Recent content by Hechicera

You guys are saying the same thing: C# is easier to use because it is more complex.

C# does a lot for you, which ofc makes using it very efficient. And when everything goes right and all the layers work well (and were written by those "theoretically" better programmers) work is done quickly as good code is reused and all goes well. Until it doesn't. Most of us have heard of Cities: Skylines 2? yes? This blog post:


A great first look at when multiple layers didn't go well, and why. That post isn't relevant to Bannerlord as my understanding is they wrote their own engine. As a retired tools programmer I salute them. Despite a lot of the carping on this forum I suspect Bannerlord has a fairly good code base. Unlike the current state of Unity ...

One of my last professional jobs was working on tools for semiconductor manufacturing. Modern semiconductors are insanely complex. Even after working on the tools to make them, I still feel some of how they work is as close to magic as I can get in real life. Using them however makes anything more efficient. No one says abacus FTW!

Akka said:

I can't process how you can praise C about flexibility while complaining that C# is too complex.
Like, WTF.

Click to expand...

I will try and field this question since I was in computing in the same era. Power and flexibility can be defined by how many layers above the actual hardware you are. Before C (and Pascal and Fortran and COBOL, all old friends) there was only assembly language. Very obscure to use, but almost obscenely powerful. You can do anything as you are right at the machine pushing its buttons so to speak. C is one layer above the machine so you can usually see how you map to what the machine is actually doing. Us dinosaurs (my first professional job was indeed in assembly) can do most of what we could in assembly in C with some sussing about. The other early languages did a better job of not allowing that, but it was to protect novice programmers from themselves. The flexibility to do anything can be a trap.

Then came abstraction, first of the code layer and object oriented programming. This was handy in that better programmers, theoretically, could write the tricky stuff, and then other programmers could quickly reuse it. Then came virtual machines and abstraction of the hardware layer. Now for writing code once and then having it run on multiple platforms, this is quite handy. They are time saving, but they do take you away from communicating directly with the machine. And you are playing "telephone". What you type tells the software layer what you want to do, abstractly, which tells the software layer under that what to do. Then that tells the virtual machine compiler what you want it to do. Then the virtual machine code tells the actual hardware what to do. Tracking a tricky bug through that IS complex. And the code is not more powerful, just more labor saving to make.

So the statement makes sense. But no one wants to go back to the days where making a game like Bannerlord was coded in assembly on PCs (and every GPU known to man) and each console! Plain C is as close to to that as you can get today.

TL;DR abstraction
Meme TL;DR puny abstraction, I have wielded the true power to do anything that is assembly language

I see a test update on steam ... notes? What features should I be exercising starting a new game?

Fair enough. As a really old fart, I sometimes overlook it thinking ... kids.

SudianX said:

I assumed hitting F6 would allow me to control everything like in Warband... but no, I don't think so. Apparently I am not to be trusted to give commands during sieges

Click to expand...

I've decided F6 is to just make sure any troops under your command go with the AI as opposed to having fancy ideas of their own. Or for being lazy when solo.

If I have most of the troops and am fine if the AI looses all theirs in a win, I won't F6. If I know the AI is going to slaughter themselves, I may not F6 to save a few. Otherwise it just makes sure your lot stay in formation.

It is very useful to me on caravan defense missions. If all the caravan AI troops die that is an auto fail. Even if it doesn't make the best use of the troops or terrain, using F6 then makes sure at least there should be enough of my guys standing in the same (possibly bone-headed, its random) spot. So hopefully some or all of them survive.

Current use of horse archers by AI in field engagements, where the AI has few of them is driving me batty however.

Sad, no one has tried to answer. I'm not the best player, and play on test, but I'll share what I do know.

1 - They need to be in command of the formation for Captain bonuses. If a Party Leader has traits labelled Army Commander they should also apply. When other party leader bonuses overlap ... I'm not sure and it may be changing on test (where my games are right now).
2 - No clue, but I would suspect no.
3 - I am unsure if a specific command (say Hold Position) makes it more likely they'd brace and charge less likely. That would make sense but I have not seen it. I'm not seeing bracing behavior on test at all right now. Looters used to try and brace against horses on live, but I don't see this at all on test with one exception. Foot arena AI combatants will sometimes use a spear effectively against a mounted opponent. So it may be looter specific AI changes, but I am unsure.
4 - Not seen bracing (again) but archers switch to a melee weapon in close range. And mounted troops will switch from a long weapon to a melee weapon when they are also engaged in close combat on horse. I have even seen companions swap between sword and board and two-handers when in hideouts. Couching lances on test seems working again in a cavalry charge.
5 - I think they all can eventually show.
6 - Let us know if you find one first!

Right, but test is for feedback usually. So I give feedback as a test player. Noting if the feedback is for modded (and what) and unmodded is important.

Status of known bugs is found in that forum area, but you have to search for the issue yourself. Which is normal enough.

However the feedback on setting expectations is valid. I know the "chatter-verse" on gaming is going on about BG3 (and I have been a test player pre-release on the very early titles from that studio too btw). But I feel they are different enough games architecturally that the comparisons here are meaningless.

I would love to see something out of Taleworlds like Coffee Stain Studios (Satisfactory) does.

Having been playing the test branch exclusively, I support a hotfix. Still some balance things and a couple of bugs. The sort of ones where I throw my hands up and go, this run must be abandoned. Not that they are unplayable crash bugs mind you, but some interrupt character plans enough is is better to retry and hope you don't get the issue or to develop a character of a different type for more fun.

The best way to raise medicine for the player, on test, is to get badly injured yourself (hideouts and trying to take over alleys is key) and then rest yourself back to health. Do the opposite of the perk on the rest for max healing "ticks". So if you chose to heal when moving on map perk, rest in a settlement. If you chose the perk for more healing when resting, heal while moving. This is awkward. It is harder to level organically through battle, and even worse to level on a companion medic than on live. It was never easy to level now is a mess. My test character was a Battanian that started with highest healing and INT that was possible and rapidly invested in it. Levelling it on a fighter focused build where you are low int and low perk just to get the starting perks for your build will be excruciating.

Alley takeovers are bugged again. I'm not sure of the trigger, and there is an open ticket in progress. I have a proper candidate companion (high roguery, one "bad" trait, autogenerated "the Robber" empire). But, when I win an alley fight the option to take it over is always unselectable. I have tried being a merc, being totally freelance, when merc in my factions, not in my faction. And yes, I have run alleys before, so I know the drill. If I find the trigger I'll post in the existing (not mine) bug thread.

Running a workshop is still obscure enough it doesn't feel either fun to micromanage or useful to "fire and forget". Warehouses are a cool concept, but how the economy "settles" after the game is played a while leads to much overproduction by the AI. So the economy seems to eventually trash itself. That has bigger implications to runs, esp if running unmodded.

The new battle AI also offers new plusses, but still seems off where it won't respond to rear or flanking attacks at all (again documented well, not by me). The balance between hold formation and defend yourself still feels like it needs tweaking. Spears feel better after last mini-patch though.

mongoid said:

Working as intended. The T in Taleworlds stands for Tedium.

Click to expand...

I don't find this and the other reply helpful. I suspect it is an unintended consequence of other game changes. And I actually like most of the other changes. Feedback on the test branch is the goal of the branch. I was also curious if others had seen it. I think this thread may not be the right place for this feedback?

Perhaps I should submit it as a "bug"?

... even though as a (retired, non-game) developer, I would not call this a "bug".

Anyone else notice on the test branch that early game medicine levels much slower than before?

I don't think it is a bug, it does level. I suspect that AI being more defensive means the troops get less injured. So, you get less medicine experience. This is in the vs bandits and very small party stage. Then you get to sieges, and the siege weapons now outright kill, one shot, so again .. less medicine experience. It just feels more annoying to level that skill with a new character on test than on live.

Oh please! I have arthritis ... this mechanic is just mean.

Right. And building the hearths in the associated villages is a help. That goes back to the babysitting. You (with your main party) need to be there to solve the issues. I did try that for a while in my existing save to see how much it helped, but the needs were constant (even with that town at peace). And if I'm a trader I need to be on the road, since I can't raise my main character's trade skill while babysitting villages. So it is conflicting. This can't be solved with your second party, as they can not be directed. And if I am playing as a trader, it is also to my benefit to not involve myself in the feuds of the land.

Perhaps design is that you don't buy a workshop until you have "settled"? There is no mechanic to indicate this (like: can't buy if not vassal, need X trade skill to buy, need X relationship with local lord, or local notable). Clan tier isn't a good gate, as if playing as a trader you may get a higher clan without being allied or having "settled".

My issues are with the design, as this is clear as mud, and as I have explained, the tasks that game mechanics push you toward in a trading run are counter-intuitive or not helpful when combined current workshop direction on test. I have such high hopes for warehouses too!

I'm wondering if some of this can be save specific. As in, the assignment of workshops to towns, is randomized (I did check for nearby competitors ofc). And then after that (AI) caravan setup and routes are randomized. That would be save specific. So which goods congest, and where, will be very save specific. It may work out in the later game, or not. This save isn't into what I'd call late game economics.

Prosperity and foot traffic feature heavily. But, so do wars. I think something is still off, perhaps in the larger balance of goods (and again, my perspective is map wide trading runs sampling all trade goods in the years just after prices should have settled). The AI choices on when to make war, how long, for what and when to sue for peace have been tweaked. This also is causing changes to demand.

So here is what I can suss out in my save after more testing, in general economic balance. With less wars, overall food prices start high (as all prices do), then settle, then generally start crashing map wide. Spot profits can be made, but more spot-based than before. Grain seems to crash first (great news for breweries?), since it is more map wide, but eventually the others do too. Luxury demand seems in line with past saves (wine, beer, linen, jewelry, etc). Other "gear" shops lack sufficient consumers. With "equipable gear", the prices seem set, so that isn't noticeable, but demand seems lacking. Wool workshops produce no output (verified by sending 100% to warehouse). However, the price of tools also crashes quickly after the economy stabilizes.

My feedback though that sorting this out isn't "fun" stands. I play random rolled characters for the fun of just a different life path. My 1.2.3 save is a no smithing trader. I'm not here to paint the map. The information is just too obfuscated in the UI (the why) even though the what is nicer. I do like the UI changes, this is gameplay. And with no control over your own caravan routes, or your second party it feels like the player lacks agency unless they are 100% babysitting that town and workshop. Warehouses do seem helpful here. It works, but again, my issue is "fun". And I usually like this type of run, and from prior runs I have a feel of how prices usually settle out once the "burn in" period is over.

However, I think there are other economy changes in 1.2.3 that need to bubble through perhaps a few saves. Have you checked overall map wide prices?

I think one of the issues (besides wool being broken on this build) is that the economy seems to be settling more slowly than it did in prior patches. I notice it in the prices as I'm going all over trading. 1.2.0 was not too bad, I had profitable workshops. My current 1.2.3 I'm seeing this though. Did you start a brand new save on 1.2.3 or load a prior save into 1.2.3?

Dabos37 said:

Workshops are not that bad, and it is still possible to get 300-500 daily gold from them without the player’s help. They do not worth in early game though, and you are going to mostly get money from them in towns with high prosperity and high demand (there are more variables though).

Maybe giving the player more visibility about how much the workshop is going to give before buying it could help. Something like in Warband where you could get a estimation about the workshop production before buying it.

Click to expand...

Are you referring to current live (where I agree), or current test? My feedback is specific to the test branch.