Recent content by Morbo513

Like others, for me it's no one thing.

Better stability
Battle AI that isn't brain-dead, on the individual and tactical levels
The ability to give commands in battle after death, and/or the ability to take control of companions/troops still in the battle
Infantry collision boxes being expanded so you don't have troops literally inside one another
Turn-rate and movement slow-down when readying an attack
Rebalanced damage types that don't have arrows ignore armour to such a huge degree, and armour that doesn't render the wearer impervious to anything but stabbing attacks
Face hitbox for open helmets
Weapon damage boxes being adjusted such that hafts aren't treated as though they're blades, with targets hit at the start of a swing taking much less damage.
Customisable player-faction troop-tree

MP being un****ed - Weapon & class balance, mitigation of ranged-spam, the inclusion of the Warband progression/loadout system as an option for server hosts or simply replacing the current class system.

Those are the major ones for me, but there are plenty of other mod (and WB mod) features that have spoiled me for the base game.

Bloc said:

horse archery is nerfed really hard for MP and it's practically useless at the moment.

Click to expand...

Good I say. Horse archers are extremely powerful, and it should take both a player and character who's skilled and experienced enough to make it worthwhile, because even with worse accuracy on the move and in general, they're still amongst the most powerful classes just by virtue of being able to attack at range and easily outrun/evade any melee attackers not on a horse themselves. If a player isn't capable of making up for mechanical inaccuracy, they should have to slow down while taking shots, somewhat making up for these huge advantages.

The thing about menavlions that gets me is how they're able to deal severe damage right from the beginning of their swing to the very end of it, and seemingly regardless of whether the blade or the haft is making contact with the target.
It's this in combination with a lack of speed/turn-rate reduction when swinging that makes it incredibly powerful, crush-through notwithstanding. Maybe it could take longer between swings on top of all the above being tweaked.

To me, the level of accuracy and rapidity of even the basic bows and their wielders border on ridiculous. In Warband, bows were an actual challenge to use, NPC archers would miss much more than they'd hit at ranges > 50m and so would the average player. If you get hit by an arrow in Warband, you either made yourself an easy target, or it took skill and/or good equipment on the archer's part (or volume of enemy archers in campaign/captain battle). I much preferred that dynamic, both in SP and MP.
In BL, the lack of friendly fire, in addition to faster, more accurate and powerful bows, allows archers to shoot into melee combat with complete impunity and score kills without significant challenge.

Regarding helmets, I think their protection should be divided - Top of head, face, neck/back/sides.
I mean I got other opinions on how armour could work better, but someone taking a crossbow bolt directly to the eyeball and not being bothered by it because they have a piece of metal covering a different body-part is one of the most jarring things about M&B.

I agree that BL is in desparate need of more unit commands, but I hate hate hate! radial menus. Regardless, all the ones suggested in OP would be great.
It also needs more formation commands imo - For archers, the existing ones are particularly inefficient - either they're spread too thin or they're clustered so close they block one anothers' line of fire. The ability for units to crouch while firing ranged weapons (particularly crossbows - would help differentiate them from bows) would also be very welcome for this reason.

I agree with most of these, not sure what "Neutral towns and castles to eliminate automatic fief acquisition when faction nobles are eliminated" means exactly - My interpretation is that an executed lord's fief is turned neutral and is then taken/claimed by a(?) faction? Sounds janky if so

But yeah, executions should realistically turn a lot of powerful people against you - even many who might benefit from the lord being killed, I doubt they'd like it in principle - especially if they're on neutral or worse standing with you, and especially if to them, you're just some commoner. It'd certainly make sense and be cool for their familiy/clan/kingdom, depending on their influence and relationships, to retaliate. I especially like the idea of heirs carrying on that grudge.

On a slightly different subject, I'd like for there to be a chance of lords dying in combat (and same with player companions/vassals). Depending on the context of the battle, if it was the player who slew them, it might not incur any penalty, or it might as well have been an execution.

I'd also love to see "hero" characters of a particularly bastardised nature decide to execute particularly hated captive lords.

All these things would add much depth to player-NPC interactions, depth that's needed if Bannerlord is to truly expand on Warband.

problemsolver said:

which version? 1.4.2. or 1.4.1? Which i5? I think that the ram requirements on the steam page are misleading to say the least, 16gb should be recommended for this game.

Click to expand...

1.4.1, 4690k

I imagine this is at the top of a lot of peoples' wishlists, mine too, so I apologise if it's already been brought up and discussed to death.

I think it'd work best with a lot of elastic progression elements:
The player-kingdom Troop Tree is derived from that of their kingdom's parent culture. However, the trops are of a generally worse quality skills-wise, and their equipment is knocked down a tier, with negative modifiers.

The player can hire trainers to improve troops' skills (companions/governors/vassals could also serve the role). If the player terminates the trainer's employment, the troops' skills regress. Skills/focus/attributes could be automatically assigned based on the troop's role (per their gear), modified by trainer quantity/quality, parent culture, and maybe a couple levers for the player.
A bonus to the effective training level of kingdom troops in one's party could be added to heros' Leadership skill tree.

The player can invest gold to upgrade the troops' equipment sets, allowing them to freely choose weapons and armour for each troop, within tiers respective of their rank. More expensive gear makes them more expensive to recruit/level up and increases their wage.
New equipment is rolled out gradually over a couple in-game weeks, during which some of the troops of a given type will still wear/wield the old equipment.

Towns would have equipment workshops, which determine the average equipment quality modifiers of the kingdom's troops. Again, heroes could play a role here with high-smithing characters adding a bonus. The player can also invest monetarily here, to keep those imports flowing.
Demand for the comoddities needed to produce each piece of equipment would be reflected by the materials needed in their production - affecting price of troop upgrades and wages and the city/kingdom's economy.

In summary, the quality of troops and their equipment is just as much about the kingdom's economy/manufacturing to support them, not just which equipment you choose for them. The player may find themselves having to downgrade their troops in some way to keep costs down or to stabilise their economy.

That's all very intricate but just one example of how it could work and how much it could add; Better player expression, more moneysinks for the player - The Warband mods that feature it are an order of magnitude more enjoyable for it.

uçanbiblo said:

Hello, sorry for the inconvenience. Can you confirm the problem persists after the newly released patches?

Click to expand...

I've since had an upgrade - Win10, i5, 16gb RAM, GTX 1050 Ti - and have had no performance issues, other than loss of FPS in large battle/sieges which is to be expected. I haven't noticed any memory leak issues, but I haven't been looking to be fair.

hruza said:

They are not charging using F1-F3. And yes, AI will base their decision to attack or defend on overall balance that includes your troops. I see nothing wrong with that.

That might upset what ever smart plan you had of course, but isn't unreasonable from the AI point of view.

[EDIT:] May be giving player some time to organize his forces and get his act together before starting advance would solve the problem of AI getting ahead.

Click to expand...

Sure, there's nothing wrong with NPC armies acting with no sense of self-perservation - But it not only fails to sell the illusion that there's actual intelligence behind their actions; it makes no tactical or strategic sense either. Maybe in the context of a glory-seeking lord who gives no ****s about the people under his command, it might make sense, sometimes. But say it's a merchant caravan. For what sane reason would they push their escorts ahead of the force (which can be and usually is much larger and/or higher quality) that came to their aid? Why would they not either fall in under their command, or stay back?
In those edge-cases where a weaker force would reasonably charge, even despite their portion of the force being vastly outnumbered by both the player's army and that of the enemy - and the player isn't also charging - I agree that that they should wait a minute before they do so.

The combat AI is probably the weakest part of Bannerlord at the moment and I don't think it's unreasonable to want it to be better than that of Warband.