Yes this would help a lot, i never played a campaign till the point my children are valuable clan members. It takes to long and the late game boredom sets in. The late game would also be more interesting if, after the dead of your character, your heir has new relationships scores and might have to fight against usurpers.In my opinion if TW simply made time pass a bit faster it would fix any and all balancing problems with the death feature cause children would grow faster to replace dead members of their clans.
Vanilla uses 21 days/season (84 days/year). The Pacemaker mod default is 7 days/season (28 days/year) and this change feels perfect to me in my testings.
You still have plenty of time to play your character before he/she ages but the general pacing of the game in much better with children growing and marrying having children of their own faster.
You also don't have to wait for eternity and a half just to take your own first son into your party as a companion which is a plus
Crusader kings has a death rate of about 5% for every character in battle (that can be reduced by perks aswell), a bit higher than currently in bannerlord but it's completely balanced by the faster passing of time.
This is indeed bothering me since Warband. Strange that it is easier to improve relationships with enemies then it is with friends.It's a casual Saturday, I am drinking my beer and think about the logic of this game
Goals ------- what you got to do to achieve that goal
To conquer the world ------ you got to build a strong kingdom
To build a strong kingdom ----- you got to convince as many lords as you can, basically every lords to join you
To convince lords to join you ----- you got to build high relationship with them
To build high relationship with them ----- you got to catch and release them 5 times at least (each time 6-8 points relationship, total 30 points is minimum)
So you got to become their enemy and defeat them as many times as you can.
The more you beat the lords, the best buddy you will get with them
To conquer Kuzait, I need to join N Empire first and beat all the Kuzait lords, conquer many fiefs, then convince their lords to join my kingdom
"IF you can't beat them, join them" ---- I guess that's true for this game
lol What a weird thing, isn't is
This would be a much better and more logical system. Combine this with "fight together relationships" and the option to organize tournaments to hosts allied clans + special invites to neutral clans and I think this would create a different gameplay loop where character traits have more meaning.I don't like the thing of defeating and releasing lords to gain relation as the most viable way to progress either and haven't liked it since Warband. It's weird that you can attack someone when they say "I don't want to come to blows", then kill their thousand man strong army, kill their family members, and take their fief in a siege, and they end up liking you more than they did before, solely because you let them go.
It should work more like this:
* Attacking a lord instantly reduces your relation by -5. Being attacked by a lord, and defending yourself, does not change your relation.
* When you win, if the lord is Cowardly or Calculating, you gain +3 relations (to indicate that they become afraid of you, and wish to be on good terms with a superior fighter). If they are Foolhardy then you lose -1 extra relations for beating them (holding the grudge). Then, if you choose to release them, you get +4 relations. This is not enough to cover the relation loss if you attacked a lord who is not Cowardly or Calculating, so you will end up with net -1 relations. However, if they attacked you, and you show mercy by releasing them, you do gain net +5 relations.
* Imprisoning is -10 relations.
* Releasing after attacking is kept as a viable option by the fact that even though you end up with net negative relations (-1) against most lords, you'll get much less relation penalty than if you imprisoned them (-15, which can add up). You also gain Mercy, of course.
And in order for the player to be able recruit clans if/when they decide to secede from their faction:
* Traits have more influence in generating relation, so that having an Honorable reputation makes Honorable lords from every faction like you a lot more, having a reputation for winning lots of battles makes Brave lords like you a lot more, etc. If you are known to be Honorable, Brave, Generous, Merciful and Renowned by the time you leave your faction to start a new kingdom, and have also built up just a little relation with various nobles, you should have no difficulty in finding clans willing to join you. (Or if you're roleplaying a bad guy who's an ******* to everyone and exploits people greedily for every penny, you should at least be rich enough to buy them off)
So even if you're defeating enemy clans in battle and dropping relations with most of them by -1 each time, if you're cultivating a good reputation for being honest, generous, brave, merciful etc., which is also boosted from the very battles you beat them in, that should be enough to offset the small losses and make it possible to recruit them without massive cost; and it also will be easy as it is now to recruit clans if you're beating up the Cowardly/Calculating lords who are a part of them, because they will tell their clan "if you can't beat em, join em".
there is a video somewhere about a sortie while besieged. Where they tried to destroy the siege equipment before the reinforcements got to strong. This feature was canceled, but I hope it will be revisited in the futureGreat ideas, hope this will be a feature. I like the idea of ambushing.
I have a suggestions for this, how about implement a way to sabotage a siege that is being prepared by the a.i., players can ambush their camps while they are preparing their siege equipment. Not sure if this would work lol
the garrison would not change. only your playable character. Your main character would not be teleported with his army, but you take charge of the existing garrison with your selected governor as playable character.How are you gonna balance this? I think this one change would make the game ridiculously easy and you would allmost never have to fear losing a town or a castle again. Unless they beef upp the AI and make them cheat hard they will never stand a chanse with their low tier units vs my usually alot better equiped army in a defense scenario.
The teleportation is bad, as is the all knowing encyclopaedia (without talking to everyone and inquiring about the world) a messenger system would be great, with a option to send a messenger to a companion party with an order to seek the MC or to wait at a certain fief. The option to change the gear should be through dialogueWell.. Let´s not teleport gear all over Calradia But a dialogue, like the one for looking and modifying their troops would be nice when meeting them on the map
Optional would be best, with a selection between: all clanmembers, party leaders, governors, caravan leaders and receiving a notification if a party within your selection is engaged. Even then you can choose not to switch for the duration of the battle.Not really. I feel like this would become a chore. I like the idea of controlling your character solely
Sounds like it'd be more suited for some kind of sandbox mod which allows you to control pretty much anyone anywhere within your faction.
The mod proves that the mechanics are there to implement it. I liked it, but there where some problems with automatically failing quest when you switched character and in a defensive siege your governor spawned as a single unit outside the city. But I think implementing this and make ik optional is the way to go. I personally would really like it. It gives you the change to become more attached to your clanmembers.Yes, This sounds like the simplest answer.
I like the idea of giving players incentives for added input and engaging with game systems but also make it skippable for players with limited time.An end-boss (1v1 lord/garrison captain?) a la Hideout style or guaranteed capture of a residing lord, perhaps a treasure with an added time limit (which only Player could get on time) would be an incentive and reward for the added input.
yes This. Go to home settlement, or seek out player (dialogue after appropriate time based on distance)i c, i had no idea that was where the assembly plant was located
perhaps companions should also gravitate towards this 'home settlement', so you don't need to chase them if they get lost...
Excellent overview and suggestions! I agree wholeheartedlyDue to multiple factors, Bannerlord's field battle tactics are currently very shallow.
There's a clear best tactic: sit your archers on a hill, sit any infantry you might have in front of them stretched in a wide loose formation, and just sit perfectly still and watch the kills roll in. Or, have a party of all horse archers (Khan's Guard are particularly gamebreaking), have them follow you to prevent their AI doing anything stupid, and simply circle the enemy. You do not need to deviate from these tactics regardless of who you are facing. Due to the weakness of armor, battles also usually end too quickly for the player to really execute different tactics anyway.
Bannerlord doesn't need to be as tactically deep as Total War, but it can be better than this. Most of the pieces are there for a solid tactical game, they just don't work together. Here are some changes and additions that can be made to bring it together into a more engaging tactical experience, where the player needs to adapt their tactics over the course of a battle, and is rewarded for doing so.
A key component of any tactics game is being able to direct certain troops to attack specific enemy troops. So:
If TW can't manage to get the AI to do this, any substitute is better than nothing - like the ability to say "don't change targets after the first enemy you engage" or "ignore all enemies except this certain enemy type".
- Add the ability for the player to tell a formation of troops to target a particular enemy formation.
Right now tier means little for infantry, as only two T1 recruits are needed to mob and kill a T5 elite. But if higher tier units were better fighters, then a unit's tier could mean how many T1s it can fight at once. So numbers would not be the only factor of whether you win a battle, tier would be as well. A smart player could multiply troop tier by quantity in their head to make an informed decision on whether their forces' experience outweighed a numbers disadvantage - though that number would, of course, not be a guarantee of victory, due to all the other tactical factors.
"The enemy has 100 men, and I have only 50. But their forces are inexperienced and poorly equipped, made up of 40 T1s and 60 T2s, while my men are all experienced and well-equipped T4s. So despite our numerical disadvantage, we can still probably win if we attack."
In order to make tier meaningful:
- Make armor provide significantly better protection against ranged attacks, and slightly better protection against some other sources of melee damage.
- Raise the threshold for a stun to occur on armor, so that two very low tier AIs with weak weapons cannot easily perma-stun a higher tier AI wearing good quality armor.
- Implement the morale changes listed below which make tier more impactful in morale.
Soft counter systems of some kind are common in tactics games. They form naturally, from the real-life strengths and weaknesses some types of soldier have against each other. MP's Captain Mode has a partial counter system in place.
Soft counters add a tactical variable for a good player to think about: choosing troops that are good against the type of enemy you're facing to gain an advantage. On the other hand, the player's troops can be countered too, and a good tactician can offset the disadvantage by using terrain, flanking, morale, formations, having troops of higher tier, personally reinforcing the formation that is countered, or sending in other troops of a different type to reinforce the countered troops.
In this way, soft counters make tactical gameplay important. Here is an example of how a soft counter system could work in Bannerlord.
Pike Infantry: Uses a two-handed braceable polearm, with backup throwing weapons. Is strong against melee cavalry, thanks to their braced pike that can stop and seriously injure a charging horse.
Shock Infantry: Uses a two-handed high damage weapon, with a backup small shield. Is strong against shield infantry, thanks to their high damage which can shred shields.
Shield Infantry: Uses a large shield and one-handed weapon, with backup throwing weapons. Is strong against ranged infantry, as their shield can soak up arrows while closing into melee range.
Ranged Infantry: Uses a bow, crossbow, or javelins. Is strong against ranged cavalry, as being steady on foot allows for more accuracy, faster fire rate, and the use of more powerful ranged weapons.
Ranged Cavalry: Uses a horse and bow or javelins. Is strong against pike infantry, who carry no shield to protect them from arrows, and cannot catch up to the cavalry to fight.
Melee Cavalry: Uses a horse and usually a couchable polearm. Is strong against shock infantry, who have no braced pike or large shield to protect them from a couched lance charge.
Some of this already holds true in the game, but not all of it. To implement a counter system the following changes would be needed:
- Make melee cavalry more accurate in their charges. Also, make melee infantry less accurate at hitting fast-moving cavalry. Currently due to poor attack timing/aim, melee cavalry will fail many attempts at couched lance charges. This means they are not a real threat on the battlefield, not really worth taking or using, and they get murdered by shock infantry rather than countering them. Once they can charge properly, and shock infantry are not superhumanly accurate, this situation should reverse.
- Make armor work better, so that archers and horse archers aren't strong against all sorts of infantry and melee cavalry, and are limited to one strength/weakness each.
- The troop trees need to be reworked, mainly so that pikemen can be included more - as currently the amount of troops in Bannerlord that can actually brace is quite small- but also to reduce the amount of large shields in the game now that armor actually works, so post-nerf archers have enough shieldless targets to shoot at so they aren't too weak; and to make the factions more distinct in the troop types they have available, so the player has to change their tactics more based on the faction they're facing. Below is an example of how that could be done.
When armor becomes more useful and troops take longer to die, morale will become more important. Bannerlord has a morale system where individual troops will flee based on nearby actions, but it appears to have no morale effects on the formation or army level - troops will stay in formation down to the last man if something does not happen to make them individually flee. The dev blog on morale said that a chain rout would be able to occur and cause an entire formation to dissipate, and gave historical examples of what they were going for by discussing an entire army routing in a historical scenario, but this is currently not the case. In order for this to happen in the game, more morale systems are needed. Also, the player currently has no reason to make their formation deep in infantry vs. infantry combat. In real life, the reason was that troops behind would stop the man in front from running away. So this needs to be simulated with a morale bonus, to make deep formations useful. And to create tactical depth with a morale system that the player can actually affect in gameplay, formation morale is needed, so the player can cause chain-routs by targeting and breaking low-morale enemy formations.
- Implement Global Morale: When a force is outnumbered past a certain amount, all troops below a certain tier flee. For example, if the army is outnumbered by 4x, all T2 troops will flee. This threshold is altered by the party's morale before the battle, and Leadership of the commander. If the commander is lost, the threshold of outnumbering required to flee drops dramatically.
- Implement Formation Morale: Each formation has a numerical morale value, set at the beginning of the battle based on party morale, tier, and Leadership skill of the commander. Nearby events happening, such as the captain getting kills or losing the banner bearer, causes formation morale to raise/lower; reaching zero causes a full formation rout. You can see which of your formations are low morale and reinforce them. With higher Tactics skill, you can see enemy formation morale, and make informed tactical decisions based on it.
- Being attacked from the flank should inflict heavy Formation Morale damage.
- A higher-tier formation attacking a lower-tier formation should reduce their Formation Morale. For example, T6 Banner Knights charging a formation of T1 Recruits should inflict some temporary morale damage, and make them likely to flee if they do not have a commander with good Leadership.
- Make it so that being in a deeper formation improves Formation Morale. This will balance out the encirclement advantage of being in a wider formation.
- Individual troops are currently very, very likely to rout at the drop of a hat if they are T1-2, but above T3 almost never rout. The likelihood of individuals routing needs to be a more gradual curve, otherwise morale becomes not important.
Combine all these elements, and this is what Bannerlord's tactical gameplay will look like. (green tick = already in game):
More men makes you more likely to win. Simple on its own, but becomes one of multiple factors to take into account with everything below.
Higher tier = can take on significantly more enemies, and possibly win against a numerical disadvantage.
UNIT TYPE/SOFT COUNTERS
Pike infantry, Shock infantry, Shield infantry, Ranged infantry, Ranged cavalry, Melee cavalry. Each of these troop types has an advantage and disadvantage against one other type.
Elevation, cover, chokepoints, water: their effect on the speed of cavalry and infantry, what ranged attackers can shoot, and protecting the flank of a smaller force against a larger one.
Flanking: hit enemy formation from side or rear to significantly impact the whole formation's morale, maybe causing it to rout.
Line, square, shieldwall, wedge, column, circle, etc.; each formation has different usefulness against different troop types.
Depth of formation- wider formation to encircle enemy, deeper formation for better morale and entangling cavalry.
Individual morale: A unit will break and run if nearby factors of death or allied retreat cause it to lose too much morale.
Formation morale: A whole formation has a morale score which, upon reaching 0, causes it to break and run. It is influenced by factors like the banner bearer being alive or dead, its captain dying/getting kills, kills and losses, etc. The player can see enemy formation morale if they have good Tactics skill, and target formations with weak morale to try and cause a chain rout.
Intimidation: A high-tier formation of elite troops charging a low-tier one will cause their morale to drop.
Global morale: If numbers disadvantage becomes too high, or the commander is lost, entire sections of the army below a certain tier can break and run, causing a chain rout.
Yes I remember that discussion. I thought it had problems with slowing parties down because of bandit hideouts?Interesting and plausible. You know there will always be my +1 regarding potential ZoC implementations.
That said, and that a change of stance is possible (realistically it is quite remote) currently the "official" stance was expressed by Mexxico here.
Hopefully Taleworlds when introducing the "new terrain system" has thought of more strategic parallel land uses... DON'T hold your breath though...
I like this idea for combining the workshops output (and input) with caravans.I think being able to establish trade routes would add an interesting layer on top of caravans and workshops by basically combining the two. They both just function autonomously and the money you make fluctuates pretty regularly. My proposal is to essentially set up trade routes, which would function similar to a caravan, but instead of just roaming the map buying and selling a random collection of goods, you would be able to select certain raw materials to buy or sell finished goods to other towns. This would reduce the dependency on production based on bound villages and allow the player to set caravans to buy and sell from specific places all over Calradia. It could also be expanded by allowing you to negotiate prices as well (obviously the higher your relationship with merchants, the better).
nice idea, could work a bit like the mod bandit militia.Hello,
I came up with this quest idea because I saw a problem in Bannerlord that could be solved with a simple quest.
The Problem: Bandit parties are everywhere and impossible to totally eliminate, even for a short while. For a player, it's easier to eliminate a faction than it is to eliminate bandits from an area of the map.
The Solution: The quest "Bandit Army" has the player receive the quest from a noble who has heard a rumor that there is a bandit king / queen uniting the bandits in the area and is making trouble for their garrison(s). If the player accepts the quest, a bandit party is spawned next to a bandit hideout with a custom king or queen bandit character as the leader (perhaps they could just be drawn from the pool of wanderers?). After spawning, all local bandit parties within a specific area immediately move to join the newly spawned party. The player must search the surrounding area for the bandit army and defeat them through combat.
The Reward: Gain influence with the lord that gave the quest. Gain renown for crushing the bandit army. New bandits do not spawn in the area for some extended amount of time.
Hopefully this suggestion or some other mechanic makes it into the game that gives the player a way to curtail the problem of the bandit swarms.