Recent content by SavatageRoyo

I do think especially castles need to play a bigger role. They are the majority of the time just a part of economics and useless. You could in theory hide in a castle if being chased, you could in theory plunder the garrison if you are desperate for troops as a back up army. And thats about it I`d say?
I mean the map overall is already very busy with partys, caravans, bandits, villagers etc. I don`t think we need patroling garrision units on top of it, especially hostile seeing how many castles are on the map.

But I would really like to have castles play a more significant role. Could be some type of effect on its surrounding areas or more unique buildings. Currently the buildings are fairly similar to a city. "Do stuff to sustain yourself and tax things, do stuff to be less F`ed if attacked"
It feels a bit redunant and pointless for something which only goes into your denar balance at the end of the day.

GermanWall said:

please let us form a SPEAR-wall. We could use it to keep distance to the enemy, fight caverly or advance slowy forwards.

Click to expand...

I don`t know if a spear wall actually would be too powerful for how the game currently works. If a spear wall would also hold shields it would be if you ask me.
There are some very well armored top tier troops with polearms/spears and shields. They would negate every other type of infantry most likely, cavalery of course and IF combined with shields which some of these troops also have archers as well.
As far as I can tell AI units are more cabable in using spears and polearms now which is a improvement, however there are still big flaws. Mainly if you use square or round formation for example which could resemble a spear wall since they are much more likely to use them.
What I noticed the AI will break formation more or less and units on the other side will run towards the side which is attacked, making it a chaotic brawl just as it would be with line formations.
If told to form a a circle or square formations they should hold that formation!

I enjoyed the longer periods of peace during 1.2 or was it 1.3? Now with 1.4.1 it is constant war everybody against everybody, yeah it gets a bit tiresome after a while. And from my observation so far the economy can`t deal with it really. I`ve seen many citys collapsing with 1.4.1 due to constant war barely holding above 1k prosperity and losing.
The thing with peace is, combat centric characters can find it hard to sustain themself during it, and every playstyle should be viable in my opinion.
It is not that hard reaching 600-800 daily denars for your party. Shops earn something between 30-200 denars a day? Caravans can keep you afloat but that means you NEED to form a caravan if you want to or not.
Unless you own a fief which currently can take a while and we can`t "park" our party with reduced wages possibly - peace can be very stressful for some playthroughs Before you know it you are back on hunting 5 bandits across half the map.

I think there is a mod which allows you to do "civilian work" in settlements, it is basically the raid progression bar and you earn denars as far as I know. Something like that could be a nice addition to the game, where you can give your army as payed workers for a moment.

Staying in formation is a useful thing indeed, however I wonder how tight this imaginary boundry is for units! Although slightly improved I`d still argue lightly armored infantry which is supposed to deal damage with 2 handed weapons and such performs comparatively poor.
I wonder if it is because they can`t really utilize their movement speed?

If I understand this correct your entire section of light cavalery such as battanian scouts for example could be slowed down if for whatever reason a imperial cataphract makes it into this unit? Or even a light cavalery unit from another faction which is noticeable slower (balance) but still considered light cavalery by design.

If a unit has high movement speed as benefit and trading it in on other stats it should remain this benefit during battle, that is my point of view. At the same time I want my units to keep some kind of order in formations. So I guess the range where they get slowed down should be increased?

Solomani said:

Nothing like losing your castle, leading an army to recapture it, and then it getting voted to some random nobody that wasn't even there.

Click to expand...

This is really bothering me! You win a difficulty and costly siege and a random guy gets the fief. I`d say if you react very quick which is for the player maybe one day or a few days at best the fief shouldn`t be even up for vote. You lost it, you threw them out the next day, home sweet home!

Apocal said:

The clans without fiefs get priority. After that, it accounts for geographic proximity.

Click to expand...

I honestly never observed this being the case, quite the opposite. I usally see more powerful nobles and clans getting fiefs in a row, and if there is any balancing factor by the king it is between these often returning names.

Graden said:

If you want to have more fun try 1.41

Click to expand...

Yeah they are crazy agressive now. I started two campaigns with 1.41 one with Asserai one with Khuzait and both times my faction went to war against 3 - 4 factions simultaneously, while I still run around as Clan tier 2 or 3.

I think the AI can be in general a bit inhumanly fast at times, not only lords.
This kind of swing speed shouldn`t be a thing in this game no matter how high any skill is. I`d rather prefer a mechanic where higher skill would result in higher recovery times for the one which is hit, or more push back effects etc than lightning quick speed.
Swing speed should still be more tied to the weapon choice so shorter and faster weapons have a place and relevance in the later game.

I frequently encounter these mad lower end troops mostly during sieges. You think you are about to hit one from the back. While you are releasing your swing, they turn, block, hit you in the head and before you can ask "What the F just happened?" they hit you again.

It is a combination of extremly fast turning rates for units, which should also be changed according to overall "weight/cumbersome". Perfect reflexes and extremly fast swing speeds for some units.

It is hard to comment on balance with simple statements as "Faction vs. Faction" at the moment. The AI made noticable improvements between 1.2 towards 1.4.1.
The big question always is what unit types were most fielded in numbers. Any unit type with some kind of pike or polearm weapon has become much more useful and agressive towards cavalery units for example. Horse archers were tuned down somewhat etc.

While 5 man getting 33 kills is very impressive no matter what, it could be a different army composition would have shut down these 5 riders quickly.

Can you recall how many archers you had, cavalery or infantry with pikes? Would be helpful for us to assess this statement "Asserai Balanced"

darksoulshin said:

2) do you know that shield wall formation is not really suitable for dealing damage but more for "resisting until someone else comes to save your butt"?

Click to expand...

Shield wall formation is still no reason why a unit should make a stupid weapon choice once in melee range and even attempt to attack with it.
From my experience AI is currently somewhat bad in making use of their equipment no matter what formation or command given.

If a archer or crossbow unit is engaged in close combat they will change to melee combat autonomously no matter what. There is no good reason why a designated melee unit should then stick to their range weapon in close combat.
It is the same problem with pike and spear weapons, the AI barely makes use of it even in shield wall formation which would be one of the best scenarios. They are pretty much always unprepared for cavalery although there are plenty units in the game which carry a pike in theory.
It looks a bit silly when one lonely cavalery unit slowly pushes through 100 infantry and survives, I`ve seen this often.

xdj1nn said:

So yeah, let's just sit back and wait,

Click to expand...

I highly recommend don`t burn yourself out with Mount & Blade 2. I know it is difficult, I know it seems like we are playing it already, but we aren`t.

Mount and Blade 2: Bannerlord is to be released in about one year. Good EAs are weird

Alexios Agiad said:

My only strategies are to: 1.Charge
2. Set up archers on hills
3. Skirmish with horse archers

Is there any comprehensive guide to battlefield strategy that you know of?

Click to expand...

My battlesplans are as one dimensional as yours and most of us I think. The current meta against AI is very easy and there isn`t much reason for elaborate tactics.
Although I am slowly starting to use cavalery differently. I usally had them waiting on a flank at a good distance, waiting for a good moment to give them a charge command.
Now I mostly tell them to follow me and do the two basic things you do with cavalery!
Either I run exactly horizontal through their archers, important thing is you do not stop and pull through your entire cavalery, they will fight and kill without you issuing any command.
Or I run my cavalery into the back of the enemy infantry already in battle with my infantry line, the important thing here is you hold somewhat still for a while which will make your cavalery engage in close combat for a bit rather than running around in big circles wasting alot of time. They start to hack down everything around them taking their own initiative to a degree.
This is something improtant to keep in mind while commanding troops. AI doesn`t need a specific order for advancing or charge to engage the enemy, simply put a unit on top of a enemy unit and they will fight autonomously everything in close range.
You may tell a unit of heavy infantry walking to the position of the enemy arches instead of giving them a command to charge where you don`t really know what they are about to attack in the end.

I am learning myself and I don`t have that much experience with the game yet.

-edit-

XxLOKIxX said:

Archer work badly with F4 so find a good position for them

Click to expand...

Yeah never issue your archers to "advance" F4. For one they increase the distance to any enemy to a very ineffective range, they shoot alot hit little. Second they always adjust their position which means they run around alot instead of shooting.
Put them somwhat close and let them fire away or even command "charge" F3 rather than F4. They will perform some kind of fire-and-move tactic during "charge" which is very cool to watch I have to say

Lesbosisles said:

That's because the parties consist 50-60% of recruits who run away as soon as they see a sword drawn. More elite troops stand their grounds way much longer, sometimes till the last breath, but recruits always run away first.

Click to expand...

I hope this gets better once the AI fields more solid troops. I had a few battles where the AI gave a good fight. But yeah it is 80% of the time crushing a infantry line of recruits with your tier 5-6 troops. I don`t have a problem with recruits fleeing as soon as lines clash, there simply shouldn`t be that many recruits involved is the thing!

I would prefer if the AI would be less agressive on the campaign map but showing up with more formidable troops if they attack.

hruza said:

That you send your companion against army of enemies and expect them to somehow win is problem of your leadership and not problem of companions.

Click to expand...

Nobody was asking for that to be the case, you are just constructing your own conversation at this point.

And I find this whole argument about how a soldier or companion "performs" according to the skillpoints irrelevant. The player is bound to the same system and has a much bigger impact for obvious reasons. So arguing a specific value in a specific skill can only ever have x,y,z result is a bit pointless looking at our player characters.

Besides I started this thread about the almost none existing progress of companions not how they perform in combat against AI with equal skills or even less skills.
You have to wonder how a recruit can become a tier 6 unit with something like 160-200 in certain skill after a few battles and your companion sits at 120, 150 maybe 170 forever.

federally said:

It's pathetic and they don't serve to actually improve the game.

Click to expand...

Which is my main problem with the current situation. This is a game afterall companions aren`t a fun aspect!
You can have them run a caravan where they are fairly save and you get some passive income. Could do any random person I`ve never seen becuase there isn`t really any difference. You can assign them as govenor so you can see their portrait all game long somewhere in the menu.

It serves no purpose to have specifically your companions do this, you solve this once "ahh i see if i put that guy in that city i get +build time +2 loyality...." and from that point on it is just a extremly boring and dull thing to do. You do it because it is the optimal way I guess.

The only fun interaction and purpose I found is to have them in your party and deck them out with the best gear eventually. They join your banditcamp raids, you can watch them fight on the battlefield. You can buy them a new shiny sword etc.
Or you call them in your army if they had their own party, which is kinda fun.