Recent content by SanyaBeli

  1. Patch Notes v1.2.8

    Allow us to name and (if possible) edit our companions, imagine having aragorn, Legolas and gimli as companions
    You can already edit names, I think. Changing appearance would be weird. I would like to be able to take my son to the barber, but that feels like a very good bit of realism that I dislike my son’s haircut.
  2. A family member cannot mount a horse.

    If you give a family member a horse, then if you give the command to "dismount" in battle and press "mount" back, nothing will happen and she will not get on the horse.
    Does the family member have enough riding skill to mount the horse? Family members come with T6 horses equipped even if they don’t have enough riding skill to actually equip that horse. If you remove the horse from their equipment, you won’t be able to put it back unless they have enough skill (the same situation applies to bows).

    A similar thing may be happening with mounting horses in combat. I know that as a main character you can’t mount a horse that you find in combat if your riding skill isn’t high enough to equip it.
  3. Why AI Prince (Sturgia) won't finish an opponent?

    Am I the only one who thinks its odd how the ruler of Sturgia is called "Grand Prince"
    when his vassals are all called "Knyaz," which is the Slavic term for a king? I'd greatly prefer it if the ruler was called "Great King" instead, although I understand this weirdness is to follow the historical ignorance and confusion of Westerners with regards to Slavic titles and, in particular, what the heck a Velikii Knyaz is and whether that should be equated to a "king," "duke," "emperor," or what. Seeing how a "knyaz" is a king, at least that's how I translate it, I think the Velikii Knyaz should be called "Great King" in Bannerlord rather than Fresh Prince of Chertyg as is presently the case. Perhaps especially since "Prince," if we're going to keep Calradia based in historical Europe, is a Latin-derived title and thus not as appropriate as one with a closer etymology, although I'm not a fan of this logic since it becomes increasingly confused as you go further from Insert Language Here as a "center."

    I guess if I were to continue ranting about trivia, I'd likewise object to the use of non-Your Game's Language titles for nobles and monarchs but this is largely for stylistic and 'immersion' reasons rather than ones I can articulate without, at some point, coming off as ignorant and inconsistent lol.

    Anyway, on topic, it's possible they're following the "Defensive" war strategy and programmed to avoid finishing off a faction. I have an on-going playthrough paused around 1102 and the Northern Empire, as usual, is reduced to 2 fiefs but nobody's wiping them out. Granted, their neighbors are busy tearing each other apart, but I have noticed an odd aversion on the part of the A.I. in declaring war on particularly weak targets. Like, for example, the little Calradia I'm building around Charas wasn't declared war upon in the near-decade it has existed (even after I started picking fights) and I suspect it's possible part of the war calculation disfavors targeting weak countries. Alternatively, it's possible having positive reputation actually prevents the monarch from war with neighbors (I was well-behaved and got my Charm up, after all) and that's best seen when you have a small country.

    The easiest way to find out would be to open up the game's files and see what formulae is uses for war declarations and whether there's a variable in place to protect tiny countries as well, but I can't do that on PS4 to help with that.
    It definitely seems that the new AI is less inclined to declare war on the player's kingdom when it is small than in previous versions. It used to be that as soon as you declare a kingdom everyone wants a piece of you. That doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I wonder if it has to do with keeping garrisons large so there aren't any soft targets.
    In regards to monarch titles, the only odd thing I think is that they didn't pick a lane. Knyaz and Knyaginya are used as the noble titles with no translation from the historical slavic titles. Grand Prince gets translated. Either it should be Prince and Grand Prince or Knyaz and Velikiy Knyaz. Why the mixture?

    In regards to the translation, Knyaz is pretty much always translated as prince in regards to the periods prior to the Empire when the Knyazya were essentially sovereign rulers of independent city states. In later periods it is often translated as duke when it becomes a title for a high ranking noble that is subject to the emperor. Knyaz is essentially never translated as king. Of course, this may have to do with the desire by European rulers to translate tsar as king rather than emperor in order to create a peership between the tsar and western kings. Translating knyaz as king would have made veliki knyaz and tsar titles higher than king. And European kings didn't want to imply that.

    Of course, it should be noted that the modern meaning of prince as a son of a king is not really the original meaning. The Prince of Wales, for instance, was originally the sovereign ruler of Wales. When England took over, the title continued as a title that was subject to the king of England and only later was it made the custom that the heir to the throne of England should be made the Prince of Wales. Another example would be Machiavelli's "The Prince" which clearly refers to a sovereign ruler and not the son of a king.
  4. When kingdom leader: fief distribution is awful

    I do want them eventually. Specifically with towns (the only fiefs I keep) you often have to stabilize the security and loyalty for in-game months or years before it sort of "auto fixes" itself with the drift (ie never falls very far below 50 loyalty/security because of the drift factor), and if the militia is larger than the garrison and you forget to manage the town, are caught up in wars, etc., it is more likely to rebel. Always good to build it eventually, but sometimes it's more harmful than helpful if the town is de-stabilized.
    Frankly, that seems somewhat of a corner case. Fiefs never rebel if loyalty is above 25. While the AI seems to struggle with this, the player really shouldn't.
  5. Why AI Prince (Sturgia) won't finish an opponent?

    It seems that when they added faction death, they made it so AI lords won’t actually finish off a faction. In my game, the AI won’t finish off the Southern Empire that has been on a single fief for a while. AI factions go to war with them but just never actually siege Poros. Has anyone seen the AI take a faction’s last fief in the new update?
  6. When kingdom leader: fief distribution is awful

    I appreciate the temporary fixes. I like the idea of option 2, but the big drawback for me is not having that sweet sweet unlimited storage space by not having a stash.

    I might rather have a system that will only merit votes when a clan has received x less fiefs (let's say 5) than the clan with the most fiefs. There are way too many votes on trivial decisions when the game only gives you 3 real choices (one more than a real democracy!). Another interesting idea to pair with that would be the ability to redistribute fiefs as a diplomatic option by spending influence, sort of like a kingdom decision or policy that allows you to shuffle the map to balance the clans in your kingdom with more cohesive territory. Finally, give us the ability to demolish buildings! I don't necessarily want the militia building upgrade!

    And for the cherry on top, an additional map view that highlights fiefs of your faction by clan color/name by clicking a button. Make it easier for players to see who owns what on the campaign map in order to assign those fiefs in a way that makes sense.

    I think most players want a balanced kingdom and could probably do a better job than the formulas we've had so far.
    Why don’t you want the militia building?
  7. When kingdom leader: fief distribution is awful

    As a kingdom leader, why does the game only select 3 of the 30 clans I have in my faction to distribute all of the fiefs? Probably over 50 have been taken since I was voted in as kingdom leader, and I have 30 clans in my faction, yet every single vote is between the same 3 clans.

    At this point, these clans hold 15+ fiefs while some of the original clans have less than 5. The constant votes are annoying as is, but to stop gameplay every 3 mins to have to vote on the same 3 clans getting all of the new territory when the army leaders are diverse and a variety of clans are participating... seems like a pretty big oversight.
    There is an equation that determines who should be on the vote and it over values the distance to a clan’s other fiefs. Thus, only border clans get fiefs. The fact that they have more fiefs already doesn’t outweigh the fact that other clans have fiefs far away. It is broken and needs fixed.

    In the meantime, I have found two workarounds.

    First, constantly recruit. New clans with no fiefs will always be in the vote. Clans don’t really need more than 1 or 2 fiefs to field their max party size of troops and then more fiefs don’t really give them anything but a bank account. So once everyone has a few fiefs, recruit more clans and give them the new territory. Bonus points if you can recruit the right culture clans to match the fiefs you are about to take.

    The other solution is what I call the hobo king. You are king of all the fiefs and don’t need to be lord of any of them. If you constantly give away all of your fiefs to other clans, you will win the vote for new fiefs. Then you give those away. And you can give them away in such a way to get equity among your clans and also match fief cultures to owners. But on the other hand, you are a hobo.
  8. Very Annoying - No multiple similar Quests

    i noticed you can take a request from Town AND a request from village to clear up a hide out, each will reward you 3000, so total 6000 for clear up a hide up.

    Pretty good paid out rate in early games
    You can also find needs help with brigands and that will also be satisfied by taking out the hideout (provided there are enough parties in the hideout, but early game there will be). Then find needs manual laborers and sell the bandits that you took prisoner in the hideout and you can quadruple dip.
  9. Patch Notes v1.2.8

    Are there plans to fix combat AI? I love the new feel of 1v1 but when you get 2 AI opponents on you it’s completely unfair. AI groups now move in PERFECT sync with the player leading to being quickly singled out and overwhelmed in combat situations. You own AI mates show no sign of this behavior in cooperating with you. The entire experience feels hideously inhuman and exactly what you’d expect from fighting a perfect AI opponents. There’s also the matter of no longer being able to assign companions to positions within the party. there’s the odd one or two whom you can but largely you cannot anymore
    In reality, it feels quite human. Two people coordinating to flank a single opponent is quite logical and is something people would do.

    What felt inhuman was the ability to make two opponents trip over each other as you run in a circle.
  10. 1.2.7 Battle initial deployment distance is too long sometimes (400/500+ feet/meter?)

    The main issue I have with this is that it has a huge effect on reinforcements. If the enemy runs and hides, then I must go and engage him 500 units away. Then my reinforcements must march that same distance while the enemy reinforcements will spawn right next to the battle.

    The whole reinforcement system seems rather unintuitive and frequently inequitable if you don’t know how to game it.
  11. Patch Notes v1.2.7

    There are some confusion with the throwing axes. The 0.6 here takes the tag "Bounus against shield" into consideration. It's actually 0.3 without the tag.
    C#:
                    if (attackCollisionData2.IsMissile)
                    {
                        if (attackerWeapon.WeaponClass == WeaponClass.ThrowingAxe)
                        {
                            num *= 0.3f;
                        }
                        else if (attackerWeapon.WeaponClass == WeaponClass.Javelin)
                        {
                            num *= 0.5f;
                        }
                        else if (attackerWeapon.WeaponFlags.HasAnyFlag(WeaponFlags.CanPenetrateShield) && attackerWeapon.WeaponFlags.HasAnyFlag(WeaponFlags.MultiplePenetration))
                        {
                            num *= 0.5f;
                        }
                        else
                        {
                            num *= 0.15f;
                        }
                    }
    MissionCombatMechanicsHelper.ComputeBlowDamageOnShield

    It's not a reasonable nerf in SP. I've tested this in Custom Battle. Now it takes 3 jereeds to break the shield of imperial infantryman or 5 shots of Raider Throwing Axes to do this. Javelines now do a better job at breaking shields. Throwing axes lost one of its few advantages. Why do you nerf a weapon that's so weak?

    @Dejan
    Yeah, not sure who plays this game and thought that throwing axes need a nerf.
  12. Patch Notes v1.2.7

    Do you have any caravans running? They passively grant you XP. I don't know what affects it (like, their profits or own XP gain or what) but I do know it seems to hit from morning to right after noon.
    No caravans, just workshops. I thought caravans grant trade xp to the leader of the caravan, not the main character (or does it do both).
  13. Passive trade XP

    Has anyone else noticed since the last patch that the main character gains passive trade xp by time passing? I think it is related to the ownership of workshops.
  14. Patch Notes v1.2.7

    I am getting trade XP passively now by just walking around or waiting in towns. I didn't notice this before. Is this a change related to the new patch? Is it related to owning workshops?
  15. Does Taleworlds have no concept of percentages?

    I don’t know of a way to test or prove it, but I think there is something in the mini games that punishes you for save scumming. I usually save before doing the second date with the wife I want my character to marry since it is generally high impact and it is very difficult to have a high chance of success.

    It has been my experience that if I load my save game from right before the date and immediately start the date, I will always critically fail. I have to do something else first. It doesn’t even require that game time pass. I can walk around the town or spend some time trading or just literally stare at the screen for five minutes and do nothing. Then I will get a fair chance at the date.

    And this isn’t a case of a seed being saved into the game because when I try the first time after saving I don’t get an instant critical fail.

    Maybe it’s just set up so that if you loaded the game recently, your check will critically fail. Not sure if this an intentional feature to punish save scumming or just a biproduct of the way the game initializes after being loaded from a save.
Back
Top Bottom