Search results for query: *

  1. AJAJP_Juan

    Phantasy Calradia - 2024 reboot

    edit: Monday AM: I finally have the re-worked spells operational again. For some time they were failing to detonate. Magic resists are working, but I want to tweak how magic resist is calculated from gear worn next. I will not have free time today so next patch (A 8 is later this week.

    Magic resist from gear sounds good, will ease the blitzkrieg of castles the not getting oneshoted as the scene loads :twisted:
  2. AJAJP_Juan

    Phantasy Calradia - 2024 reboot

    The garrison at my town loses troops, but there is no notification about it, is the Maximum Garrison Size per Prosperity level in the mod?
  3. AJAJP_Juan

    Phantasy Calradia - 2024 reboot

    The drow smuggler at Four Ways Inn might be worth looking into: bought a returning dagger for 8500 but got instead a Vorpal Sword, which I think goes for 20k
  4. AJAJP_Juan

    Phantasy Calradia - 2024 reboot

    Thanks for the heads up :smile:, will get back if I notice something else.

    EDIT: Ok, something is up. The debug shows that the Blazing Hand squires are casting A. Quick, and for some reason it makes me and the rest of the troops unable to move, I had to cast dispel to get rid of the effect, and that made the infantry to run like crazy, but not me, which is odd.

    EDIT of EDIT: Apparently decreasing the cheat level doesnt revert the Debug log back to normal.
  5. AJAJP_Juan

    Phantasy Calradia - 2024 reboot

    I have noticed some strange behaviour during my campaign, started in 1.60 and right now at 1.60b; my character moves very slowly, but when walking in the lords hall it becomes quite fast, during battle the speed of my character (and the one of my troops) vary, I also seem to get slowed permanently after casting the heal spell. I'm playing as a dwarf cleric, with my party being mainly dwarves, some of which clerics, and some companions.
  6. AJAJP_Juan

    Phantasy Calradia - 2024 reboot

    Replying to keep an eye out, I remember good things about this mod and wouldn't mind having another go at it.
  7. AJAJP_Juan

    What does the word "personal" mean?

    If Im not mistaken, personal perks affect ONLY the perk owner, like the one that regains 30% health after battle.
  8. AJAJP_Juan

    An idea to make board games useful.

    I remember back during EA playing boardgames with lords netted a small relationship bonus if you won and some steward xp. Is not the case anymore?
  9. AJAJP_Juan

    What made you laugh today - Fifth Edition


    The current value of history in society saddens me rather than make me laugh:???:
  10. AJAJP_Juan

    Growing The Beard

    If you started as a 20 year old I think the beard you selected appears around 21-22 years old.
  11. AJAJP_Juan

    How "Auto Resolve" calculated?

    1-So, its not best strategy to have only cavalry? You have not only fight in the open field.

    2-Have you uptodate buffs and debuffs value?

    1. Depends where you plan to fight most of the time, but as rule of thumb, cavalry only is not advised for autoresolve only mainly for its cost.

    2. From the 1.2 Beta Changelong (that is, not on the live version, but the beta)

    Reworked the Auto Battle Calculation system.
    • Mission and terrain types now provide bonuses or penalties for attackers and defenders.
    • For example, an attacking horse archer on flat terrain now has a large bonus but if you throw him into the forest that converts into a large penalty. Defending archers do great in a siege while attacking ones receive a penalty and so on.
    • Perks of the Army/Party leader that have a Captain effect now also give a bonus to all the troops under their command. A tier is determined for each of these perks and those are then counted together. Tier 1-3 gives a bonus of 1%, tier 4-6 of 2%, tier 7-8 of 3%, and tier 9+ of 6%.
      • For example, having the Deft Hands (T6) and Form Fitting Armor (T2) perks results in a bonus of 3% (T8 ).
  12. AJAJP_Juan

    How "Auto Resolve" calculated?

    The autoresolve is faction-agnostic.

    The thing that matters for troops is their power (GetPower), which is literally just three things:
    Hero? 50% bonus.
    Tier? This determines most of a unit's power.
    Mounted? 20% bonus.

    From there is the usual dicerolls (SimulateHit and GetSimulatedDamage) which other people covered in more detail.

    Cataphracts (T5 or T6) are never going to need a 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 ratio to beat a typical Khuzait force, since most Khuzait mounted units aren't that high tier. And even if the Khuzaits were only T5 or T6 -- for whatever reason -- the exchange ratio would be around 1 to (napkin math) 1.3 at worst. That's before getting into the issue that higher numbers are favored by (usually) rolling first, so right from the beginning they kill some of the less numerous defenders.

    This missing the new buffs and debuffs to cavalry, archers and mounted archers depending on terrain.
  13. AJAJP_Juan

    Bring Back Lifting Sieges for AI

    Actually it was changed to this because players complained that there was no way to play defensive sieges as the AI only attacked at overwhelming odds. There is no pleasing everybody.
  14. AJAJP_Juan

    The limbo of independent clan fief ownership

    To me, the challenge with this is that clans follow a different set of diplomatic rules than kingdoms. So it wouldn't just be a matter of enabling independent player clans to call armies. If that was permitted alongside owning settlements, it would essentially be better than a kingdom as other kingdoms could not target you and you could essentially force peace through barter given enough resources (for the wars that you start). Still, if we allowed kingdoms to declare war on you... we might just as well turn you into a kingdom when you capture a town - which would reduce the grace period of players that wish to prepare the creation of their kingdom.
  15. AJAJP_Juan

    Armor lack of effectiveness Devs should consider

    I have said before in this thread quite a few times that spears can and should be buffed.
    Agreed, to some extent.
    Well you said you think all base damage is too high, right? So if you lower both bow damage and other melee weapon damage, without touching armour penetration, aren't you going to just preserve the current problem of bows being better than melee weapons because they do the same thing but at range? And aren't melee weapons like swords going to deal too low damage with the amount of cut damage reduction that currently applies?

    I'd be interested in seeing your ideal proposal for how much the base damage of most melee weapons should be lowered, and how much bows should be lowered.
    I dont have time to go and make a detailed analysis and on a per weapon basis, as I dont intend a "50% reduction across the board", but just not having any weapon deal more damage than the total amount of hit points would be a good start. Bow having spears numbers would mean a reasonable step down, compensating lowered damage for their range.

    If you really need broad brush numbers without a real basis however, cut one handed shouldnt exceed 40, two handers 77, halve it for blunt and pierce
    1: Archers in Warband were absolutely not "useless outside of sieges", Vaegir and Sarranid high tier archers were highly effective and Rhodok Sharpshooters in particular were a deadly menace, even in field battles.
    2: sieges comprise a very big part of fighting in Warband. There is also lots of fighting on uneven terrain with massive randomly generated cliffs or steep hillsides, where archers excelled - and which are still present to a lesser degree in BL.
    3: Again, being the only troop who can attack from range had a huge number of other benefits. Fighting looters? Your infantry might possibly get wounded but your archers can literally kill them without a scratch. Fighting a enemy who's holding position? Your infantry have to wait for them to show up, but your archers can damage them the whole time. Etc.

    4: I'm not even asking for the same amount of protection against arrows as Warband had, anyway. Warband armour gave about 2x more protection against arrows, I am asking for 1.7x more protection against arrows. So if you think BL archers are too strong and WB archers are too weak, a midpoint should result in balance.
    1. Why bring full ranged when I could bring full knights? They were a deadly menace as Imperial menavliatons are in Bannerlord, but they are redundant if Fians are an option.
    2. Unless you are talking cheering the maps for those minecraft mountains, uneven terrain was as much of a boon as hinderance, blocking line of sight.
    3. Recently did an improvised test both in warband and bannerlord custom battle, full range vs full infantry. In both games ranged always lost by wide margin, except when battanian heroes with their two handers mauled in melee. It's not that big of an advantage, more of an AI deficiency.
    4. I dont think they are weak in Warband (unless speaking mods like VC or 1257), simply by the way game is built the killing power resides somewhere else, is not evenly distributed.
  16. AJAJP_Juan

    Armor lack of effectiveness Devs should consider

    No, armour calculation is a problem too, as can be determined by looking at the vast difference in protection from blunt/cutting and from pierce. Until that is changed, there will always be an imbalance among this group, even if you significantly reduce the base damage of all weapons, then ranged weapons will still come out on top, because they are in the category of weapons that penetrate armour the most, while also doing average base damage compared to other weapons and also being the only weapons capable of attacking at range.

    This is why I have no specific objection to something being done to base damage as well, but the pierce damage modifier to armour absolutely needs to be changed either way.

    Spears and pikes also belong to the best penetration group they suck ass compared to the rest of weapons, because their low damage (I think the lowest bow has around 30ish unmarked damage while the best polearm thrust is around 2:cool:. Lowering bow damage would still accomplish your desired TTK, you could even go the (controversial) 1257 route and make bows, or arrows rather as they establish the type of damage dealt, cut, the lowest penetrator.

    Besides, your main concern with armor seems more on line to nerf archers, which if you are not careful enough ends up being like Warband, useless outside of sieges.
  17. AJAJP_Juan

    Armor lack of effectiveness Devs should consider

    At the beginning of EA, lords and elite troops in tournaments were near unbeatable due to armor. This was because back then they weren't considered blunt weapons, but more importantly had a low base damage number (around 26 cut I think?). Its important to note that this was before armor effectiveness was increased.

    Ananda has said it already and I will repeat it: problem is not the effectiveness of armor but the high base damage of weapons, which also negatively impacts weapon skills as they are made mostly pointless: why would you want to improve something that already deals 178 damage before any multipliers?
  18. AJAJP_Juan

    Bring back the old troop assignment system

    Quoting MRay before he repeats himself again:
    Not being able to assign troops and lords in the party screen is intended but the reasons are different.

    Being able to assign troops to different formations would break the saved values and how the percentage sliders/filters work. If you could assign a horse archer to an infantry formation, you couldn't get him out of the infantry formation in current implementation of the OoB. Zeroing the Infantry slider in that formation would still keep the horse archer you put in there. OR we disregard the horse archer assigned there are, move him back to a horse archer formation when the slider value changes. Formations would be a mishmash of troops and it's not possible to represent that with sliders.

    If we add all 4 troop type sliders to all of the cards then one of the problems is, "when do we remove the troops assign from party screen?". Player changed the filter, do we remove them? Player set the slider to zero, do we remove them? I'm not even going into AI problems with having 8 different mishmash formations.

    Now one way to overcome that can be locking each formation's troop type from the get go and not letting the player change them. Formation I-II is Infantry, Formation III-IV is Ranged, Formation V-VI is Cavalry and Formation VII-VIII is Horse Archer and you can only assign a troop to a formation that is related to their equipment. But we didn't want to restrict the player to these pre selections.

    All in all, assigning formations to normal troops in the party screen is conflicting with changes made in OoB that's why it's removed.

    Now lords/companions are a different story. Since they're more fluid with their equipment and they're unique, they don't have to conform to the formation types. We can handle them in a different way. This doesn't have to be in the party screen, we can add a separate UI in the formation cards that you could use to put unassigned heroes in that formation as troops. We can save the assigned formation of the hero and not let them be affected from the sliders. I am, personally, not against this and would love to bring it up internally. That's why I asked for a suggestion post, here. If you feel the assignment of heroes to specific formation as troops, not just captains, would be a good addition feel free to leave a comment in that post.
    I've discussed this change in many posts in this forum, this is one of those I'll leave it here:
  19. AJAJP_Juan

    In Progress Log in failed

    The problem persists, still getting a "Couldn't join sever" message.
Top Bottom