Recent content by Gremgoblin

Castanietzsche said:

So to sum up pila should be 1 ammo throwing weapon (so you could eventually wear 2 of them like roman legionnaries if yu want), should damage foes beyond their wooden shields, should drastically make a shield unusable if it didn't break, you should be able to use them as levers to lower shields and that's petty all right ?


Did I miss something else ?

Click to expand...

Seems like a lot of work for a single item item that, as far as I've been able to try, doesn't even have the ability to be thrown in SP at the moment, just to add some novelty to them, all of which only applies to the single faction that uses pila...?

Draco Wrath said:

Honestly shield hp needs to be nerfed a bit because you barely ever see shields broken. Even in multiplayer I think I've seen it happen one time. Axes are barely more effective. I don't think shields should become extremely weak but maybe up the damage that axes do so that picking an axe isn't mostly useless compared to say an arming sword.

Click to expand...

I've actually seen a lot of shields break in MP, but it is usually only when some guy jumps into the middle of an enemy group and they all start beating on him.

Askorti said:

"Who would live in Sturgia, in the cold, separated from the rest of the continent by a sea"... Do you even Scandinavia bruh? (I know they're technically Kievan Rus by the way)

Click to expand...

Even the Scandi's do not live in permanent winter, because the further north you go, the fewer people you find. OP seems to understand perfectly well that by modern standards there are plenty of permanent winter settlements, but his point is that historically this would not happen (often) and almost certainly never for large cities that are meant to represent important cities in the game.

Why the hell would some dude decide to build his settlement in the middle of bum**** nowhere in the middle of an open field with no river nearby and oceans surrounding him? The villages certainly don't give these towns a strategical edge/reason for being there.

Haha, even the "lore" of the battle of Pendraic keeps this in account;

Neretzes didn't send any archers with the vanguard, so when the falxmen came running out of the woods, they could descend upon the arrow riddled enemy. I think the problem is more than currently, archers even with 50 bow skill, can hit a target from really far away.

kalarhan said:

OP has 3 hideouts close to each other. Maybe they should fight too lol. Bandits wars. Who is the king of the forest?

or just add hideouts as a possible target for nobles parties. You (or any other clan leader) can send out quests for them. And the player could even order his companion commanders to do it. Or hire those mercenaries clans.

- patrol around my area
- clear out the bandits
- attack hideout in XXX
- defend this YYY

Companions should have the freedom to move around and do whatever them want, but from time to time they should also take orders. Just like you can order them into your army. You are the clan head and the one paying the wages

Click to expand...

Perhaps when a kingdom allows a bandit situation to get too out of hand, the game could check for x amount of bandits in an area. If x > threshold, taxes are reduced (why pay a nobleman taxes if he can't keep you safe?) and a single large army lead by a generated bandit ''king'' is spawned that can raid villages, too. The army should be slightly below the size and quality of a generic lord's army, so that it can't be killed by random parties but a single lord should be able to effectively get rid of him. Doing so will.. not sure. Diminish chances of bandits spawning in that area for a good long time, like an ingame year?

EDIT: I also wondered why I can't tell a lord ''there's a hideout in this location'' when I find one, and then he'll send some troops to deal with it in exchange for a very small sum (200-300 denars or so) for telling him.

Alenovic said:

BTW i was sarcastic with my comment.. because fighting against an shielded warrior IS INSANELY difficult, trying the cut his legs,, will result in you losing your head.. Trying to attack the shield will result in you losing your sword or creating holes in you own defence. trying to hit him with a spear over his head will make you lose your kidney by the counter attack, Remember that a shield is also a weapon, it doesn't necesarry attack, but it keeps you alive and creates openings for you to use

pulling a shield down is just unrealistic, maybe in shield wall pushes but in real combat you will need 2-3 soldiers just to engage 1 shielder.

Shield are just awesome... let them be like that, because shield ARE AWESOME and have always been like that.

Click to expand...

OK, that's a nice argument but it is useless because you're arguing that shields are awesome in real life. Yes they are, everyone agrees with you, shields rock.

You're playing a videogame though and videogames need balance to make it fun. Nothing is "fun" about being forced to use a shield because as you put it, there is no counter to a shield apparently.

Benisfug said:

On a side note to anyone who says spears are good against cav. You will lie to me right now but I have never ever seen infantry fair well against cav with spears. 50 spearmen vs 50 cav lose to the cav consistently

Click to expand...

I think that's because, at the moment, in Bannerlord (and in Warband previously) cav is and has always been a force multiplier. It's like a 2x stronger unit just by giving it a horse. Spears are even more useless than other weapons for cav for some reason, when really the spear was more or less the superior weapon in almost all cases. I can't really think of a situation in which I might not want to have a spear, but in this game, I can't think of a single situation in which I'd want to have a spear.

Alenovic said:

There are mechanics already in place, namely hitting the enemy on a body part not covered by shield. Attacking when the dude is open, flanking.

Shields that break after 4-5 hits is soo damn unrealistic, then they should completely undo the workings of shields, and just buff their body, arm and shoulder armor rating for carrying a shield. Which would make the shield just an visual aspect instead of an blocking object.

As I already mentioned there is a reason why almost all nations and cultures in the world used shields unchanged for millenia,, it was cheap and very very very cost effective and most of all insanely practical and quite easy to use.

Click to expand...

Sure, but you can't pull down shields with axes and shields cover areas they shouldn't be covering in the game already. They need fixing first before we can even consider adding new features to them. So saying ''just hit em where the shield isn't covering them bro'' seems kinda silly when, in order to do that, you basically need to John Rambo around the shield wall and hit people from the side (a totally valid tactic, but if we're arguing realism, then also a big fat lol). The spears overhead stab also barely works and is a pain to use over top of a man with a shield in the game. It doesn't work as fluently as you're proposing it does, or even remotely close to it.

I believe shields should be a great tool for defending against arrows and should be a tool used for defending against other infantry. That 2h axes do extra damage versus shields is not necessarily realistic but it does balance the game and prevent people from just sword-n-boarding without a counter to it. And most people, myself included, would rather play a balanced game over a realistic game. Or.. perhaps I should say, my enjoyment of the game should not come at the cost of realism just because someone is upset that ''shields were not used this way in real life!''

I definitely agree that shields are as awesome as you're making them out to be but jesus christ dude, it's a game. Games are not 100% about realism, games are about gamey mechanics too, and that includes balancing shields to be broken by axes/missiles sticking into them.

EDIT: of course, if it was made more possible to strike around/over shields, I see no reason why we'd need to nerf them. But if you are 100% sure that it's already easy to do so, just git gud, please upload a video of you doing it, since I think that would be rather valuable information.

I don't think it's that hard to win, even if you're fighting a guy that has great armor. The AI is not that hard to beat, even at low levels. The problems start piling on when you're fighting named hero characters that also happen to have great armor. They swing faster and harder than you, and the few times you hit them back, they will be able to tank the hit and not get stunned, and slap you for your insolence.

I have no problem with BYOA (bring you own armor, beer style) as this is sort of how it'd probably go in ye olde ages. Not every peasant can sign up and get handed a piece of plate armor. You might be able to loan a bow for a bow shooting contest, but for a joust or a fight on foot you're **** out of luck, probably.

Pejot said:

Nope if you read about tactics of fighting shieldwall vs shieldwall than You can find out that they didn't use axes to break shields. They used bearded axes to grab side of the shield than pull it to uncover the bearer and somone with spear stabbed him from axe bearer back.

Well made wooden shields covered with leather were great against most weapons if the bearer knew what he was doing. Shields broke after really long fights and taking many heavy hits.

Click to expand...

That's all really great but until we get a mechanism that allows a) the player and AI to pull down shields with axes and b) the AI to know that that means they have to stab the shield user with a spear, the shield breaking is the closest we'll get to what you're describing.

This is a videogame. It's nice that what you described happened in real life, really epic and cool, but if we don't have the game mechanics to back it up, it will remain just that; really epic and cool information that is useless in a game sense because we can't use it.

For that same reason, having shields break after 3 javelins are stuck in it is not feasible in this stage of the game until TW adds some balancing to prevent this from leading to javelin-only armies that can destroy anything and anyone, given how accurate and deadly the javelins are already. And in that regard, getting rid of shield hitpoints and replacing it with dynamic damage to the hield when it's hacked at/has arrows in it would be really neat and could lead to javelins/arrows piercing the shield, but I just don't see that happening. Bannerlord is still a game and there are limits to what we can do.

iimstevo said:

Prosperity is tied with taxation. A more prosperous town means more population, more population means more food consumption, and higher taxes paid out. I would also expect that a more prosperous town means more income from workshops and caravans.
Security - I'm not sure with, I believe this may be unused currently and have affects if Security reaches a low value, the chance of rebellion may occur.
Loyalty - The same really with Security.

It would be nice to see what the quest is before being able to accept them (like when viewing from the map screen), and having a detailed breakdown of the quest, what it impacts, what relations may be obtained if successful, what the payout will be etc...

Click to expand...

I believe that security is a way to counteract low loyalty, or at least that is the way I read it. Kind of like suppression from TW? Having a military in the area means that people feel either more secure (against bandits?) or in case of low loyalty, feel like they're being watched. But, again, that means there needs to be something the game does in the event of low loyalty which I don't know if that's the case.

For the latter, I agree, but maybe tie your awareness of what a quest does into a skill, i.e. you can ''guestimate'' the impacts if you have a low roguery, and if you have max roguery you can guess it with 100% perfect accuracy everytime. For quests that are less ''rogueish'' perhaps tie them into a different skill. Herd quest into riding, for example, as I suppose that the riding skill is used in the introduction menu's to establish your familiarity with animals.

EvZone said:

To finish, some perks could be replaced by 'milestones' which give small quantitative boosts and are automatically awarded. This way you keep the satisfaction of leveling the skill but don't feel like you invested in something useless. Perks should be reserved to qualitative things, such as 'can use any bow on horse-back' and such, or quantitative changes that make a big difference (like significantly reduce cost of garrison or party).

Click to expand...

This is a really great idea!

vahadar said:

No

You are in the majority. 242 yes vs 195 now as of this date. Of course those not liking the new system will voice and shout louder than those who like it. But the numbers dont lie, a clear majority likes it (and i like it, despite all its flaws).

Click to expand...

I think that's a good way of putting it; the system very obviously has flaws and I think the people who like the new system also agree that it's shoddy at best. I definitely agree that the system really needs work and, as it is now, is not good at all. But the implications of what it can be when it's done are amazing and, also, I like the idea of modders being able to add new perks to fit their mod.

Warband never really gave me ideas for mods I could make as I played the game, but Bannerlord has already given me a few ideas for mods I could make that are simple and easy to do for me. Things like the perks should be relatively easy to mod, I think! Just think of the implications of that vs. Warband, where the proficiencies were pretty hardcoded.