Recent content by **Iphicrates**

So you will get more money from a random pitch battle against moderately sized army, than you get after conquering and plundering prosperous city? LOL. Bannerlord logic at its prime.

Even her bodyguards are so disgusted, they wear their helmets low, to cover the sight, lol.

I had the same issue, wife was in my party for like two years and no child produced. After I got my first fief i tried waiting for week or so, and again, no effect. It might be a bug (I'm on 1.56 beta) or just bad luck. I managed to fix it via console command (just google it) , wife got pregnant and after first child she was actually able to get pregnant 2nd time without using console.

Agree, rebels should expect to loose their heads if the rebellion fails. AI should execute rebels after capture (meaning no rebel clans will be left on the world map after when city gets retaken), and player should experience relation gain with the ruling clan of the kingdom affected by rebellion if he exexutes a rebel lord.

Also, executing normal lords doesn't currently give that severe penalty. I recently chopped Mochung's head off (those Khuzait raids really tend to piss me off) and got bad rep mostly with his family and to lesser extent his friends.

sniparsexe said:

if you add everything to a game just because it's realistic.. good luck with that. Uh and also, in the game when I don't carry ANY loot, a 1000 man khuzait army can move faster than me in a forest lol. yeah sensible

Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree, that's why I said that I wouldn't add these bonuses in-game. Actually, I'm not sure if its the case in game, but I think I red in some post that IA lords don't get loot after battle but get the money equivalent instantly. Well,IF they have to carry this loot into town first, THAN sell it, and if the loot will slow them don conciderably it might actually help reduce khuzait army speed a lot I think. Just a though that came to my mind after reading your answer. Right now Khuzait can roam through enemy territory with no effort, defeating weaker parties, raiding villages and taking huge amount of loot-money, which then turn them ridiculously rich. Slowing them down by loot after they win a considerable battle might get IA more time to prepare, get reinfocements etc.

It was a common strategy aginast Tatar raids in XVI/XVII century Poland. They let Tatars do their pludering. And when they got slowed down by loot, polish armies hunted them down.

About the army speed, if we wish to stick with realism, when it comes to ancient/medieval times it were baggage trains that slowed the armies down the most. No army could march faster than the slowest baggage trains. Reducing the amount of baggage trains speeds up the march considerably, becouse the more trans you have, the more problems it create - carts can get stuck in mud, axles can brake etc. This is why romans forced their soldiers to carry a lot of the stuff on their back.

Having that in mind it's rather obvious that an army that contains large amounts of horsmen and horses will move faster, simply because they can use less baggage trains and keep a lot of the equipment carried by horses. This is one of the reasons why mongol and other nomad armies were able to move so fast and why cavalry speed bonus makes a lot of sense.

Ironically, when it comes to forests and snow, horse-centric armies will have the same advantage in these environments, precisely because of the need of less baggage trains. Carts in forests will mean that whenever a tree trunk blocks the road (which might happen quite often in old forsests after the storm) it will have to be removed. And wheeled carts are real pain in the butt to move in the winter as the marching amry turns the road into mud in which thewheels will slide,get stuck etc. So, speaking about realism, khuzaits should actually have a speed bonus in forests and snow, but I would never give it to them in game, as they are enaugh of a pain in the butt already

As many pointed out, death in battle is necessary to keep the population from overgrowing. If you are afraid to loose your companions, just keep them as archers or horse archers, or change them to a custom unit that you will keep away from danger as your personal guard (though, I noticed they have higher survivability in archers divisions).

War is war and I actually like the fact that my companions and even wife are at risk. It makes the game a little more immersive. Just yesterday I lost one of my old companions that ran with my for quite a lot of years. The guy was my medic ad he kept complaining about me raiding villages and slaughtering peasants (economical warfare for the win ) so I was actually planning to kick him out of clan whenever I could find a replacement for his position. But when he died I felt kind of sad.

Another memorable moment was when I was leading a quickly assembled Surgian army to recapture Tyal from Khuzaits. We took the city by surprise, and it was poorly defended so I led the assault without any preparations. Sturgians took the city walls and I was taking out defenders with my bow. I kept shooting, taking down one enemy with every arrow until I accidently headshoted one of our Sturgian lords... and the poor guy died... At the end we captured the city but I felt guilty about this guy. This unfortunate accident also forced me to reconsider my war plans, as the guy's party added up about 25% of my manpower. After his death his men dissasembled so I was no longer able to continue my march to victory.


So yeah, I love this game for the fact that it writes it's own stories and death in battle actually ads a lot to that immersion.

I think that rebel leaders should be executed by IA lords if getting captured. Also, player should be expected to execute them too, without consequences (maybe even a quest could be made to capture and behead certain rebel lord). After all, they rebelled against their king. Even in real history, socially acceptable outcome in such situation was a death sentence. This would solve two problems:
1. Rebel parties won't be roaming around after their city fell.
2. At the moment executions are pretty much useless feature, so this would actually let the player use it.

It would be cool to have bounties on these bandit lords so you can actually play as headhunter, traveling from tavern to tavern, taking quest to track down and capture/behead (at least executions could be useful as game mechanic) bandit lords and then collect the bounties. Bandit heroes should have their own criminal rating (based on bandit's party activities), so the higher the score, the biggest the reward but also the higher tier units will be present in bandit hero's company. All ideas covered in this topc could create entirely different branch of the gameplay. Sadly TW will probably won't e able to implement it before final release.

Well, just grab a shield from the ground on your way to the castle walls, then grab a decent weapon, and... then you die by an arrow while looting 2hander from a dead body. Yup, fun as hell.

I like the idea of hiding the numbers. This could be directly related to the "scouting" skill. With low scouting you could only see the rough estimates, (small, moderate, large army etc), and accurate numbers would be visible only from very close distance (too close to run away from if an enemy army is fast enough). With higher level in scouting player could see accurate numbers from further away, thus making more strategical moves (like "tactical withdrawal"). The ability to accurately estimate the numbers should be tied to commander's scouting skill for the IA as well, thus making lords with formidable scouting and high level tactics better commnaders.

On my recent Sturgian playthrough Ragavand kept giving all newly conquered settlements to his own clan (do I have to mention that I was the one responsible for taking all of these cities and castles and haven't gained a thing). What a c**t of a king. Funny thing, he wasn't even going against other lord's votes, almost all of the nobles were actually voting for him.

The reason battles are so fast is because IA fully commit to attack, both sides clash with full force and within minutes one side gets wiped out entirely, while the other loses half of the manpower. I've even seen an instance of Surgia vs Vlandia battle, where Surgians had significant advantege but lost miserably because of the stupidity of such tactic. They attacked defending vladians at spawn point, where Sturgian infantry got sandwitched by the respawning vandian force and a unit of crossbowmen.In the meantime sturgian bowmen got massacred by vlandian cav. And ongoing Sturgian reinforcements made an easy pick for both xbows and cav.

While battle tactics are way improved over Wrband, the situation described above still doesn't make any sense from tactical point of view. Real battle should open with skirmishes. Archers and light cav should be sent in advance, trying to open the enemy formation/weaken the force/ provoke attack etc. Light cav should go aganst light cav, winnig cav should charge enemy archers. Only after one side manages to route the enemy skirmishers, they should commit full-force to attack weakened enemy.

When I play I always try to use my cav as skirmishing force, luring enemies into ambushes etc before charging in. Battles payed this way can ctually last quite long and be somewhat interesting. But this is only possible when players army has an advantage, otherwise enemy just charges their army mindlessly anyways.

10% is ok when applied to battles player is a part of. That way you have actual chance of killing enemy lord yourself in combat. Lower chance would make such encounters very unsatisfying. But for auto-resovle and IA battles it definietly should be about 1-3%, otherwise death toll of battles will wipe out all lords of Calradia within several decades.

If the pathing issues have to be fixed on the map level, they can as well start right now. After all, if several castles share single map design, fixing one map pathing will fix many castles at once.