Search results for query: *

  1. Development Update #12: Weather System, Formation Targeting and Warehouses

    pics of new armor pieces?

  2. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    ok guys, rewrite your history books. mongols invaded the rus in summer now, it's official...

  3. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    i seriously don't know what your problem is here. do you want to argue with real history? do you want me to lie and fake history?

    even if we go by your original bad argument, horses are stronger, more athletic animals with longer legs and will have an easier time gettign out of snow compared to humans whose feet are long and flat and get stuck in deep snow much easier.

    here's a couple videos from youtube:






    bonus aserai arabian horse in deep snow:

  4. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    sniparsexe said:
    Do you really want me to explain? Aight.
    We are talking about speed here, let me state it again so you can understand it! SPEED.

    I'm explaining something about speed right? Horses would probably go slower if not equal to infantries in snow, and I'm explaining it by giving formula for pressure, it is a real-life thing but it is just about speed. and you come here and say "but nomadic tribes managed to take those lands in winter" does that make any sense to you? So nomadic tribes managed to take those lands because they were faster?
    • manpower
    • tactics
    • culture
    • adapting
    • horses
    these don't exist? Because in your argument, they don't. An Aserai mamluk riding a desert horse didn't see snow in his life can go to Sturgia lands and move faster than sturgian infantry? How does this make any sense to you lol
    Click to expand...

    the mongols were faster because they used the many frozen rivers of russia as highways. probably this factor did not occur to you. but it gave them the speed advantage that you're talking about. and still the grazing of the horse herds in summer also contributed to said speed because they needed less fodder and mongol horses could dig the snow for the gras underneath, while horses bred by urban civilization depended entirely on fodder, meanign ease of logistics which also contributed to overall strategic speed.

  5. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    sniparsexe said:
    .. I didn't mean it like "you aren't allowed to!" I meant it like "you shouldn't because it has lots of different factors"
    Click to expand...

    why should your factor be considered but not mine? is it you to make that call? show me in the rules pls.

  6. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    sniparsexe said:
    no... this is a game and it doesn't have as many factors as real life does right? So you can't just say "nomadic tribes took those lands in winter"
    Click to expand...

    so...you make an argument based on real life snow/winter and i can't because...? please show me in the forum rules, thanks.

  7. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    sniparsexe said:
    you can't give a real historical example here because it has LOTS of different factors. and guess what? this is a game!
    Click to expand...

    snow and winter are fantasy and do not exist in real life...?

  8. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    geala said:
    This does not work in the real world for bigger units however. :smile: Because horses are no machines but animals, like humans, who can get exhausted too. There is one school of thought among military historians even which has the opinion that big groups on horses cannot move faster than pure infantry for longer periods of times. Namely because horses get exhausted more than humans through constant marches and have to rest longer to regain power.

    I'm not really convinced of this. When reading 19th/20th c. AD military cavalry manuals, they calculate with a higher marching capacity of pure cavalry groups for an extended period of times. And I'm positive that they knew a bit about what they wrote in the official manuals.

    But I never noticed that a mix of cavalry and infantry could march faster than with infantry speed anywhere in history. It's a kind of magic in BL, so. :wink:

    While I'm a stern enemy of the whole cavalry marching bonus for mixed parties, I would not appreciate such changes. Why should cavalry march slower in woods or in snow? If the forests wood be so dense, also infantry might not be able to pass at all. And in deeper snow being on a horse might even be (much) better than having to plow through the snow by foot.
    Click to expand...

    sniparsexe said:
    you have to control your horse and at the same time avoid things, a horse is not a car. = Forest

    Snow is basically pressure and weight. The formula for pressure is Force / Area. IIRC, average horse hoof is smaller than average human feet, and the weight is much bigger when you are on a horse. in this situation force in the formula is total weight (horse + rider) and area is horse hooves. i didn't calculate it with numbers but it's probably at least double the pressure. the reason why people wear tennis racket like things while walking in snow is to increase area, if you increase area without increasing the force (the weight) the pressure will reduce
    Click to expand...

    mongol armies had spare horses, so horses gettign exhausted isn't a factor. horses would also not bump into trees as it happens in bannerlord, because animals aren't zombies but avoid obstacles.

    horses going through forests is a bigger problem than infantry goign through forests not because of the ground but because of the height. riders and the lances on their back would entangle with branches of trees too much which will slow them down considerably. this is much less of a problem for infantry.

    as for snow, steppe nomads would graze their horses in summer for them to get fat and campaign in winter. the campaign to subdue the rus lands was in winter, and guess who had the disadvantage...

  9. Add some Imperial cavalries PLS

    having both foot archers and crossbowmen is super redunant too. they should instead have a 'medium' horseman branch in the regular troop tree.

  10. Resolved Some Northern Empire nobles have no family relationships

    elysebluemoon said:
    Have you checked if it's still happening on a new campaign?
    Click to expand...

    this was a new campaign. i always start a new campaign with every new patch.

  11. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    i also thought khuzaites should have either less lords or smaller parties.

  12. Resolved Pack animal herd penalty

    has this been fixed yet? i started a new game in 1.5.5 and due to loot from looter battles i had to get two horses to carry my stuff and the herd penalty kicked in and i got so slow that i couldn't avoid battles anymore and got ****ed.

    i mean come on, two horses! how's that a herd? how come one mounted soldier with two loaded pack animals is slower than 20 looters on foot?? i can understand this change for the other animals, hogs, sheep and cows, because they are slow animals, even a single one of those nimals would slow you down, no matter how large your army is. but horses?! i mean come on!

    do they know what herd means? horses are herd animals, they all follow the lead mare, there's no problem of stray horses! how can you possibly add a mechanic more counter-intuitive than to have horses slow you down, despite clearly havign a game mechanic that forces you to have pack animals in your inventory to carry your loot!

    if you want to further nerf income exploits, then by all means fix the actual horse prices! not **** over new adventruers trying to play the game as intended!

  13. Resolved Some Northern Empire nobles have no family relationships

    as of beta 1.5.6, this is still not fixed. in fact you can add a new member of clan Phalentes called Nesthys:

  14. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    i totally agree and IMO it would be the best solution to introduce succession struggles. as @Apocal pointed out, monchug is fairly young. so either change his age and lore, or make his legitimacy very low to start the game. not sure if it is a good idea to throw the khuzaites into civil war early (before they start to make major gains) though.

    however, i do remember one of the devs saying that they do not want additional (AI) factions for soem reason. but a succession/civil war were clans side with either the current ruler or the strongest pretender clan would be ideal. mostly, i also want to have the chance to start the khergit khanate or even help the banu sarran start their sultanate. :grin:

  15. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    mexxico said:
    Design team is working on that part to create different bonuses on different terrain types. At some terrain types archers will get bonus and at some terrain types cavalry will get bonus. I am not sure if it is accepted or not but there is a work on that issue.

    Thats why I only wanted to reduce cav ratio of Khuzaits 25% from 31%. This is not huge difference. Others are already 10-15% currently. Still Khuzaits will be different and have 2x cav ratio. Otherwise with 3x cav ratio and current speed rule set it is very hard to cope with OP of Khuzaits. You can prefer this but we should find a solution for all player's average. Mounted infantry bonus can be increased as you suggested (but still no solution to Khuzait OP, we need other kingdoms to carry more horses but Khuzaits can buy horses cheaper and they are rich also (reason : they are faster and they join battles where they can win & they can run away from powerful parties)) or cavalry bonus can be decreased by 10% (40%-50% instead of 60%). Or we can keep Khuzait's cav ratio at 31% but increase average of others to 17-18% instead of 13% (maybe you prefer this).

    Khuzaits's OP effects its neighbors badly also. Sturgia, Southern Empire and Northern Empire are weakened nearly in most playthroughs.
    Click to expand...

    i hope your suggestion will get accepted. type of terrain should not only affect combat advantages/disadvantages but also party speed. sure, horses are generally faster than infantry but in mountain terrain it should be about same and in forests probably slower than infantry. is there a way to reduce cavalry speed bonus specifcally for certain types of terrain?

    also yes, cavalry bonus should only apply in battles that take place in open steppe or desert. it should not apply in sieges and terrain that doesn't benefit the use of horses. danger right now i think if we even thigns out too much, the game and factions will become bland. if we make it so that khuzaites dominate in the open steppe but suck in the mountainous forests of sturgia and the empire, the game will be more interesting than just making all things equal.

  16. On Rebellions

    Old-Bull said:
    Players should be able to attack and occupy a rebel held fief, meeting the "held fief" requirement to create a kingdom.
    Click to expand...

    how about this: instead of how rebellions work now, a notable of a newly occupied town has a quest for the player basically offering him control of the town in exchange for him to ridd the town of its occupiers. so the player initiates a battle between the player's party + the milita vs the garrison in the streets of the town and if successful, the notables agree on making the player their king?

  17. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    wait, the skolderbrodas are a khuzaite clan? i thought they were just a minor faction?

  18. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    to follow up on my previous post, i highlighted the mounted troops in each of the troop trees for sturgia and the empire:




    sturgia gets only four mounted units total: one tier 4 and 5 regular horsemen in the regular and tier 5 and 6 in the noble line. this is way too rare. and the higher the tier, the rarer the troops. this of course also plays into the issue of defeated lords havign mostly recruit armies.

    empire also gets only five mounted units: one tier 5 regular horseman and tier 3 to 6 noble units. due to rarity of regular tier 5 and noble units, this is virtually nothing.

    in contrast, the khuzaites:


    seven regular and five noble mounted units! if it wasn't for the large number of recruits, khuzaites should easily have aroudn 40-50% mounted units.

    for contrast, the other faction's trees:


    imgur.com

    imgur.com

    Imgur: The magic of the Internet
    imgur.com imgur.com

    aserai get three regular and five noble mounted units. due to the tier 3 regular unit and all-mounted noble units, cavalry is fairly common among the aserai.
    battania gets only three regular and no noble mounted units. but from experience, battanian parties usually don't really lack horsemen.
    vlandia has two regular and all five noble units on horseback. they also generally do not lack in horsemen.

  19. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    look no further than the troop trees of the empire and sturgia if you want to know why they have so few horsemen. only their noble troops are mounted, and both sturgia and the empire are the only factions not to get mounted noble troops right away with tier 2*. also both sturgia and the empire only get one mounted tier 5 unit in their regular troop tree. this easily explains why they have so few cavalry.

    khuzaites meanwhile have almost 50% of their regular troop tree plus their noble troop tree mounted, includign being the only faction who can get mounted units by tier 2 already in the regular troop tree. this needs to be looked at.

    *except battania, who doesn't have mounted noble troops. but they have a lot mounted troops in their regular troop tree, which more than makes up for this.

  20. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    mexxico said:
    It was previously like that. Footmen was also counted as horsemen if there are horses in inventory. But it seems it is removed at some point. I do not know reason of this maybe because it is too complicated hard to tell player. Also even this is added again we should make npc lords to carry 30-50 horses each. They will need to buy horses from marketplace. Lots of additional AI codes will be needed lords will need to spend money oh horses (rich kingdoms will be able to buy more horses and in data you see Khuzait is richest, then again snowballing will be effected badly). Also NPC clan economy will be effected, new expenses will be created and more importantly I do not think it can be added back because it seems it is removed from a decision from top.

    Actually I checked code and it is still there but its effect on speed is 30% (half of normal cav effect):
    IGzlR.png


    So if all your party is mounted footmen (100 footmen + 100 horses at inventory) you gain 30% speed bonus.
    Click to expand...

    mounted infantry bonus should be increased to 50% at least, IMO.

    anyways, the game is called mount & blade, right? i don't udnerstand the logic of reducing the number of cavalry forces for khuzaites. i don't mind if everyone else gets more horsemen, in fact i've been advocating this for a long time now. but further crippling the khuzaite mounted forces will also have a negative effect on battles, less horse archers, more footmen. they will be just another generic faction. khergits in warband had no footmen at all and they were not OP.
Back
Top Bottom