Recent content by Wheem

Delinard said:

So custom battles straight up don't work

Click to expand...

They work fine for me - do you have any mods installed? If not, maybe try to validate game files?

It seems that the tier 4 Vlandian Swordsmen now have some very weak helmets, which are fairly significant downgrades from the previous tier 3 infantry. I'm not sure if their equipment list changed, or if some items themselves were altered, but I don't recall them having such poor head armor in the past. (In my opinion, one of the Battanian Oathsworn helmets also needs an upgrade, but that's not a new "issue.")

I'm also not able to get any cavalry to perform a couched lance charge in custom battles (haven't tried in campaign/sandbox yet). Sometimes individual soldiers will couch their lances as they cycle through their charges beyond the very first one, but that's about it. Even charging into the rear of engaged infantry with something like Vlandian Banner Knights doesn't result in a couched lance charge.

On a big positive note, it does seem as though infantry fights last a bit longer than before, allowing more time for flanking maneuvers (including with foot skirmishers, which used to be really difficult to do fast enough for it to matter).

five bucks said:

Sturgia's troops most definitely are crap, for the following reasons:

* They are an infantry-focused faction yet don't even have the best infantry in the game. Battanian Falxmen are the best shock infantry, Empire Legionaries are the best shield infantry. Sturgian infantry units are second-best or third-best.

Click to expand...

Calling Sturgian troops crap, even if I were to agree that they weren't #1 in any particular category, is hyperbolic. It's somewhat obnoxious when people - including in other cases that have nothing to do with PC gaming - compare two things, then call the (supposedly) inferior one crap/trash/garbage/worthless/etc..., even if it's 97% as effective as the other.

At tiers 2 and 3 (which absolutely matters in a campaign game), Sturgian infantry is very much superior to that of the Empire. Frankly, I think it's the best in the entire game, with exception to the outlier that is the Aserai tier 3 infantry...that mace really is something else when it comes to such a unit. Things change a bit at tier 4, since - as I already said - the Sturgians get a bit of a downgrade in weapons, and the Imperials get a massive boost. Tier 5 is somewhat arguable; 2/3 of Legionaries will get a superb weapon, though one of the templates does possess a shield that only has 270 hit points. Meanwhile, the Sturgian Heavy Axemen all have a really good melee weapon and great shield, plus will never get stuck using the "wrong" weapon in melee (unless perhaps you don't order them to hold fire when charging/being charged). The Heavy Spearmen also perform extremely well, though tend to be worse against heavy armor.

It's worth pointing out that all Sturgian archers have two quivers at every tier, while the Imperials have to wait until tier 5 to have more than a single stack. And while I think the Sturgian archers do in fact need some improvements relative to other bowmen (probably by giving them some of the longbows/yew bows that are a step down from what the Battanians use), being a "bad" archer in 1.8 is still a pretty solid place to be in many cases.

I also have to completely disagree that melee cavalry is "better" than melee infantry, except perhaps for the specific case of using certain heavy cavalry as dragoons, where they actually fight dismounted after being moved to the proper position (and while doing so can be effective, it's also drastically more expensive than simply using Sturgian Heavy Axemen/Spearmen instead). With the current state of their lance-AI, trying to use melee cavalry as they're "meant" to be used is a lesson in frustration.

xdj1nn said:

you're tripping, the game's only spawning up to 6 in 2 cultures and less than 5 on all others -> Vlandia / Battania / Empire / Sturgia / Aserai / Khuzait
it's inconsitent and I'll often get 25 or less wanderers on each game start.

Click to expand...

Every single time I checked Campaigns started with 1.8, there were 32 unhired companions at the start of the game, with a new one being spawned every time I recruited someone. It's possible that some cultures won't have many wanderers (my current game started with only 1 Imperial, but all other games I tried had at least 2 for each culture), but there should always be 32 in total at the start of the game.

Old-Bull said:

It would be nice if they spawned at all. In 1.8 you get the starter wanderers and thats it. I've been trying to find a wanderer to make into a clan leader(that might have kids) and they're all 45 years old at a minimum.

Click to expand...

That's not entirely correct. From my observations with 1.8, the game will always maintain 32 unhired wanderers. This means that there will be 32 at the start of the campaign, when the player has 0 companions, and 1 more will be spawned each time a companion is hired (seems to generally happen around 1 game-day after hiring them but may delay a little if saving and reloading). Presumably, this means that the supply is "unlimited," so long as the player hires and dismisses existing wanderers that they aren't really interested in. That feels a little gamey to me, though, and will obviously cost time and money. Simply having a, "I'm not interested in ever hiring your services" dialogue option that would despawn the character would feel a little better, be more intuitive, and save some money.

I don't mind the idea behind the current wanderer system, but I think the execution could use some tweaks. It's far too easy to end up in a situation where, like the OP complains about, there just aren't many/any companions that the player is interested in. I've previously used the example of a Battanian player that wants a Battanian companion to be a captain for their Battanian archers. In that situation, there's only one option (the Battanian version of "The Ragged"), and no guarantee that he will ever spawn in a given game. There are numerous potential solutions: add some number of hand-crafted companions, certain types of existing wanderers being guaranteed to spawn, changed/improved starting skillset for some existing wanderers, more wanderer "classes" being added, etc...

It may also be nice if the player could talk to an NPC in a tavern, arena, etc...and "put the word out" that they're seeking someone with a certain skillset, which would spawn in a companion of the proper type. There could always be an extra fee tied to such a system if necessary.

xdj1nn said:

(all of that not taking into account the crap troops they have) Anyway, I always questioned why Sturgia's even in the game due to such observations, Nords in Warband were infantry gods (you could, through proper strategy, dominate everyone except for Khergit with only Nord troops using a pure infantry-centric army) and Vargir in Warband had the godly archers + mediocre horse-archers, sturgia has got nothing going for them, their t6 isn't infantry and has crap stats + crap gear, meaning they lose in-game battles, and since they have a low ratio of arch to inf and cav to inf, that basically translates into the Auto-Calc basically destroying them every single time.

Click to expand...

Sturgia's troops most definitely aren't crap. Sure, their archers aren't great compared to those of the Battanians...but they're still archers, and are definitely capable of getting kills. Their infantry is only "bad" at tier 4, with the rest actually being really good. And even the tier 4 Spearmen perform fine vs low tiered opponents, with their fast-but-low-damage sword seeming to mostly have issues dealing with more heavily armored enemies (though I would still like to see the unit get some improvement, since it often feels like somewhat of a downgrade from the excellent and cost-effective tier 3 Sturgian Soldier).

The various flavors of round shields used by Sturgian infantry are also extremely effective against enemy missile fire. It seems like very few shots will hit their legs, even if they look somewhat exposed, and the shields have some of the best "hit points" available.

From my experience with 1.8, Sturgia is oftentimes pretty dominant in the early war with Vlandia, especially if the player joins in and actually fights in the field battles. I joined the Vlandians as a vassal on day 33 of my current campaign, and the Sturgians were absolutely swimming in Heavy Axemen and Heavy Spearmen. Up to that point, they had been stomping all over the Vlandians in field battles, and had taken Caleus Castle from them as well. In fact, I think the only reason that we eventually managed to win that war (returning everyone to their original territory and receiving 470 denars/day tribute) was that we narrowly caught Raganvad's party on its own while he was raiding a village. If he had been together with the nearby Sturgian army, instead of having to fight us piecemeal, I think our army would have been swept aside pretty easily.

Sturgia's main problem still seems to come from fighting multi-front wars (perhaps exacerbated by financial problems). In my current game, the Khuzait declared on them near the end of our Vlandian-Sturgian conflict, but only managed to take a single castle, which was later reclaimed by the Sturgians. But when a second front opens up while they're already "bogged down," it seems like they eventually get picked apart. That's true for any faction really, but I think Sturgia's east-to-west size and frequent snow cover makes things a bit worse for them than for most other factions.

I took Marunath and Seonon basically back-to-back as a vassal of Vlandia in my current game, and have two workshops in each (smithy and linen weavery in Seonon, with a tannery and pottery shop in Marunath). Initially, the two shops in Seonon were making more than the ones in Marunath, but before long became very inconsistent and are now generally worse than what I have in Marunath. That said, I don't think the price of iron ore is an issue - every time I'm in the area, both Marunath and Seonon have loads of it selling for a very low price (generally in the single digits per unit).

You may want to check out what shops are operating in other nearby towns, since I know that competition will definitely have a big impact on your shops' income after a while. It may also be the case that the weapons and armor manufactured in smithies isn't "consumed" enough, and therefore doesn't make much money.

azakhi said:

Hello, these are what I could find from game code:

• Basher: Works with any unit that is in shield wall formation if the weapon used for attack (attackers weapon) is a melee weapon.
• Morning Exercise: Any unit that is on foot.
• Mounted Warrior: Works with any unit on a mount as long as the attack weapon is a melee weapon.

It seems for damage related calculations, game is looking at the situation at that moment. Meaning unmounted cavalry is not counted cavalry since all the code does is checking if the soldier is mounted at that moment.
For party/map calculations it does check troop's class.
Of course this is general rule of thumb, if you are curious about any specific perk, I can check it.


Just checked code and it definitely separates ranged units. Can you share a screenshot with both party and move speed hovered please? If it does count ranged, something is wrong. I am willing to dive deeper into code if you can share a pic showing it works.

Click to expand...

I always get an error trying to post images directly on the forum, but maybe these links will work:
Party composition.
Party speed.

Edit:
I normally have more infantry vs archers, but this was taken shortly after some battles and sieges, and I was doing a bit of rebuilding. Still, the "Forest -0.61" line shows that the perk is actually in effect, which effectively negates the forest speed penalty as a Battanian character.

I've seen this happen both in "real" battles and during Vlandian Tournaments. In the latter case, I've seen the AI actually switch to its sword if they're directly engaged in melee. But when it comes to field battles, it seems like you have to order them to hold fire if you want them to switch to melee when out of bolts...which is a problem if some units in the formation still have ammunition to use. Issuing the "fire at will" command after "hold fire" will cause the crossbowmen to once again pull out their loaded crossbow and become rather passive (they'll still move but won't fight).

When it comes to on-the-battlefield performance, Vlandia needs buffs, not nerfs. Melee cavalry is still extremely bad overall, and in basically every 1.8 game I've started, Sturgia has 100% wrecked Vlandia in the initial war. They haven't taken any territory beyond Caleus Castle, but my god do they *destroy* Vlandia's armies. I'm not sure if the Sturgians are starting with more T5 units than the Vlandians do or what, but the open field battles aren't even remotely a challenge for them.

I've tried joining Vlandia to turn the tide, but it feels pretty hopeless in the early game. The Vlandian cavalry can't really do anything worthwhile, and once the infantry lines clash it's just an endless sea of red and absolutely horrendous kill:death ratio for our side. Sturgia still has issues defending 2-3 fronts when fighting multiple different wars, but that's true for most factions (though perhaps a bit worse for them). But at least Sturgia is strong when actually fighting the battles - Vlandia is actually quite bad.

black_bulldog said:

Yes it's heavily penalized and iirc it was the same way in vanilla Warband. I think it's a 75% penalty in tournaments and like a 95% in arena. Plenty of mods either got rid of it or reduced the penalty in Warband. I've seen people on these forums claim "it makes you level your character too fast" if it's not nerfed. But if you're playing as a battle commander you're not getting in the thick of things to level up your combat skills. The only explanation I can think of for the heavy nerf to skill leveling in arena fights is that Taleworlds loves grind or no one there has actually tried to level a character's skills up so they have no idea how to balance things properly and they sure as hell don't listen to player feedback. There's literally no reason to go into arena unless you really love grinding skills or are desperate for money early game.

Click to expand...

Arena Practice Fights gave no skill-experience whatsoever when Bannerlord went into early access, and some players pitched a fit at the idea of that being changed. So Taleworlds leaving a really large penalty in place may actually be because they did listen to (some) player feedback.

Personally, I don't think the arena/tournament experience needs to be reduced all that much, if any, below the gains from battles. If somebody wants to "grind" certain skills in arena practice fights in a single player game...fine, go for it, why should any of the rest of us care? And frankly, it makes sense that one would gain skill that way.

@LyonExodus If you're looking for more content ideas and don't mind the testing-work, it might be worthwhile to make some video(s) on tier 2-4 units. Probably not doing each individually, since that would take forever, but some generalities and/or "standout" (both good and bad) units might be handy for some.

From my own experience and casual testing, I find the tier 3 Sturgian Soldiers to be a really strong and cost effective unit (the Sturgian Spearmen almost seem like a step backwards, mostly due, I think, to their really low damage sword). Meanwhile, the tier 2-3 Battanian and Imperial infantry seem lackluster, though Imperials get a huge improvement at tier 4.

five bucks said:

Not just overpowered but vastly overpowered. If Khan's Guard outperforms every unit both in melee and at range except the Fian Champion, the only reason to use units other than these guys is if you can't access them. Nobody else does all around combat better than the Khan's Guard, who can kill over 10x their number in recruits, while other noble cavalry struggle to kill 3x. Nothing counters them.

If you don't care about how effective you are then of course other troops have a point to use for their aesthetics but I already addressed this.

Click to expand...

As a general rule, I don't aim for absolute maximum effectiveness in single player games - immersion and whatnot are typically far more important. I'm not going to kill certain NPCs without reason, or complete specific quests in an "out of character" way, just because that's how you get the #1 best weapon in a game. I'm not going to exploit bugs just because it gets me more money, experience, or allows easily cheesing certain boss fights. Nor do I find it very satisfying to run a Vlandian cultured vassal of the Kingdom of Vlandia across the map to recruit nothing but Khuzait noble troops just because that's what's mathematically the best unit available.

If someone else wants to play the game as though it were a competitive multiplayer game that they had money or an e-sports career riding on, then that's cool - I hope they find maximum enjoyment in the game. But that's not why I play the game, and it doesn't make every other inferior unit "worthless" somehow. The only units that actually deserve that label, IMO, would be most melee cavalry that aren't used as dragoons. Their inability to properly aim lance/spear stabs is one of the biggest problems for battles.

murtega said:

This happens when the army enters a neutral town.

Click to expand...

Ah ok, thanks.

five bucks said:

To a player who wants the strongest troops, it is irrelevant which troops are Tier B and which are Tier C. All they need to know is Tier S, and tier A for when S isn't available.

To a player who wants to use the troops they feel like regardless of their strength, it is irrelevant which troops are Tier B and which are Tier C.

Click to expand...

Those aren't the only two types of players, though. Some of us want a more "realistic" army composition, which will obviously include a significant % of infantry in almost all cases, and would like to see comparisons between the various available units.

I also think some people like to overstate just how "useless" certain units supposedly are. This is a phenomenon that exists outside of gaming as well, where product-X is supposedly bad just because product-Y is better in some way...it's like you're either #1 or garbage, with nothing in between. Some units being overpowered doesn't make others completely pointless for players to use, especially in a single player game.

five bucks said:

So I think Bannerlord's archer accuracy is probably fine. Archer damage dealt to armor is the real issue.

Same here. But I think that increasing arrow hits-to-kill against armor from an average of 4-5, to an average of 7-8, and also reducing the number of hits a shield can take by about 5-10, would be a good nerf that would balance archers without making them useless.

Click to expand...

Custom Battles are good for testing certain things, but that isn't always going to give you the full picture. Massed archers firing into an infantry formation can get some kills (depending somewhat on the particular units, angles, etc...involved), but yes - most shots will fail to make it through, which is how it should be. But that's not what I'm talking about when I mention their uncanny accuracy. I'm talking about being fairly far away from any missile unit, while riding a horse at a full gallop, and getting popped in the head, foot, shoulder, etc...with one arrow. Not a full quiver being fired while I'm standing still with a shield raised directly at the enemy archer. There are times that the AI will apparently line up a "perfect" shot, and the only way to make it miss is to change direction or speed, which isn't necessarily possible when it comes from a different area of the battlefield and from an angle that may not even be visible to the player (particularly in first person).

It may also be somewhat dependent on difficulty settings, with things below "Bannerlord" (what setting do Custom Battles use?) not having these sorts of sniper shots happen as often.

Edit: Requiring only 5-10 arrows to break even good quality shields would leave most infantry in large battles engaging in melee with a 1h weapon and no shield. It's also not that realistic to have arrows do all that much damage to shields, though I'd be fine if it could cause some sort of modifier to their speed stat...though that may not be possible to implement in-game.

Old-Bull said:

How do you "reset" your character?

Click to expand...

Talk to the Arena Master in any town's arena while playing the 1.8 beta. It has an associated cost, which I think scales up the more perks you have in a given skill line, but should generally be manageable beyond the very early stages of the game.

Strat said:

One of the biggest reasons most people have issues taking a fief solo is they try to go after the one they want. Unfortunately it rarely works out that way - you have to take whatever you can get Usually waiting for a war to break out, then watching a siege take place. Even if the siege fails, the garrison and militia will be depleted and it's much easier to swoop in to take the fief at that point. I usually wait until a few battles have taken place, that way the kingdoms have lost their top tier troops and usually fighting with tier 1 replacements. Just a lot of little things that can add up quickly and make taking a fief almost trivial!

Click to expand...

What's a good way to manage loyalty in the early stages, though? As an example: If you're playing a Vlandian character, and the Vlandians don't start losing fiefs in a war, you'll be limited to taking "wrong" culture fiefs for a while, and that -3 loyalty penalty is pretty harsh. It also seems like the only ways to get a good governor early are to use your brother in that capacity (which is another -1 loyalty since he'd also be Vlandian), or roll the dice on certain spouses with high enough skills having the right perks. Is it simply a matter of getting the Firebrand perk and enacting certain policies solo, with no vassals to vote against them?