I love you bro, you know that. Just saying that we are all busy, including them. They will figure **** out, with our help it will go faster but don't think doing a lot the @ will speed up the process. Like apocal said, there are multiple ways of being productive. Stay beautiful Flesson.First the crashes happened after the 1.6.2 hotfix, which this is what this thread is for, things related to the beta branch. A bug report can help but that is the purpose of this thread. Also the devs are busy, so busy they can't take 2 or 3 minutes to make a one sentence post. Nice to you got inside knowledge and know their schedule. With your inside knowledge of their schedule, when is 1.6.3 coming out? Who needs a dev, we got you with all the knowledge
+1 folks. The devs are busy at work, flesson et al.I haven't had any crashes.
Maybe instead of having a moan, why don't you guys who are having crashes compare notes - perhaps you share a similar setup that might be causing it. Graphics cards, drivers, OS version... SD type etc etc. Maybe it's a particular configuration that the devs need to look at. I.e. be productive.
Then you can go over to the actual support forum and post a thread about it in a format that TW can triage. Random posts in the middle of a thread with hundreds of posts isn't a very good way of triaging support queries, and just going @ a dev doesn't add it to the triaged support list, whereas a support query with details does.
+1Who actually liked grinding every single settlement in M&B? It is almost zero challenge past a certain point, there is no interesting gameplay involved once no faction (or combination of factions) can meaningfully oppose you and every victory makes you that much more unassailable. If you think fighting the same sieges where you make 0 meaningful decision is interesting, cool.
I sure as hell don't.
It is awful game design and the entire M&B experience would be 100% improved if the game was called when you were more powerful than the AI factions rather than having to paint the map via repetitive sieges. The last few Total War I played did just that, successfully, by having the objectives be three kingdom capitals. Everything revolved around taking them once the late game is declared, which not only gaves a very obtainable set of end goals but also provided a very interesting set of goals in the mid-game as players jockeyed for a better late game position.
It is a completely viable option now. This time last year, yeah, it was basically impossible under all but the most favorable of circumstances but that's been fixed. I've demonstrated it.
Player-made doomstacks can reliably (and sometimes effortlessly) beat the AI's doomstacks and the AI generally only fields one or two armies at once. Sure third and fourth armies (and fifth, etc.) armies might form-up and reach you, but they won't be stronger than the first couple and significantly weaker (~30% less power) is typical. If you don't think it is possible, throw me your savegame and I'll record myself successfully sieging down a town.
As for running out of food, the game is ridiculously generous with how much food you can carry -- easily over 100 days for an army of 1100.
It takes roughly a season to starve out a settlement, so anything over 30-40 days of food is fine -- enough for the siege itself, along with a healthy buffer in case something goes wrong. And I'm just going to drop an shonen anime-style "this isn't even my true power!" here because if I cared to optimize things that could go up to 300+ days of food -- enough to take on a whole faction worth of town, one after another.
...Nobles visit your hall in BL. What makes you think they don't? And I had to chase down lords in WB all the time, which was infruiating because there were a number of game mechanics that made it more difficult, like the scatter of armies post-siege when you had to talk to them to gain relations from fighting together, or the way character locating barely worked.
Engineering is certainly weak but Charm is one of the easier skills to level. Just drop full power votes in favor of a different clan and it shoots right up past 150, fast as hell. And BL still avoids that trap of the single optimal character build that WB had.
Yes, I am making that claim. Khergits had no armored troops and only low-tier infantry in Warband. It made them near useless in certain battles and a complete clownshoe pushover faction for the player who wanted to siege their settlements early on. And because ranged was somewhat weak while armor was strong, Khergits weren't even good in field battles. It was ridiculously unbalanced.
And infantry,cavalry and ranged all playing a more equal role? Are you joking? You could beat the entire game using exclusively Swadian Knights. And I know because I did just that in native. Sure, there was another faction with a very similar troop type that filled the same niche, but ultimately, you had three OP troop types and everyone else was niche or plain busted. Certainly BL hasn't done that much better making actual combined arms a thing in their battles but at this point I doubt many (if any) players care that much.
At least in BL, I have a reason to use infantry some of the time (garrisoning and construction speed for low recruiting/wage cost) and while ranged dominates, every faction has usable ranged troops. Not equal by any means, but still viable. You can still delete whole other armies with massed Sturgian archers compared to, uh, Nord... did they even have archers? (sarcasm)
In the end, for all the differentiation, most players spammed one of the two (or three, if you count Mamluks) best troop types because that's what the game taught them.
+1The campaign map is remarkably unaesthetic. The placement of mountains feels too haphazard and lacks believability.
That I mean by this is Calradia's mountain ranges crisscross and run every which way, with different ranges going in every possible direction -even when they are in close proximity to one another. Generally speaking, a mountain range will run along a the direction of a fault-line where two tectonic plates are pushing against one another. A simple example of this is the Andes Mountains on the western edge of South America.
Even places like Turkey -which sits atop multiple fault-lines, sees her mountain ranges follow the rules of geography and exist along those lines.
On the other hand, the geography of Calradia resembles a porcupine or hedgehog, with a labyrinth of random mountains sprawling out in various -often conflicting, directions.
I understand what the devs were going for, they wanted to add choke points and areas to funnel the armies into -in order to increase clashes between the factions. That said, these choke points could have been created in other ways besides placing an endless maze of mountains.
Other terrain-restricting features which could have been used are:
-Impassable old-growth forests
-Rivers as boundaries
-Man-made structures/walls (e.g. Hadrian's Wall/Great Wall of China)
These, used in conjunction with logically placed mountain ranges, would make a much more aesthetically pleasing and believable map.
+1I love the concept of the Arena battles. Just wish they could be improved upon, and the reward should be bigger. Also, some way of making it relevant in the late game.
Thank you for sharing that link Terco. As always, very nicely polished idea/suggestion.
- I can totally AFK the awful late/end game grind of M&B in BL whereas the idiots in WB can't be trusted to finish off a faction with two castles left.
- AI is actually affected when I BTFO five of their armies in a row and raid every last village they own, unlike WB where they take about seven days before miracling themselves a whole new party.
- Being able to actually siege out a settlement is nice. In WB it was literally impossible.
- If I can't starve out a settlement, I can knock down a wall and just walk in, instead of the man-sandwich of Warband.
- Not having to hunt the guild master or village elder in every single new settlement scene is nice. Quick Talk? Even nicer, especially back when scenes took a few minute to load on my laptop.
- Recruitment is better in Bannerlord; pick and choose rather than get what I get and don't throw a fit.
- Bannerlord got rid of the stupid tax skills like prisoner and inventory management. After improvements it is literally impossible to **** your build up in Bannerlord and you can have some builds up and running in under an in-game year.
- The factions are better balanced against one another, instead of the snaggle-toothed troop trees of Warband that had almost everyone stampeding towards Swadian Knights or Nord Huscarls.
- Companions are more useful (generally) and less annoying in BL.
Yes, what you have described is called "cheesing". Ultimately this is not a sustainable, not fun to many after a few times, way to play the game. You will always win doing such tactic. No challenge in that. What we are asking for is not another way to cheese the game, but for dev to think and implement an action that will present a moderate level of challenge to the player.okay, my friend, let me teach you a new trick,
always always choose to defense, and let the enemy to come forward and attack you
You place archers loose formation in front, infantry at back, horsemen on left
your archers will shoot down most enemy when they come closer
infantry push up and kill enemy, but don't push too far to their spawn points, wait for them to keep coming toward to you
if your enemy didn't come toward to you, you retreat and reload the battle again, they will come to you at some point
you win battle 100% all the time
check out the result of using this tatic, HUGE win rates , do the math
your archers will do most damage and reduce enemy morale, so they will just run away hahahahahah
+1To respond would be the least thing I would expect. Just something something like: "Thanks for your feedback". Would take them like 5 seconds after they´ve read something. So no reply = nobody reads it.
Just see how contructive threads get when Duh shares his thoughts when we talk here about whatever. And his replies are more worth than "Thanks for your feedback".
Also a good suggestions isn´t worth more if it´s posted in the "correct" forum. But chances are higher that they read the threads here.
Feedback from TW also would encourage players. At my work we value even the ****tiest feedback with something like "Thanks for sharing your opinion." because it doesn´t take much time at all but the employee will share his feedback also in the future, even if it´s bull****.
+1Why even release updates for multiplayer if you aren't going to fix the most glaring issue of all, that being the CONSTANT server crashes!? CONSTANT! IT HAPPENS LITERALLY EVERY ****ING GAME!!!
Games are meant to be enjoyed, but when the game crashes literally every damn match, it's not enjoyable, it's just unnecessarily aggrivating.