Recent content by Zamorak

+1

Yeah, i thinks its a bit mess, since the bigger nations wage war against very small nations, i tryed to do trader and bandit charecter, but first game western empire snowballed hard, second game Vlandia and Khuzait snowballed, and ate all the minor powers. I see the problem,so the smaller nation try to wage war many nations at same time. And bigger nations consume them.

But still, the game is damn goood, and its still EA.Totally worth waiting all this time!

Actually you should be able to choose. How? Well, you go to party screen and set your order so, that those u want are right after your character. Also it prefers companions over any other units, so the Changin order wont effect it.
Only time I found this wont work are hideouts where u get banner pieces for quest.

The arrow problem. Solutions: get longbow and 2x 32 arrow quivers and 2 hander. U can also Salvage missed arrows, and fill from enemy quivers. And yeah, I know how hard they are, I would recomend not to try quest after neitzes folly. I mean, 35 forest bandits with armour and longbows at one hideout

Thank you guys for help! I love you all <3!

saneel2014 said:

Yes there is problem with ranged friendly ai not firing while the enemy can. Wait till the devs or modders fix it

Click to expand...

Good good, i thought just to do my part and report it, if anyone else havent done it

CloakDagger said:

I will be happy about a single party co op with single leader.
Also, party members should join in on every "ride into town/village" so that you will be present when they come across robbers/brigands/assassins. Or scout for that bounty on manhunt missions.
And everyone can join in on the tournament.

That is at least good enough for release.

If you can do it multi party, I would be even happier. So that you can encircle brigands, and also you can separate slow troops from fast troops when in one of those frustrating walk-across-the-entire-map pursuits and that the slow troops can catch up while the fast troops are in battle.

I don't think it is impossible. If the game is slowed down significantly (so the game looks pause-ish) when somebody is engaged in something not on the map, then I think we're there.

Click to expand...

Yeah i agree, but i still think that slowing game speed would not be an option, example: If there would be Multi party coop, every player should join the battle, if someone goes into battle, and they could decide if they are ally or foe!

Also, i think that multi party coop could be developed after the bannerlord is released. Just make coop!

KhergitLancer80 said:

Man it is sad to see people are this mature.
Multi-party coop is impossible why dont you guys just think over it for a second ?

Isnt single party coop enough for you ?

Edit: I posted this by just looking at the poll results I didnt read the whole 18 pages.

Click to expand...

yeah i have been thinkin it over now couple of days, and i agree, it feels sad, that we cant have multi party coop for now, but its fine, we can wait for that years, but make the single party coop happen!

Yeah i suggest that coop campaign is single party, but plz, make it so that when youre party with friends, that you can appoint leaders to squadrons, i mean infantry leader, archer leader, cavalry leader etc. We all know that i would be almost impossible and time consuming to make multi party campaign. But pls make it single party coop, we have waited so long, and as a veteran, i never liked the multiplayer, i prefer campaigns, because its the real fruit of the game. 

And people who like multiplayer, im not saying its bad, i just dont like it, and M & B series have been the bomb! Since first one!

But again, please make it single party coop, so i can conquer the world with my friends.

Also it would be so cool, if the party members can also lvl up!

I think best way to make this work, is that time just runs, without pauses and everything, and if going to town, they are shown as garrison, im not sure about should it be that time wents by same time as at the map, cos it would make game pretty heavy i think. Or if you are going to city in Coop Single player, all players should go too, or that they go like different server with loading screen and when they come out they get another loading screen so the map will get updated, And if youre in a town what gets attacked they get notifaction and go to battle instantly. BUT MAN i love these developers so much!! They have given me so much in these past years, AND NOW THEY think of making sinlge player COOP, I must be in heaven!!!!

And thank you NPC99 for redirecting me for here, this really maked my day!!!!

Yeah, i think too dual wield would be pretty hard to make work, i mean both weapons could be used separetly. But dual wielding has its benefits, with two swords, u can parry and riposte easily anyone with one weapon , or even with shield. Think about it, u raise shield to block one sword, and in meantime other blade can easily find its target and devour some flesh. But using two swords benefical, takes years of practice, and its more complicated than good old Weapon/shield combination.

But its a nice idea, i dont think it should be on native/vanilla game, i think some badass mod makers can do this. But it would take so much time to make!

And also, wielding two swords makes you still very vulnerable to Short sword & Shield combo, or axe and shield, because if youre enemy knows how to take personal space advantage, u cant use two swords properly anymore! But dual wield you will easily defeat any Spear, two hand wielders or single one handed weapon users.

Ki-Ok Khan said:

I have read many discussions on this topic in the past few years.

The argument is always something like ; You will die quick! It was not historically accurate because it was not practical. You will get shot in the head with no shield.

Then , now I say this : Make it so you die quick , make it so it is impractical to use in Bannerlord.
When it comes to implementing to the combat system of Mount & Blade , There could be a system where both swords attack from the same side but slower than that of a one hander but dealing more damage. Thus making it impractical , stupid , easy to counter to use. You will die easily if you use it.

It is like those 2 handed Hollywood film heroes in Warband. They die so easily when countered with a one handed or an archer.

My opinion on dual wield. I am not against it as much.

Click to expand...

--------------------------------------------------------

I know man  but many swordman used still Sword & Long dagger, some people dual wielded, but its was not common, because using two sword will fatigue you quickly. But there was dual wielders, and they fighted at shield walls too, but they was not the frontline, more like shock troopers like cavalry or berserkers. And dual wielding was more common in tournaments where u didnt have to fear those arrows. Also samurais were pretty famous for dual wielding, but samurais honed their skills to all their lifes. And dual wielding needed new coreography and lot of practise, knowledge of basic combat styles like Sword and shield, 2 handed weapons etc. And i did not mean to argue i just wanted to reply this, and i mostly agree this topic!