Search results

  1. Skatan

    What Features Do You Want to See?

    "What Features Do You Want to See?"

  2. Skatan

    Everyone who is disappointed with BL and TW, i have an idea, please read

    At this point i'm doing it out of hostility. Let's hurt TW as much as we can.

    If only you could understand how this make you look. I've paid more for a average dinner that's over after 2 hours than I paid for this game that I spent a decent 150 hours or whatever playing. Whining about TW and Bannerlord is totally ok, but to deliberately go for hurting them is downright creepy.
  3. Skatan

    Let's talk about Rebellions

    I haven't played the game for some months (6 maybe?) so haven't experienced the rebellions.

    But regarding point one (and rebellions as a whole), does the game create completely new family members to take the lead of the rebellion? At least that's how I interpret the above.

    Would have been much cooler if the notables in the city rebelling had become the new leaders, and if the rebellion was squashed, their positions would be replaced by a new one or taken over by existing ones. Could be expanded according to the OP's suggestions that if a bandit gang leader forms the rebellion, all bandits and looters on the map joins in but not the city militia. If a respected merchant takes the lead, the militia and peasants join in but not looters and bandits.

    But hey, I really have no idea what I am talking about so I guess I should just keep my mouth shut, heh.
  4. Skatan

    Community Feedback-based EARLY ACCESS ROADMAP - ready for you, Taleworlds!

    But it's not even a GOOD battle-sim because it fails to reasonably approximate like... any historical combat ever. If your medieval combat sim cannot simulate shieldwalls or pike squares or archer volleys or polearm combat or SIEGES... like WTF are you even doing?

    What is BL even supposed to be?

    Agree. I wonder the same thing. I can't help to compare it to Total War and Creative Assembly. Their first games made the best ever battles with historical focus, but somehow that was lost during their success and their focus became something completely different - something that alienated the core players that made their success in the first place. But, they make a ton of money on their games with a very different focus and target group, so it's not like I can blame them. They found out that the total war games were not battle simulator games first and foremost, it was.. well, what can you call the fantasy ones? I dunno, Hero Fantasy RTS Tower Defense games?

    I was late to the party with M&B but I played it after a decade of total war games (RTW, M2, ETW) and being in the driver seat in the actual battles rather than some anonymous godlike entity, as I would be in a total war game, was really interesting. It was a unique combination, being the hero, but also commanding troops, having cities etc. Not as grand as a TW game, but fresh and unique. Being so late to M&B though I have few hours in it compared to most in this very forum, I assume.

    In Bannerlord, if it's primarily a battle simulator, there lies a significant challenge. Comparing to a TW game might be silly to some of you, but in ie Rome Total War playing different factions meant each playthrough was rather unique. It was so different each playthrough wasn't very repetitive. At least not for me, I have probably thousands of hours of RTW (before Steam kept count). But if Bannerlord is primarily a battle sim it needs a massive overhaul of faction diversity and playstyles to keep being entertaining between playthroughs.

    I played around 4-5 characters in BL in the first months of EA, maybe around 150 hours or so. I remember when I stopped playing, it was during a battanian playthrough focusing on battanian war styles, ie foot soldiers, archery, only recruiting battanian units etc, but even so it just felt very similar to my previous playthrough (vlandian), and the one before that. And the one before. I remember so well how I had to FIGHT my urge of getting up on a horse and just do the ol' horse archery schtick again since the running speed level up so incredibly slow and my level 1 peasant outran my level 20 warlord, hah! There isn't significant differences enough to warrant more than one playthrough. Perhaps that's what BL is at the end of the day? The first run was magnificent (khuzait, horse archer), the second was very good too (azerai, trader/horse archer/own kingdom), the third was.. ok? Vlandian heavy cav and cross bow, the fourth was battanian I think or maybe there was one in between. Matters not, what matters is there won't be a next one, there is no point as I know there will be no real change to the way I or the game plays out.
  5. Skatan

    Idea: A Comprehensive, Polite and Well Reasoned Letter of Dissatisfaction to Taleworlds?

    I would sign it. The over-zelous ranting and whining is the reason I don't post much even though I lurk a decent amount. I just find all that negativity so incredibly boring. Constructive criticism, on the other hand, is sexy as f.. great. I gave TW the benefit of the doubt the first 6 months, tried to be positive, then I just grew uninterested.

    I have not yet written a review since I find the idea of writing a review on a game that have not been released to be utterly moronic. It's like writing a review after watching a trailer for a movie (well, maybe not.. I'm joking a bit to make a point). I have also remained offline since around patch.. 1.5.whatever after not seeing much progress I decided to uninstall and wait. And rather than complaining I would guess silence works as well. If no one is talking about the game, the forums were dead, no one wrote reviews and no one played the game on steam I think it would send a pretty strong signal to any future buyer to wait a bit, do some research etc, and for the company to perhaps work more on their communication with their fans to increase passion/engagement. But maybe not, who knows. All we do here is speculate, some to the point where they think their speculation becomes truth after it has echoed back to them again from someone else.

    @Dabos37 summed it up quite well, but as said I am not keen on going full retard on the negativity in the forums myself. I mean the list that it seems most of us agree on. It's that list that needs to be communicated, however, it already has and not much (if anything happened). I doubt a new open letter would change much, but I'd sign it anyways as said. Nothing to loose by doing so of course.
    TW still want to get money from consoles, and having a forum with tons of complains every day won’t be a good thing for them. While not all people visit forums, I am pretty sure that Armagan is not comfortable with his forum getting tons of complains every day. I know that every videogame’s forum is full of complains but I have never seen something like this where 9 of 10 posts are about disappointed people complaining.

    Concerning this game, I have mixed feelings... This is the game I have invested more hours on it in my life (1300 hours or so), and I am not going to say that this is a bad game. What really annoys me is that this game could be easily x3 better if TW would hear its community a bit more.

    I think the whole community does agree with:

    - Diplomacy is currently nonexistent. People want a deeper diplomacy system.
    - Armor effectiveness should be increased.
    - Late game is boring as hell. There is not much to do aside endless wars and fighting loop.
    - The game is not immersive at all.
    - People miss some Warband/VC features which look not really hard to add to Bannerlord, but TW refuses to add them.
    - High tier equipment is insanely overpriced.
    - High tier units do not feel much better than low tier units.
    - AI is mediocre at best. Especially sieges and cavalry AI.
    - Battles last for seconds and there is not enough time to use any decent strategy.

    I encourage the people to continue complaining until TW change their minds and start working on making this game great. I really do not care if I have to pay more money on DLCs, expansiones, etc, I just want to see TW investing more effort on this game which will give them much more profit than any silly space game.
  6. Skatan

    Community Feedback-based EARLY ACCESS ROADMAP - ready for you, Taleworlds!

    Hardly here in the forums anymore, but this was a great list and summary. I don't agree with all of it, but much of it indeed. Must have taken some time to write it, so your passion and engagement is obvious. I hope you (and the rest) get what you want in the end. Personally I have uninstalled the game. I got a good 150-200 hours of fun out of the EA, so no hard feelings, but I just doubt the game will become complete enough to warrant more playthroughs that will be unique or different enough to make them worthwhile for me personally.
  7. Skatan

    Imporving horse charges, hoof attacks, and horse death

    That's not what was said. I said that running over people with the horse was not the regular cavalry tactic. There were certain reasons why cavalry usually carried weapons, lances quite often, to poke people from a certain distance.

    Generally we have very scarce sources from the medieval period which tell something about the exact realities of combat. Such sources mostly come from later periods. We do not know what exactly happened when someone wrote about successful cavalry charges during battles in the middle ages. We don't exactly know why the Norman cavalry allegedly could break "through walls" with their charge (as one eastern Roman princess wrote, surely a deliberate exaggeration), but were not able to break the Anglo-Saxon infantry shield wall at Hastings despite several trials. Weird, why didn't they just ride over the infantry soldiers, as it seemingly was so easy?

    You also have to take into account that most of the time cavalry mainly targeted other cavalry. Knights preferred to fight knights, not infantry, so to say. And quite often they sucked when they tried to frontally attack infantry masses in solid formations with good moral.

    So (melee) cavalry in Bannerlord should become better but should not be able to ride through and over shield walls. Increasing charge damage of horses is the wrong way.

    Valid points of all of them, but I disagree on your last one. Perhaps we speak over eachothers heads here and I mistunderstood you and you me. I don't particularly want horse damage to be increased to make it into a strategy per se to just run over things, but as explained in the post above, I see it as a reasonable damage anyone would get _if_ they do indeed get run over by a heavy cav (or any cav really). I just assume, not based on actual historical accounts or anything, that if I would stand around with a spear and shield and be charged by a horse but fail to stop it and the rider runs my over, that I would break multiple bones, ribs, internal organs and whatever and be out of a fight. In some cases I guess you can be lucky and escape fairly unharmed (I've seen some YT videos of crazy ppl getting slung around by bulls and still be able to run and escape for example) but I reckon you will just as often be maimed badly.

    I don't care for balance in these things, I lean towards what seems reasonable. As said before, balance IMHO is better accomplished by other means, ie fiscal.
  8. Skatan

    Imporving horse charges, hoof attacks, and horse death

    You'll smash through more than a couple of ranks of infantry. Currently you can plow through infantry eight or nine ranks deep and come out the other side, dealing some damage as you go. There is literally no realistic arrangement of infantry that could stop a charge if you increased the damage, meaning as few as 10 or 20 horses (and not only the heavy ones) can casually truck infantry over.
    I haven't really played the game since mostly 1.3.X and to a degree 1.4.1 (iirc), but last time I played a peasant with a fork on a stick could stop a knight on horse at full speed if they poked at the right time and the horse would stop dead in its tracks. This I found a bit silly, hence why I wouldn't mind a change where the forward momentum takes a lot more to stop and that infantry would need to stand in ranks and build up mass that way to stop an incoming charge from cav.

    Then why would you support increasing charge damage so high that it literally doesn't matter what weapons the cavalry use?

    Because if 20 infantry were charged by 20 heavy cav with speed and momentum, I'm guessing they would indeed get run over unless they were many ranks deep enough and with pikes etc to be able to stop the cavs momemtum not on them, but _through_ them.

    Perhaps my post was unclearly written, but wrt to the horse damage (if you miss with lance) I woulnd't mind personally to have it increased for the sole reason that it makes sense. If a man gets run over by a horse at full speed, a horse with armor and the weight of a knight upon it too, I reckon it would hurt like hell. Sure enough it would hurt more than 2 flat damage, hence why I am pro higher damage from being run over by a horse in the game. It's not about balance, it's about what I personally consider more realistic. And I, as said, would balance it out with cost so that only the richest lords could afford enough cav of this kind as to now just run over anyone. Units are way to cheap in this game overall.
  9. Skatan

    Imporving horse charges, hoof attacks, and horse death

    I wouldn't mind at all to have cav charges just as effective as that youtube movie posted above considering how many cav was charging so they should win easily. However, recruiting such units should be very, very expensive. It seems many members posting here get stuck in the "But Cav will be so OP" which is quite easily countered by making them expensive so you can't hire that many. After time goes by and you slowly acquire a critical mass of lancers, then yes, they should indeed smash straight through a couple of ranks of low/medium infantry and send them flying.

    And someone above mentioned trusting people who actually did this in past centuries or something similar and argued it wasn't done as straight up charges. Umm what? Heavy cav straight into infantry was most definately done in medieval times as far as I have been able to tell, ie the Normand knights quite early and expanded from there over centuries. I won't get stuck in some debate of who has the best medieval sources, I have chosen to trust a couple of people on YouTube who post such things and hope their assessment are correct. Was it invincible? No, of course not. But it was obviously effecient enough for many countries employing this particular tactic by the nobles/richest. Lances could be quite long, longer even then the infantry's spears perhaps, thus the Cav could hit before getting hit.

    So, not that I think it will actually ever be done in the game, I would most definitely prefer charges/horse damage to be upp'ed significantly, as well as, their ability to strike through and keep momentum and not be stopped dead if someone poke at them with a stick. It could be countered by heavy costs to recruit such cav units to keep these heaviest of units as a lower number, only to be used when critical and at a risk of losing them all if they do indeed get bogged down (like if you charge them into a too large force or their initial charge goes well, but the aftermath does not).

    But anyways, I'm that kind of weird person who enjoy historical/realistic accuracy more than anything else. Also, I don't care at all about MP and find it ludicrous MP balance should be a thing for the SP game.
  10. Skatan

    Can we please talk about how stupid being a vassal is right now

    Now, if you want a real world example: A king/emperor, never cared for what his minor powerless vassals wanted or care, they had no power to raise against them.

    Yeah, because in Earth history you never read about any rebellions or civil wars? :razz: Sorry for taking this sentence out of context, but I just found it too funny not to reply to.

    The only thing I miss is the ability to say no to a fief and potentially the option for a faction leader to use their influence to 'force' on you anyways (like "prove your loyality to our faction and take the fief or get the f out of here" kinda). The latter isn't necessary, but could perhaps be a tool if saying no becomes an option for both the player and the AI and you have your own faction.

    Other than that, this topic has been brought up plenty before and I'm sure the Devs have heard about it already. Whether they want to implement it or not, who knows.
  11. Skatan

    Anyone else find the progression system really unsatisfying?

    Agree with the above. I favor ideas that if you can choose between two perks and they are mutually exclusive, as in BL, it's great if they each alter your playstyle significantly. Let's say scouting has two choices at skill level 100, the first one adds a layer of info you can't have otherwise, ie let's you inspect the enemy troop types (which I now is basically for free already in the game and is a bit too easy IMHO), the second one instead hides you from enemies so they can't notice you until you are a lot closer. It could change the way you play quite a lot. If you pick the first you play a quite regular BL game, can inspect and choose to engage or run away. The second option however stops the enemy from running away and let's you come closer and hopefully catch them before they run away.

    I'm not saying these imaginary perks are amazing, but I like these kind of choices that impacts you to the point where I will immediately start to think about the next playthrough choosing the other option, hehe.. It's a bit of the ol' masochistic restartitis.
  12. Skatan

    2 handed maces on horseback?

    On this topic for anyone who's interested; 2 YT links to knowledgeble guys talking about 2-handed slashing weapons from horseback, one theoretical and one practical.

    from 13 min, Schola gladiatoria;
    continuation reply from Modern History;
  13. Skatan

    Real-World DLC Idea: Mount&Blade II: Ottoman Conquest

    Cheers this made me laugh

    As to the idea, no thanks leave real nations and religions out of it please. no matter how well its done folks are going to get offend. Now fictional faction based loosely on their fighting style would be fine but real world events have no place here imo

    What in the hells are you talking about? The Total war games, the Europa Universalis and Crusader kinds franchise, heh even the Civilization games and a plethora of other games all use real historical nations and wars as the basis. Many are beloved and classics by now without any controversary from nationalistic morons. If Devs should cater to emotional and nationalistic snowflakes who may be offended we would all have a lot less great games to play.

    And hey buddy, you know Viking conquest and Napolionic wars were both based on real nations and history too right?
  14. Skatan

    Why are simulations rigged against high tier troops?

    Thanks! That's what I always thought, so I'm glad an thankful you confirmed it @mylittletantan
  15. Skatan

    Why are simulations rigged against high tier troops?

    The question then becomes are you fighting multiple battles one after another? As troops are still injured even though it does not show it, unless you give them time to heal.

    I guess I do quite often yes, it's contextual though depending on my surroundings and whatever war my faction is in or not. I try to keep aggression up mainly because there's really nothing else to do in between.

    Today was the first time I've heard soldiers can be hurt even if they are not displayed as injured, as you mention (if I understand your comment correctly that is). Is this confirmed and does it mean some soldiers start without full HP?

    Edit: my faction in question is battania and having wars ongoing against vlandia, the empires and azerai means most battanian nobles run around and recruit a lot which means mostly I find empty villages or recruits. I have cultivated one noble line village up to 40+ relation to get as many fians as possible, the rest range between 0-20 or so.
  16. Skatan

    A little confused on influence (bug?)

    The influence loss of attacking a village and causing the war is -300 influence. It's been written about in several other threads, one which I myself participated in, that it may be hard to regain it sometimes since factions now tend to go to peace sooner which may/may not allow you to regain those 300 influence or more in time to make it worth it.

    My experience from a few weeks back was that it wasn't worth it until I had charm enough to gain the +1 influence instead. The risk is that if you end up in negative influence and disband your companion party army, you cannot assemble it again even if cohesion is free to maintain the game won't allow you to summon your companion parties if you are at negative influence.

    Edit: Forgot to say that of course others may have difference experiences since war and peace is RNG and may have greatly benefited from starting these kind of wars. YMMW.
  17. Skatan

    Why are simulations rigged against high tier troops?

    I am wondering why you need to fight hundreds of battles? If you herd the looters into one area that is a dead end, then you just need to do one battle as other looters are drawn in. After a short time in the game, you can then start only recruiting level 3 plus troops, as they start appearing in large numbers after about 1 year in game time.

    Not in my games, there's still 90% level 1 recruits in the villages. I even had 2 parties running around doing quests on their own to increase the realtionships, as well as doing it myself, and sure I can find some tier 2 and sometimes 3, but that's a minority for me.

    Herding is useful in some areas as you say, but I mean the hundreds of battles over a whole playthrough of say 10+ in game years or more. When I create a party from a companion, I feed them high level troops since they are semi-'tarded and die otherwise and recruit new for myself and level them up. Then again with the second party and third etc. The cycle of recruitment never ends with steward 200+ since it's hard to keep a high number of troops unscathed in battle (unless you play HA of course, but I'm talking about other factions).

    nota bene, my latest playthroughs have been more infantry oriented factions since I found the HA/cavalry oriented factions to simple to win with. This of course affects my playstyle and challenges to replenish troops because even when I am outnumbering my opponents I still lose units.
  18. Skatan

    Anyone else find the progression system really unsatisfying?

    I kinda like the concept of the BL leveling system, but agree on that the penalty to learning from leveling overall is too harsh. I think the concept of attribute points in incorrectly impemented since you have so few and they are essential for allowing you to keep progressing when focus points are no longer enough.

    I don't need to become a 250+ master in everything to enjoy the game but after 10 in game years with 5 FP in Athletics and about 5-8 END, I'm bummed out I'm just shy over 100 Athletics, that's just ridiculous. Considering what you guys wrote above I now assume it's because I've been stupid and leveling up my other skills too quickly which then hampers my Athletics overall learning rate, ie steward which goes up as soon as I glance on it.

    Tying Athletics and Riding skill increases pretty much only to actually dealing out damage is a poor mechanic though IMHO. One of the worst right now, other than that the concept is good as soon as Perks are properly implemented.

    And saying you don't have difference from level 1 to 24 is not correct IMHO, the info tab on the skill shows the passive percentages on ie attack damage and draw/swing speed and even if that may feel a bit lackluster when leveling up, it makes an actual difference. It's very noticable in a tournament if you are given a weapon you are not proficient in, the swings are very slow.

    To be frank though, I'm not sure if all the passive skills are actually implemented in the game, heh..
  19. Skatan

    Real-World DLC Idea: Mount&Blade II: Ottoman Conquest

    I don't get why some think it would be bad for a DLC and good for a mod. I think it was an excellent post by OP, thank you for sharing your idea, and that the time period is very, very interesting from a historical point of view.

    Konstantinopel was at the heart of the world for a long, long time. This area is ripe with historical events that all of us are affected by still today. I find the slightly later period even more interesting myself, around 1453 etc, but this period in the OP is great too.

    Great idea.
  20. Skatan

    Why are simulations rigged against high tier troops?

    Well I would imagine that they are using the exact same simulator as you are. Therefore it is a level playing in that respect as they would be losing their best units first too. Then again it actually gives the advantage to the player if they fight the battles themselves. Basically players lose out if they are lazy and simulate, but gain something if they put in the effort and fight the fight themselves. Let's be honest here most battles against 20 looters takes about 1 min plus load times, so to not fight them is pure laziness upon the player. Therefore they lose any sympathy from me.

    I wouldn't say "laziness" of the player is as much in question here as the "tedium" of fighting numerous, hundreds even, of these pointless battles just to level up your lowest rank units before an actual battle that matters. It was fun in the first playthrough, but the umpteenth? Not so much.

    It's a core basic of the game same as in the old M&B, I accept that of course, but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. The game is great _despite_ this part, not because of it. A functional autocalc that was balanced and fair would remove a lot of the tedium on your second, third and onwards playthroughs. Am I lazy then? Perhaps, but I prefer to call it impatient. I just wanna move on faster to the things that matter since I already know the outcome.
Top Bottom