Recent content by GeluHUN

There are 2 engines in the game. One is written in C# (.NET) and this is what mods can use and override/extend. There is another that handles the rendering and low level stuffs in the battle scenes (maybe written in C++ ?, but I have never really studied that, so this is just a guess).

Anyway, with a mod you can increase the battle size to whatever you want (in the .NET code) but the underlaying (low level/rendering) module crashes above 2k when it gets this number, suggesting that there is a hardcoded buffer/list with that maximum size, and if you give a bigger number, it overrides and corrupts memory - and crashes the whole game.

mexxico said:

For information, current situation is like this :

Spoiler: Graph

I will suggest mercenaries to get wanderers to their clan by time if casualties / deaths happen but I give it 25% chance to be accepted. Probably they can prefer new heroes to spawn instead of switching wanderers to minor factions. However this will not solve wanderer inflation. Minor factions to recruit wanderers with same culture is more immersive design.

Click to expand...

I support this suggestion! One more argument for it: the player uses this same mechanism, that is, to recruit from the wanderers for the clan, the game even uses this as one of the very first quests.

Thank you!

A) I agree that the AI should use (almost) the same rule as the player when upgrading to horse soldiers. A simplest way could be that every time an AI lord goes into any fief (village or town), and there are horses sold at a medium or cheap price, and they have the money, then they should buy those horses. This would make horses rare and the prices would be higher, but that can be balanced by spawning more horses at villages. Of course this way the AI should only upgrade to horse troops if it has the required horses to do so. Note: since Khuzaits have more horse villages then others, it still should make Khuzait lords be able to have more horse troops then others.

B) I also agree that troop upgrade should need more then just gold. It could be some form of generic armor & weapon set, which the player and the AI lords could buy in the towns. These "sets" could be produced in the smithies and tanneries, and could be divided into a few categories, for example the same as the current troop groups (footmen, archers, horse archers, cavalry, skirmisher, heavy footmen). This also would make smithies and tanneries (and the required raw goods for them), more viable and make this part of the economy a strategic goal in the game. This would also slow down troop upgrades and would make upgraded troops more valuable. Note: since the actual troop armor and the "sets" to upgrade them are not linked in any way, the actual troops and the upgrade sets and economy could be balanced independently in the game.

Dejan said:

This community suggestion was brought forward before but was rejected. I'll make sure to bring it up again.

Click to expand...

When bringing this up as a suggestion please separate the camera part from the command request, the later should be something like this: be able to designate a target for group orders, like charge, move to, face, etc. It's just my opinion, but the RTS camera part is really a bit out of the M&B II first person style game. However I feel an approval would have a bigger chance if asked separately.

mexxico said:

They will die also by time. So we need to create new wanderers. Actually this is also needed and another problem. If you continue game from your heir there will not be wanderers most will be past away.

Click to expand...

Has this been changed? I remember a game a few month ago where new wanderers came to the game a few years after the start.

mexxico said:

If side effects are solved this can be a good quality of life improvement imo but maybe they can say this feature does not suit well to our sandbox world or our game is not that kind of game you should open dialog with npcs from distance, I cannot know this

Click to expand...

Yes, the mods that created this feature are practically used as a way to cheat the game's first person mechanic.

However, one of the mods used "pigeons" as a carrier, and made it an offline message feature. Thus, with a new dialog option the player chooses a message (or statement or question) to be sent, sends a pigeon, the bird takes some time to reach the target, and then a yes/no or accept/denied message gets back via the bird after a few days. This was the solution that I liked the most and this was the solution that seemed to be the least exploitive and required the lest modification in the game.

mexxico said:

Here are ones I suggested at last one and 1 is rejected

Click to expand...

Thank you! To be honest the timeline feature is not realy a must have for the game, while also a perfect candidate for a mod.

mexxico said:

We carried some of your ideas to meeting and also we added some ideas. However sadly most are rejected. As a decision there will be only 2 implementations at this subject.

Click to expand...

First of all, thank you very much for your support and efforts in this matter!

Yes, in Warband you are a single person with phisical limitations, not a god governing every small ant from above the clouds. Thus you can only talk others by phisicaly aproaching them, (and when you are a king) you can form armies and pass laws.

The 3rd. denied featuer is a bit puzzling though, because advancing a priority target in a war is very much like passing a law, not directly controlling someone, so I (too?) don't understand why this decisions was made.

(To be honest I feel angry that those who have chosen this path are not here and explaning the reasons behind it - they may have another solution in the pipeline, or could have a very valid reasining we have not though of, but without any word I kind of feel neglected.)

mexxico said:

We do not give lots of free soldiers to AI, only about 10 free soldiers when they first spawn. It has nothing related to our problems. This is nothing big.

I am not fan of AI cheats and try to remove as much as possible but we have to give passive XP to NPC parties because player party and NPC parties so different in lots of terms. Player make more battles compared to an average lord party (average lord party life (time between spawned - prisoned) is less shorter than player party) and if we do not give passive XP as AI cheat 80% of troops at Npc parties be tier-1 or tier-2. This damages gameplay so badly, we have tons of troop variety but we cannot show them to player. With passive XP cheat this ratio (tier-1, tier-2 troop ratio) reduces to 50%. I want to reduce passive Xp more but I fear to damage gameplay especially at combat side.

Click to expand...

One huge difference for me compared to the AI is (and I'd guess for many players too) is that I care for my troops. I only ever do simulation battles if I'm 100% sure i'll suffer very few (if any at all!) casulties. All other battles are fight - and in fighintg I use shield wall and advance very slowly and use archers a lot - thus preserve troops and let them level up. Since AI can only use simulation they loose a lot of troops always.

So for now I guess AI cheat with passive XP is ok, because it "simulates" the player behaviour more (not the way, but the result). Maybe simulations could be made better? I think there were a lot of talks about that already?

sniparsexe said:

do it in full vanilla, sometimes really different mods can affect different things

Click to expand...

Yeah, now that I know how to do this, I'll try it that way too. Every day learn something new. (BTW mod is mine, so I very well know what it does. )

sniparsexe said:

yes, first go and open the cheats. Then press lalt and é. Then write these commands. it will take 2-3 hours

Click to expand...

Ah, ok. Thank you! I used my own mod with speed boost and put the game into the background for some time to play it's own.

sniparsexe said:

campaign.set_main_party_attackable 0

campaign.multiply_campaign_speed 10

campaign.move_time_forward 40320

Click to expand...

I must have missed something - what is this? Console commands?

Just for confirmation: if I speed up the time to 16th (instead of the default 4th) it won't effect testing, am I right? My own tests show this as ok, but maybe someone somewhere knows something different?

The lag is related to the memory leak bug introduced in 1.5.6. From the initial 1.5GB memory usage the game crawls up slowly to 3-4GB about half an hour of play.

The only side effect I saw about this is the slower save time and slower inventory open time. Just exiting to the main menu and reloading the game helps most of the time, though from time to time I used to restart the whole game.

mexxico said:

Yes 45 will be enough. In 1.5.6 do you feel snowball is a major gamebreaking problem still? 1.5.7 will be better than this so no need to spend more effort to make fully balanced game (this can be a must for some other games but it is not a must for M&B series). Also we need to implement other features too. So it will be enough for this problem. I think having a full balance is not that good for Bannelord too. Of course Khuzaits will be still powerfull but after 1.5.7 this problem can be only solved by giving them some negative culture bonus.

Click to expand...

Because of your analisys I have tweaked a bit 1.5.6 like this: 30% cavalary bonus only in GetCavalryRatioModifier and Khuzait battle strength is only 90% in GetBattleAdvantage (advantage*0.9). (I did not change anything else in 1.5.6.)

This practically put Khuzait on pair with others.

This is not a good solution, I know, just information to you.