• The forum has been updated. For an explanation of some of the changes, head over here.

Search results

  1. niekdegrijze

    Name 3 features you would like to see implemented in the next - not yet started - update / patch !

    2.- Politic intrigue, it should be something basic, but give us tools to 'manipulate' lords votes, remember your enemies asking for your doctor, you asking your wife if there was a issue in the realm, or sending gifts to other lords (diplomacy mod of course). As I said it doesn't need to be something complex adding just a few options is enough due is not the main focus of the game
    yes, there should definitely be ways to force lords to change their vote through bribes or loans
  2. niekdegrijze

    Lack of Castle Defending (huge problem)

    Would be nice to get an answer from a def about these suggestion. @Callum would you be able to comment on this?
    fighting in the person of your governor/ clan member goes against the idea of playing as a single person, but It would increase the feeling of playing as a clan.
  3. niekdegrijze

    Name 3 features you would like to see implemented in the next - not yet started - update / patch !

    1. bandit playthrough implementation - recruitment, take over hideouts (and upgrade) and street gangs, more loot from raiding, friendly bandit parties can follow you.
    2. pro-active quests - would be nice if NPC's would seek you out for a task, more immersive
    3. Throne room/ army camp scene - a gathering of in person NPC's is necessary to vote on policies and fief assignment.
  4. niekdegrijze

    Hide exact army size

    I posted this in the suggestions part of the forum, but I am curious what people think of this idea. I double posted this thread because It looks to me that treads in the general forum get more views and replays. I read about this idea somewhere in another tread but could not find it again. So...
  5. niekdegrijze

    hide exact army sizes

    I read this somewhere in another tread but could not find it again. So I thought I make a suggestion. Party and army sizes should be hidden and only vissible in broad categories like, small, big, huge. Depending on de scout level these categories can narrow to small, medium, big, large, huge...
  6. niekdegrijze

    Armies should have a defined objective upon forming, shouldn't be so random.

    Though it´s a bit of topic, I agree! This might deserve a suggestion-thread of it´s own?

    Some questions worth thinking of is what "War far Castle X" would mean, beyond lebeling the war in a hopefully immersive way?
    Who desides the wargoal? The successfull vote-starter or the king? What would it mean in terms of AI committment/agenda?
    yes I like this logic as well, war goals make a lot of sense. This could be combined with the army goal suggestion, but I would add more broad goals to the army, like defend, attack or raid. As a king you should have the option to send a messenger to an army to change their goal.
  7. niekdegrijze

    World Economy vs Gear Economy

    Yes 🙌 agree with both suggestions. Lower gear prices and increase troop prices. This will reduce loot income, offset this with more tax income for fiefs.
    Extra benefit: than you have to take care of you villages, now you can let them be raided and make up the loss from the loot income
  8. niekdegrijze

    Export Game World

    Suppose we play a campaign for about 100 hours. Then when we want to resume the game we decide to start a new campaign, but instead of starting with a world from scratch we will start a new game in that 100 hour campaign that we play. Interesting things could happen like that now we will face our old kingdom that we created or that of our descendants.
    interesting idea, doesn't sound as something overly difficult to implement (i'am no programmer so I could be wrong)
  9. niekdegrijze

    Recruiting lords to your kingdom.

    I'm kinda in the same boat, except I have money because I'm my own mega-caravan where-ever I go.

    As far as I know, the only way to recruit is to answer questions which succeed in convincing a lord - then, and only then, does talk turn to money. My trouble is winning these little conversations. As I pissed off many lords when I was an Aserai vassal, their first question to me is "Why should I even talk to you when I don't even like you?" I'm SOL at that point, very often. Hell, I've also had plenty of conversations where I'm on the brink of getting 4 green lights, and the target says, I'm just not comfortable discussing this with you." End of discussion.

    So, how do you get lords? I have plenty of fiefs I could hand out, but that never looks like an option. I've only ever had luck with lords who:
    1) Hate their king.
    2) Are friendly towards me.

    My kingdom is manpower-constrained. I need more war parties. Every clan has at least 4 fiefs, and I have 8. Lords with no land should be knocking on my door. What's my problem?
    I used a mod in my previous playthrough: https://www.nexusmods.com/mountandblade2bannerlord/mods/2443
    its called "consider my kingdom" whenever a lord leaves a faction and want to join another, he considers all factions including the players
  10. niekdegrijze

    What's up with hideouts?

    i said it now so often.

    plz make hideouts spawns into some abadoned castles, just damn ruins and let the bandits be there sometimes and let it get as a bandit outpost for yourself you can upgrad with walls and so on.
    noone ever gave me good respond to this .. :*(
    I like the idea, a bit like the warband mod GoT, nice alternative way to start a kingdom, or as a defensible lair for a bandit king
  11. niekdegrijze

    Dragon Armor

    I suppose my point is that singular goals like that are very shallow, whereas making the endgame itself more interesting like adding more diplomacy between your kingdom and others, which would add more depth across the board, is a healthier solution long term.

    You're right, they're not mutually exclusive, but with the way the development goes I'd prefer stuff like unique achievements not being a priority over general gameplay improvements.
    Agreed :smile:
  12. niekdegrijze

    Dragon Armor

    The goal should be a good gameplay, not some cosmetic achievement. Make the game good and then you don't need an "endgame goal".
    of course the game needs good gameplay, no discussion there. My point is that during the game you give yourself goals, like become a higher tier Clan, get a wife, have more caravans, lead an army, get better gear, own a town and become king. There is always a new motivation. The problem is that once you become king this disappears. In the beginning you have the challenge of defending your new kingdom, this will keep you occupied for a while. Then you want to defeat another kingdom. But after that my interest alway fades because it is just a repeating set of battles and wack a mole. A good gameplay element would be more distinct factions so that every war would feel new and fresh.

    prophesy of pendor had the Qualis gems, whenever you wanted to do something else, you could try and acquire one.

    in short, special gear could offer a small distraction during the endgame, but should fit in the lore. This would in no way hinder good gameplay, not sure why this would be mutually exclusive?
  13. niekdegrijze

    Dragon Armor

    not excited about it, but the game needs some suggestions like this. This would give players another goal during the endgame besides conquering another settlement.
  14. niekdegrijze

    Still havent defended a single castle siege yet.

    part of the reason is that morale lacks impact in Bannerlord, and castles lack strategic and defensive value, so battles are too often concluded in the field before it ever gets the chance to go to a castle fight, because there's little reason to run to one.

    battles should only end in the field if the forces are evenly matched and gradually wear each other down; if the battle is quickly becoming lopsided, it should end in a retreat to castle, and a siege.

    * army A with 1000 men and army B with 1000 men clash in the field
    * army A loses the initial engagement and has 300 casualties in a short period of time, which makes morale effects kick in: the army will rout and retreat, ending the fight early and sending both sides back to the world map.
    * From here, the player or AI commander of the smaller 700 man force becomes faster and more mobile, so he has the choice to either send his men back into the battle to continue the fight, or (smarter option) retreat to a castle to continue the fight on better defensive terms. Sending your men in against greatly superior odds with no castle should have a morale penalty (also serving as a reminder to the player of the smart decision), while retreating against superior odds should be a bravery trait loss but no morale loss, so that the player is actively encouraged to retreat to a castle for a defensive siege.
    * the most strategically viable place to retreat is a castle, as it can be used to harass an army attempting to occupy your territory and send out raids; and is also, ideally, the most defensible location available. so the player wants to go there, as do their troops.

    for this to work the following needs to happen to the game:

    * defenders need to get more of an advantage to holding a defense in castles, perhaps by making it slightly harder to starve out castles, harder to reduce walls with trebuchets and gates with rams/troops, etc. It shouldn't be impossible to siege a castle though, don't overbuff them
    * morale systems need to work better instead of just taking effect when the battle is already lost: the army should on more occasions retreat en masse before they have all died and morale should be gained/lost for options that intelligently favor the men's survival or endanger it.
    * castles need to be able to send out autogenerated harassing patrols that can wear down enemy armies in their territory and raid fiefs, so that attackers are forced to take castles in order to secure territory, and defenders are incentivized for retreating there and simply waiting for the enemy to be forced to attack.
    Good read, yes, I like the premise of seeking refuge at a castle, but finding a proper balance between field battles and sieges is important, take total warhammer 2 as an example. The focus there was too heavy on siege warfare
  15. niekdegrijze

    What's up with hideouts?

    Agreed, hideouts suck giant gorila balls, besides attacking a hideout requires no skill, just run across the same and same map and kill sleeping soldiers that present no challenge and then fight a bandit leader that spawns out of NOWHERE and... Doesn't presents a challenge either. It's a terrible design
    Yes it was fun the first few times, it became a nuisance later. Prisoner rescuing missions would be a good addition. But hideouts should definitely be more connected to a bandit main character. A place for recruitment and the blackmarket for loot. There should be an option to take over hide outs by defeating the gangleader. You can own hideouts like a trader owns caravans. A few upgrade options to make the hideouts more defensible and spawn more parties would be welcome. Of course cities and castles with a governor should spawn patrols if there are to many bandits around
  16. niekdegrijze

    Shall we talk about the paper armors?

    I was unsure if armor is to weak but after watch this
    i say yes to weak,..
    haha, would increase battle time. But indeed a little too strong for gameplay. Respect for both fighters!
  17. niekdegrijze

    The whole "buy horse to level up troops to horsemen" thing is illogical

    I like the history discussions on these forums. my basics take away for gameplay would be:
    - more impact for cavalry charges, more knock back
    - more cost for mounted units
    - horses count towards unit count.
    - horse archers ai like it was (effective) but with an enemy tactical ai that uses terrain and counter cavalry charges against them.
    - owning horse producing villages could be a huge benefit for a noble and be reflected in their party composition. (like a bonus to cost and troop count)
  18. niekdegrijze

    Still havent defended a single castle siege yet.

    Alternative solution: Let the player play as the selected governor who is under attack during the siege.
    Yes thank you🙏 😀 I have been advocating this solution for a long time, nice to see someone else on the same page
  19. niekdegrijze

    Are there any plans to 'declutter' the campaign map?

    Oh yes dont get me wrong I like the icons too. They really breathe life into the map! Retrospectively I think a comparison to Rome 2 icons was a bit unfortunate, as I do like those in Bannerlord. My point was just that they sometimes make the countryside feel small.
    i hated the big cities in Rome 2. I have no problems with the current Bannerlord icons.
    I would like a bitt less choke points and less restrictive mountain roads all over the map, Rhodok lands where unique and memorable this way.

    I'd rather the developers work on bugs and core functionality. If they were going to do anything to maps, I'd like zones of control where you can't pass castles without risking being attacked by them - that way they would have purpose. Otherwise I think the map is great.
    I would like a to see a zone of control function around castles.
    I am not for a complete overhaul of the campaign map, that would be something for a overhaul mod or DLC. But I hope a separate part of the developer team can make minor adjustments to the current map: less mountains, more open plain, roads?

    But as Warlord 123123 said: because of the new (exciting) battle terrain system only minor adjustments seems reasonable.
  20. niekdegrijze

    Making the factions feel unique

    I'm curious to hear everyone's ideas on how to make the factions play unique. Something beyond a single flat numerical bonus and different troops to add variety depending upon your faction.
    Just spitballing, but reading through the lore of the world, these ideas came to my mind:
    • The three imperial factions should be a playthrough of political intrigue. Open conflict between the three factions should be rare. Lords of the imperial factions should be scheming to draw other lords to their side internally while fending off assaults from the nonimperial factions.
    • The empire has a history of bribes and assassinations. Bribes should change hands often (perhaps through a criminal quest) so that lords flip flop between the three factions often. Political maneuvering and changing alliances should be rampant and the borders between the three factions should be fluid. Similarly building influence with powerful gang leaders should unlock assassination quests against pesky lords who are present in the city.
    • Increased influence and clan rank from engaging in political intrigue. Should be able to spend influence on getting other lords to vote on certain issues. Bonus to tactics against parties of nonimperial culture. More "senate-like" voting system. Your initial goal should be to reconcile the schism.
    • Clans should be very independent. Clans should be able to take out mercenary work with other kingdoms in keeping with their historical tradition as long as they answer the call when the king goes to war.
    • Renown and influence gain increases for winning tourneys and mercenary work. Lords can challenge other lords to single combat to improve their standing within the kingdom. Spar with local "champions" in villages to improve recruiting.
    • Extra companion slots to function as an "honor guard". Can demand fiefs in payment for mercenary work. Initial goal is to win tourneys and get rich through the wars of others.
    • Traveling the Battanian forests should be dangerous for other factions. Hill Forts spawn akin to bandit hideouts where Battanian lords can rest and send out troops to conduct guerilla warfare, springing up out of the woods to harass enemy parties and inflict damage before retreating back into the woods.
    • Clans should be independent and renown/influence gains should come from guerilla attacks and raids. Ability to conduct night raids against enemy camps and settlements, stealing supplies, sabotaging siege engines, and inflicting casualties.
    • Battanians should have expanded disguise options for generally causing mayhem under the guise of another factions party.
    • Settlement economies should be boom and bust, rising and falling like the tides. Villages can have "rushes" where resources and troops are greatly expanded. Sturgian lords should gather trade goods like fur while traveling through their lands as well as have the opportunity to forage for food or more lucrative goods.
    • Infighting among Sturgian lords to increase their standing within the kingdom should be commonplace. Increased renown and influence gain from trading and battle.
    • The Sturgian winter should be a huge roadblock for non-Sturgian troops allowing Sturgian lords to starve and outlast enemy parties during the winter months.
    • A faction of financial warfare. Increased workshop/caravan limit. Influence and renown gain heavily influenced by workshop and caravan income. The clan with the highest workshop/caravan income rules the Aserai.
    • Wage financial warfare by raiding other caravans (even those of other Aserai lords), using influence and money to manipulate markets in towns and villages. Expanded options of purchasing mercenary troops and companies.
    • Ability to unlock loan sharking quests through powerful gang leaders so that you can use your money to finance other lords and merchants and use their debts to manipulate them into wars or other situations to your benefit. Insert moles or agents into caravans or workshops of other lords to create market manipulations or work stoppages.
    • Use financial warfare to plant the seeds of uprising in other settlements. Your initial goal is the accumulation of wealth and power to rise up the ranks of the kingdom.
    • Most Khuzait settlements should revert to imperial culture and function by paying healthy tribute to the Khuzait lords. Khuzait troops are recruited from nomadic parties on the map which essentially function as mobile villages. Over time these nomadic parties will settle in Khuzait owned settlements, changing the culture from Imperial to Khuzait.
    • Ability to force settlements and villages to pay tribute to you. If your reputation is enough to be feared, the settlements will pay this tribute routinely with no battle required, simply visit the settlement to reap your rewards. Payment can be in goods, gold, or troops.
    • Ability to raid and force tribute outside of war at the risk of losing relations with the Khuzait lords who favor the current Khan while gaining relations with those that do not.
    • Increased renown/influence gain from selling loot and ransoming prisoners from raids and collecting tribute from settlements. Your initial goal as a Khuzait lord or Khan would be to settle the remaining nomadic tribes.
    Just a few ideas I had while reading through the lore. Hopefully it sparks some ideas and discussion to make the sandbox have a little more variety.
    i like most of your ideas,
    yes, more civil war intrigue an backstabbing. Also an option to unify the old empire by political intrigue. another reason for unification would be that an almost beaten empire faction should want to join another empire faction before being totally over taken by barbarians.
    Army: good use of tactics more focus on infantry than cavalry and archers. Each faction has an auxiliary unit from a bordering kingdom. This would make them stand out more on the battlefield.

    i don;t know how the vlandian mercenary work for other factions would play out.
    Army. focus on cavalry charges

    yes to raids and ambushes, especially in the Forrest.
    Hill forts are nice additions.
    I also would like a faction to use more troops of lesser quality. Battanian could be this faction.
    because of the independent nature op the people it would be interesting if they didn't have castles, but walled villages. Preferable no cities either, but i think this is hard to do with caravan routes.
    Get more renown and influence for raiding.
    Army: more numerous but less armored, more skirmishers and two handed infantry, less on heavy cavalry

    More renown, loot and influence for raiding.
    Winter indeed as huge obstacle for foreign armies.
    war goals, more focused on raiding then capturing to get paid tribute.
    Army: focus on heavy infantry and shield walls, more smaller parties on the map. more aggressive in the winter in snow area;s because they have more change to avoid retaliation efforts.

    I like all suggestions! especially the loan shark route to make other lords do your bidding, even in other factions.
    Army: For the Aserai i would like to see a slighter weaker standard roster, but a strong mamluke branche of slave warriors. War captives could be taken back to Aserai and turned into slave warriors.
    drawback 1: hard to fill out the army with strong troops if Aserai is loosing a war. Slave markets could be a place where AI nobles could by new recruits. If the strength ratio of slave warriors is high enough they can rebel and try to take over.

    I like the addition of mobile parties/villages, but i am not sure about the rest.
    Army: focus on horse archers and cavalry in general, a high percentage of the army should be on horseback. They would be feared in open battle but be at a disadvantage at sieging and holding settlements outside their original domain. They would have higher unrest and more rebellions. This would keep fighting them special and prevent them from snowballing.

    i know all of this is wishful thinking, but it was a fun thought experiment :smile: i will keep advocating for a more diversity between factions: different politics, different war goals, different army builds and preference for tactics. the difference between factions in total war: warhammer kept me starting up new campaigns after the old ones got boring.
Top Bottom