Search results

  1. Schoulayer

    Idea for Multiplayer Campaign Action

    I had an idea that would allow multiple players to smoothly play the single player campaign together. What if you could create a mercenary group that consisted of yourself and a few companions or soldiers. Imagine if you could join another player's single player game with your mercenary group...
  2. Schoulayer

    [Suggestion] Mods that should be in the game by default

    +1
    Thank you for this amazing list!
  3. Schoulayer

    Siege/Battle Outfit

    +1
    This would be really convenient
  4. Schoulayer

    Leveling is cringe-worthy

    I'm not a fan of the default system either. I usually give myself 10 to all attributes, and mod the game so I learn skills 12x faster.
  5. Schoulayer

    Do u like random companion generation?

    No, I would prefer to create/generate my companions myself, in the same way as I did for my main character.
  6. Schoulayer

    Lower Item prices and make higher tiers skill required

    +1 for cheaper items
    The current pricing just makes no sense
    It's absurd for me, the leader of my warband, to be wearing leather armor while my recruits have already graduated to plate!
    I'd say reduce the cost of items and increase the cost of tiering up troops
  7. Schoulayer

    Infinite income issue and solutions

    -1
    I don't think that making money is too easy. In fact, in the earlier game I think caravans and workshops have been nerfed too hard. The problem is not money making - it's having a lack of money sinks. Just make it more expensive to upgrade our troops to the next tier. Basically, you're buying the equipment of your troops when they upgrade tiers. That is a renewable money sink as you'll always be losing troops and having to replace them.
  8. Schoulayer

    Siege Defence battles never happened in 200h+ of gameplay

    I've only done siege defenses against overwhelming odds (like 700 vs 200). In my experience, if the AI thinks there is any chance of losing they'll just abandon the siege. I've tried to bait 400 attackers into attacking my 250 defenders on more than one occasion, and the attackers cancel the siege every single time.

    I'm not sure what the answer should be. I proposed one solution in a thread titled "Mistakes in Judgement". Alternatively, maybe they should allow us to conceal our forces inside the castle to make the castle appear weaker than it is.
  9. Schoulayer

    'About infantry vs Cav.' - toughts about recent dev input - UPDATED with poll

    I liked the idea of cav taking up 2 spots in your party. So you could have 2 infantry or 1 cav unit.
  10. Schoulayer

    Make armies cost money

    -1
    I don't think it makes sense for an army to require extra provisions, because every party in the army already has their own provisions. It's not like they'll suddenly need more provisions just because they're marching together. I think the best way to create a new money sink is to greatly increase the cost of troops advancing to the next tier. Think about it - when a troop advances, they may go from leather armor to plate mail in an instant. From where did the armor come from? Their wages surely didn't cover it -- you had to buy it for them. That kind of money sink is renewable as you'll always need new troops to replace dead ones.
  11. Schoulayer

    POLL: Passive Income - How good should it be?

    Well that question is very much dependent on the situation of the game.

    Is the player at war? What condition are the settlements in? Are they a ruler? What kingdom policies are in play?

    Taking all of this into account, your passive income could be not enough to sustain your situation, just enough, or more than enough.

    It's purely situational and you can influence it by the way you play the game.

    I agree that if you are at war and enemy nobles are raiding your fiefs, that those fiefs should no longer be able to sustain a larger garrison. At that point, you should be forced to cut down on the garrison. Your caravans should be intelligent enough to avoid territories that you are at war with, and should focus on trading with friendly kingdoms where the risk of being attacked by an enemy noble is very low. There could be a small hit to their income because they may not be able to sell in the very best place, but it should not be a tremendous drop. In that case, your workshops and caravans should 'almost' be able to cover the passive expenses of your armies. If you go into the red it should not be by much, IMO.

    In general I do not think that players should be forced to engage in continuous battles just to maintain what they already have, as long as they're not doing unreasonable things like stuffing a garrison with a huge number of troops.
  12. Schoulayer

    POLL: Passive Income - How good should it be?

    I'm curious where people stand on this. I take the position that caravans and workshops should be sufficient to pay for passive expenses like troop wages and food. Passive income from fiefs should be sufficient to pay for a reasonable garrison for a castle. What I earn in battle should be what I...
  13. Schoulayer

    I like the new more realistic economy

    It is reasonable, although I think towns should have a bit more money. 7000 would be good maybe.

    You think an entire town with numerous merchants and workshops should have only 7,000 denars to spend, while high-tier items sell for over 100,000 denars? That sounds reasonable????

    I don't want to go from town to town selling items. I want to dump my items at the nearest town and get back to the real game. I want passive income to cover the cost of my army's wages so I can focus on upgrading and using my troops, rather than struggling to maintain their existence. This merchant stuff is just an annoyance to people like me.
  14. Schoulayer

    Stop nerfing things.

    I disagree at this point, caravans were too much safe way of making money and pottery shops were over profitable in comparison to other types of workshops
    But what about caravans, as they are more attractive to bandits, it's need to allow to upgrade their safety in some way, for example increase troop limit(as it was decreased with the update) for money or buy/hire additional security to caravan

    We have had enough economic nerfs! If pottery shops were better than other workshops, then they should have buffed other workshops, not nerfed pottery shops. Passive income from workshops is already bad enough.

    If they are going to make caravans so vulnerable, then you should not need to spend tens of thousands of denars for them. As they are right now, I sometimes do not even get my money back from my caravans before they are destroyed again! That makes them worthless, and that should not be the case!

    It doesn't cost me anything to make a companion army. I just tell my companion to go raise an army, and they go around recruiting soldiers and building up their army. The same should be true of caravans. I should be able to assign one of my companions to merchant duties - then they should raise a small guard and go from town to town trading.

    When their caravan is destroyed, they should eventually escape captivity and return to trade duty automatically without any input from me. There would be an interruption in my passive income, but that's it.
  15. Schoulayer

    I like the new more realistic economy

    To provide different, quality options of playstyle is in the spirit of Mount & Blade.

    The problem is, right now some of those playstyles are in conflict. For example, in order to make a good merchant simulator, you have to make it more difficult for people to get denars, so as to give being a merchant value. However, that conflicts with what I want to do as a simple mercenary or warlord that does not want to bother with being a merchant, because those "merchant mechanics" only make life more difficult for me.

    The really simple solution is to give players more options to customize our games. The game gives us numerous choices when we start a new campaign. For combat, we can set how much damage we receive. On easy settings we take one third damage, on realistic settings we take full damage. For travel, we can choose between having a 10% movement speed bonus or not. We can even choose whether our companions can be permanently killed or not. However, for some reason, there are no choices when it comes to the economy.

    Imagine if there was a choice between "realistic" economic settings and "easy" economic settings. That would make both of us happy.
  16. Schoulayer

    I like the new more realistic economy

    -1 as well here.
    They're putting way too much emphasis on "make player have less money" with the recent patches to the detriment of gameplay. From my perspective, the main issue was gold piling up lategame due to a lack of availability of anything to spend it on. The nerfs to player income mainly serve to hurt the player's coffers in the early-mid game, which weren't overly abundant in the first place.

    I agree. The pile up of money occurred because there was nothing to spend money on in the late game, not because passive income was making us too rich. In my game, most of my excess denars did not even come from passive sources, because those passive sources could not even cover the cost of my passive expenses like garrisons and armies! I became rich by defeating enemy lords.

    In my opinion, passive income actually needs a buff. At the bare minimum, passive income should be enough to cover passive expenses like small garrisons and armies. The income we get from battles should be what we use to upgrade castles and personal equipment. The real problem is there is nothing to spend denars on in the very late game. They need to provide us with something to spend money on, not nerf passive money making.

    I read a suggestion yesterday that the cost of upgrading troops to the next tier should be higher, as you're essentially buying their equipment. That would be a huge money sink if done correctly.
  17. Schoulayer

    Money and caravans

    Hello everyone,


    i would but something to that post. The last change with 1.2. makes caravans absolutley worthless. I followed one of my caravans over the map, witch has now 30 man as guards and they got destroyed by a group of 14 looters. This could not be the way. At least a caravan will cost you about 15000 denars and now everyone will and can kill them? Ok i could life with it, if it was something like high risk high reward, but this isn´t the case at the moment. I hope you will look over that and will find a proper way that this system will work.

    Seriously? A 30 man caravan guard is still about 15 mid-tier cavalry and 15 mid-tier archers, right? How did those lose to 14 looters?
  18. Schoulayer

    I like the new more realistic economy

    -1
    I don't care about any of the merchant mechanics
    I'm not here to play a merchant simulator
    I want to play a war game
  19. Schoulayer

    Make Companions Seek You Out

    I would kind of like them to just pick up where they left off without any input from me. If one of my companions leading an army gets captured, I want them to raise a new army the moment they break free. The same should apply to caravans. If a caravan gets attacked, I want the owner of that caravan to recruit troops and raise a new caravan.
  20. Schoulayer

    What Is not fun or engaging in bannerlord.

    3: Horses are very very overpowered and dirt cheap. Why don't you test some kergit horseman vs any other bandit group with double their numbers and see which one wins? Horses being strong has been part of warband, I get that, but even with spears, without any sort of crippling effect when horses take a certain amount of dmg it's not enough. Perhaps ontop of horses getting crippled from dmg taken, perhaps arrows and all other weapons should deal more dmg to them(like double).

    I agree. Somebody else made the suggestion that cavalry should take up two spots in your party. So you could have two infantry or two archers for every cavalry unit. That seemed like a really good way to balance things.
Top Bottom