Alright, I get it. You feel it will open up for more opportunities. Sure.Depth and role play. It makes relationship more meaningful like it was in Warband. It also allows deeper politics, especially for mods. Say, stripping a clan of its members one by one into your side. Meddling in a clan's succession crisis. Actual geopolitic because a fief is owned by a person first, and the clan later. These are just from the top of my head. I can keep going if I really try.
The current clan relation system in Bannerlord makes relationship very superficial and gamey. It prevents a lot of cool features to be added in. Again, this wouldn't diminish the current clan relation. It will still exist in a different form. It will only enrich the game.
But what would be the point?Just make such actions add relation to every adult member of that clan. It's not hard. Say you rescue a lord from a prison. You get +20 with him and +10 with his clan. Voting for a certain lord to own a castle gives +20 to the lord and +5 to the clan. Stuff like that. This way you can have more realistic relationships with NPC.
"Grank is best friends with Boronchar and is generally liked by his clan."
"Grank is neutral with Abagai but her clan generally dislikes him."
Absolutely!This is a good question as a single life Warband-like pacing is quite different from multi-generational dynasty pacing - those two games need different balancing and you can't have it both ways, like Taleworlds tried to do. They try to accommodate both players who like and hate dynasties and the game balancing suffers. This is cowardly game design IMO, they should have enforced dynastic play (and balancing) and made it palatable to dynasty-haters.
The introduction of heirs is probably the source of alot of problems. You can now play the game for (insert number) times longer than warband but you are essentially just repeating the same thing (insert number) more times.The game is supposed to go on forever so that the heir system has a purpose. I like that they've made it hard to conquer the whole map, it is still possible, just hard. I would perhaps have liked it better if they had chosen another way to make it hard rather than replenish lords fast.
The game is supposed to go on forever so that the heir system has a purpose. I like that they've made it hard to conquer the whole map, it is still possible, just hard. I would perhaps have liked it better if they had chosen another way to make it hard rather than replenish lords fast.
Agreed. In warband I am sure I have stopped more games shortly after becoming lord than I have continued. Always enjoyed the smaller scale build up/early stage of the game.I rarely aim to conquer the map, its pretty tedious even on warband, the first time I actually made the effort I did it just because I was waiting for Bannerlords ea to release.
One of my favourite things about this series is that the player isn't meant to do anything, you're just another lord/pleb and you can do what you want so no, I disagree the player isnt mean to snowball the map and "win"
There was a time where it was a pain to find warhorse. Buts costs...costs are trivial.Except the cost to acquire cavalry is so much more. You are literally paying for the extra map speed. There are also perks that can massively bridge that gap, and the right combination of perks can have you moving much faster through forests with “mounted infantry” versus a cavalry army, which moves significantly faster in open expanses in the east and south.
Part of what makes a good sandbox game exciting is risk vs reward and pros/cons choices. Cavalry are expensive and wasted on sieges, but move quickly on the map and offer more tactical options. Infantry move slower but are cheaper to produce, and the Mount/footman combo generates more carrying capacity.
And let’s not forget that you don’t just expend one horse on the entire line, you expend two horses when training from scratch, and hiring mounted troops with a horse is quite a bit more expensive as well.
So please, do not turn this into every other game where there is an “obvious” choice and 100% foot soldier armies are strictly better then mounted ones all because a handful of players wanted the upsides both had to offer wrapped into one. I don’t think you were being fully honest on the bullet point, even though you claimed you were. Do you want to get to the siege faster? Or do you want to use the more cost efficient troops?
I disagree with you. You are a bad person!Agreed, complaining is fine. Ranting is fine. Insulting is kinda low but it's okay. Threating someone's life is never fine
Nahh, I am sure they considered making looters explode on death to increase the risk; but decided against it out of a fear it would lead to a call to include firearms in the game.Well, then I have a proposition that can solve that too https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/leveling-stronger-opponent-logic.442664/
Thats what I mean by the "how many knights does it take to ride down one fleeing looter problem".Keep losing cav on auto resolve when doing all these silly bandit quests for villagers get annoying af... consider the time it take to train them up. You can still train up fresh recruits vs bandits, just they not very good at chase down fleeing units.
It is clear you are to blameDo you know reason for this change? It makes no sense.
You fight weak enemies to prepare for fighting stronger enemies seems fine to me.And now compare that to MB:
1) Send your people to fight looters to level.
Congratulation, you will have a group of supersoldiers in 1 week.
So which way is better?
I agree, it can be incredibly fun to break the system; which is also why it is one of my favorit games.If kenshi was balanced it wouldnt be nearly as fun.
The thing is. It is essentially the smart way to do it.Not really, no. First of all the only reward you get from loosing is XP, there's no other "heavy reward". So yes, it's rewarding as long as you don't mind the consequences of loosing the fight. Second of all, stronger opponent logic doesn't require you to lose the fight. There are plenty of ways to defeat higher level opponents starting with the simplest and most obvious one: bring more men in to a fight.
Getting stomped, enslaved, crippled and eaten alive is one way to play Kenshi, but by far not the smartest one.
Yes, it is also my experience that there are certain, particularly, border regions that are really hard hit.My personal experience has been that there are certain consistent "safe zones" that form away from the borders and the rest of the towns spiral down into low/very low prosperity. I don't know why they've gone and added another soft cap to prosperity. I just happened to note the thread where the dev responsible saw things were not to his liking.
No it could not.Been playing Kenshi, game that is quit similar to MB. That game have something called "Stronger Opponent Logic". What that means is that you level faster if you fight opponents better then you. On the other hand fighting opponents far below your level won't make you learn anything.
That made me think that MB could benefit from similar mechanic. It could potentially remove some more grindy parts of the game, there would be no need to farm looters, and that would remove need to spam bandits (looters in particular) just for the purpose of leveling player and his soldiers.
The way this works in Kenshi is that when game character attacks another game character (either NPC or player), his attack skill is compared to opponents defense skill and larger the difference (in favor of opponents defense), more XP for the attack skill he gains from that attack (further modified depending on if he lands a hit or gets blocked). Same for the other character, his defense skill is compared to attacker's attack skill and larger the difference, more XP he gains for his defense skill.
What this does in the game is that when low level character fights high level character, low level character is more likely to loose but he is also gaining XP faster.
Now this can't be just copy pasted in to MB, since A, combat is not based on attack versus defense skills and B, there is different leveling for troops and "heroes", but some other implementation of this principle would be possible. I believe MB could potentially benefit from something like that.