Recent content by Khan Aran

orgat said:

My issue is that I feel like the game doesn't give you a solid way of replenishing your forces other than mostly tier 1 units, even in late game.
But that clearly isn't the experience for some other players like @Apocal for some reason. He claims his cities are always abundant with t2-t3 units.

Click to expand...

Never paid a ton of attention to the mechanics of troop replenishment, but I've found certain notables reliably have better troops, as in I can do a recruitment loop and hit them twice and they'll have good troops both times. I assume it's connected to their power etc. But it's all very random and out of my control, and I agree that as a higher level clan there isn't a reason we shouldn't be able to set up a barracks that spits out at least tier 2 soldiers. I'm sorry but I would never in real life lead a group armed with kitchen knives and pitchforks into battle, that's not where basic training is supposed to happen. Even if we have to grab the recruits and drop them of for training.

imho I think if we want to increase the value of higher tiered units without making the game grindy the best way to do it is through party size(maybe, depending on how hard it would be to implement). Basically you party size is based on you management skill and how well known you are, which wouldn't mean the same thing to different tier soldiers. Managing 100 peasants is not the same as managing 100 trained soldiers, and its sure not the same as managing 100 slightly crazy shock troops. Also 100 nobles would never mean 100 people, you'd have at least as many servants coming along. Which means you're allowed to play with this from a realism standpoint. From a game standpoint the advantage is it lets you make awesome high tiered units, while setting a limit on their value. You can make (not saying you should) a beserker capable of killing 20 foot soldiers, but if they have a party cost of 10 space, your group of 10 beserkers, capable of taking out an army of 200 is still vulnerable to a dozen crappy horse archers.

This would make army design a more important part of the game, and make so troop upgrade isn't just always focused on having the highest tier, while at the same time allowing high tier units to be awesome and feel special. I would probably only apply it to the noble lines for ease of programming, since the AI will probably struggle with the value of elite troops, and that would make that less of an issue.

Also we have got to increase unit health and armor value. Everyone dies way to easy, which has a negative effect on all aspects of play. I want to be able to fight in battles, but they end before you get half a dozen swings in.

veronicaaltoids said:

so you got to be very careful in battle, if you fall, your troops will act like idiots

Click to expand...

That reminds me, I wanted to test and see if they are still that stupid with captains. Like does the AI figure in the tactics and leadership of who's leading them? I doubt it, but if it did it would be a nifty design.

Terco_Viejo said:

Yes, but why do we always have to resort to the modder community to obtain mechanics and features with depth and complexity?

Click to expand...

I was worried about how simple the vanilla game is turning out, but honestly with what I'm hoping for that's not a bad thing. If Taleworlds can lay out a broad, stable, easily modded base, the end result will be a modders paradise where our various dreams can be achieved, as opposed to a vanilla game that's pretty good, but harder to mod. So I really hope as they're moving forward they keep the modding community squarely in their sights.

100 inf and arc vs 100 cav.
Don't look at by troop count, but instead denars.
Those 100 cav cost somewhere around 150%-200% (or more) what those ground troops cost, because of the horses.

Now that doesn't mean you can't win, but they are pretty much your ground troops on horseback. The main difference should be your ground guys have higher athleticism and they have higher horsemanship. So all you have to do is negate the advantage their horses give and you have the advantage.(Think Azincourt, the English didn't meet the french in an open field)

Really the biggest issue is that you don't have cavalry. Even just 5 or 10 can break up the enemy formation and give your a huge advantage. Think back through history about the countries that didn't use cav and you won't find many, and even those that didn't used things to replace cavalry. (not to say that this game perfectly reflects history, or that history even perfectly reflects history)

As far as one having an unfair advantage over another, I haven't really seen much of that, mainly it is the AI being stupid about using one or the other."hey we have 2 melee cav, lets send them into that shield wall a good half hour before our inf gets there!" or "lets have our infantry scatter after the cavalry!"

Edit:
I can not imagine looking at a group of 100 cav in-game(or real life) and thinking I'm going to take them with my 100 inf-arch, unless they are really crappy cav,or my troops are epic(Fians) or I'm set up really well like holding a bridge or river. That is not something you do.

Flesson19 said:

since only using 8 attribute points I expect it to take around 60 hours or so to hit 300, maybe 1800 days

Click to expand...

What do you mean by only using 8? Are all 8 going into SOC? How is your character going to distribute focus points? Just wondering if you have time to answer.

stevehoos said:

When has TW not run into a delay?

Click to expand...

Some of us were born with an unrealistic amount of optimism, okay?

dijiTurk said:

Idont think its a matter of language. It can be related with development speed or goals

Click to expand...

There is more than the 5 or 6 devs we see on here, and one of the stated reasons the other devs don't interact is because of language.
Also it takes time to interact, time that the devs need to spend doing their jobs. Mexxico(I think that's the wrong spelling?) said we might get 1.5.6 something like a week ago, but that didn't happen, and he didn't come on here and make sure he corrected the incorrect prediction when they ran into development delays because his job is development, not forum interaction. Which has bummed us all out. Having things delayed is sad, but being told makes it much less painful then pointless hoping.
We all love having the devs on here, but they really shouldn't be expected to spend much time on these forums. Having a team member dedicated to the forums would be great for us, but it would also be great for the devs as they could point them to posts that they should read, rather than the devs having to try to read through what is mostly non-game development important chatter.

You know, they should just hire some dude with good English and Turkish language skills who's only job is tell us on the forum whats going on. I'm pretty sure the people on here would be willing to cover his paycheck.

Marajah said:

Literally ALL of your criticism here applies to bannerlord as well
- Guess what other game has been in development for 8 years? That's right! Bannerlord.
- They released the game for some selected people before the official EA release that were spouting videos on youtube featuring 2000 units' battles on fields or castles, running as smooth as butter. I can barely get 800 units on the field before my pc starts filling abuse lawsuits, not to mention sieges were unplayable before they scripted paths a few weeks after the release.
- There are dozens of videos of developers promising vibrant cities and elaborate criminal systems, not to mention what already existed in previous games, which weren't very fleshed out, but at least existed. We got none of that.
The only difference is CDPR comes from a worldly-acclaimed game and was expected to continue on that trend, while TW was well beloved on the indie niche and promised to take their game to the next level (in a similar leap CDPR did from witcher 1 to witcher 2).
If you come to Bannerlord with 0 expectations, you might be positively surprised, but be warned, developers didn't deliver and any veteran here is skeptical about the game being anything more than an empty world battle simulator to be filled by mods.

Click to expand...

Can't say i'm not disappointing on what Bannerlord was and is, but these are things they are working on, and EA is making it much easier for them(especially as a small company) to work on.
Your computer stutters at 800 troops and theirs doesn't at 2000(where did you see battles with 2000?), they haven't been building the game on your computer, and throughout EA they've been improving how it runs on as many setups as possible.
They don't have vibrant cities? They've been regularly releasing new artwork, and really they just need a team to sit down and add a bunch of dialogue and whatnot, though a lot of that actually needs to be based around the city art and settings, so... and every time they do work on that stuff people freak out "why did they add a new cow texture!?!" Because they can't have villager send you on a quest to find brown Bess if all the cows look the same!! lol
As to a crime system, ehhhh "Soon"?
I wish they'd get stuff done faster and better, and I think with better leadership and organization they could be a bit better, but they're still just humans. All in all I think they're doing a pretty alright job 7/10

I think it's really hit or miss on bugs, I haven't hit a game breaking one and I've been playing since release, whereas some people are still having trouble turning the game on... overall you'd probably be pretty safe based from what I've seen lurking on the forums. However I'd wait until they get the next update out as they are planning on adding some very nice new features(though they may also cause more bugs, so...).

They could solve this by allowing you to actually escort the caravan instead of follow, like when you join a army(they could even add party speed restrictions if they like, "you need a speed of at least 5"). This could also prevent the issue of parties that attacking that you aren't at war at, by having you temporarily flagged under the caravans nationality(which you would be as a mercenary in real life). They should also tell you where they are planning on going, because, once again, if this was real life I'm not escorting a caravan to an undisclosed location, unless they disclose they are paying me a bloody fortune.

TechnoSarge said:

I'm not sure what you are saying. I had no choice that I remember to "leave the Kingdom, declare war, and take my fiefs with me." I haven't seen any choices to "leave the Kingdom for an existing enemy and take my fiefs with me" either.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it's in the clan or kingdom menu, but in one of them at the top is the option to abandon kingdom, which then lets you have the option of taking fiefs or not. If you've been using dialog to leave the kingdom you don't get that option(because then you would leave that meeting without a head attached to your shoulders)

As for guy abandoning you, I don't think most of the relationship dynamics have been implemented.

TechnoSarge said:

So here is another issue: ME and MY ARMY of 654 healthy troops are sitting in Ostican. Gyphor and his 19 men have wigged out. The defenders FOR VLANDIA are the garrison troops I PERSONALLY installed from MY WARPARTY, and who I expect are still loyal to me, and a few militia. THE GAME only permits me to exit the town and then besiege it to get it back. I'm sorry, but my 654 men are IN POSSESSION and should hardly need to leave and fight to come back in

Click to expand...

I think this is more easy game mechanics. What happens when your X faction has an army in your town and they declare war? It really wouldn't make sense for them to just take it. If that was a concern you wouldn't let them in in the first place. Now you could add some clever designs so it only triggers under certain circumstances, like your situation, which might be nice, but it's not essential(especially if they fix the actual problems, like relationship).

thick1988 said:

I think also there should be a sort of chain of command for fiefs. As of now a lord is lord of a castle or lord of a town. Villages just fall under their umbrella. Villages should be able to be assigned as standalone fiefs to nobles, party members, etc. A village could then benefit from its lord's stewardship skill.
Long shot but it would be even better if villages could be upgraded as they were in Warband with watchtowers, mills, etc. Maybe even a mechanic allowing a lord to build a fortified manor or fort they could use to defend the village from raids.

Click to expand...

Dude, mini sieges would be awesome, and it would add to the realism. In places as war torn as calradia, villages would frequently have so small fortifications.
And having something like that would be great for starting players.