Recent content by Emax

  1. Trait modifier indication on dialogue options

    The trait system is currently a real mystery... the player really has no idea which choices are affecting which traits, or if they are even effecting them at all. I have seen traits increase after completing certain quests and in certain ways, so I know that our actions affect the traits. For...
  2. Remove the feature that half the army cheers when enemy flees or make it configurable

    The only troops that stop and cheer are the ones on foot. Melee fighters arent going to catch up with fleeing troops anyway, its just how the game is. Nor will ranged beyond a few shots. Its going to look even sillier to see your infantry jogging behind the fleeing soldiers benny hill style. If you put it into perspective you might appreciate why the cheering is there.

    The only troop type that can catch a fleeing troop is on horseback... and those are already unaffected by by the cheering. As long as you issue a charge command before the battle is counted as over they will continue to chase down any fleeing enemies until they are dead or reach the red zone.
  3. Lock for garrison troops

    After loading up my city with elite troops in the garrison, I split off my companions to wage some war and the first thing they did was head to the city to grab all those elite garrison troops, with a simpsons-style "yoink:. So please, lets have a "lock" option for garrisons so that no one...
  4. Why don't my family members fight in tournaments any more?

    As per title. My wife doesn't fight in tournaments any more when shes in the main party. If in another army or hanging out in the town she will though. It used to be that all of your companions and family members would join tournaments all the time if they were in the main party.
  5. AI lords must execute each other

    Yea its bad that all the noble death is centered around the player character.

    Enter some big fights, people die. Just stay out of war and let everyone else fight it out... they all go on to old age.
  6. African Inspired Faction

    I made my actual arguments in two paragraphs right above that. You’re free to respond.
    Your 'arguments' are more like undisciplined and disjointed thoughts running in a myriad of directions without correctly addressing the points you are allegedly countering.

    You have yet to explain how tasking the developers with the job of adding an entire new continent for the sake of an entire new faction that nobody needs and very few want is a good use of time and resources, let alone worthy of a discussion.

    What's next? Will we need to include a native american faction so they can get proper representation? How about aborigines? Those poor guys can never get a break. Can't remember the last time I got to play as a powerful aborigine hero in a medieval video game setting.

    It's really just easier to point out that you kids are idiots than try to explain anything to you or to get you to use your brains at all.
  7. African Inspired Faction

    Your crusade to derail this thread is becoming boring I have to admit.



    How old are you my friend ?

    You're not my friend. I tend to keep smarter company.

    I’ve also been respectful with my points, and you’re resorting to namecalling. Speaks volumes to your intelligence.

    Edit: SOku makes another good point. If your arguments are just calling people SJW and that we go to a dumb liberal college, then maybe it isn’t best to derail this thread for that.

    Translation: "Waaaaa! Waaaaaa! We don't have actual arguments so we are going to CLAIM that he is being meany pants!!! That always worked in college!"

    It's easy to pick out the liberals in any room. They're always the first one crying "I'm offended"
  8. African Inspired Faction

    Oooh clever, you tried to frame your 'point' the same way I did, except you failed at it.

    GG beta boy.

    Also, what in the actual hell are you talking about? Extending the map a bit to the south and adding a whole new continent are quite a different matter. Maybe geography wasn't your best subject in school, coming in right after english.
  9. African Inspired Faction

    Also, the point of this thread isn't wanting some political representation, it is just that African culture during this time period hasn't really gotten anything in terms of video games.
    Do you review anything you write before you hit the post button? Adding something for no other reason than its not being represented anywhere else is the exact definition of political representation.
    It wouldn't be political if someone were asking for the Nords to be added in, so it isn't political when someone is asking for an African-inspired nation to be added.
    Nordic tribes exist in this game in the form of the Sturgians. Even if you want to split hairs and say that they are not really nords and we need a faction that is plainly named nords, the geography is already right there and it makes sense in the context of the game.

    Adding a whole new continent is not the same as having another race of nordic people in the snowy part of the map. Your comparison is pretty dumb.

    Think before you type. This isnt your liberal college classroom where you can spew whatever sounds nice and people wont hold you to task. Some of us are actually thinking adults and fed up with all the SJW crap.

    Based? Based on what?
    I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that maybe english is your second language, or that you are new to the internet...


    Adjective​

    based (comparative more) based, superlative most based)

    1. (slang, of a person) Not caring what others think about one's personality, style, or behavior; focused on maintaining individuality.

    • (Internet slang, originally 4chan) Praiseworthy and admirable, often through exhibiting independence and security.
      OP is based as ****
      Based and red pilled

      Antonyms: cringe, unbased
  10. African Inspired Faction

    This discussion is stupid pants. Like all the other SJW crybaby posts around here that call for more inclusion and diversity, which blemish what should be a gloriously based game.

    Let's shut everyone up with a pretty simple bit of research you can all do yourselves. Ready?

    Load up the game. Look at the map.

    WHERE are you going to fit your "african based" faction? Going to squeeze them in with the Aserai? You want a whole new continent added, even further away from the core imperial lands? All for a faction, that quite frankly, few people are going to be interested in playing as?

    I really think some of you have no idea just how much work goes into the core systems of a game like this, let alone what an undertaking it would be to add an entire new faction to satisfy your ideals of representing every color of the rainbow in every piece of media you happen to come across.
  11. Lack of indicator for current stamina. (It's a bad experience to load the smithy just to find u have to wait more)

    this is much more elegant. cheering for this
    it would add another line to the options, making things less streamlined... thats the opposite of elegant

    Ive never found it difficult to count seconds, but if you really need some indicator a simple "your creative talents are fully rested" message in the lower left would suffice.
  12. Just nerf ranged damage by 30%

    OK, at this point you are just trolling or completely ignorant.

    Peasants didn't hunt. They worked fields. Hunting was typically a noble privilege. And hunting bows were useless against padded jack and up. Archeological findings show that most non-nobility people in the middle ages were fairly unhealthy by modern standards, due to nutrient-poor diets. Protein-poor diets do not help in growing muscle.

    Bows were replaced by crossbow in states which states which had the economic power to do so, precisely because they were not as good.

    The average medieval archer was just not very effective against amored enemies. Hence why armored cavalry ruled the battlefields for centuries.
    ROFL. Love it when an ignoramus thinks hes the smartest guy in the room!

    Only large game like deer and elk were a noble privilege. Small game like rabbits, squirrels, forest fowl, foxes, wolves, badgers and hares were free for anyone. They also ate beef and mutton, as well as fish. While there was a spectrum of conditions depending on location and social status, generally speaking, the concept that non-nobility in the middle ages were weak and malnourished from eating slop is nothing more than fantasy perpetuated by movies. In reality, most medieval peasants had a healthier diet than the average mcdonalds guzzling slave does today.

    You are wildly incorrect on your other two points as well but I am just going to stop here. Im not getting paid to teach you anything and I have other things to do at the moment.

    And also....




    Git gud
  13. Just nerf ranged damage by 30%

    1- I always play at max difficulty.
    2- There is not any difficulty settings for making my archers more OP at killing units from distance. I can reduce enemy damage but there is not setting for increasing my units damage or for making the enemy to receive more damage from my archers. I mean, my ranged units feeling pretty damn OP has not anything to do with difficulty settings.

    So yes, please read before posting. People here are complaining because ranged units make this game feels too easy, even if we are playing with hardest settings.

    Dude, if ranged units are making the game too easy for you, then play an all melee army. I've done it (sturgian no less). Git gud already

    But utilizing the most powerful tactic in the setting then complaining that it makes things too easy is way too shortsighted to be calling for nerfs.

    If mount and blade players wanted some wacky fantasy environment where they have to nerf ranged damage in order to compensate for melees range deficit, then they wouldnt be mount and blade players. They would play wow or any number of korean published medieval mmo clones.

    Bows aren't guns. That's the whole point. The reason why firearms replaced bow. Shooting a strong war bow is almost like doing 1-handed pull ups, few people could do it, people got tired going this very quickly. And the reason people wore armor was that it protected you against enemy attacks, including arrows.
    lolwut? Few people could do it? Looks like you don't know anything about history.

    EVERYBODY did it. The bow was a peasants weapon. Used for hunting and warfare, and practiced constantly. Archeological findings show that their upper bodies were extremely developed as a result.

    Just because YOU cant do a pull up does not mean that the average medieval archer couldnt work a bow to great effect.
  14. Just nerf ranged damage by 30%

    I am complaining about how easy the game is if I recruit tons of archers. I can beat most of lords without getting casualties and it is pretty easy to defeat infinite lords in a row. I find archers and crossbowmen OP because the AI is not able to do anything against me spamming ranged units. Can you please explain me why should I git gud? It makes no sense.

    On the other hand, if you want to talk about realism, let’s talk about a realistic rate of fire for archers and crossbowmen, and then compare with rate of fire for troops in game. Let’s talk too about armor protection and how much unrealistic are arrows in Bannerlord concerning damage.

    Anyway, I am really curious about how should I get gud for making my archers less OP against the AI.
    Stop playing on easy settings then.

    Git gud
  15. Just nerf ranged damage by 30%

    This thread is for complaining about how range units make the player too strong against the AI. So I suppose that the AI is the one who should “Get gud” to avoid getting easily wrecked by the player.
    Wrong. This thread is basically the meme of "Drive me closer, I want to hit them with my sword!"

    Ranged beats melee in open warfare. It's just how it is. Git gud.

    A soldier running while wearing 30-50 pounds of armor charging straight in an archers direction is going to be an easy target. Fatigue, heat exhaustion, and time wasted stepping over fallen comrades will also hamper the effectiveness of a guy with a sword trying to get into range. All the while, the archers have time to pump off arrow after arrow without their opponent attacking back. Also, I can't imagine those who did make it to the archer line with a chest full of arrows being particularly effective at swinging their weapon.

    Horses, being unarmored, have a juicy and vulnerable underside which archers were able to exploit in battle. If you counter this by armoring the lower part of your horse youre left with a horse that cant effectively gallop. Again, the guy with a ranged weapon wins when the battle begins from afar.

    The only valid point I have seen in this silly thread is that armor does need to be more effective in protecting the troops wearing it. But thats really its own discussion.

    If the battle starts from 10 feet away the guy with heavy armor and a sword has the advantage over an archer. But on an open battlefield from 200 meters away, ranged beats melee every time. As they say, dont bring a knife to a gun fight.

    As they also say, git gud
Top Bottom