Recent content by mortache

Fingo Baggins said:

I think it's more like it is very hard to be accurate with this, so it is better to not promise anything.

You think a problem is easy to fix and take X days, and then you realise there are unexpected complications and it takes twice as long as you think. Then in testing they find that it causes a conflict with something else or it's not quite as polished and need re-working. Dev always takes longer than expected on complicated stuff like this game.

Click to expand...

Yeah isn't like baking a cake - put stuff in the oven, set a timer and done lol.

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:

It's clearly an attempt to prevent cavalry getting bogged down, especially in bigass formations with 200 horses all converging on the exact same spot because they just charge the closest enemy rather than the one most suitable infront of them. This was actually a big annoyance in warband and it made anything that wasn't flat plains a massive pain in the ass to use cavalry on.

However they picked the silliest solution. Cavalry now just phases through entire blocks of infantry without slowing down or even doing much damage. And the ludicrous length of their charge distance, some 150 metres, just lowers their damage output even more. Its like melee cavalry exists on a separate dimension.

Click to expand...

Unless they have a glaive, of course

Making good AI without making the game a boring slog is really hard. Wonder why the spearmen can't just turtle behind their shields and stab you at a fraction of a second without even moving the shields? Because that would make a single battle last for hours.

But spear thrusts should be sped up at least, they're really pathetic compared to swords when it should be the other way around.

Apocal said:

Pure gamification. The same reason they get foot archers more range than horse archers in Total War.

Click to expand...

I mean, horse archery is already more inaccurate in the game anyways, and it "kinda" does make sense. But the longbow thing is just giving in to stereotypes originating from England. While on that note, thrust animations should be twice as fast and spears should do more damage

Longbows were very commonly used on horseback. Nomads with compound (recurve) bows were famous for horse archery, but they're famous for all things cavalry. Western nobles preferred to use lances on horseback and archers were the boots on the ground regular soldiers, that's why the common image of a western longbowman (like the Welsh for example) has them on foot. But plenty of actual medieval artwork show longbows being used on horses.

In fact, I don't see why longbows do more damage than recurves anyways. The only advantage of longbows was that its super cheap to produce. Maaaaybe in the rain it could be more robust i.e you could use more power without risking it coming apart, but a recurve bow is just as powerful in normal circumstances. Shorter draw length, but the curved tips act like little trebuchets giving more efficient transfer of energy.

My "trick" is to never be negative in the income. Don't upgrade most of your troops beyond tier 3-4 depending on your income, don't have huge garrisons behind frontlines, force bandits to join you, etc. Its not fun to grind for anything, and I only ever did "smithing exploit" once and just abandoned that run because it took all the fun out of the game. You're not supposed to roam around with a thousand tier 6 units unless you have a lot of income (like a bunch of prosperous fiefs). The positive income and selling battle loot means I climb to hundreds of thousands without even trying anything. If your troops are too expensive and you don't wanna fight but chill for a while, just donate them to some other clan.

Totalgarbage said:

Hey @zeytinlikraker , I know that devs don't like to give a precise date for content, and I completely understand, but could you tell if we can expect a large mainline patch (something like 1.1) within January or February? Or are we still a ways off from having a part of features that were outlined in your post release plans?

Click to expand...

Its not that devs don't like giving info on that, but more like "if they were willing to share that info, they'd have done it already in a post of their own"

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James said:

Castles in warband and bannerlord are basically just crappy towns, half way between a village and a town, which is really stupid and means they add nothing to the game. Towns should be the real moneymakers, but should have crappy garrisons and surrender almost immediately. Then Castles should be used to defend them on the strategic level by having very large patrol armies around them.

For this reason I think castles should actually cost money. In an ideal world the player and AI could actually build and demolish them, which really shouldn't be that hard to implement, but in warband the absurd spaghetti code made this way harder than necessary, so who knows what it's like in bannerlord.

Click to expand...

But castles really often were just crappy towns, other than isolated frontier fortifications. And they already give reduced garrison wages. Any existing system can always be improved, but I don't see how you plan to accomplish this in the timeframe of the few decades that we play a campaign. I guess they could take a page out of Improved Garrisons' book and have the garrisons fight bandits and raiders, but the game is based on character actions, especially parties.

OptiqueMarquis said:

goes to show that the TW devs haven't got the first clue as to who plays their game.

most of the most popular mods out there add MORE realism to the game, not LESS.

the devs think they are catering to 14 y/o in a playstation when in reality i'd bet most players of bannerlord are seasoned pc gamers who don't have an interest in fortnite

Click to expand...

For the few people who mod their games like that, true. But for the vast majority, that would be counter productive. You don't fine tune your game for the 0.2% "hardcore" players. Most of those who want "more realism" also want the Byzantines to wear 2nd century Lorica segmentata and the Normans to wear 16th century plate armor and the Rus to be 8th century "Vikings" at the same time.

You want more realism? Prepare to be a serf for 20 generations because that's what you're statistically going to be. The very idea that some guy can start recruiting and then be the ruler of the entire world in 20 years is a fast paced power fantasy.

Can anyone test if this actually works now? I wanted to do a merchant playthrough but don't want to make my life even harder than it needs to be.

Apocal said:

I find the mod is worse because the rest of the game is built with frequent, fast fights in mind and if you make every serious battle take like five times as long and produce 50% more casualties for the player, it very quickly starts to drag things into grindfest territory.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY. This is after all a video game, and you don't need 20 years to train a knight all the way from childhood, and villages will keep spawning troops even if hundreds of thousands of troops have died. The base game is designed for a certain thing, and if you alter that you have to alter all of the rest to have it make any sense.

five bucks said:

Balance isn't an on/off switch between OP and UP, it's a matter of degrees. There is a midpoint between what we have now and RBM. Where both archers and cav are useful relative to their cost.

Click to expand...

Yeah true. Personally I would love to see spears and thrust attacks in general be a lot more powerful. They're supposed to be way faster and have longer reach than swinging, but in the game its just painfully slow and ineffective. I'd SLIGHTLY reduce the arrow effectiveness, or make "friendly fire" a thing.

five bucks said:

Well, nobody's jumping on top of anyone or pinning anyone in Bannerlord. When talking total realism, I also disagree with the notion that any one of those 5 unarmoured dudes would want to be the first one to try and rush down the knight and get their guts sliced open by a sword for their trouble.

Click to expand...

Well that's the issue, isn't it? You can't simulate a few guys pinning down a knight and holding a dagger to his eye slot. If they're wearing even heavy jackets let alone mail, what can that knight do when rushed? Good luck slicing open even a hand me down scavenged mail shirt. A knight's ransom is a lotta money and these guys are here on the battlefield in the first place. They aren't your bob from accounting who would pass out if he got a papercut.

Brano said:

....instead of getting a fief. A basic prerequisite of vassal - suzerain contract in feudal system.

Click to expand...

You do get a fief when one becomes available, what are you talking about?

There is no way to balance this thing. A knight, however strong, can't do anything if 4-5 dudes (looters) jump on top of him and pin him to the ground. He's only got two hands and two legs, with added 10-15kg of armor at least. The archers really are too powerful, true, but it all has to do with how the battle system is designed. You can't have 1000 highly detailed armor physics models where the arrows or swords could go through the gaps. This is a video game, and its rules are arbitrary and made up. And RBM does not FIX anything, it just replaces one unbalanced thing with another unbalanced thing. Archers become useless, and you go from craving 100% fian armies to 100% cav armies. I like some of the AI changes, but for the most part the general game is far worse with that mod.