Recent content by Midnitewolf

I find myself marrying Ira a lot due to roleplay reasons. Perhaps because I play Khuzait or Aserai a lot, my first City almost always ends up being a Southern Empire town. Then I marry Ira for her link to the throne of the Southern Empire. Then I proceed to conquer the Southern Empire while (roleplaying) that I am using Ira's claim to the throne to justify my rulership of the Southern Empire.

Obliterati said:

its pretty low, like 18 or something, its flashing red but cant seem to improve that either. cant increase militia, loyalty or any of the sub options all display 0.0 change rates for each

would more troops help with this? im poor atm, and been struggling to afford more so far...

Click to expand...

Yeah the issue is your loyalty. Basically the people in town are refusing to work for you period. The only way to fix that is increase loyalty and unfortunately aside from a Governor with some obscenely high skill scores in some areas, the game doesn't give you a whole lot of tools to work with.

Couple of things that would help though are assigning a companion, any companion no matter the skills, that is of the same culture of your fief as goverment. I think you get -3 loyalty with no governor if the fief is not of your starting culture. if the governor is of another culture, you get a -1. If however the governor is of the same culture, you get a +1 for the governor so that can at least offset a bit of loyalty loss. Then factors such as security are important so there is that. For your garrisions, get rid of all Tier 2 and above troops and just put in as many recruits as you can to save money. Also there is one of the projects at the bottom of the screen that if you select it increases happiness. I think it is the far right option. Happiness is loyalty so that might help as well. Still it is very hard to get loyalty to increase without those 200 level skills. I think the 200 level skill in charm for a govern grants +10 loyalty an there is one other skill, maybe in leadership that has a +1 to loyalty buit most companions if not none of them, are going to have these skills or honestly probably ever have these skills without cheating them in.

Honestly Fief management is one of the areas that I feel huge disappointment about. You can only upgrade things and once things are upgrade, your left with almost absolutely nothing you can do to fix or change things that need fixed of changed. You just sort of end up hoping your fief sorts itself out.

From what it sounds like, it is probably the mod that is causing the issues your experiencing. You might try to see if there are any configuration setting you could manually adjust to tailor it to an experience you prefer or not use the mod however there is that war exhaustion mechanic you mentioned.

Also, I know, damned if you do, damned if you don't. I experience that a lot with both the native game and the mods. I can't stand how wars work in this game and want something, anything to fix it so the game feels more realistic when it comes to wars. However, if the alternative was so realistic that wars only happen once every 5-10 years, which is actually probably realistic, I wouldn't like that either.

AlexTheCat said:

Not joking. And, there is no implication. You're coming up with a needless and convoluted backstory to explain video game mechanics. It's a video game, it doesn't need fan fiction to explain why you never run out of arrows.

Click to expand...

There is a term called "Suspension of Disbelief". Most people consider it a pretty essential part of immersion no matter what the media be it games, TV, books, you name it. What this means is that even though there are unrealistic situations or things that defy belief, the person experiencing the media can come up with answers that explain why you don't have to do things such as buy arrows after every fight. It is when you can't come up with those explanations like you get your arrows through picking them up on the battlefield or that your army is actually making them as you wander the map or whatever, that the game or whatever stops being immersive.

Obviously not everyone enjoys things the same way as others and immersiveness might not be important or even necessary to you but I would content that the vast majority of people playing a "medieval warfare and kingdom building simulator" want immersive gameplay. That is way these backstories are an essential part.

Yep, this is a persistent issue in the game. Nope, there are not any policies that change it. You create a Kingdom and find that your not the King, your just a puppet at the whims of your vassals and/or you actually somehow created a democracy without realizing it. It is a huge issue to me honestly. Hopefully they will decide to make a Rules decision absolute or someone will create a mod to do it.

Also, as far as I understand it, this is a balancing mechanism in a game or I should say wars are at the very least. The whole system is designed to make sure that the status quo is kept in any and all circumstances and it will get worse as you manage to expand your Kingdoms power. The more powerful you get the more your lords want to be in war and the more the other factions want to fight you. By the time you reach end game, you will be fighting every faction in perpetual war and no matter how good or bad your doing in any particular war, there will be no support to end the war ever.

I am facing this right now. I have a huge kingdom with 27 actual clans, no one can stop me yet it has turned out to be one of the most frustrating gameplay loops I have ever experienced. I am at war with nearly every faction, my lords support peace with none of them and I am finding that while I might be making progress in one area of the map, I lose the same amount of progress in another part. I guess I am slowly winning over all because I am exploiting the catch and release mechanic to make all enemy lords love me then recruiting them in time of war and getting them to bring all their fiefs with them but I feel frustrated because I have to bounce all over the map and constantly take back the castles and towns I lost while I was off fighting a war against another faction.

I know that this is designed to make sure I am being challenged as a player but I also feel like the end goal of any single player game is that the player is supposed to win and a system designed to be challenging just to be challenging rather than realistic is just frustrating. Also another part that frustrated me was why everyone was fighting only me. For example I don't even share a border with Vlandia and I am currently engaged in a very hard fought and highly contested war with both Battania and the Western Empire yet Vlandia has it hard for me. How about instead of challenging me with having to fight all factions, that Vlandia instead decides to go to war with Battania or the Western Empire and challenges me by growing their kingdom to the same size as mine while Battania and Western Empire are dealing with me??

Anyway, I don't like frustration for frustrations sake and that is all the constant wars are just frustrating. Also, ideally I don't want all factions being equal for the entire game, instead I want it to eventually be just 2 or 3 large faction vying for supremacy. Of course this is why I argue that snowballing isn't something that should have been eliminated because the ultimate goal of this game is conquering the world. The only snowballing I wanted to see fixed was the fact it was always the Khuziats that were snowballing. Honestly, I think we ended up with a worse game when they "balanced" it so that no faction can really manage to ever get superiority over another.

Emperor1997 said:

It makes no sense that a high tier clan marriage their daughter to a lower tier clan and that daughter join the lower tier clan.

In CK3 marriage is not per gender, but per tier, will say a king would never marriage their daughter regular to a lower tier character, they will only marriage their daughter matrilineal to lower tier characters.

Please remove this idea of marriage by gender and replace it through marriage by tier.

Click to expand...

This is not entirely true especially with daughters. Also you wealth had a class all its own and having class did not necessarily make you wealthy so the son or daughter or a wealthy merchant could very well find themselves marrying into nobility. Alsop a noble family might "sacrifice" a third son or even a first daughter to marrying a wealthy commoner son or daughter so that the noble family could take advantage of the wealth and connections they offered.

In Bannerlord, your considered an "Up and coming young lord or lady". I mean you went from castaway with nothing to merc/wealthy merchant to lord usually within some record breaking time span, something like maybe 3-5 in game years. That is a pretty meteoric rise in rank. Also you may only be tier 3 or 4, but it is entirely possible to own 2 cities and 3 castles by that time, more actual property than some Tier 5 and 6 lords. That being the case, I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that a high tiered family would be willing to attach their fortunes to your coattails by offering up a suitable groom or bride. At the end of the day wealth and power allows for no boundaries.

Fate said:

+1 to all of this although I don't think it would ever be implemented by TW

Click to expand...

Yeah that is why I called them, "Fantasy features Taleworlds would never implement". That sort of change to the basic gameplay would require the entire game be balanced quite differently including how the AI moves and selects targets and you would have to have a massive overhaul of the diplomacy system. It is just a dream that I wish Taleworlds would have shared when the started creating Bannerlord in the first place.

kapko said:

I left the forums for about a month or so, because I felt like there was just too much negativity in here. I got exited by the 7th development update and the terrain feature over 2 weeks ago - finally some information, yay! Today, I got back to the forums and... the negativity just hit me like a truck.

TaleWorlds, for f*cks sake, why do you not communicate with people?!

Seriously, why? Is it really so hard to get someone on the forums for 2 hours a day and communicate with people? Is it really so hard to tell your fans what you are planning with the game? What features you want to implement? What you are currently working on? What progress has been made? Or is it really so confidential information that telling people would ruin the game for everyone? C'mon!

The only reason people are so negative about the game development is the lack of information. If you actually told us about features like the battle terrain from the dev update, people would be more understanding, since it must take considerable time to implement it properly. Instead we only had void. Emptiness. Dark that gets a little bit brighter every time people like mexxico talk to the community or when you finally release those few development updates. Nobody talked to people before that dev update and nobody talked after it released. Just tell us more! It does not matter how small or big it is just tell us. Give us some weekly updates. Whatever. People need to know that you are not just wasting time, but actually working on the game. And I know it is harsh to say like that, but that is how many people on this forum see it.

One of the main purposes of early access is to communicate with people and get their opinion on things/updates/new features and mechanics/etc. Just leave 1 or 2 people to communicate on the forums for 2 hour a day and allow them tell people about the current state of the game. We deserve to know so please don't let us down.

Click to expand...

No that isn't completely right. I am a bit negative because most of the features I was looking forward to have been cut or scaled back dramatically. I am also a bit negative because there doesn't seem to have been much progress that took place during the 9 month break I took to allow the game to have tons of progress. I am also a bit negative that EA was supposed to be wrapping up but it is looking like we have 6-12 more months of EA. As someone who is primarily looking forward to the mods, this is a huge backward step because the modders aren't going to waste their time when the gaming is changing ever 2-4 weeks.

So for me, the lack of information isn't a problem, it is the lack of promised features and lack of progress that is most concerning to me.

AxiosXiphos said:

Click to expand...

I would refute all of this.

It would only be a duplicate thread if he had made an exact copy of this after the latest patch. Then there is the fact existing threads get forgotten. Also if your post is buried in a thousand other posts it never gets read and a post once read, won't get read again even if you edit it. The only way to keep a topic relevant is to keep posting and keeping it in the headlines and you have the right to feedback how you feel after every new patch. Finally, look at how the media and especially social media gets its messages across. Posting your feeling after every patch or throughout the development process is absolutely the best method of keeping your topic and message relevant.

As far as a post being non-constructive, that depends what you want to construct. If the OP wanted a post to "Construct" a feeling of disappointment and a plea for a change in direction, I think he did a fair job of "Constructing" the point he wanted to get across.

As far as disruptive or persistently argumentative behavior, how do you define that. Do we suppress having a dissenting opinion or expressing discontentment? Seems we would just get a crappy game if we all we said to the devs was, "Great game, everything is perfect".

So as far as a relevant post by the OP, it might duplicate other posts because I know there is a lot of discontentment and disappointment, but those posts aren't his posts so as far as I know, it is unique in that regard and even if he posted something similar in the past, the game is in EA and is changes so he would be entitled to express discontentment after ever new patch as things change if he felt discontented by the changes. It also is constructive as it expresses his feelings of discontentment at the state of the game and also outlines exactly what he wants the game to be, i.e. an upgraded and enhanced Warband which also conveys the direction he wants development to be changed to. Finally, he is just offering his opinion, negative though it might be. He is not screaming obscenities or attacking players, he is just saying he is disappointed. That being the case, I see nothing wrong with his post or actually anything that resembles spam.

Kyias said:

Pretty much yeah. They have wierd attacking priorities with such a Horizontally challenged geography.

Unlike others, I actually really like their troop trees. The only difference I would like to see is more variance between their Heavy Axemen and Heavy Spearmen infantry. Their mounted skirmishers are mediocre (but useful) and their archers are a filler unit...but these two fill the same role and need some variety.

Their noble troop I feel needs a swordstaff weapon. There really isn't a dedicated poleblade cavalry unit. The Khans guard has one, but it's primarily a horse archer. I think that would be a cool role for the Sturgians for shock cav.

Click to expand...

I am not a fan of their troops nor the bastardization of a mix between Kievan Rus and Viking. Honestly I don't feel those cultures have anything in common except prehaps having fought each other a time or two. Real Kievan Rus armies around the timeframe used by this game were very archer heavy and have a significant focus on horse archers, specifically heavy horse archers. They got their butts kicked by the Mongols and largely adopted Mongol tactics and unit compositions. If anything made them unique it was the lack of heavy melee cavalry since the the focus upon contact with the Mongol invasions converted that heavy melee cavalry into horse archers.

Actually from what I read, I think it might be safe to say that it isn't exactly true that the Kievan Rus lost their heavy melee cavalry, instead that heavy melee cavalry just became a hybrid of heavy melee cavalry and horse archers. As far as I understand, they used horse archers very differently probably due to the fact they couldn't exactly match Mongol's in this area since Mongol's ate, slept and breathed horse archery from birth. Instead the Rus Horse archers would rush forward and from a standing formation, use their bows to harass enemy formations. Then put up their bows and charge in like normal cavalry.

Anyway, my point is the Sturgian troop tree sucks because of the hybridization of the Viking and Rus cultures leaves them lacking in critical areas. Also I HATE the mismatch of armors and equipment. It probably wouldn't be so bad but my ancestry is from the Slavic regions and it is just painful to see those cultural identities get so corrupted by Viking influence. Hell if I have to be honest, the Vikings, which was an amazing culture in and of itself suffers from having Rus cultures mixed in with it, The whole thing just clashes visually and I hate it. I want my pure Vaegirs back from Warband...well with the addition of the horse archer units which were significant to the cultures they were based upon added.

Hopefully someone will do a really good troop overhaul mod for Sturgia to weed out the impure Viking influence hehe.

Fate said:

TaleWorlds has job openings for a new game (previously listed as SciFi but that has been removed)

How do you guys feel about this? Would you get it or support another EA by TaleWorlds?

I personally think with the state Bannerlord is in (bugs, delays, cut features, lack of depth, dead multiplayer etc.), I don't think resources obtained from it's EA should be going into anything else.

What do you think?

Click to expand...

Honestly this is typical. Let me get my soapbox out again.

We are dumb, simple as that. The developer releases a buggy mess and calls it "Early Access" and tells us it is a work in progress and not to buy it unless we are ok with that. Then we give a company our money for a unfinished product because we are too impatient to wait for it to be actually finished.

That company NOW HAS OUR MONEY. They will not likely sell a substantial amount of additional copies of the game because most of the people interested already gave them full price for the buggy mess of an unfinished game. Instead of taking that money and going "all hands on deck" to finish the product like we all seem to expect them to do, they do what business do and follow the money.

So money in hand = Zero real incentive to finish product or deliver on promises. Huge incentive to move on to another project that they can also release it as another buggy mess and call it EA. Skeleton crew assigned to first unfinished game, enough to make the players feel that the game is being finished but not enough to make any sort of real progress so feature are cut and progress grinds to a standstill. by the way, does this seem familiar with how much progress has been made on Bannerlord since we gave them our money?

The ads go out for jobs to help develop a new game and 90% of existing development team is reassigned to the new project.

Honestly I have seen this time an time and time again but I am part of the problem. I am dumb just like you and gave them my money for an unfinished buggy mess with the hopes they were on the up and up enough to actually give 100% effort to finish the existing game prior to moving on to another project. The definition of insanity is to do the same action over and over with the expectation of a different result.

Apocal said:

The battle AI doesn't eat up that much CPU though.

Click to expand...

OH YEAH IT DOES.

I didn't think so at first however I download a mod that greatly enhances the AI making it so units block and use shield much more often and more appropriately. It also does a much better (buy unfortunately not perfect) job of managing enemy formations which has made it so on many occassions, the AI has actually surprised and challenged me with some of the tactics it has used. It has been pretty night and day for me.

However, I went from being able to run 1500 man battles on max setting in any scene or setting in the game, smooth as butter with no hitches or frame drops to having to drop the battle size back down to 1000 and even that isn't enough to to alleviate all the stuttering and frame drops I now experience any time I have a large battle or a very complex scene. It honestly took me a while to figure out what was going on because I too believed the battle AI didn't eat up that much CPU. I even though my RTX 3080 was going bad or something but nope, soon as I removed the AI module, it was back to butter.

Honestly when you think about it a bit, it makes tons of sense. The CPU is tracking hundreds of units and all their moves and actions including collision. It is also tracking the trajectory of armors and swings of weapons, including things like speed and distance of those arrows and weapons. Let say you now just add in additional calculations for when to use shield and when not to. That is probably literally thousands of additional calculations the CPU has to process JUST to enhance shield usage.

Magello said:

Why can't we arrange a marriage for ourselves? This could be by paying a large payment in money, influence, or property.

Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. I am pretty sure you can do this. I mean aside from going to the potential spouse yourself there is an dialog option when talking with the Clan Leader that says something about cementing a relationship through marriage. I also took this to mean that if you had enough relationship with a clan leader, you could go directly to them and ask them to arrange a marriage with one of the single Clan Members without actually taking to the spouse. I haven't tried this but I assumed that was the whole point of that dialog option.

Well depending on the code I could see it as actually be a mechanism for establishing realistic borders and zones of control. There is a big part of me that would love it for fortifications which includes towns as well as castles to establish a zone of control around them that prevents parties/armies of certain sizes to pass by them without having to take and occupy those fortifications first.

The way I envision it would be that maybe an party or army under 150 would have no restrictions at all going anywhere on the map with the logic being that a unit that size in times of war could theoretically infiltrate the border pretty easily and live off the land and that in times of peace it wouldn't be a large enough army to be consider a threat to the kingdom. This also allows for almost unrestricted raiding to happen during wars. However any party or army OVER 150 would be prevented from entering the zone of control of any fortification owned by a rival faction. This is in peace and war so no 1000+ man armies gracefully wandering your kingdom or making war on a faction on the other side of the map while using your Kingdom as a springboard for their invasion without your permission.

This would be a great basis for a lovely strategic gameplay loop and would make owning chokepoint castles and cities have actual meaning as critical strategic locations while making warfare seem more realistic. This also opens the door for more diplomacy options where you could negotiate military access if you did want to attack across another factions territory and even make it so strategic alliances could be a thing. Also would have situations where there is one castle in the middle of your kingdom, owned by another faction with breaks immersion.

Also since we are taking about fantasy features Taleworlds would never implement, I would love to see the actually major choke point castes and towns be able to be upgraded to fortresses so they were really tough to crack but if they feel, it would be really, really bad for the defending faction.

vonbalt said:

The combat is good and they fixed a huge deal of it since closed beta (it was terrible with the delays back then) but some things feel weird in it compared to warband like mounted melee aim, it was a breeze to strike from horseback in warband but in bannerlord you have to turn the comera way down to hit with most weapons.

Click to expand...

Oh I will agree about this, the camera angles required to make the strikes are way, way different from Warband and I totally struggled with finding the right angles to get hits with shorter weapons from horseback. Heck to be honest, I still struggle a bit with weapons shorter than 100 length but it really is just a matter of getting the right angles, rather than it not working or working in a clunky manner and I can generally now hit reliably from horses with even relatively short maces.

My bigger issue is the damage difference between a swingable polearm and a sword. It becomes very hard to justify using a Sword that already has a shorter reach, when it take 3-4 hits with a sword to do the same lethal levels of damage as with a Glaive. I understand that the longer handle of the swingable polearm provides leverage and speed to the blow but the game models it as the difference between a 30 damage hit for the Sword and a 230 damage hit for the Glaive. Personally I think that the damage difference should be more like 30 for the sward and 40-45 for the pole arm. Same with two hand axes, they just do too much damage compared to single handed weapon.

As for the camera angles required in order to achieve a hit, personally I wish they would make those angles more easy to achieve. Why I can now pretty easily flip my camera straight down to in a pinch to use a short single handed weapon from a horse, it does still feel a bit awkward. Instead of the 70+ degree angle downward, I wish they would make it more like 45-50 degrees for close strikes instead.