Gelimer的最近内容

Folcwald 说:

I know the meta is archers but I've found that the crossbowmen are actually quite good at defending sieges.

点击展开...

Elite crossbows like Vlandian sharpshooters are actually at least equal and generally superior than archers except maybe for one archer unit, the Battanian fians ( due to them being more dangerous in melee and having decent armor).

There is a guy who made some 500vs500 videos and kinda proved this ( crossbows one shot archers so reloading slower is compensated, they also got a slightly better range and are decent in melee ) by pitting 500 crossbows against 500 Aserai master archers:

The listed features would be amazing, all of them are really great ideas and features. I really hope even half of those will be in the game in the future.

In this video at 6 minutes 10 seconds they show you the whistling type and fire arrowheads used by the Mongols :



Forward to 6 minutes 10 seconds.

I agree that it is likely that it could have been only effective against materials ( tents, urban markets ) and very dry thin wooden structures.

It was probably more used as a fear weapon ( like whistling arrows or regular max range volleys ) than something that was super effective because there arent many accounts of fire arrows being used in history.

I am not for or against this being in the game as long as it is implemented in a credible way, like for instance giving a morale debuff but not as accurate or powerful than regular piercing arrows. Could make them tactically useful for flanking so that you break their morale quicker.

Because i dont think they would make castles or towers or gates burn during the sieges, would probably be too much work. I d rather them work on ships if they need to add something new but that is just my opinion.

Indeed because in large battles sometimes if i give an order to "advance" F1-F4, once they get into range and throw javelins, if i dont tell them to attack shortly after, they show their backs to the enemy and i can lose over 30+ men because my timing was not so good.

Whereas with my strongest individual setup ( heavy on armored horse with best bow and arrows and a polearm) , i will usually kill between 5 and 30 guys max on average in a single battle.

But there are other situations where if you give the order too late you can lose 20 or 30 guys more than if you give the order at the right time like with cavalry charges ( need to disengage them) or when your cav is engaged by other cav or when your archers are attacked by enemy cav and you need to order your polearm troops defending your archers to engage the cavalry quickly.

Because when you are too busy fighting ( especially in 1st person view ) you kinda lose track of everything that is happening around you and the enemy movements so you end up killing many guys but you lose more by not giving orders at the right time.

That is why i just like to carry fun or weird setups by mid game because i am bored of the usual shield + axe or bow+polearm gameplay and I dont fight much during the battles if at all at some point, i mostly fight in tournaments.

Throwing knives and a beautiful sharp dagger I crafted for myself and a large round shield on my back

Cause after you reach tier 4 clan and muster 500+ men and fight in massive battles , your individual performance does not matter at all, but giving the appropriate orders with the right timing has a clear influence on the result.

So i like to be as light as possible ( but still using shield in case and for sieges ) and focus on giving orders and reposition myself to have the best view of the battle ( in 1st person it is important).

But early game, my favourite setup is to be on foot, it is the most immersive and fun for me. But you cannot lead cavalry personally and circle around to confuse their ranged back lines, so it is clearly much weaker.

This said the strongest I was is when I carry a polearm as a horse archer. Javelins are great too when you craft some uber versions of them and use the speed of the horse to throw even faster. Very satisfying kills.

Yes I would agree with replacing one cav unit with a ranged unit like slingers or archers would make sense for Battania.

Slingers and chariots would be a cool addition but that is more work.

HalfMetalJacket 说:

Its those scouts and horsemen that just fill up too much of Battania. I'd rather they introduced an alternative noble line of Battania cavalry, added some common archers in and give us an army with more archery.

点击展开...

Would be cool if they introduced chariots
British Celts used them if i remember well.

It could work you are right but it is already functional when two factions are at war with the same one, they fight as allies on the battlefield already.

IMO what would really be ground breaking aside from autocalculations taking terrain and weather into account ) is if we can vote for targets.

Meaning if you are at war, we could have a vote like we have for fiefs ownership or policies, but this vote would be : What is our next target ?

This would allow the player to have more control on the war ( if he has enough influence) and for instance allow you to help your ally or allies not only with your own parties, but with your faction.

I have to agree with Hruza on the point of alliances currently since we only have 6-7 factions and usually 2 of them are nearly gone by mid game.

However the intention of this idea is very good : how to allow smaller factions to survive larger ones because as we know, currently the faction with the most manpower wins everytime.

A possible solution to that apart from changing the criteria that trigger the AI to declare war ( because currently they attack only the weaker faction and even if this faction is very far from their territory which is not "logical" ) would be to add one more multiplier to battle auto calculations.

This modifier would take into account the geography/terrain and the climate/weather.

Suddenly the game would be far more interestig because suddenly this nice strategic map we have with all these different terrains and details will actually make sense and reflect ( within reason) the kind of battle we get from a tactical point of view.

This means that as opppsed to currently where it almost does not matter where you decide to attack, if autocalc take terrain and weather into account, the game becomes much more interesting, realistic and immersive ( the issue would be to "teach" the AI how to use these advantages like mountain passes , bridges and chokepoints)

I am fond of this idea also because it would allow smaller factions with a more elite army but less men, to win locally or resist to larger factions which would be also much more realistic because in history, numbers were not always decisive but better terrain was often a very serious advantage.

But yes first they would need to change AI priorities like Hruza said, so that AI factions dont only gang up on weaker factions than them but can also declare on larger ones if it makes sense of course ( like if they actually have a border because otherwise it would also not be credible, if smaller factions systematically declare on distant factions because they recently exceeded a certain number of troops).

bulbous_fripp 说:

Amen!!! Others have tested this extensively in custom battles.

In any case, on the scale of a campaign, the items to be balanced are 1) auto resolve bonuses/maluses 2) geography 3) diplomacy (which seems a lot healthier in 1.4.2).

点击展开...

I totally agree with you, especially the first two.

The one thing that I would really like is the first two points you mentioned because if implemented, they will allow smaller factions to sometimes survive or locally dominate a larger faction.

Because currently when there is a war between two AI factions, the one with the most men ALWAYS win... I want the game to be more "complex"in that regard ( will be more interesting)

But with what you said : Auto calculation taking terrain into account and weather, this is crucial IMO.

For instance if one army is defending a mountain pass or a strategic bridge, then some bonuses should be applied for the defending side.

I also think for instance in sieges or swampy terrain, cavalry should not retain its auto calc advantage like on a flat plain or open field battle.

The point will be to make the game balance less relying on brute force of manpower but to make tactics and strategies have more of an influence.

It would affect Sturgia because their resistance to cold bonus and the geography of their territory ( chokepoints) would make it easier to defend for them.

Bannerman Man 说:

Ok, so just to keep some things straight:

• Npcs have a mandatory 2 day cooldown after they escape or get ransomed before they can do anything. They sit in their castle/town hall during this time. Escape chances are determined by the percentages found in the screenshot here.
• After the 2 days is up they spawn with 10% of their party capacity filled (and an absolute max of 19 troops). These troops have an average tier of ~3.
• To get troops they pull from their garrisons and buy troops from notables and taverns. They pay the same price as the player for these troops. They do not spawn any additional troops after the initial 10%, and there is nothing else giving them free troops otherwise. It usually takes npcs 5-7 days to recruit up to party limit, but this can be a bit shorter or a lot longer depending on the state of their kingdom. Their parties will obviously still be majority tier 1 at this point.
• Npcs respawn with only a few horses initially, but will buy and sell horses from settlements just like the player. They generally don't keep many horses on them, and as a result, are usually quite a bit slower than the player party (Khuzait being the exception). They don't use horses for upgrades, but aside from Khuzait they don't amass cavalry troops that quickly anyway. The silver lining to that is that horses are more easily obtainable for the player (as you don't need to compete for horses with the npcs).
• Npcs have the ability to recruit troops from allied notables as if they were on 'very easy' setting. This is because their initial relations with notables are not set yet. Once they are set this cheat will be removed according to a dev.
• They have an 'aggressiveness' score that is determined by their Valor and Mercy traits. I don't entirely know how that factors into their behavior though. Caravans and Villager parties have 0 aggressiveness if that tells you anything. The variable is used extensively in the behavior functions of the MobileParty class.
• Npcs pay the same price for wages as the player, but stop paying wages to retain enough gold to buy food when their gold is too low. The unpaid wages create a morale debuff instead (same as the player), but currently it looks like the morale system has some issues that prevents it from generally going low enough to cause desertion. This is true for the player and his clan parties/garrisons as well.
• Npcs pay the same price for troop upgrades as the player.
• Npcs obtain money in the same way that the player does. While players get 25% of their fief's prosperity as tax, npcs get 30%. They get their battle loot turned directly into gold, and get a good market price for the conversion (50% full value). They get tariffs from trade with their settlements at the same rate as the player. They also get money from ransoming troops/lords. They don't get workshops or caravans however. Here is a (likely outdated) breakdown of npc income by type.
• Each troop of an npc gets passive xp equal to (5 + Troop Level) per day. This means a recruit gets 11 xp a day and will take (279/11) = 25.4 days to upgrade. A tier 2 unit will take 29.6 days to upgrade. Tier 3 will take 34.2 days. Tier 4 will take 39 days. Tier 5 will take 43.8 days. So, for a stack of troops to go from tier 1 to tier 4 passively it takes 89 days, which is over a year game time. They obviously also get xp from battles like the player. The amount of passive xp they get might be lowered in a future patch (and become leadership based instead) according to this post here.
• Factions start the game with a total party capacity in the range of 1500-2000 troops. This means that destroying a single army likely only represents 30-50% of their total forces in a given moment, which is why you often see multiple armies while beseiging a settlement for a prolonged period of time (they are mostly different lords). This total capacity only grows as the game goes on (except for losing factions with a lot of defections). Hiring mercenary companies will add a few hundred more troop capacity per company.

My experience with the game is not entirely the same as what some other people are reporting, but I won't bother going into detail about it.

(Sorry for the huge block of text; I wish there was a way to at least add line spaces after each bullet point)

点击展开...

Thank you for taking the time to post all the details behind the mechanic, it is interesting and i was not aware of this, i thought it was much more simplified than this for the AI.

So yes basically the game is EA so for the mean time until more advanced mechanics and diplomacy feature will be added, the devs tried to balance snowballing which is a good intention.

Well, to be fair AI generals still come back with many recruits after a defeat but perhaps what they could do to make winning decisive battles more meaningful is to slightly increase the cooldown or their ability to come back from far in the player's territory to attack him just a few days after their 1000+men army full of cav and elite units was destroyed by the player who is still healing his wounded from that battle.

I think this is a problem since the last update. It makes winning or losing battles almost pointless since they come back with almost the same army a few days later and makes wars on multiple fronts in hardest difficulty even more of a slow grind.

The AI should not have any recruitment bonus over the player, they can already recruit considerably faster and dont seem to ever go broke whatever they do.

I hope they come back to the previous system where winning decisive battles actually matters and actually gives an advantage. Winning an attrition war is about depleting their best troops normally ( aside from depleting their finances which doesnt seem to work when i tried it ).

I think it is a problem especially for smaller factions who managed to win an early major victory against a larger one because as it is , it is just a matter of who has more men and this is not right which is by the way why i am hoping for more chokepoint maps and autocalc to take terrain into consideration ).

There are two categories of players... Hardcore gamers and casuals.

The view is usually a sign of what separates them because it indicates what they expect from the game.

As much Immersion and realism for first person users regardless of difficulty and time required to master it .

Then as muh cheap arcade fun for casuals or semi casuals who want instant gratification and rewards, immediate fun without any hinderance or frustration.

Some people will put forward any excuse to not persevere and get good at something ( because of course they must be good immediately otherwise the game is broken for them ).

This being said yes the first person is not perfect in bannerlord ( just like in kingdom come vs multiple opponents) and that is what makes the charm of it, it needs practice and dedication to achieve good SA and good level, welcome to hard work and training.

froggyluv 说:

Dont think they're adding Naval but it would be beyond sweet with this upgraded graphical engine would be a sin to never add it. I would expect it in DLC at some point.

Ambush scenes would be great -the game sorely needs that sort of strategy encounter.

点击展开...

Thanks for the reply!

Yes wouldnt it be amazing with ships? They already have the ports on the campaign map.

What they need to add is income from the port and trade routes.

For the ships, it would just be one tree with 3 different ship types, first one would be a trade ship ( would work like a caravan ) , second one transport ship and third one could be a"war" ship that you buy empty and with a fixed amount of room ( so you can mix the troops you want in it apart from the rowers).

They could adapt it by culture like Sturgia would have some kind of viking style vessel which is manoeuverable and fast for their size, Empire could have some scorpion/ballista or corvus mounted, Aserai could have a ramming vessels type with archer towers etc .

Naval would not be large scale, just to allow more diversity because the player who would be able to afford an expensive boat could work as mercenary blocking ports, raiding villages of the enemy on the other side of the coast by disembarking warriors and attacking shipping and defending your own from pirates (sea raiders) and enemy ships.

The maps would be quite simple cause it would be 95% sea... then the ship boarding mechanics can work like siege towers when they attach to walls.

I would really love to see this eventually, I cannot wait as it would really make this game more interesting.

For ambushes i was thinking a system where you can place your army in ambush mode in a suitable location like a forest for instance. Then if the enemy runs into your area of control, it would initiate a battle where you can place your troops on the battlefield before the battle and the enemy starts with his troops in marching mode in the middle of the map and with a slight morale penalty ( similar to total war basically).


I think it would not be hard to implement because we have a skill already that ( when it will work ) lets you place your troops before the battle.

Also as it is now, since armies are never surprised or ambushed and there are no real choke points on the map that provide an advantage to the defender both in terms of the battlemap and autocalculation , it means that generally speaking between AI factions, the faction with the most men always win... but with ambushes and chokepoints like mountain passes, large bridge battle, narrow river crossings among others, it would allow the underdog to put up more of a fight by using the geography and autocalculation of battles that takes the terrain into account.

Yes I meant a massive bridge map because we see many of them on the campaign map and sometimes I block a bridge to prevent caravans from feeding enemy cities or to intercept an army then wish we had the bridge map when i fight a battle at this location.

Tactically it would give the possibility to block these strategic choke points and it is nice when the battle map reflects where you are on the campaign map ( more or less of course but bridges are kinda specific )