Search results for query: *

  1. Is it really impossible to recruit lords that do not belong to a kingdom?

    In my modded game I had plenty of clans that didn't belong to any kingdom. They also did not disappear when I added the mod KingdomDestruction (version: v1.0.0) which eliminates fallen kingdoms. Several kingdoms recruited these kingdomless clans as mercenaries: dozens of them joined in my enemies during the game. I never recruited any existing clans or lords: all my clans I created by giving fiefs to my followers (RecruitEveryone -mod).

    Thumb up to the possibility to recruit kingdomless lords. The village burning lords, whom you can't militarily eliminate, are such a nuisance.
  2. More player Clan Options

    I don't know what you are talking about. Didn't know there was a problem getting rid of the men in your clan. Never had that problem as...

    All my clan members were women. And also all clan leaders were (admittedly, they had couple of male vassals whom I had not edited). Yeah my character was an Aserai sultan with an enormous harem. Can't recall exactly any more, but I'm surprised if he had less than 60 kids: there were soooo many! Some of the kids were with foreign kingdoms' ladies, I'm pretty sure they stayed in their clans. But I can't remember if all of his own kingdom's kids were part of his clan or if they belonged to their moms' clans. The first kids had just come to the age of military service when he conquered last of the other kingdoms, that's why I can't remember which clans the kids belonged into (edit: wait, now I definitely remember some of the kids became adults in their moms' clans). And then I lost my will to play any more when no more opposing forces.
    How many clans there was in the kingdom? Never counted, but almost all clans had one town and varying number of castles. The number of towns plus about 2 or 3 is pretty close to the number of clans his kingdom had.

    That's one way to play Bannerlord. And as long as them mods work, that will be my way in the next game too. I just had no interest nor time running after them foreign lords and trying to recruit them. Married a few foreign kingdom ladies, that was pretty easy and fast. Mostly I just recruited common barmaids and town/village women, and at some point gave them fiefs. Also that's why none of the towns in my sultan's kingdom ever rebelled: always recruited a woman from that culture to govern the town.

    So... in this story there was one solution if you noticed: edit a few characters, make them males females.
  3. Clans vanishing after I destroyed the Southern Empire? (1.2 Beta)

    I thought Kingdoms were supposed to be able rise again... but given that they just end up as marauders forever afterward I suppose this is somewhat better.
    Yeah what a pain those fiefless kingdom lords declaring war to all factions and just raiding villages! And just get free new troops if you try to beat them militarily... so it can't be done. The very reason I installed KingdomDestruction (version: v1.0.0) mod. If they disappear is an easy solution and definitely better than for ever village raiding. Or make them mercenary factions. Anything is better than village raiding swarms in for ever wars.

    IMO Kindgom destruction should really only happen when all Clans are gone and the leading Clan has no more members.
    How would that happen? My limited experience was that they don't want to leave their liege no matter if they lose all the wars and have no fiefs left. I didn't bother long time trying to recruit other lords: had no time to run after them. Instead I just recruited common people (mod) and gave them fiefs. Much easier.

    I'm in favor of kingdoms dissolving (also) when they are for a certain time without any fiefs.

    There needs to be a happy middle ground where you can perform some executions against your enemies, but at the same time if you start to go the Vlad Impaler route there should be consequences for that too.
    Thumb up. Agreed.

    A possible solution would be to increase their chance of joining other kingdoms instead of being 'lost'. If that kingdom is at the point of just dying off, then adding a bonus the their decision to join other kingdoms, potentially ignoring their relation with the new kingdom...
    Yeah they should be happy if some other faction recruited them! Finally a living!

    Former kingdom leaders maybe more likely to just disappear (become hermits or end their life) than become recruited. The thing called pride, you know.

    Also maybe, just a random lord of the dead kingdom decides he should be a new king. Or she a new queen.
  4. Please fix the post siege donations

    AKA more player complaints about wanting the AI to weaken their companies and donate troops to defend while retaining all of yours and getting all the glory during the battle....
    Very strange conclusion. And why is it a problem to you, if someone wants to control who their vassals leave into garrisons? If you would not like to control it, then don't. (It's not an impossible idea either, that a liege tells vassals what kind of garrison they should leave.)

    We're including some improvements to after-siege donations with Beta v1.2.5 ....

    Oh, first I should say I've last played the game version e.1.8.1. So I don't know if the issue below has changed.

    My problem was always that my vassals donated too many PRISONERS into PRISONS. Often I gave other parties in my army prisoners, because I had too many of them. I hoped to keep more prisoners so that we could either sell or recruite them. Or in case if we found empty room in a prison, leave them there for the garrison to recruit. So every time I had to stop in front of the town and transfer all of them prisoners into my party. If I did not, they donated all their prisoners, and the prisons being so small, it meant they would in a moment escape.

    Someone said: "so what, prisons were always meant to keep just lords, not common soldiers". Really? Then why all them vassals donate their common soldier prisoners there? Why do you even get so many common soldier prisoners? There is a huge imbalance with how many prisoners you can get, and how much room prisons have or how many you can persuade to be recruited.

    Naturally you try to convert them hiqh quality prisoners into money, or recruits. It isn't fun watching fortunes to disappear when you can't do either. Can't take more prisoners, can't sell or recruit what you have.

    In fact, I ended selling the high quality prisoners and keeping the low quality recruits. The high quality prisoners took so long time until you could recruit them. Having just low quality recruits you could faster leave them into garrisons or donate to the parties of my vassals.

    EDIT: how I wish this issue would be resolved?
    Well as a simple solution I would hope them prisoners would not escape my party quite so fast. Great if I could deny the vassals in my army not to donate prisoners.
    I always hoped I could send troops trains between my garrisons. There was so often wars going on, so I had very little time to transfer troops myself. As a more complex solution, it would be really handy if towns/castles could send both troops and prisoner trains. So a town with overflowing prisons would send extra prisoners to another location. Or maybe sell them, that's a good option too. To send troops between garrisons would be really great!
  5. Solution to Non Stop (Frequent) Wars

    Diplomacy is indeed the mod. Non aggression pacts, fixed peace time between wars (which i think you can tweak in the files), war fatigue.
    Unfortunately Diplomacy mod caused a conflict with some mods I had in my game and had to reject it. Don't know what caused the conflict, but I tried removing several, Diplomacy was always grayed in the mod list.

    Things that bugged me most with the continuos wars:
    1. Factions that lost all their towns and castles keep declaring wars to everyone and never make peace, and what they do is just raid villages. Occasionally you lose a lord who get attacked by a swarm of these tiny parties lords. You cannot exterminate these fiefless factions as they get for free new troops, after being released from captivity or escaped. Well, I suppose you could execute them all (not a solution I wanted to try). This is the biggest most irritating issue ever.
    And yes I had KingdomDestruction (version: v1.0.0) mod installed in my latest game. It worked, but I recall them fiefless factions still remained a long time problem.

    2. In the early game there is a LOT of elite troops. But after a few wars, all factions have poor quality troops. They offer like no challenge to beat in battles any more. When ever you meet them, with much smaller troop numbers you are more likely to win. Factions just have no time to recover.

    3. I got into wars so much, that I never had time to transport troops from my full of troops towns/castles in the heart of my kingdom to those newly captured towns/castles in the border zone. Some of my towns/castles could not recruit any more and their economy was suffering because of it: yes I did turn off recruiting for them eventually. If I was doing the troops transporting, I missed the battles. I wish there had been a moment of no wars I could have evened the garrisons' strengths. So in the end it was: do I want to be the troops train, or do I want to play them wars? Had no time to be both.

    The last version of the game I played was Early Access e.1.8.1. So I don't know if they've fixed this constant wars issue in later versions. And the defeated factions issue. I certainly hope so.
  6. NPC-lords suicidal when declaring wars, no strategic thinking. No challenge after becoming the strongest kingdom.

    I disagree...
    The lategame should be when you own like 30% of the map and all the other factions who aren't on good terms with you should attempt to unite and beat you in one final confrontation, and if they lose they capitulate.
    That is basically same as an alliance against the player.

    I just think some event which has a chance to give you serious trouble, makes it more interesting.

    So what if it makes the game bit longer? Rather a bit longer and interesting than a shorter and yawning end game.

    I don't think the "end game" (if it means being a ruler of your own kingdom) was particularly long, either. Thanks to the tribute insanity, I didn't make a peace but once, I think.
  7. NPC-lords suicidal when declaring wars, no strategic thinking. No challenge after becoming the strongest kingdom.

    I'm in the very end game. I've left 2 castles for Rhagaea, my kingdom has all the rest towns and castles. My kingdom's strength is 37000 against her 1000. Yet, she keeps declaring wars. Me: "Oh come on! Are you completely insane?" Rhagaea: "What?" Me: (slaps forehead) Every war I fought, was...
  8. How would you differenciate the armies of different Imperial factions?

    b) Give the different empire faction locations different noble troops

    What do you think?
    I think all armies in Calradia look the same. They may start looking different, but after a while they are a mix of all troops in Calradia. And I do find it lame.
  9. Do you think bannerlord would benefit from a smaller map and less clans?

    For the record I use Diplomacy mod and it fixes alot of the imo design flaws that TW did with the game.
    Without Diplomacy I tried again now with the current Beta and it just isnt fun.
    I tried Diplomacy mod, but it didn't work, caused a crash or was grayed in loader, don't recall, many months since I started the game.

    Because mods often have conflicts, important features really should be in the vanilla game.
  10. When are lords going to learn to surrender?

    I feel sorry for those few last troops, who uselessly walk into their death, against couple of of hundred archers adding weight on their shields.
  11. When are lords going to learn to surrender?

    Brave lords should never surrender (like now)
    Brave lords should surrender too.
    Maybe add a new trait: "stupid". They might not surrender at all and get their men killed because being complete idiots.
  12. Do you think bannerlord would benefit from a smaller map and less clans?

    Specifically what I would want to see removed wasnt necessarily the size, but make sieges take alot longer to build up, so its not like a 1-3 day thing. ...

    Example Sturgia : Just without an army, and normal speed for my party, try travelling from Revvyl to Tyal.. So if you are at war with Vlandia and then Khuzait decides to attack.

    Before you can reach Tyal that is besieged, its captured..
    Yeah. Also, the difference between tiers. Militia is absolute rubbish in siege battles. Often in sieges, even if the other side has hundreds of defenders, I don't have but a handful of casualties, as my high tier troops spawn first.

    To say it bluntly: sieges are child's play. Too easy. After a little experience, you cannot lose one.

    In M&B Warband starvation, all kind of events (hunting and ambush parties), sallying out, building siege fortress, sending agents into the sieged garrisons, could cause heaps of problems and different outcomes. I'm not saying you should add similar text-based random casualties events as Warband had. But definitly sieges could use some spices. Just watching the siege-engine battle, that's a bit dull. And the danger of enemy gathering an army (or getting aliies) that tried to break your longer lasting siege, would be welcome to the game.

    Kind of wrong to say, but "its just to much war", should have some mechanics in play to limit it more (longer peace time for one would help out, as I enjoy the games where I set the minimum peace ot 125, with this I see typical weaker factions like Battania get up back again and reclaiming lost lands).

    Also as others point out the casualties of war should account for something, I mean growing battleready troops typically takes 18-20 years after all.(Diplomacy-mod lets you put this as a factor for "warfatigue" aswell).

    I get that it needs to be war in the game and all that, but for some of us players if we play the game vanilla we have 3-4 days of peace in a period for 10 years.. most of the time at war with multiple factions.
    Thats just not fun.
    Not fun, not reasonable, leaves no time for strategy building meaningfully garrisons.
    There's time for war, time for peace, you could use both. And you could use DIPLOMACY to try and work navigate there in between. Instead of the current random war declarations.
  13. Do you think bannerlord would benefit from a smaller map and less clans?

    What I find problematic with the big amount of lords and parties is, that they stick with their clans and kings, even after they have been soundly defeated, and all they do is try raid villages.

    When these lords are released or escape from captivity, they all get a new party for free. It's a rubbish party with a lot of recruits. Completely harmless against player (or a kingdom which is still victorious) in a battle.

    You can find couple of dozen of these defeated parties swarming around someplaces. The A.I. is so stupid, it often happens a vassal of the player goes and attacks one of these harmless parties, and a dozen (or more) of these parties join the same fight. As the battle is fought only by numbers on the campaign map, the huge number of these harmless newbie parties can still defeat a strong NPC-party, even if they had no hope in a real battlemap fought battle. This continues endlessly, as them defeated parties always start with new free parties, and they won't abandon their clan or kingdom.
    In my game there's even several non-kingdom factions brought by mods. Their parties are absolute rubbish, as they've lost a battle some time. They keep declaring wars against me all the time, but it is completely meaningless.

    I voted for bigger maps and more lords, but the system of them getting free parties and sticking with their leaders needs to change. I might solve this by breaking these clans, and adding these lords into towns and villages. Make them merchants, gang leaders, farmers, what ever. And also seeking to join other factions or starting their own. Loyalty is too high in this game.

    With the stupid tribute rules I won't ever make peace with kingdoms I'm at war with. I don't loot villages, they do, and as a result they still demand tributes when they are soundly defeated and lost all their towns and villages: no military power left. After I've defeated 2-3 of their biggest armies, their troops start to be rubbish, and they can't recover from that.
    In my current game there's only two kingdoms left besides mine. The other has half a dozen towns, the other only 2 castles. All the defeated kingdoms still are around, they declare wars, and their troops are absolute rubbish.

    If I talk some of these defeated parties, their reply is always that I need to find their clan leader to talk about deserting their kingdom. They will not desert their clan leaders. And as I don't have time to ride looking for these clan leaders, I never bother hire existing clans. I just create new clans by giving fiefs for my companions. MUCH easier and faster.

    I think the game needs more kingdoms, so kingdoms have time to rebuild.
    And it needs small kingdoms that players who start the game, can have easier adversories and defeated kingdoms could rise again fighting someone who they have chances against. (Yeah I know there are rebelling towns, sometimes a few: that is good).
    And it needs big kingdoms who don't try to declare wars against all the small kingdoms first.
    And it needs alliances, so that even small kingdoms can find safety. Of course it needs politics so this could happen.

    And it really, really needs to get rid of the stupid different culture governor - different culture town penalty. That artificial rule to stop kingdoms from expanding (and guarantee the player wins every campaign) is the biggest nerf. Yeah I know it exists because it can take a long time to rise from farm boy/girl to a prince/princess, and they obviously want the campaign map still exist with different kingdoms. But it could be done otherwise than nerfing the expansion of all kingdoms. And if you spend decades being employed by another kingdom, is it so wrong that one kingdom (other than an Empire faction) could rise in the hegemony in the meanwhile?

    If you have a campaign map with only a few kingdoms, it would be just about one war against each. And the defeated have no chance to rebuild. A very short campaign.

    In a big map you might have some use for strategic planning even. Which front should you bring your party/army? Which garrisons need to be strengthened?

    Unfortunately in current state of the game, there is little chance you could strengthen any border garrisons. NPC-lords don't do it, and when there are continuously wars, you can either transport troops between garrisons (boring), or go have fun and fight battles, but you don't have time for both. Especially in the end game you have not a single day of peace. Meaningful politics, both for declaring wars and trying to get time to rebuild, get allies, would be needed into the game.
  14. Custom Troops

    I play with Custom Troop mod. (My Little Warband did not work in my mod collection).
    It works kind of, but only my own party can recruit them custom troops. Or actually transfer other recruits into custom recruits. As no town or village have my custom culture as their culture.

    And if I could custom other kingdoms' troops too, I would. That would be cool.

    And if I could lock all kingdoms to recruit only their own troop trees, so that all armies wouldn't look like mix of every Caldarian culture, that would be great.

    Yeah, definitely, I want these things.
  15. So many abandoned modifications

    Good way to destroy your game regardless if you want to marry clan leaders from other clans and have them join your clan.
    What do you mean? How marrying a NPC clan leader destroys a game? (Besides the mod's bug)

    I'm playing e1.8.1 and if you play a male character and marry a female NPC clan leader, nothing else joins your clan but she. Her former clan chooses a new leader, they won't join you. Maybe it's different in the release version.
  16. So many abandoned modifications

    I also added: .... and Marry Anyone.
    Be sure to use the latest mod version for that!
    I hope the new version managed to fix the bug which caused that marrying clan leaders resulted into your own clan getting kicked out of your own kingdom. That bug ruined a game of mine.
  17. The killed in siege battles unrealistically are all high tier troops

    How many men are getting wounded in your sieges? Is your entire army even spawning in?
    No, they aren't all spawning. But I didn't expect the low tier missing the battle entirely. I'm not sure how many actually spawns, never counted together the men of all the units. Estimating, from memory, maybe around 500 troops on one side?

    Now that I know this "Units Spawn Prioritization" in options -thing, it makes sense there are very few low tier in the (early) battle. I was suspecting this, as seen from the first comment, but didn't know exactly, nor why.
  18. The killed in siege battles unrealistically are all high tier troops

    I'm upset when 10 guys die, what is your Medicine skill?

    What tactics do you use during sieges?

    My surgeon's Medicine skill level is 200. But why I don't usually lose men in field battles, is because I lead an army (only my own clan, but it's still now bit over 800 men), and use my own character to solo attack enemy first. Usually the enemy will not attack right away (except looters), as I have upper hand in strength, so my character has time to cut down their numbers, usually it means they lose all their cavalry and some infantry, often I go at archers next. My troops has a lot of archers too, mostly horse archers. The result is that the enemy usually dies before they get to melee distance. (I play with the Bannerlord difficulty level, realistic damage).

    For the next game I planned to not do hero character solo attacks at all. It's unrealistic leader of the army attacks alone.

    Siege tactics? I usually use trebuchets to bomb down all the defending siege machines, then build an onager or two. Sometimes I use my hero character to shoot at enemy archers, sometimes I rush to setup ladders and climb on the walls. If I broke the walls, then I usually lure the defenders out. If that's what you mean.
  19. The killed in siege battles unrealistically are all high tier troops

    It makes sense if the high tier troops are spawning in the first waves.
    Maybe. I don't think I would quite agree with that. But when the only troops dying in siege battles (probably other battles too, I have't followed that as often I don't lose any troops in field battles) are high tier, it doesn't make sense. Should lose sometimes lower tier too.
  20. The killed in siege battles unrealistically are all high tier troops

    I don't know when it was added, but in the options menu there is an option for which units gets placed on the battlefield first, I think default defaults to high tier units. Perhaps this is your issue. Also, tier 7 is only with mods.

    Why don't you play on the release version? Mods?
    Oh, "Units Spawn Prioritization" in options. Never noticed that. Thanks!
    I have it default, which means "Units spawn according to their position in the roster". Errr... what roster? Does it mean units that are selected with hotkeys in battle?

    Other choises are: high level, low level and homogeneous (equal rate of high and low level).
    I think I'll change it to homogeneous. It's most realistic I think. And I'll see if it has any change to those who get killed.

    Yeah, tier 7 is added by mods.
    Yeah, no release version because of mods. Don't know if all these installed in the campaign I play work with release version.
Top Bottom