where, for example, festival and games actually cost money and poor clans wouldn't be able to afford it, leading eventually to rebellions, or find another way to make it harder to keep up the loyalty. Because loyalty is an issue for Towns only, that's still unlikely to happen since the clans owning towns tend to be the richest anyway but I guess that the player can wear them out by beating them repeatedily.

In any case rebellions in general should happen more often, not less, in my opinion.
I would actually link them more to how often and how badly they got raided/plundered/changed hands, and expect them to be happier thanks to a long period of not being besieged rather than just wanting to be owned by a same culture faction. If that faction is so hopeless that it constantly allows them to be besieged/raided/conquered, it should change how much they value the culture aspect.
Plus, sometimes rebellions keep happening over and over as soon as the faction regains the fief, but surely a squashed rebellion would make peasants think twice before doing it again. There should definitely be a waaaay longer timer forcing the fief not to rebel (if things stay as they are, meaning the AI not doing anything to increase the loyalty).

Rather than fixing it for the AI it should be harder for the player to keep all their fiefs under control...
But again I certainly don't expect big changes on that front at this stage, although given the fact that we are still (in theory) waiting for the claimants and other stuff with the next updates, who knows, maybe they will improve this side of the game rather than just adding the claimant quests on top and calling it a day.

Given the development trend so far since EA, I'd be surprised if the whole system was revamped but we'll see.

Rosenberg91 said:

At this point they could maybe make a gofundme campaign to hire more and better coders because at this point (actually already a year ago) it was obvious that development has completely stalled. Maybe a "Save Taleworlds" campaign where people can donate would help so they can afford to hire again, although their website shows a pretty large dev team but that might have been from before Covid

Click to expand...

I think that most of their staff is working on their next project (or at least I seem to remember reading about it), so I am not sure it's a matter of funds, more like they have already gotten as much money as they were going to from bannerlords and they are more than happy with the current "speed" of development unlike us.

Here's the estimate: 1.2.0 beta was released in june 2023, we are in feb 2024 and they are still patching the bugs from the previous patch.

Even with the penalties to all lords, it doesn't matter, executing everyone in sight is the best way to reduce (it's still a massive, massive grind given the insane amount of extra young lords/ladies that will become adult as years go by) the tedium if you aim to conquer the whole map.

It doesn't matter both because it trivialize the difficulty in achieving it and because having such severe penalties with everyone doesn't have any real impact on the gameplay at all. Plus if you need at some point to raise the relationships all you need to do is fight the lord/lady and release them instead of making them your prisoners. Takes maybe 4 times or so to go back from -100 to 0.

If anything there should be a system that should give you an acceptable reason for executing someone, like having raided your fiefs multiple times by looting/killing the population in simplistic terms. If there was anything else to do in the game during peace times there could have been more reasons (such as adultery for example).

Otherwise being able to execute freely like this, feels like having an easy mode cheat code since once you get to a certain stage of the game, I never lose a battle anyway (by fighting only the battles I know I'll win until I become so powerful that nothing is a match anymore).

Edit: I had missed kweassa's post, basically what he said. That's the only way executions would make sense.
The only other one that is currently "justified" by default is the execution of rebels, and the AI does execute them indeed, although I wonder why we still get (as a player) penalties for executing them when the AI doesn't. Probably wouldn't matter either way, but in this case the player shouldn't lose any at least for rebels.

Edit 2: I am adding something that I have noticed while playing myself: if you have your own faction and you execute lords from a different faction, you'll still lose relations with your own lords, but only if they are neutral or honorable. If you have in your ranks a devious lord, they don't seem to care whether you execute the whole calradia.
Not that it seems to matter anyway, it doesn't seem like lords in my own faction that have a -100 relationship with me can actually defect, or at least it hasn't happen in my game where I went on from a couple of fiefs to owning the whole calradia.

It would be awesome as a DLC. But seeing how slow the development of a patch is, it's difficult to imagine seeing a DLC before years if that.

It still happens to me, at least with my own clan's parties. I think it depends on where you create the party, if it's close to enemy territory / far from your own fief, they seem to just wait forever at the same village until they have recruited at least 50 men.

When you are at peace / create the party in your own territory, this normally doesn't seem to happen or more rarely at least.

Have you taken a look at this by any chance?
Cause I can confirm that after becoming a noble clan (rebellion successful) the player (me) doesn't get the option to try and recruit them, but the AI eventually will.
Shouldn't the player also have the option? I think I have read somewhere that you apparently can if the rebel's clan are fiefless, which doesn't make any sense since I have witnessed the AI recruiting them no problem and annexing the town they were holding in the process.
This seems to apply only to the player basically.