Recent content by Lord Milky

Stop comparing Cyber-flunk and Bannerlord. The only similarity they share is the fact they're both a mess.

Dejan said:

This is intended behaviour but the feedback of the community on this particular issue has been received and will be discussed at the next feedback meeting.

Click to expand...

Any news on lord personality traits? Was hoping to see an improvement and how it impacts they’re behaviour in battles

Practice in arena and custom battles and you'll get the feel for it eventually. Most of the veteran players come from Warband, which was a more accessible and easier combat system to pick up. The Ai in Bannerlord is a bit more aggressive so using a lower difficulty as a new player seems like the best bet. Crank it back up after a couple of playthroughs.

The main issue currently is ranged troops - archers etc, have a ridiculous insta-gib headshot skill and don't get me started on Javelin troops.

I’ve always pronounced it as Swore-dia. Makes zero sense I know but my brain likes that version and won’t hear it any other way.

Agreed, lords/ ladies do feel lifeless. It's weird that in Warband I felt my actions and character had more of an impact in the world and the characters themselves had an opinion. This illusion is sorely missed. I thought the character trait system would make NPC's more alive. Noticing certain chaps on the field who were master tacticians, using formations and another who would simply charge. But no, they all charge and they're all bots wearing different colours.

Great idea, but if you perhaps start to convince other clans to join you, then relation with their former kingdom should fall significantly. I feel this will help balance.

MadVader said:

What are your top EA games then? Maybe there's a pattern that's specific to you. Star Citizen? DayZ?

Click to expand...

Chronicles of elyria

I'd like to see more gameplay features and depth for activities inside your castle. Why build interiors anymore? I can sit on a shoddy throne, but what else can I do? Play a board game? I think there should be a purpose for the player to literally walk around their castles. Introduce dynamic quests to help shape your settlement. Maybe have a treasure room of spoils, feasting, furnishings , maybe introduce a bonus to sleeping and resting inside your own settlement. Perhaps troops gain an attack bonus for well maintained equipment due to being stationed at home???

Other features could include new NPC's , architect, helping you design the layout of your castle, Maybe have an option of upgrading said castle into a town? - as was originally planned way back. More opportunities to increase revenue and production from villages.

Call it something similar to Hearthguard? Maybe laughhard, because this is all pointless and will never happen.

Calabanar said:

What I will say is that I kind of hoped light cav would have a different ai than heavy cav, since their roles are so drastically different.

Click to expand...

I like this idea, I feel like light cav should use the current format for cav, the odd charge from flanks, quick in and out engagements. The heavy cav should use more front charges , making use of the armoured horse to really knock back troops.The original knock back effect from charges was removed, which was a shame.

Oh how I've missed being cannon fodder for Ai lords!
..
"Beat me sire! .." for I need only a scrap of bread to march into battle"!

Narushima said:

Lord Milky said:

The video you are referencing is a modern day race horse. Are you honestly saying,  that is an accurate portrayal of the training and temperament of a medieval Destrier?

You cannot use the term , "Medieval sources are far and few between , so let's use 19th century etc..
They did not have cannons or musket fire in the early period.

That's like saying we can't study lions but let's use cheetahs as a representation of wild cats.

Click to expand...

Thoroughbreds (racing horses) are larger than medieval cavalry horses. The horse that collided with the lady had it's leg broken and was later put down.

Honestly, I've only seen one side provide any actual sources for what they claim. All you really have is vagueness and straw men.

So just stop the charade and provide actual proof of what you claim. Not wordplay, not vague accounts of how cavalry charged in the general direction of infantry. Provide proof that cavalry would regularly slam into infantry 3 lines deep.

Click to expand...

3 lines deep? I made no mention of said statement. I also made no statement regarding the size comparison between a race horse and a destrier. I said , "training"..and "temperament".


Perhaps you should read the thread more clearly. I have only referenced the battle of Arsuf. Resources for that are readily available. If you have cause to open your mouth, maybe post your own sources instead of being a hypocrite.

The video you are referencing is a modern day race horse. Are you honestly saying,  that is an accurate portrayal of the training and temperament of a medieval Destrier?

You cannot use the term , "Medieval sources are far and few between , so let's use 19th century etc..
They did not have cannons or musket fire in the early period.

That's like saying we can't study lions but let's use cheetahs as a representation of wild african cats.

MountAndMemeButterlord said:

Lord Milky said:

hruza said:

Flemish infantry at the battle of Battle of the Golden Spurs stood just fine.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the the Ayyubid's who experienced a charge at the Battle of Arsuf.


Richard personally led forward his remaining Norman and English knights against Saladin's center. This charge shattered the Ayyubid line and caused Saladin's army to flee the field. Pushing forward, the Crusaders captured and looted the Ayyubid camp. With darkness approaching, Richard called off any pursuit of the defeated enemy.

Click to expand...

I don't know what historical account of the battle this is from but we have no reason to believe terms like "shattered" should be taken to mean that they collided at a gallop. If lines of infantry (that there were apparently few if any at the Battle of Arsuf, during a period when infantry was usually of low quality) start breaking apart and routing before the cavalry charge collides they have in a sense "shattered" into small groups of fleeing men.

Click to expand...

Well regardless, I'm simply stating it wasn't uncommon for cavalry to charge infantry. And seeing as the gentlemen continues to use Napoleonic and wikiedia type resources for medieval-era cavalry tactics, I'll post the same to disprove said mindset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_(warfare)#European_Middle_Ages

hruza said:

Lord Milky said:

Tell that to the the Ayyubid's who experienced a charge at the Battle of Arsuf.


Richard personally led forward his remaining Norman and English knights against Saladin's center. This charge shattered the Ayyubid line and caused Saladin's army to flee the field. Pushing forward, the Crusaders captured and looted the Ayyubid camp. With darkness approaching, Richard called off any pursuit of the defeated enemy.

Click to expand...

Modern estimates of Saladin's army place it at around 25,000 soldiers, "almost" all cavalry (horse archers, light cavalry, and a minority of heavy cavalry).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Arsuf#Battle

Can't find heavy infantry mentioned there. May be you can.

Click to expand...

Found it. Using your own source , which I might add is wikipedia. 

hruza said:

Flemish infantry at the battle of Battle of the Golden Spurs stood just fine.

Click to expand...

Tell that to the the Ayyubid's who experienced a charge at the Battle of Arsuf.


Richard personally led forward his remaining Norman and English knights against Saladin's center. This charge shattered the Ayyubid line and caused Saladin's army to flee the field. Pushing forward, the Crusaders captured and looted the Ayyubid camp. With darkness approaching, Richard called off any pursuit of the defeated enemy.