Search results

  1. xdj1nn

    Have there been any developments regarding executions and broader late game mechanics for the full-release?

    They seemed to have been improved a bit, at least in some cases:

    (Seems really odd his own clan dey Valant literally doesn't care)

    The problem is the relationship hits are all so random (after a bit of my own testing), so sometimes you do still get like -60 relation hits with Clans/Factions when the executed isn't even really affiliated with them. If I recall most of the relationship penalties are determined by who the executed friends are, but those lists are so large and random they don't make any sense. It may still be random for the relationship hits too, think it was that way at one point. Like how how would a Vlandian noble be friends with a Khuzait noble when they don't even share borders?

    I get there needs to be some discouragement for executions, otherwise it's all too simple just to execute all the Lords you capture. The way relationships is gained/lost currently is pretty poor overall though. Do a quest for someone and you might only improve your standing by +3, dump a half dozen prisoners in a Lords dungeon and now your +100 having become their best friend forever?

    The other glaring problem is A.I. never executes anyone themselves (except Rebels sometimes?) Obviously you don't expect a Honest/Merciful Lord to execute anyone, but what about Dishonest/Cruel Lords? If you're constantly raiding their villages and you reach -100 with them, why wouldn't they execute you or a fellow clan member when captured?

    But relationship strength doesn't matter much outside of trying to convert Lords. Well and you can get locked out of Castles.

    Tweaking my earlier post, maybe this would be more reasonable?
    Clan of executed: -75 relations
    Fellow Kingdom vassals of executed: -15 relations
    Friends of executed: -10 relations
    Merciful/Honest/Valor Nobles: -5 relations
    Cruel/Dishonest/Cowardly Nobles: +5 relations
    Enemies of executed: +10 relations

    Of course Friends/Enemies need to be more logically defined. Ideally they would develop organically over course of a game session.

    The trait system drive me nuts, it's literally right here and could add so much dynamism to the game. But TW doesn't seem to being doing anything with it at all other then a select few checks (like when you loot a fief).
    a sound suggestion, pretty logical and makes executions into a viable path either gameplay-wise or as a RPing tool (like killing those who raid your villages). That means we ain't getting it because that's how TW rolls:
  2. xdj1nn

    What would be an ideal "Bannerlord" for you?

    My ideal "Bannerlord" for me would be a much more immersive Bannerlord and many other activities more interesting than repeated battles.

    I "preach" on this forum for a "singleplayer" Bannerlord with more interactive npcs, truly "endearing" companions, a deeper "diplomatic" and "economic" game system, fewer battles, more diversified activities, more depths in the RPG dimension and real Lore.

    There are so many things missing in this game, that we keep repeating ourselves. But two years after EA's release, it's hard for many to hide our disappointment. The development of the game is so slow and the communication of Taleworld so superficial that we sometimes have a feeling of being ripped off.

    So I'll just ask the question:

    What would the ideal "Bannerlord" game be for you?
    ok, it is time for my answer:

    The Ideal M&B game (doesn't matter if BL or WB or whatever the fk) for me is actually a merge between battle mode from M&B with CK RTS and size scope being run under an historical setting instead of a weird parallel fantasy world.

    That means fully flushed character control at one hand, while you can macro-expand into a fast-time passing in the RTS mode and just play politics. The only change I'd do on a fundamental level would be more realistic time-travel and give the ability to control the party on a traveling mode without having it tied to tiles. I'd also add the functionalities of RTS Camera mod for BL so we could also choose to go into battle Total War mode

    That'd be the Ideal game for me, and it might as well be impossible to achieve technologically speaking (that would require ludicrous amounts of processing power - or insane levels of ninja coding)
  3. xdj1nn

    Ocs Hall siege engine placement?

    I can't for the life of me figure out where the 2nd siege tower slot is. Let me guess it's under the bridge?


    *sigh* I understand you (TW) want stuff to be on the game map, but god it would be so much simpler to have a side menu to queue equipment. Most Towns/Castles are fine, but there's always that one fief where it's like trying to find Waldo.
    lol! I noticed that recently too but didn't say anything - the one at Amytratis' just as broken (all that involve a nearby bridge)
    The pannel's actually under the bridge (the last one) and you have to spam click until the building pops :lol: It's like searching for your eyeglasses in the dark
  4. xdj1nn

    Bannerlord was a gift

    Yet another troll remark, have you not read the thread. I have not called MostBlunted a troll, even though he say he is one himself. I am not a troll. Just because my opinions are far separated from yours does not mean I am what you call me, that's just your power fantasy to try and make my statements seem unimportant in the eyes of others. A very disingenuous attitude, one that any reasonable person can see through and know what you are about.

    And if I need to explain it further there is just no hope for you ever understanding, sorry.
    mate, just take the mockery like a man, giving "no you" replies really makes look like "your idiot brain's being ****ed by stupid"

    Why would you necro this thread, you maniac?!
    who? MostBlunted? I can acertain that he is, and it always makes me crack, so no complaints there!

    I agree he exagerated there, but he isn't completely wrong (just made a thousand into a million)

    As for the state of BL, it isn't going very well, at least it's functional and can be modded, other than that not something I'd willingly pay full price for not in a million years, I decided to bet on the EA and lost it - gambling's like that
  5. xdj1nn

    Cavalry charging push enemies, but hit nothing.

    But that only highlights how badly this game isnt calibrated. Its up to the Developers to give us a tightly or at least decently calibrated game. This is one of the drawbacks of "platform" type games -the devs will just go the easy route out and say "well -grab a mod if you dont like it". Of course they wont actually say that -their voice comes in the inaction of wanting to present a finely tuned game.

    I never defended TW, I was simply trying to help the guy improve his own experience :wink:
  6. xdj1nn

    1.8.0 kicking companions from clan

    SO you can dispose of the trash to make room for more to spawn hopping for a lucky wanderer drop with a few skill. 💊🤡💊
    I might went for just making them all better or some way to request certain types but.... oh well.
    Of course the skills barely matter, you can use mod recruit anyone and see even the no skill tavern maid is a fine vassal.
    lol haven't used that one yet. - my new favorite combo now is Distinguished Service + RTS camera
    I take control of a good troop type (IE: knights or other t6 godlings) and try to make 20+ frags -> if 25+ I'm flipping at the end of the battle a comp with 3 skills receiving bonus 200 skill pts + 3 skills on bonus 100 pts -> saves a lot of ludicrous grinding, and it's fun to do, plus you get full control of the attribute and focus distributions
  7. xdj1nn

    1.8.0 kicking companions from clan

    So we went from being able to kick at any time, plus having a kick button on the clan screen, to you have to be on the road, then actually click to talk to them, then you can kick them

    Plus they die

    Taleworlds is brilliant (sarcasm)
    O thought the OP was about the broken "X was lost" when sending comps off - seems I was wrong :lol:
    But yeah, that's just some effed up crap to add even more layers of illogical nuissance to us

    sitting a former comp in Warband was an actual strategy so you could recruit them later. Pre-equipping them at times, and just leave them be until you had real need of the same while rejoining without having to pay ridiculous fees was very useful. Than again comps were meaningful and had all of these interesting interactions in Warband, BL got rid of everything and they are just "shoehorned" as essential due to feature bias, but are ultimately disconnected as characters
  8. xdj1nn

    Have there been any developments regarding executions and broader late game mechanics for the full-release?

    For your rhetorical provess ofcourse.

    Most impressive.
    If you don't have anymore juice to counter an argument, the smartest move's to keep quiet, otherwise you start looking like a fool...
  9. xdj1nn

    Does Taleworlds really think this is a finished product???

    All that was seen was the banners (with stupidly undertuned bonuses) and the fixed jiggling. Admittedly, I'm glad to see the second one, but that's still a lot of problems left with unknown fixed status.
    Yeah you'd think we'd have seen this release version by now.

    Though not much good releasing it now anyways. Even if something is horribly broken, our feedback wouldn't be processed in-time to make a difference. But if they are releasing to console and actually selling physical editions (looks like there are physical copies) then they've got to be printing disc copies by now. Of course this is 2022 so I'm sure a Day 1 patch is inevitable.

    I also suspect they may be deliberately holding it back, because I think they know all too well the majority of PC fanbase is displeased. And if most of us are able to play this "release version" and aren't happy with it... well that creates bad word of mouth. Let's not fool ourselves, only thing that matters at this point is selling as many copies as possible to console players. Sure there will be some extra PC sales this October, but I'm sure anyone with even a modest interest in the series bought the game as an EA title already.

    Ah well just a month to go and I can make my peace with Bannerlord hopefully.
    they are probably rushing the fixes as fast as possible and will release what's done to keep patching stuff for years to come... The only thing concerning about it is if they go full rage "PDX DLC CANCER" mode on us and start releasing "paid fixes" instead of actually coming through with the game... The disappointment of getting yet another broken release's not avoidable anymore, unfortunately.
  10. xdj1nn

    Have there been any developments regarding executions and broader late game mechanics for the full-release?

    Wow, congratulation.
    for what? bringing up that RPers don't care about losing? I'd tell you to steer clear from games focused on RPing that are built as sandboxes, like avoid CK games, they are meant for that kind of play mentality (RPing where you actually have a chance to lose and the game isn't necessarily over for it)
  11. xdj1nn

    What would be an ideal "Bannerlord" for you?

    I reckon stuff like kingdom alliances would be a cool feature, probably not that hard to implement either. Armies formed of two colors would be neat, a system of contract between the allies that affects how land is divided based on the leaders' relations with each other plus the traits they have. Contracts could be dynamic too, with multiple options like just a contract for non-aggression or purely defense (no multi-color armies just parties coming to aid when being sieged). The contracts would be made with an expiry time, followed by a cooldown that should block wars between the former-allies for at least a bit. An actual system like this would require a bit more thought than what I've wrote, it could just make things worse but more diplomacy options should be in the game and this, to me, seems like something that wouldn't be the most difficult thing to add.
    kingdom alliances would be cool and all IF we had more kingdoms... As is it'd be exceptionally awkward because there aren't size disparities between kingdoms at all, the imbalance comes from biased geography and settlement distribution rather than "size" - which makes alliances either boost snowballing (which was a problem they've had a lot of difficulty solving) or it'd make the AI too passive overtime.

    If we had double or triple the numbers of kingdoms with some size disparities, than alliances would make for good interactions, it'd be really fun, as is we currently have a single faction per culture except for empire divided in 3 - so the game's about either taking out empire or merging the empire to assert domination. - it's the entire premise where the campaign main quest's bult around basically... These are the choices.

    If you wanna test it out, and I tell you you'll find out it's not a good feature for how the game's built, download diplomacy mod and increase the alliance likelyhood through their options - you'll probably get pssed and turn it off really fast
  12. xdj1nn

    Have there been any developments regarding executions and broader late game mechanics for the full-release?

    It doesnt add more "depth". Is adds more tedium.
    to you maybe, to ppl RPing who aren't "power-gaming" like teenagers, it adds depth
  13. xdj1nn

    Have there been any developments regarding executions and broader late game mechanics for the full-release?

    The problem with most good ideas are that they only really going to be good in theory. In practise, it is just fare more likely that it is something you are going to work around instead of embracing. There is always a risk in generalising (and being alitte too cynical perhaps) but

    If we take something like the ability for companions to die as an example. If I had to make a guess then it is fare more likely that players work around it rather than actually embracing it. Maybe by placing them well to the rear, maybe by ordering them to retreat at the start of a battle or perhaps as a reason to take those skills personally. The number of players who actually just let things flow as they may, is probably very very small.

    Another example. There has been plenty of posts over time arguing that traits should play a bigger role. But there is one place where it does actually play a role and that is for sieges (cruel/merciful). So what do (I) do? Work around it. First line of defence is to avoid hiring merciless lords and the second is to just not call them. Management by excel when you start getting too many.. Does it really add anything?

    The culture penalty. Best course of action, work around it.

    The "political system". Best course of action, work around it.

    And the list probably goes on and on.
    so you believe you hold the best insight as to how people should play their singleplayer, and as such you oppose anything that some may or may not try to avoid because reasons? Makes absolutely no sense.

    More is more, always better if it's regarding depth and wider roleplaying ability. The real question here is, why do you oppose something that won't make a difference to you because you will "work around" anyway (and if it's optional as in "options menu" choice you'll simply disable it), or if you'd embrace it (quite unlikely considering your line of reasoning) you'd deny yourself enriching the experience because "people would work around it"? Are you competing with other people playing their singleplayer? How does that work?!?!
    Summing up your arguments and where you're coming from the game must have less because you say so... Incredible reasoning.

    Executions are terrible because just 2 or 3 of them make the whole map hate you even if you executed one of the clan's arch-nemeses. Just tone the relationship loss down quite significantly, and maybe make executions help increase relations with cruel lords and enemy clans to the deceased.

    On the other hand, being a king or vassal is plain boring because there are no inner kingdom politics. Lords don't consciously start votes for policies and they most of the time don't vote for what's in their clan's best material interest or according to their traits. Votes for seizing fiefs or kicking clans out of your kingdom never happen. Unhappy clans with money don't secede from the kingdom. You can't even start a vote for making the king abdicate, which I imagine would be beyond easy to implement. Your character is selected the ruler of the faction 99% of the time even if you're a landless tier 2 clan that joined the faction 5 days ago. The king doesn't suffer any relation penalties for overturning a majority vote. Don't even get me started on clans voting for newer wars for no reason while you're already fighting in 1-2 fronts already.

    Honestly, one of the worst parts of the game has consistently been the late game precisely because these systems are not fleshed out or straight up broken. I honestly believe most of the community would be satisfied with what I've written above being fixed + landline messengers + non-aggression pacts and trade agreements (not even alliances) being implemented for late game. It obviously wouldn't be perfect but just these additions would make the game so incredibly much better.

    @Duh_TaleWorlds, are there any improvements on the late game for the release?
    I never oppose any ideas that may give the game more depth, but I also doubt TW will do anything more advanced than what we're seeing right now. All cheese will be punished severely in-game, relations are likely to remain as shallow as they currently are and NPC's will most likely remain playing the role of bots / numbers. I don't think they've ever intended for the game to have a strong RPing possibility, which's odd because without it the game becomes exceptionally boring overtime... As is I suspect they want to DLC all the fun stuff and just let the community make good games out of their skeleton barebones while they cash-in as much as possible from it.
    What ticks to me is that they've given a lot of attention towards numbing the experience and turning every efficient strategy into "non-viable" through their odd balancing, this made me suspect they intend to make the base-game excrutiatingly annoying so they can "sell the solution to the problem they've created" through DLC (I hope I'm wrong) while also inflating playtime numbers artificially to claim success
  14. xdj1nn

    What's the plan for multiplayer?

    mods can't fix fundamentally bad design if the design's locked behind hardcoded bits... If TW doesn't put effort into improving overall combat, than both MP and SP will suffer from it and there's little mods can do to fix the issue
  15. xdj1nn

    Cavalry charging push enemies, but hit nothing.

    I finally stopped my campaign cuz forced to full spam Fiann army to do anything good in the battlefield. Boring asf, going back to modding i guess. Ah, wait no i can't cuz the modding tools are throwing random errors all the time when clicking buttons or opening native scenes ending in crashing the tools. But that deserve its own thread.
    errrmmm... here some recommendations:

    I actually use 3x that amount of mods just to fix 1.8 into what I can consider playable state, but here ya go, the ones that fix crashes, some quality of life tools and the single one that covers all combat instances and improves the experience (doesn't fix issues, just mitigates them) - the only negative side effect imo comes from RBM regarding the companion hiring prices which skyrocket with the mod
  16. xdj1nn

    Cavalry charging push enemies, but hit nothing.

    The issue begins and ends with the cav pushing every foot unit aside. If they are made stronger at offensive, nothing can stop them, if they are made weaker, we get the "car wash" effect ppl have been complaining about. Now, their poor aim seems to be tied to bad hitboxes which we players also suffer from. - Try to couch a lance and aim the tip directly at your target -> surprise surprise! YOU MISSED!
    Try to hit anything in front of your horse's head, even if you're using a 5km long polearm -> surprise surprise! YOU MISSED!

    🤷‍♂️ :lol:

    I particularly hate dealing with cav because we don't have proper pike bracing and all formations do is place units into certain positions - there are no organized attacks or defenses, they either sit there and attack whomever enters range individually, or they sit there with raised shields like idiots. Now, supposedly, if they fix hitboxes and tone down the "push aside" effect, cav should work again but it'll be OP just as in WB - That because they won't miss due to pushing the target accidentally, and they won't miss due to nonsensical hitboxes (where they get bullseye aim but the weapon attack animation places the hitboxes on their arses). To remove the WB swadian f1 f3 effect the game must keep some of the push aside effect, but more importantly, make formations do something useful and place a separate command for pike bracing - hell, the base game should have an entire command tree for tactical fighting we don't even have the "10 paces forward / 10 paces backward" anymore.... As for push aside, any tight formations should immediately stop cavalry units, instead they wash into the middle of the formation 100% of the time until getting stopped, and that if there are absolutely zero gaps, with any minor gaps they often just go through with some dmg. It's bonkers stupid

    Let's get technical -> if a cav unit charges headon into a shield wall, they'd be fked - in BL most of the unit will just pass through np.
    If a cav unit charges head on into a square formation - the entire unit should die, what happens is that a few get stuck in the middle and just wreak havock in the formation by disorganizing it, others pass through mostly unscathed and a couple gets properly stuck unable to go through...

    This crap needs fixing, the entire crap I mean, not just cav.
  17. xdj1nn

    Post conquest settlement balancing: Why is it a problem?

    Eh does it really matter?

    About the only reason to care about Prosperity is that it effects the spawn of some high end gear I think. And a bit more taxes/revenue?

    High Prosperity is only meant to be temporary; everything with Towns/Castles is meant to be seeking an equilibrium - it's why you have Loyatly drift, etc. Think of it this way if a city got so big population wise that it relies on foreign food exports, you can be pretty sure at some point that city's population will crash when there's a food shortage. Most cities, even ones that have effectively been around hundreds/thousands of years go through these sort of highs and lows of "prosperity".

    Like Ananda says only thing that matters in this game is the battle loop. That's where all your income really comes from right now. Trade, Fief taxes, Workshops, Caravans - yes they can net you some additional money. But it all pales in comparison to what you'll get from a few minutes of fighting a larger battle. So really why even bother with the rest?

    I understand the appeal of trade and fief management, but like smithing and the board games - it's really all just a distraction to make you think the game is "deep". I think TW has really handicapped themselves by adding all these extraneous systems into the game. I believe a lot of the reason development is so slow for this game is they are trying to keep all these systems working in some kind of harmony. But in the end this game is just really a medieval kingdom battle sim of sorts. So while I admire TW's ambition to make a medieval sandbox, it has become painfully clear it's just not possible to make all this work, at least not in a reasonable amount of time.

    I don't think village production will ever be reasonably balanced; you'll always end with too much or too little

    So here I go on big tangent...

    Quite frankly I would strip all of the following from Bannerlord:
    • Food; get rid of all of it - including livestock
    • Trade; and all Trade items like Jewelry
    • Workshops; and all produced goods
    • Smithing
    • Village Parties (why are these even a thing to begin with?)
    • Looter Parties (Looters might be fine as low level bandit, but there shouldn't be armies of hobos wandering around)
    • Kingdom Policies
    • Gangs
    • Security
    • Fief management (takes too long, very little real benefit)

    Here's what I would leave in or add:
    • Caravans; basically just gather gold - longer and further they run more gold they accumulate
    • Bandits; they raid villages and attack caravans (they steal gold) - as can the player
    • Notables; exist solely as Quest Givers/Influence Makers (i.e. gain their support can overthrow existing fief lord). When a Notable likes you enough, they also support you, granting you Influence
    • Influence; effectively a second kind of currency you get by building relations, doing favors
    • Armies; you would still need to spend influence to maintain/gather armies
    • Villages, Castles, Towns; all generate income - they generate progressively more the less they are disturbed via raids/sieges i.e. Prosperity!
    • Diplomacy/Politics; Calradia is offensively bland - bare minimum needs to be alliances and truces

    So you start the game landless. You build up a party by either being a "good guy" doing quests or "bad guy" raiding/stealing what you can, heck maybe you do both strategically. Pretty similar to how it is now. Eventually you earn either enough money, influence, or muscle that you can become the landlord/chief of a village by buying it outright with gold, influencing out the existing landlord, or take it by force.

    Instead of buying "food" (nobody really likes going around to buy cheese let's be real) you gather "supplies" by waiting in your camp, villages, or towns. You can also raid to get supplies quickly. This means you can't always be on the move though, marching from one end of the continent to the other. You do need to stop occasionally. Here's where you can add side activities in Towns, Villages, and Castles to pass time. Probably where you can have some actual RPG stuff as well. Maybe your soldiers get into brawl, maybe a companion steals something from a villager, etc. The bigger your party the more supplies you will drain (stewardship would increase supply capacity) as well. Basically even if you can put together a "doom stack" army it'll simply run out of supplies.

    Basically the scheme of the game would be to
    1. Build a Party i.e. complete quests to earn money
    2. Become a Landowner i.e. take over a village/small fief so you have a steady income source
    3. Become a Lord i.e. by taking over castle/town or joining faction so get even more income
    4. Become a King i.e. by taking over multiple castles/towns and get rich

    Loot from battles should provide some chump change and the occasional nice bit of gear, but ultimately owning land/collecting taxes is where you really generate money. If you want to be more then a Mercenary - you gotta claim some land. This would better justify the game's constant wars and give more importance to taking and owning fiefs.

    Ideally I think Bannerlord would be better if it truly focused on party building, relationship building, fief building, and finally kingdom building. That way it's kind of strategy/war game, kind of an RPG, but it's not trying to effectively simulate a whole medieval world. Instead of modding in "diplomacy" we should be modding in "farming" or "workshops" for flavor, but here we are...
    all of the systems are already woven, and apparently you don't fully understand the core game style from M&B at all.
    All of these things are necessary. Prosp, as I've explained time and time again, affects recruitment directly along with wealth for AI clans.

    About loot, it should be profitable, but not as much or more than owning lands, obviously. As is it's the single most profitable venue in the entire game, and in that pt we agree partially... I mean, if you bash in an entire army, you gonna have access to all their military gear, supplies and other stuff - it will, and always was (irl), profitable.

    Your vision, though, would make for a very boring bare-bones game experience. BL sins on lack of depth, removing things won't fix that, it'll just make it into a shallow puddle
  18. xdj1nn

    Post conquest settlement balancing: Why is it a problem?

    When I say the AI is barely effected by it, I mean that their behavior and the interaction with the player barely changes. It doesn't matter what troops they have, they all die the same so unless some change in prosperity prevents them from having an army that can siege a fief (it doesn't) nothing changes. You could make prosperity never change no matter what and the player experience would be the same or, possibly improved if some towns would always have food for the garrison at low prosperity.
    it does change, yet it's very biased.

    take a look at this abomination:


    This is a heavily modded run that optimizes both player and AI - The most notorious mods I'm using are full RBM combined with Diplomacy and the Grain bug fix (lords sell the excess grain)

    game starts at 1084 - 2 years in and due to crap features from Diplomacy mod you get the same bad balancing from vanilla with the added nonsense border-gore - as always sturgia gets stomped.

    Looking closely in-game, Sanala's already stomping in prosperity along with Ortysia, so Western Empire manages to hold their own alive - due to auto-resolve (didn't install the auto-resolve fix mod yet) Vlandia and Khuzait are both extremely favored at all times, the sole reason why Aserai seem mostly intact is because they haven't had a Khuz+Vland simultaneous war yet, and their prosperity allows them to keep strong.

    When they start having the 2 front wars, S Empire takes their eastern tip while Vlandia and Western start a whack-a-mole game with Quyaz - once they get beaten several times over, than they start losing their core lands, and during that time if they lose Sanala, they are a goner.

    The struggling empire's also due to bad prosperity + bad geography - Ortysia would be able to carry them if it was in a more central position (or if any other towns were as favored as Ortysia is in the imperial mid-lands instead of border zones). NE is the worse economy among imperial factions, and as such they often suffer from what we see in the SS here -> early shrinking + late game death.

    Still on the screenshot: Tyal as always already started it's "rebel clan spam" only 2 years in, overtime without stabilizing it or sturgia taking it back, it'll likely spawn up to 10 clans over 15 in-game years. Same often happens with Husn Fulq.

    The thing that get's under my skin is that these generically spawned clans often survive and are incorporated - At times I get medium length runs where I end up having 5 to 10 surviving rebels incorporated into realsm owning no lands, often they'll also join non-culture kingdoms, and they'll kill the default game houses by stealing marriages very often.
  19. xdj1nn

    Villages should give luxury items when raiding scaling with the hearth level

    we are working on this currently, and we settled on something similar on what you are proposing here.

    roughly, instead of just relying on village inventory for raiding loot, we are rewarding denars, trade goods that would be commonly found in villages (such as linen, live stock, various foods, hard wood, salt etc) and of course primary production of the village. oh also, if you complete a village raid successfully instead of leaving in the middle of it you will be getting a reduced time for your disorganized state maybe non at all.

    the primary idea is to make village raids a profitable action to begin with, but we didn`t want to make them just give denars, but instead primarily reward the action through trade goods. that makes sense both roleplay wise but also creates a difference between raiding villages, running back to towns to make money, and marching through Onira.

    with this of course some of the perks and skill effects will be adjusted and changed as well to match the new method.
    sounds good
  20. xdj1nn

    Post conquest settlement balancing: Why is it a problem?

    It's just out of place a squandered. Someone clearly put a lot of work into this stuff, but it ended up not adjusted in a way that's useful or interactive at all. It seems very out of place along side the campaign AI that is seriously just "do I have enough troops to join army? If no raid, do I have enough troops to raid? If no go to villages, check 1 again, check 2 again..." They do absolutely nothing with the economy or fiefs and are barely effected by it. It takes years for a fief-less faction to actually go broke and break up, so long that you can paint the map and not a single AI clan has left it's original faction.
    the issue's that there are too many weird rules, like the hidden kingdom bank, total clan asset also "hidden" (you have to actually talk to all members, enter barter, and look how much they have available individually, than add that to the clan leader). The Encyclopedia Extender fixes most of that, and it also brings attention to some really glaring details:
    AI doesn't buy stuff other than food, they won't use pack animals, nor will they upgrade their personal gear. AI Personal gear will often not be the optimal choice for their pre-made build (focus + attributes distribution) resulting in subpar leveling and sometimes such a bad performance that they'll die in battle rather early in the game.
    These 2 issues are easy to solve, but there's a considerable amount of math needed to factor in optimal use - lot's of legwork. That means AI skill levels + focus pts should determine if they switch weapons, and there would need to be a threaded call which indicated to them how or what would be an upgrade for their current equipment. - Overtime they should do it given they have enough dough for it.
    The pack animals thing's about calc the amount of food they need and adding a % extra weight so they don't suffer penalties - as such they should also buy pack animals to optimize their movespeed and equate their food supplies needed with optimal weight distribution.

    Currently the AI really does nothing other than warring and selecting pretty odd upgrades for their fiefs (like maxing granary when they have negative food income)

    to me the kingdom bank's the worse because, even though it's a smart thing, it's not flushed out as a integrative part of any mechanic, and the player has no access to it. Just as we used to criticize Warband years ago for placing arbitrary rules where the AI plays by completely different rules, in BL it remained the same for the most part with very few leveled systems (like influence) despite TW's promise of having a full AI = Player for the mechanics in general. It is, however, fixable, but likely will require a lot more sub-systems to be added into the game (hence why I keep saying this game can only really be fully complete by 2025 or more)

    Than the part that makes me angry's how TW has been balancing the game to delay players as much as possible, over-extending phases and micro-management to a point it became a chore to go from early to mid game at all times under almost all circumstances. Either you do Asian level grinding (look Strat Gaming's videos for detailed walk-throughs of how to cheese the game and get your PC at higher leagues much earlier within "in-game" time - it'll take many hours for you to pull it off, but only a few months in-game), or, you are stuck in some minor loopholes for longer than it used to just so you can achieve the "next big thing" - either path translates into a lot of hours and effort with very spaced rewards, while the minor tasks offer absolutely no reward or just scraps.

    Than we have the "true-meta" which's controlling economy and playing pure auto-resolve/auto-calc, which can be done times faster than any of the actual "full-experience" options. Making an auto-resolve build and disregarding RPing entirely, all you have to do is spam cav units and murder all lords, you'll accomplish everything you would otherwise, but much faster - the only caveat's that you gonna be the Leader Supreme of a NPC cemetery - I don't see much appeal on that.

    The detail about the true-meta and the negative of it is that since TW hasn't flushed characterization of any lords nor any meaningful interactions with them for the player, that means it's somewhat irrelevant if they live or die, they are just numbers, literal bots for your CSGO match.

    It seems very out of place along side the campaign AI that is seriously just "do I have enough troops to join army? If no raid, do I have enough troops to raid? If no go to villages, check 1 again, check 2 again..." They do absolutely nothing with the economy or fiefs and are barely effected by it.
    Now, in this regard you are wrong, the issue's that it's hard to understand what's going on and how AI is affected by all of the whole prosperity, food, trade, produce, etc...
    Prosperity along with Loyalty are extremely OP stats for settlements. Higher prosp or hearths will spawn better troops at a much faster rate - this means the AI is directly affected by it, but it isn't stated - the whole hidden kingdom bank stuff just means that they have access to $ permitting them to last forever without lands (exceptionally silly if you ask me). In turn, what TW had said about this indirectly was that AI would resort to crime if they run out of $ and lands, but that ain't happening at all, instead they've given the AI a fail-safe system and they still do nothing more than sit around and war.
    So, by late game, depleting the entire Aserai army (if they were mostly left alone and their strongest towns prospered enough - Sanala, Quyas and Askar in that case) will take 10x longer than having the same scenario against Sturgia. The only way to make Sturgian towns to prosper is to conquer ALL nearby castles to force trade binds with a single town - by doing that I managed to get varcheg up to 9k prosp (never had seen that before), but it also means the moment I conquer the other nearby towns, varcheg will fall on it's face and start losing prosp really fast because it only really has 2 bound villages and 4 trade bound - the remaining nearby ones are divided between Omor and Epicrotea.

    The second layer's that AI uses fiefs to keep reserves, and reserves are used by the AI 100% of the time, specially when they are a recently created new party - if the economy's bad they can't keep a decent garrison, meaning lower quality reserves, or even lack of reserves to tap into.

    The good news is that the same system's applied for our own secondary parties, and that's why having high tier troops garrisoned come in handy - the issue is having a fief capable of doing so without breaking into shambles while still generating income.


    This is where all of this info comes in handy.

    If you center your "empire" on Sanala, keep Marunath Jaculan and Seonon, you can remotely manage all your clan AI parties (if with optimal build, that would be 4 parties) to spawn strong from the get go at all times - you send the future leader to the town (one for each) and keep the reserves in those 4 because of the high food production - this means they can spawn with almost full t6 troops parties. - the wonky part's actually replenishing said reserves in vanilla due to bad management UI and systems.

    Using mods, it's possible to administer your entire realm sitting in a town without leaving for anything, much like a king would do :lol:

    So if you keep Jaculan Maru Seonon and Sanala (and maybe a fifth town for pure income/as a gold mine) while using certain mods you can play king simulator
Top Bottom