Recent content by Skot the Sanguine

It is like Halani said, the low tier troops are **** for Sturgia but the high tier troops (like the Infantry Veterans) are quite good.

The problem is, the AI lords just go around recruiting peasant armies that get murdered. The few times I led armies, my own troops were a small elite group while the other lords had those peasants...they would suffer virtually all the casualties while my troops did about half the killing despite being maybe one fifth of the army. That was also against the Vlandians (who I have found tend to steam roll) and we were outnumbered about 2/3rd the time but still killed 4 for every loss. Let the autoresolve do that and we would have lost easily. Maybe that has something to do with that odd stat where the troops best skills don't coincide with their actual weapons?

I have stayed quiet but it seems with the release of videos we can now discuss this. (Sorry for the mild necro here btw).

Blocking sucks right now.  It is quicker for someone to attack twice in a row than it is for someone to block and then attack in afterward.  As such, it causes people to basically just attack spam.

1st person is also worse than in Warband (I know I was a minority using it, but still) as it seems harder to judge distances in this game AND you seem to need to get very close to an enemy, to the point where you are basically face hugging each other, which becomes a huge advantage to a person using 3rd person as it is easier for them to slip out of your POV than it is for you to keep them there when looking in 1st person.

From what I noticed there seemed to be no real reason as to how much damage is done in the arc of a swing.  To explain, a person swinging a weapon should have peak attack damage at the apex of the swing, not the very start or the very end.  From what I saw, this is not the case in the game.  I have had it occur (both against me and in my favor) where a tap of the weapon at the very end of its swing did full damage.  This seemed more pronounced when I first played the beta, the second session I did not notice it as much.

Finally, the last comment pretty much sums it up.  I have been in the beta since week#2 of closed sessions and only played it maybe 2-3 days (2 of the sessions were a couple hours each).  When I was in the warband beta I was playing it as much as I could and there was no question of what I would decide to play when looking at my steam list during free time.  Bannerlord honestly isn't even on my radar unless I see a couple of my friends playing it.  At its current state it just isn't all that fun.

Kodlak Jorrvas said:

Jesus christ why is everyone so bad at this game, get a couple of argentinians and they will kick ass I swear, unless they are facing any British.
EDIT: The game looks great, but the pace is very slow, I guess you guys put it in low speed so these noobs can play, no offense but seriously they cant block a single hit, its very, very painful to watch, yet I have to keep watching. Thank you for this Callum, not mean to be a nitpicker but its the truth lmao ALSO nice to see you now can see damage of the arrows on the multiplayer

Click to expand...

I took the liberty of fixing his message. 

Cpt. Nemo said:

...which might indicate something about the combat itself is off, and not the players.

Click to expand...

I think there is much wisdom in these words.

Callum_TaleWorlds said:

HUMMAN said:

How are the feedbacks from players? I know it's a weird question but are you satisfied with current feedback

Click to expand...

We clearly still have a lot of work to do, but the feedback we have received so far is making that work a lot easier.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear that it is making it easier.

I remember during Warband's beta test how challenging it was to balance factions.  Every little change or tweak could allow for some unforeseen dominance of one faction over another despite perhaps being balanced with the rest.  It was like trying to plug 6 holes in a boat with 5 fingers...and I was only a tester, I can only imagine what it was like for the dev's.

As Al-Mansur said, it is standardized armies in the medieval period that is unrealistic.  There is a reason that European armies had heraldry on their shields and (depending on the period) surcoats as well as the Japanese having banners literally attached to their back of their armor.

As for naked warriors...Celts...just sayin'.  I personally never was a fan of seeing naked warriors running around but had respect for those who went that way...such as the legendary olo.

At any rate, pre determined loadouts just seems like a bad (and lazy) idea for balance.  At some point I will test it myself and see, but I plan on being very vocal if I indeed come to that conclusion after personal experience...and I invite all who get a chance to test it to be vocal with their opinions...that is the point!

[SOTR] Roy said:

It would be nice under your suggestion if this actually makes a difference in combat, for example if a bunch of bodies are piling at a gate, you’ll have to move them or jump over them to get through.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of a particular battle I had in another game, namely the original Rome Total War, where I intentionally suicided my elephants (was Carthage) in the city streets I was defending to create chokepoints that my Carthaginian and Greek Merc Hoplites could defend.  Turned a near certain defeat into victory.

Would be interesting to see that in a siege in Bannerlord...at the very least I hope a destroyed battering ram would block the gate!

KhergitLancer99 said:

Why is this new recruit fella blown off ? Did he said sth bad ?

Anyway I think Taleworlds should explain the situation of Ulfhednar-Huscarl-Sturgia-Battania. It is way too confusing at the moment.
Sturgia=Kievan Rus(mostly Slav+ some Nord)>>>has ulfhednar who are germanic, has huscarl who are Nordic
Battania=Celtic>>>has ulfhednar who are germanic

Can these questions get answered by anyone preferably Taleworlds ?

1- Are these troop trees final situations or will it change again ?
2- Does Battania still have Ulfhednar or did TW move them to Sturgia so only Sturgia has them at the moment ?
3- If both Battania and Sturgia have Ulfhednar will there be any differences between their Ulfhednars ? Or will they be like common units ? Like 2 handed swordsman in Age of Empires 2 ?
4- What is the cultural and historical relevance between Germanic Ulfhednar and Celtic kingdoms Battanians are inspired of ?
5- What is the cultural and historical relevance between Germanic Ulfhednar and Kievan Rus the Sturgians are inspired of ? (Maybe that Nordic side of Sturgia since Nords are also Germanic ? But still 2 of 3 infantry of Sturgia are Nord relevant(ulfhednar and huscarl) then but doesnt the faction suppose to be more Slavic or maybe thats how Kievan Rus army was infantry wise ? Any history buffs specialised at this matter ?)

Click to expand...

Once again, although there are wolf pelt wearing troops in Battania, they are based off the Fianna and NOT Ulfhednar.  The wolf pelt troops of Sturgia are definitely "Ulfhednar" as we can see on the menu picture.

Also, a small nitpick...Huscarls are Germanic and Ulfhednar are Norse.  Although some Germanic warriors donned wolf pelts since time immemorial, "Ulfhednar" is specifically a Norse thing from the Viking age and preceding Vendel age (minimum).  Huscarls, though, are just bodyguard retainers that were common in Germanic culture since at least the Roman era.  The Anglo-Saxons had Huscarls, for example...so it is not specifically a Norse thing but a greater Germanic thing.  That being said, the Huscarl in the picture/game definitely appears to be Norse inspired with the uniquely Norse Gjermundbu "Spectacled" Helm.

My impression is the Nords are to Sturgians as the Varangians were to the Rus...in that they were a people/culture within a larger people/culture.  The small group (Nords/Varangians) were Germanic/Viking in style while the larger group (Sturgians/Rus) were Slavic.  There is belief among scholars that this happened often in the past (for example the Goths having an overall Germanic culture but being an amalgamation of many peoples that took on that culture or the Anglo-Saxons doing the same with the local Celtic Britons) though contrary to "PC" considerations recent genetic/archaeological evidence tends to refute this with the Anglo-Saxons.

I can't make a true comment on the system until I have a chance to try it, but generally speaking restrictions are rarely a good idea and should be a last resort.  I understand the interest in trying to prevent a snowballing effect where a successful team gets better and better gear after each consecutive victory while the losers stay poor, but I am not sure this is the way.  Maybe there should be a server option for minimum and maximum money/points that players can have.  I know in Warband some servers would boost the starting money and that would help. 

Getting rid of the ability to customize as you like and have ragtag armies just seems like a step backwards.

Btw Roy, personally I think those ideas are horrible.  It would make more sense to allow players with pikes to somehow group up and create formations that would automatically follow a designated leader's movement (but allow the player to attack and block as they see fit) thereby creating formations that were so difficult in warband.  That would help in the anti-cav role they were meant for.

PS, spears beat swords all the time my ass.  If that were the case swords would never have been invented...spears are far cheaper.

First, thanks for the photo CkyHC. 

As for the other stuff:

Well wearing wolf hides doesn't make you an Ulfhednar by default.  Other groups (like the Fianna) might have worn wolf pelts but they aren't "Ulfhednar".  As you said, Ulfhednar were Germanic warriors who revered the cult of the wolf/Wotan/Odin while the Berserkers wore bear pelts...these are all generalizations of course.  There supposedly were some who revered the boar too, though this isn't as well known.  The thing is, I don't think there were any real strict regulations about this stuff.

The English are a mixture of many things, but generally speaking the English derive from the Germanic Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and some Frisians.  Of course there has to be some level of Celtic Briton mixed in...they also mixed with some of the Celtic Welsh/Cornwall peoples, later Danes/Vikings, and in Scotland it was a mixture of several Celtic groups (Gaelic Scots, Celtic Picts, Celts of Strathclyde, Germanic Northumbrians, and Germanic Vikings of the islands, Sutherland, etc).

KhergitLancer99 said:

Werent Ulfhednar a Battanian unit ? Dont answer a rhetorical question. I know they were.
I wonder why they are passed over to Sturgia.
Ulfhednar were Germanic warriors, maybe they are the common units of Sturgia and Battania ?

Click to expand...

Think it is more of an overlap.  The Battanians are the Celtic type faction and the "Ulfhednar" of their faction are really more the Fianna of Irish tradition.  I definitely prefer the Ulfhednar myself, the Germanophile that I am...just hope they aren't very...metallic... in the game but more leathery and furry

Though it makes you wonder if there is any benefit to being larger in the game.  Usually doing so just means having a bigger hit box...so be prepared for multiplayer being populated by many representatives of the lollipop guild.

Would be interesting if being bigger gets a bit of a damage boost.

By the way, the guy on the rear far right of that group photo definitely looks bigger, and I think CkyHC's posted photo pretty much confirms it.

I guess in two months we will see...for me at this point I am so accustomed to waiting that any new announcement will be a great surprise whereas the lack of one will not be a disappointment.  After all, how many years have we been waiting?  Seems like a decade.

Closed beta, awesome.  Somehow I was lucky enough to be in the first pick of beta testers for Warband (pretty much the only thing I ever won by lottery)...I can only hope I am so lucky again!