Recent content by RandomPlayerx

Blood Gryphon said:

I have to agree with @Apocal, this is just the exact same issue as before. The original way of having boys be their fathers culture and girls their mothers culture was optimal. It allowed the opportunity to have some of your children be the correct governor type if you own lands outside of your culture and gave a reason to marry outside of your culture.

Click to expand...

No, it is not quite the same issue as before, since children taking culture from their fathers greatly reduces the amount of clan members whose culture does not match the fixed culture of their clan. Because in the current situtation, where kids are born almost always into their father's clan but take their culture from their (foreign) mothers, cross-culture marriages lead to mismatches between the culture of the children and the clan. This is/can be an issue, because it means that fiefs held by the clan which match the culture of the clan could then face a wrong governor culture loyalty penalty (once these children come of age and are appointed as governors).
I do agree however, that the downside of children taking culture from their fathers is that it does take away the ability for the player to influence the culture of their clan's children (exception: children of a female player character)


I think that each of the mentioned culture inheritance systems has its own advantages and disadvantages:

1. Children take culture from their mothers:

• Cross-culture marriages lead to culture mismatch between clan and clan members born from these marriages (unless the woman is clan leader, as children will then be part of her clan while also inheriting their culture from her).
• But the player can easily influence the culture of children born into the player's clan (exception: the children of a female player character, which will always have PC's culture).
• With this system there will be several AI clans who have governors with wrong culture in fiefs matching the clan's culture as the game goes on, simply because there will be quite many clan members whose culture does not match their clan's culture.

2. Children take culture from their fathers:

• Cross-culture marriages don't lead to culture mismatch between clan and clan members born from these marriages (unless the woman is clan leader).
• But the player cannot influence the culture of children born into the player's clan (exception: children of female PC).
• AI clans with wrong governor culture in fiefs matching the clan's culture will be rare, as only clans with female clan leaders would have children born with a culture different from the clan.

3. Sons take culture from their fathers, daughters from their mothers:

• Cross-culture marriage leads to some culture mismatch between clan and clan members.
• Most clan member's culture would probably match the clan's culture, as most children will be born into their father's clan and most sons will remain in that clan while most daughters will leave that clan once they marry.
• The player can easily influence the culture of daughters born into the player's clan, but not of sons (again exception children of female PC, where the reverse is true).

Also with the 1. system chances are high that there will be clans where all the clan members have a different culture than the clan itself as the game goes on, while these chances are low in the 2. system, and moderate in the 3. These clans will then always have a culture penalty (owner or governor) in any fief that they own.

Personally, my preferred solution would be that children always inherit the culture from their clan, but to also give the player the opportunity to educate the children of the player's clan in another culture, thereby changing their culture (maybe with the requirement that children can only be educated in a culture of their parents).

Anything that makes relations and personality traits more impactful in BL seems like a good idea. Especially if it also allows to the player to have more control in votes. So this seems like a great idea and I hope TW implements it.

Lord Grindelvald said:

Sure, they probably have their role and do their thing, in the same way everyone explains to me that spiders have a reason to be on this planet (still not sold on that). They add little to no value to me.

Click to expand...

They eat insects. I don't know about you, but I would much rather have a spider in my room, who tend to just chill in a corner or their web anyway, than to be constanly harassed by mosquitoes, flies and other annoying insects.

Apocal said:

Those are usually defectors, which is a different thing.

Click to expand...

No, I am talking about clans which are still part of their original kingdom, but whose male clan members married women from other kingdoms. The children from these cross-culture marriages inherit the culture from their mother and hence have a different a culture than their clan (a clan itself has a fixed culture, which you can see in the encylopedia). For example, let's say the (male) clan leader of the Vlanidan clan dey Fortes marries a Aserai woman, while the brother of the clan leader marries a Sturgian woman. The children of the clan leader will be Aserai, while his brother's will be Sturgian. Once the clan leader and his brother die and their children take over, the "Vlandian" clan dey Fortes will consist only of Aserai and Sturgian clan members.

Zorion_no said:

Lol.. I've figured by this time that its a "feature"
Tbh its never really bothered me as its usually easy enough to find a wife of the desired culture anyways(imo, yours may differ).
(now getting the right one in the barter for marriage to your clanmembers(brother/children etc) thats another story..)

Click to expand...

For the player it is (normally) not a problem to find a bride with the desired culture for the player's character or a relative. However, it is a problem for the AI. The AI regurarly does cross-culture marriages, which results in clans where the culture of the clan and the culture of the clan members themselves differ. These clans are then very likely to have the wrong governor culture penalty in their fiefs, because they use their clan members as governors. On a personal note, it also annoys me to see e.g. "Vlandian" clans, where all clan members are Aserai or Battanian. Or "Khuzait" clans which are primarily Vlandian ...

dannazgu said:

@Blood Gryphon I never noticed girls were mother culture I thought all depend the primary leader and genitor ( aka Father or Mother in case being clan leader)

Click to expand...

The current (bugged) system is that children always inherit the culture from their mother. Before this bug was introduced, the sytem was that daughters inherit the culture from their mothers and son from their fathers.

dannazgu said:

but i still think wrong the girl born mother culture, still makes no sense, since she's born from imperial father and inside the empire, for example. Sure, education changes a bit, but still i'd like viable ways to change, consider more like control dynasty (like in ck3?).. children all belong to the father unless for example marrys into mother dynasty of different culture

Click to expand...

I agree, neither the intended system (daughters get culture form mother, sons from father) nor the current bugged one make that much sense. E.g, if Derthert marries a Empire noblewoman, why would their daughters be educated in Empire culture rather than Vlandian? They are Vlandian princesses after all.

As dannazgu states, the Crusader Kings system would (imo) be the best. For Bannerlord this means that children would inherit the culture from their clan (=father, unless child is part of its mother's dynasty/clan). Maybe also with the option to educate a child in a specific culture, potentially with some requirements (like a qualified tutor - could be a charm perk that allows characters to educate children in their culture)

Blood Gryphon said:

Thank you! Also please fix all children being copies of their siblings and being their mothers culture. These issues have been plaguing kids for too long.

Click to expand...

dannazgu said:

also..please, fix the bug of children being born only in mother culture, or a suggestion, allow tutors and if the tutor is from different culture the child can take his culture, but makes no sense a child born inside vlandia or empire and having the culture of aserai or sturgia for example, specially the father being imperial or vlandian.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

100% agree. It is frustrating to see "Vlandian" clans that consist mostly or in extreme cases even exclusively of Aserai, Sturgian or Battanian clan members. It also means that these clans will have the governor culture penalty in fiefs of their homeland, since they use a clan member as governor.

Duh_TaleWorlds said:

You can also try to defect the remaining lords. I think we will have a look at both the AI defection in essentially defeated kingdoms as well as execution consequences.

Click to expand...

Problem is that even a kingdom that consists only of the ruler's clan is still a nuisance, since the ruler's clan alone will still run around with several parties. They are also somehow still able to hire several mercenary clans. So even years after losing the last fief and last vassal clan these kingdoms are still able to be a pain in the ass.

Bjorn The Upset said:

It could also simply mean the players of M&B series decided to use reddit.

Click to expand...

You mean many players, who were already playing Warband/MB before, only joined the subreddit during/after BL's release? Possible, but I think it is more llikely that most people who joined the subreddit during the release were really just newcomers to the series. (Probably even the majority of new subreddit users nowadays, but I am less confident in that statement).

Bjorn The Upset said:

Just read the first page of this thread. We should talk about this player count relative to time.

Click to expand...

....well I did talk about player count relative to time.

I wish I had access more places as a normal guy who can use internet. Like accessing Steam and see how much Bannerlord owners own Warband and played at least 50 hours or so before Bannerlord release.

Click to expand...

Totally agree - having to access to more and better data would help a lot in this discussion.

Bjorn The Upset said:

What I was trying to say by the size is that because of the size it more likely the real player base can be represented best there among the social platforms.

Click to expand...

Best among the social platforms, yes. But even the best among the social platforms is in my opinon not a good representation of the overall playerbase.

Bjorn The Upset said:

But, that is the place these polls took place.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the polls and the subscriber graph seem to contradict each other regarding BL's sucess in attracting new players. Personally, I am much more inclined to believe in the subscriber graph, which shows that after the EA release of Bannerlord the subreddit saw massive growth.

Ofc, one may still argue that BL's supposed sucess at gaining new players wasn't really a success, because a lot of players probably stopped playing shortly after relase (which may partly explain the previous contradiction), but that is to be expected for games with a hyped release. Looking at steamcharts Warband avg player count over several years was 13k (pre BL), while BL seems to average 20k. In my book that would still be a decent sucess at attracting new players. Maybe BL's player count will increase even further once it leaves EA or major mods get released/finished.

Bjorn The Upset said:

But I think it is unfair to say that 230k representative of a game which sold 5-10M is a small population of its origin.

Click to expand...

I think you misanderstand me. It is not the size of the subreddit that is the issue. The issue is that these 230k (likely) inlcude a higher percentage of veteran player when compared to the total playerbase. I.e., the subreddit has a higher share of veteran players and smaller share of newbies (=their first MB game was BL), while the total playerbase most likely has a smaller share of veteran player and a higher of casual players. So it is the distribution of the subreddit and not the size that is the issue. The problem with this is that if you conduct a poll on the subreddit, but want to draw conclusions about the overall playerbase, then then the poll will underestimate the amount/share of newcomers.

Bjorn The Upset said:

Bjorn The Upset said:

From the wayback machine we could see r/mountandblade had 120k members at the date of EA release. Since that time, this subreddit doubled its member count and it is very unlikely that this new blood does not have the representatives of the new player base statistically.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

These numbers do kinda soften my concern, but I thnk that they still might underreport the amount of new players --> the issue of possible bias remains, but at least the the bias is probably not that big.

But these numbers also go against your point that BL didn't introduce many new players to MB. (Also a better visual might be the subscriber graph from here: https://subredditstats.com/r/mountandblade). Doubling the subscriber amount in 2 years would be a point for BL indeed being sucessful in reaching new players.

I can only reiterate what several others have already said, in that your results are likely to be skewed/biased (to be precise selection bias). I say this because I do not think that the MB subreddit is a accurate representation of the BL total playerbase or even the total MB playerbase.You even acknowledge this in your initial disclaimer.

It is very likely that the MB subreddit has a higher proportion of "hardcore" (for lack of a better word) fans and less casual fans, when compared to the overall BL/MB playerbase. "Hardcore" fans are more likely to have already played Warband or even the original MB before playing Bannerlord. In other words, the percentage of veteran players (= BL was not their first MB game) is probably higher in the MB subreddit than it is in the total BL/MB playerbase. If this is indeed the case, then you can't draw conclusion on the overall BL or MB playerbase based on polls of the MB subreddit, because the sample (MB subreddit) is not representative of the population (MB/BL playerbase) that you want to analyse .The results/estimates from the polls suffer from (selection) bias - they overestimate the proportion of veteran players.

Increasing the sample size also does nothing against bias. To build on the example that Grindelvald gave, if you want to find out who the general population considers to have better sportshoes - Nike or Adidas - and you conduct an sample in the headquarters of Adidas, then your sample size can be 100, 1000 or even 10000 - the number doesn't matter regarding bias, because you are still asking only employees of Adidas. Adidas employees are not representative of the overall population - and the results are biased.

zande said:

You mean in the actual beta? because I don't think tahat it's working my parties in defensive stance are always called in armies.

Click to expand...

Afaik yes, it is in the beta and not live.

HouseWinterfang2.0 said:

In a serious note TW lost a lot of good will with the fanbase.the absolute radio silence and not even a hit on what they are working or what to expect with the new update (because we know what it will feature some bug fix and maybe a new font if we are lucky).No one asks for information about the company's internal economy or other things that the team cannot respond to for internal security reasons.We want to know what you do with our money,if there is a direction for this game or we make plans from one day to the next.To say what we can expect about the next update does not violate any NDA law in the internal framework,but this attitude can be explained by two things:the total lack of respect for the consumer and the community which is reflected in the absurdity of the answers provided or the game has massive development issues and you only take the time to launch a half-finished product. Anyway TW did rly bad with this game and its fan base.To bad it had huge potential

Click to expand...

If you want a serious answer (but most likely not a satisfying one). See the following posts :
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/beta-patch-notes-e1-7-1.449247/page-30#post-9789753 (and the linked posts)

Essentially, their policy is that they tend to avoid giving information about what's in the next patch, because content might still be cut last minute from the patch due to unexpected issues with said content.

If you want to see a roadmap, your best bet is their future blogs plan: https://www.taleworlds.com/en/News/467

Bjorn The Upset said:

Although time still will be a problem, there is a easiest way to solve this problem. That is adding the option of retirement of your char. Ananda The Destroyer suggested this some time ago. This was in Warband although it does not mean anything. In Bannerlord, it is making perfect sense to be able to retire and play as your child but for some odd reason, we dont have this feature anymore. @Dejan , please forward this to the team.

Click to expand...

This feature is already planned. TW mentioned it in the future plans blog in the singleplayer section under Other ---> "It also covers the addition of smaller mechanics, like an AI death chance in simulation battles, an option to respec perks, and the ability to retire the active main character" (https://www.taleworlds.com/en/News/467)

Is there any chance that this will be fixed soon? This seems to be a bug that would relatively easy to fix (granted I have only a very limited knowledge of coding, so sry if this is just ignorance from my side).

five bucks said:

In the scope of the "normal" Bannerlord experience, even if heirs were made more viable, it's true that gameplay of more than 2 generations is pointless, because by the time you get to the 3rd generation you have conquered the map and there are no enemies left to fight.

However, IF a feature is added to the mix such as AI civil wars or foreign invasions, and then heirs are made more useful too, I could see a multi-generational/dynastic playthrough of Bannerlord being a fun experience. You conquer half of Calradia as your original character, you conquer the rest as your son, and then your grandson has the task of keeping the dynasty in control of Calradia against plotters/separatists within and barbarians without.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. As was already mentioned, biggest problems with current dynasty system are that

1. Years are too long, meaning it takes ages for children to grow up.
2. Late game is not fleshed out, so there is little reason to actually go for multi-generational playthroughs.

I think the best solution for the first problem would be a gameplay setting option that allows you change the length of a year (i.e. adding pacemaker to vanilla). That way everyone could change the pacing to their liking. Ideally, this option would be accompanied by an explanation/warning on how pacing affects the in-game balance (and maybe 1 or 2 recommended settings).

A small change that would also help is lowering the age at which children turn into adults, for example to 16. In ancient Rome the age at which people became eligible for marriage was 12 for girls and 14 for boys.

Fixing the second problem is most likely a much bigger task, and it will likely take still quite some time till either TW or modders have managed to improve the late game substantially.


There are also some other changes that I personally would like to see, like improvements to the pregnancy formula, matrlinear marriages for non-clan leaders and changing how children inherit culture (please TW fix at least the current bug that children always inherit culture from mothers!! It is annoying to see Vlandian clans that consist mostly of Aserai members because of cross-culture marriages and thus get a governor culture loyalty penalty in their own Vlandian cities because a Aserai clan member is governor!)