Recent content by Honved

  1. Honved

    SP Modern Snow In the East - WW2 Eastern Front mod (v0.5 Demo Come out!)

    I'm happy to see an update: just downloaded it, and will try it out tonight. A brief change log on the opening post might be helpful to indicate what was done since the last version.
  2. Honved

    What do you want Bannerlord to be?

    Basic Mount & Blade was excellent as a battle generator with some RPG elements to build your character, companions, and an army. The problem was that you ended up "all dressed up and nowhere to go". There was no way up from "vassal". It was possible to play as a traveling merchant, but there wasn't a lot of depth to it. You could build up Relations with other lords, but ultimately there was no point in it. There were no kingdom options at all, since you couldn't form your own kingdom.

    Warband allowed you to create your own kingdom, but the diplomatic and economic options were extremely limited. Once again, aside from generating battles and painting the map, there wasn't really much to "do" as king, and keeping your vassals from rebelling was tedious and unrealistic. Other than offering to do menial "quests" for other lords, there was very little interaction possible with the NPCs.

    Now we've got a much higher-resolution game with even less "to do" while at peace, and keeping your vassals in line is still tedious and unrealistic. Rather than expanding on the options in Warband, we seem to have lost a few.

    If this were more like a Paradox grand-strategy game, there would be ways to corner the market on specific products, or at least deny them to the enemy, and the enemy would suffer shortages of supplies or equipment as a result. You'd be able to utilize spies to undercut a rival's authority or sow discontent. You'd be able to entice lords of other factions through bribes, trade deals, offers of military support, or other possibilities. You'd be able to build up and improve your holdings, or provide economic incentives for your vassals to build up as well, in order to insure a decent supply of critical resources and manpower, while improving relations. In short, you'd be running a kingdom, not just leading an army.

    If it were a Bethesda game, the world would include at least a few NPCs with unique dialog or quests, hidden things to discover, and an interesting "world" to live in, not just a battle generator. As it is, there's not much reason to visit the towns and villages after you've met the few merchants and the town leader. Basically, there's no reason to go there unless sent on a quest, such as to buy cattle or hunt down a fugitive.

    At this point, about all I can hope for is that the game is moddable enough for someone to put a real economy, diplomatic system, and personalities in the game to turn it into a hybrid with working tactical, strategic, and RPG elements. As it stands, only the combat element is really functional.
  3. Honved

    Election system still ruins the game. Please delete, let player run own faction, please make strategy game!

    As said, allowing the player to simply ignore or override the AI's decisions when it makes a bad choice is a band-aid solution that doesn't solve the underlying problem. The cause of the problem in part that it's too dependent on the RNG, so it frequently does things without any reason, or even a passable excuse. A king or other leader should be influencing his vassals and allies BEFORE it comes down to a vote, not after, but without being given enough time before the vote to really change anything, that's not an option. The RNG decides, and you're stuck with a stupid result.

    The other part is that it has a short attention span (I hate it when you follow a Marshal toward a village that's being raided, and then the Marshal reverses course because some other lord chased the raider away. 30 seconds later, the Marshal turns around again because the raider is back at the village again. After about 3-4 changes of direction, any illusions you may still have had about the Marshal actually being a rational being have been shattered and burned.

    The third part is that the war/peace cycle is so short that it feels like a game of ping-pong, going back and forth suddenly from one adversary to another without any warning.

    Without some means for the AI to gang up against "bullies", or slightly prioritize wars against the most powerful faction, you get snowballing. TW "fixed" the snowballing problem by making wars so short that nothing happens, and then peace short so some of the more action-oriented players won't get bored.
  4. Honved

    Election system still ruins the game. Please delete, let player run own faction, please make strategy game!

    The problem is that there's no single thing that's causing the AI issues, it's a combination of factors that add up to collective insanity.

    First, in a medieval kingdom, it was difficult for the king to lead the nobles anywhere they didn't want to go, but if the situation demanded it, they agreed to the war and followed him to combat the outside threat. In Bannerlord, the nobles vote for a war for no sensible reason, and then don't let the king prosecute it fully. Peace in this game is nothing more than a brief cease-fire to recover from a few wounds and restock supplies before declaring war again; it's all but pointless in how it's implemented. The AI behaves randomly, not with any sense of strategic consideration: We're at war with two other factions and stretched thin, so let's declare a third war, right? Duh! Now, we're on the verge of actually WINNING one of those wars and getting something out of it, so let's peace out and declare a fresh war with a faction that's still at full strength, right? Again, duh! Pants-on-head stupid, and entirely dependent on the Random Number Generator instead of some kind of logic.

    Wars should be declared because you want something that your faction (or several individual nobles) considers important, such as a fief lost in a previous war or strategically important, or else if a rival faction is growing too strong but is now over-committed and at a moment of weakness. Peace should be declared when you're already in too many wars, when your manpower needs to recover, or when you've taken what you want and need to consolidate, NOT because the RNG says so. Until that's fixed, any kind of "strategy" is extremely limited, and frustration will be the norm.
  5. Honved

    Which feature do you want the most?

    While pre-battle deployment options would be nice, I don't consider it "game changing", and the rest of the list falls into what I would call the "hardly worth the extra development resources" category.

    There are so many other important things missing in the diplomacy, economy, and character interaction departments that I find this list almost humorously useless outside of Multiplayer, and there's not even a "none of the above" or "other" choice in the poll. The improved 4K sheep textures might at least be slightly noticeable in-game....
  6. Honved

    Do you want more complex features, such as proper formation behaviour in Bannerlord?

    Slitherine utilized a concept similar to "rubber bands" to enforce formations in their "Legion: Arena" tactical game. Each individual soldier could move on his own, but would have a strong preference for moving into or staying in a position in the formation, unless drawn by something else. An opposing soldier within a very short distance could temporarily override that, causing the individual to charge and stretch the "rubber band", but that soldier would be drawn back into formation as soon as the nearby threat was removed.

    The formation itself should react to enemy formations, so you'd end up with two opposing "armies" squaring off against each other, except for a few soldiers on the fringes reacting to local threats, such as additional enemy formations after the first or scattered individuals nearby. No "mob" behavior, at least until the unit loses all organization under pressure and breaks down. Reinforcements should move toward the existing formation, until/unless that formation is broken, at which point they will form their own formation and the survivors of the broken one should race to fill spots in the rear of the new one as soon as they're out of combat. Typically, the formation should begin a charge against an opposing formation from well outside of the individual's charge range, so you wouldn't have the front rank charging on their own initiative while the following ranks stand there like idiots.

    What we have now doesn't resemble medieval combat in any way. The individual combat works quite well, but the tactical AI is awful, bordering on non-existent.
  7. Honved

    Do you want more complex features, such as proper formation behaviour in Bannerlord?

    Like today on the internet everyone is 2 meters high with 200 IQ and 30 cm.
    Wait a minute, you mean that I'm not? Here I was under the impression that the "American Wild West" was populated entirely by body builders and fashion models. Hollywood wouldn't lie or exaggerate about such things, would they?
  8. Honved

    Do you want more complex features, such as proper formation behaviour in Bannerlord?

    XD What documents you checking mate?

    I'm here rocking thucydides as my primary. Who you got?

    Almost every classical historian alive will tell you the greeks fought in semi coherent mobs. The spartans were slightly (and I mean slightly) more organized using music to keep an even pace, which other classical greeks did not do, so when they advanced there was no way for them to tell how to keep pace, meaning parts of the line would bulge. Then they would charge without much consideration of formation, opening all sorts of gaps in their lines, but hoping the shock would carry the day (if it did not, then you get some seriously bloody battles as mobs of hoplites mush together in a rough line and murder each other relatively slowly)

    Coherent ranks and files is attested in the hellenic period, which is after the classical period. And after hoplites (as defined as a guy carrying a hoplon, you know, that big ol' shield) when greek armies were mostly using pikes. We don't have a lot of great sources for the classical powerhouses of athens and sparta militarily at this time (and neither power was actually important in the period. Sparta tried twice to rebuild its wider empire and macedon trivially trounced them both times), and the dominant city state of Thebes were burned to the ground by alexander and so we have very little for them too, but we DO have good sources of the macedonians, and how easily they folded the existing city state and ethnos militaries into their own phalangite system.
    The Greeks advanced in coherent ranks to within charge distance, and ATTEMPTED to maintain those ordered ranks on the final charge as best they could. Apparently, both sides typically charged a SHORT distance, and met somewhere in the middle, with only modest disruption.

    There were several ploys used, such as faking a charge so the enemy would charge almost the entire distance and begin to scatter before the REAL charge was ordered. Taking a charge at the halt risked getting overwhelmed by the inertia of the charging side, but allowed for a more orderly formation if you were able to hold. In several mentioned situations, the armies approached without charging, and spent the better part of the day poking and jabbing from maximum spear range, with no decisive outcome. In at least one confrontation, the two sides pressed together, turning it into a shoving match to topple the opposing front rank over backwards, with multiple ranks behind them all adding weight to the push. There's very little mention of disorderly "mob" attacks except under unusual circumstances, such as when attacked unexpectedly while encamped, or in broken terrain.

    Roman tactics under Gaius Julius (later known as "Caesar") were often similar, with a methodical approach, then a brief halt to throw pila or javelins, followed by a short charge to contact. Again, tricks were sometimes used to disrupt the opposing charge or disorder their ranks. Anything beyond that short charge distance risked a disordered front line and high casualties.

    Even the bronze age clashes show signs of having been conducted in orderly ranks (aside from a few preliminary contests between opposing champions), and even the Stele of Vultures depicts a row of spearmen with large shields in tight formation.

    Macedonia packed more spear points into a smaller area by use of longer pikes and forgoing the large shields. That doesn't mean that the Greeks fought as disorderly mobs.

    The tactics of warfare were modified and improved over time, and new tricks learned, but the imperative to dress that line and maintain a solid wall of shields still carries into modern march traditions. It's not about aesthetics: if you don't maintain that firm shield wall, you die.

    Thucydides stated a lot of clearly incorrect "facts", as did virtually every other writer of antiquity, since the primary aim was to tell a good story, with historical accuracy as a secondary goal at best. One has to treat their writings with about the same level of skepticism as one would for a modern Hollywood production "based on" a historical incident.
  9. Honved

    Do you want more complex features, such as proper formation behaviour in Bannerlord?

    There's a difference between something being "complex" under the hood, yet appearing simple because it produces realistic or intuitive results, versus something that feels "complicated" because it requires learning something that doesn't logically make much sense or requires a lot more player input to achieve the same effect. Sometimes "complexity" can make a product easier to understand and use.

    Having troops maintain formation on the slow advance, and then have the formations gradually disintegrate as they charge, reflects real constraints, feels natural, and doesn't require a lot more of a learning curve if done right. It doesn't necessarily make it more "complicated".
  10. Honved

    Do you want more complex features, such as proper formation behaviour in Bannerlord?

    Details like being able to have your fief produce something that's in short supply, having the price and availability of goods actually matter for purposes of prosperity and income, having recruitment reduce the number of peasants available to produce food and other products, and other basic economic concepts and mechanics seem to either be totally lacking or else broken by the constant destruction of caravans.

    Having relations matter in terms of friendly lords agreeing to assist, or friendly lords in opposing factions at the very least not targeting your villages, would go a long way toward making diplomacy interesting. Having lords with personalities which affect how they act would make it less obvious that they're randomly generated non-entities.

    Having wars fought for REASONS like contested border claims, competing products in nearby markets, or personal rivalries between lords would be a huge improvement over random short wars and random short-term peace declarations for no reason other than "the RNG rolled a 1".

    Compared to those, having your band of trained soldiers surge forward in an undisciplined mob is no big deal.
  11. Honved

    Do you want more complex features, such as proper formation behaviour in Bannerlord?

    While I seriously want more complex features in Bannerlord, I'm not as concerned about proper formation behavior as I am with the sorry state of diplomacy, the economy, and a host of other issues which I feel are more pressing. Improvements in combat formations and NPC combat behavior would certainly be welcome, but are further down my list of priorities.

    The battles might be more enjoyable with such changes, but without a better fleshed-out background to give the battles some sense of purpose, I find the game shallow and unfulfilling. Win a dozen what? It changes nothing.
  12. Honved

    Bandits (all types) in their current implementation are adding more tedium than value to the experience.

    But bandits are usually too fast and flee and scatter from AI parties stronger than them.

    And I'm not even talking about desert or steppe bandits.

    The really large bandit parties are slow but they aren't the problem.

    Why not instead give AI lords the perks that level their troops over time, or else lower bandit speed and make them slightly less likely to scatter like gnats whenever a stronger party is near.
    Bandits (other than Steppe Bandits and Sea Raiders) were slightly slower than most other parties in Warband. A typical AI lord's medium-sized party could catch all but the smallest looter groups.
  13. Honved

    Bandits (all types) in their current implementation are adding more tedium than value to the experience.

    Bandit hideouts should gradually gain "points" over time, which would be used to create bandit parties at random intervals. Point gain could be influenced by local conditions. Depending on the interval since the last group spawned, the size of the bandit party would vary. That way, you've typically got a number of tiny groups that can be engaged solo by a starting player but are only a minor threat to peasants, a few medium sized groups that are a serious threat to peasants but not capable of taking on caravans, and one or two big groups that are a challenge unless you've got a fairly sizable army backing you. The small groups would be fast and hard to catch by a large army, while the big groups would provide experience for the AI lords, assuming that the AI lords actually go after the bandits.

    Basically, as long as the lords (or the player) clear out those bandit parties faster than the points can respawn, the bandit presence will remain small. Neglect them, and they keep building up into a real problem. If the hideout is destroyed, it should take time until there are enough points to build a new hideout, then begin releasing fresh bandit parties again, so a new hideout can't appear right next to where you just destroyed the previous one. You could never eliminate bandits completely, but could keep a region mostly bandit-free with enough effort.

    A castle with a garrison over some minimum size (like 150 men) should be able to release a patrol of 10-50 men (randomly sized for the AI, player defined for an owned castle), one per castle.

    As said over and over by poster after poster, tying bandit party size to player character level is a terrible design decision. Personally, I feel that "one size fits all" is another terrible choice; there should be a variety of different size bandit parties, regardless of player level or faction rank.
  14. Honved

    SP Musket Era Napoleon : Conquest Europe -- v2.3 Released

    A basic native Warband peasant shirt or dress isn't ideal for the timeframe, but it's more believable than having your starting character running around half-naked because nobody sells basic civilian clothing. Thanks for the reply and consideration.
  15. Honved

    Poll: Why Does Bannerlord Still Feel Like it Lacks Personality and Soul?

    Expanding on five bucks' ideas, it's annoying when an opposing lord with high relations constantly raids your village, so after defeating him 7-8 times, relations are seriously damaged. An opponent with high relations should only raid your settlements if his own faction demands it while on campaign, not go out of his way to wreck your relationship, otherwise what's the point of having high relations?

    Half of the problem with Bannerlord is that things which SHOULD matter simply don't: military victories, relations with other lords, rank and prestige, damage to the enemy's economy, and so on. Even money ceases to matter after some point, and then you start asking yourself: "Why am I even playing.".

    Bannerlord feels like it lacks personality and soul, mainly because it DOES lack them.
Top Bottom