Search results for query: *

Totalgarbage said:

Criminal enterprises & Targeting enemy formations let's ****ing goooo! @Dejan will the enemies or AI allies also make use of the sally out overhaul?

Click to expand...

Is that confirmed? We're finally able to rule the streets? And target enemy formations?

AxiosXiphos said:

Warband had all these same issues - but with a much smaller map and only 150 man battles. And I loved that. Why would I suddenly hate bannerlord because ots missing... (checks notes).... feasts...? I mean...

That's not to say bannerlord is perfect. Oh no; I think TW could have had (nay should of had) much greater ambition. But its the same gameplay loop ice played and enjoyed for something like 15 years now.

Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of feasts but it was an easy way to meet other nobles and force a break to combat. I'd have thought TW would have expanded on it with tournaments since more nobles means better prize. Feasts would attract the nobles, tournaments become more worthwhile. Add a cost to the noble, add loyalty/prosperity bonus to the town, seems like a no brainer.

Sure, it's a great game if you're playing it like a first person shooter with breaks in the lobby forced on the player. The loop is similar at a high level, but in warband, battles were consequential. Battles are absolutely meaningless in BL.

AxiosXiphos said:

I can understand this from the point of view of a positive review? But a negative one? I will never understand.

If I didn't like a restaurant why would I keep going back to eat there. if I didn't like a movie why would i watch it dozens of times over and over. if I didn't like a certain brand of cereal why is it always in my shopping cart - and if I don't like a video game why am i always playing it?

Whereas instead if someone has maybe 4-8 hours and a bad review; well they have given the game a fair shot - but obviously couldn't get into it. These are the negative reviews to look at. (Conversely if someone gives something a positive review with very low hours played I am also sceptical).

Still though - people are entitled to their opinions; but this is just my logic on what reviews I take account of.

Click to expand...

That's the problem with analogies, it never really works but ok I'll play.

In a way, it's the only restaurant in town. 2nd, you really love the main dish but the sides suck, service is slow and you've already paid for a lifetime all you can eat membership.

So, you actually think the game is great? With its crappy dialogue that is badly timed, lousy diplomacy, irrelevant battles, meaningless relations, hollow gameplay, missing elements etc etc etc...with all that, you're still a fanboy?

Why?

If you marry your wife through her father instead of "wooing" her, the first time you meet her in person (after the "wedding ceremony" cutscene) she'll still ask who are you.

Trivial issue of course but it just shows how crappy the so called final product is.

Apocal said:

What part of "If I didn't like the game, you would never see me on this forum" was hard to understand?

Also reviews are not objective, in the slightest. A review from a guy who invests over a thousand hours into a game is quite possibly the least objective anyone could get.

As an aside, why haven't you stopped playing Bannerlord?

Click to expand...

How can I stop what I've not started? So far, I've tested the product and it fails on a number of levels. The game is unplayable. Of course, some people have low standards. They say, well, it boots up and it doesn't crash as if that alone deems a game playable.

Apocal said:

Then stop helping them get the engagement metrics they need. Stop playing the game, stop posting on the forums, stop talking about it.

Click to expand...

Ignoring issues aren't the way to solve them. Anyhow, you do you. If you insist your positive review is because you like the game and not because you're afraid of being mocked then well done you.

AxiosXiphos said:

I think sometimes people post a negative review; not because they don't like something - but they want it to be better

Click to expand...

Well precisely.

AxiosXiphos said:

I agree the concept of posting a thumbs down next to 500+ hours is incredibly self-unaware (almost laughably so) but everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with you. Someone who has put in the hours will always hold more weight than the person who hasn't. Why would I even bother reading what a person who has barely skimmed the game have to say?

FizCap said:

My favorite kinds of reviews are those that are negative but you can still see they actively play the game

Click to expand...

Exactly.

murtega said:

Game shows banner bearers as deserted. Just a bug. I always had one crossbowman shown as deserted when I had one banner. I found a second one and now I keep having 2 deserters every battle.

Click to expand...

Oh good pick up.

Have you reported it?

Apocal said:

I think the game is a positive. If I didn't like the game, I would never bother posting a goddamned thing on these forums.

There's certainly something to be said for being able to simply walk away from a product you don't enjoy, whose makers hold you in contempt. The question is: why can't you?

Click to expand...

That's not what you said bud. You said and I quote:

Positive and leaving it positive.

Most people laugh at those negative reviews with 120+ hours played and I'd rather not have 3000+ hours next to a thumbs down, as if I'm some kinda digital crackhead who can't help but boot up a game he hates.

Click to expand...

That sounds exactly like a person who's more concerned about what people think than the objective truth.


As for me, I like the premise of the game. I just don't like the current "vision" of the game which came about when the developers reneged on their promises. I think it's important to hold them accountable. I'm sure modders will add all the stuff that's missing but that's not a good reason to let them off the hook.

Apocal said:

Positive and leaving it positive.

Most people laugh at those negative reviews with 120+ hours played and I'd rather not have 3000+ hours next to a thumbs down, as if I'm some kinda digital crackhead who can't help but boot up a game he hates.

Click to expand...

So you're leaving it positive just because you're afraid people will laugh at your negative review and not because you actually think it's positive?

You're certainly showing your backbone there mate.

Askorti said:

I feel like some people live in some strange alternative reality where this is actually true, or they're literally the less than 1% that really can't run the game properly. Or they're just extremely disingenuous. Can't really tell which it is at this point...

Click to expand...

You just have incredibly low standards. I expect games to do a lot more than not crash.

bonerstorm said:

The game's a joke. In every way but the superficial, it is a step down from Viking Conquest.

Click to expand...

A step down?!! Mate. Bannerlords is not even fit to be used in the same sentence as Viking Conquest.

Apocal said:

"Turtling" in this case would be avoiding any wars and even when forced into it, avoiding any battles.

That's what happens when manpower (or anything really) is an easily exhausted resource, especially when further conquest can only pay for itself over the long-term, while being crippling in the short-term. So in order to make that work, BL would need to get rid of battles where the loser loses everything and come up with a very different gameplay loop than the typical M&B.

Click to expand...

Oh before I forget, here's another poor decision TW made to stop snowballing - mercs tend to flock towards losing side even when the loser can't afford to pay them. Shoddy.

Nothing wrong with avoiding wars and avoiding battles. Make raiding an integral part of war again!

And yes, BL needs to get rid of battles where the loser loses everything. Why aren't they fleeing?

LuciusDomitiusAurelianus said:

Right now in 1.8.0 it's the Clan & Mercenary bugs with them just leaving you on a whim. There are also a lot of clipping issues in Empire and Aserai scenes where your friendly forces will get stuck on invisible ledges on staircases or stuck in the center gatehouse and get mauled.

Lack of diplomacy and general kingdom management. Still powerless as a Ruler to fight the whims of your braindead AI allies who will gladly start a new war while embroiled in two already. Add to the fact there is not much you can do from a strategy perspective, and while AI Army decision-making has improved, they seem to overcommit now and overextend themselves in a 2-front war. Lack of NAPs/Alliances or other forms of negotiating for peace makes it that all of mid-late game is spent in 3 wars and hunting merc parties hired by landless assholes.

Nothing to do with Minor Factions and they die out - which is good and bad...

Trade economy took a **** with the pricing rebalances as did workshops it seems

Companion/Spouse/Children skills are still all over the map and your kids/siblings/companions suffer the worst from it. The respec is nice but for end-game I would like better ways or even a static "go train" option in dialogue to meaningfully raise skills without cheesing Raider/Merc parties

Still unable to send messages though we can receive them. The ones we do receive we cannot answer remotely and have to hunt-by-encyclopedia

Still no bow/crossbow crafting. Feels bad man.

Click to expand...

Mercs should sign on for a finite period of time like 60 days or 90 days and current employer has right of renewal.

Unfortunately, because of poor decision making on TW's part, mercs are now filler armies. They're there to prop up the losers.

Ferisko said:

Raiding it's the best form of no paying tribute, it weights so much to tribute calculations and I don't care about red traits since they affect almost nothing.

Click to expand...

Well yea..but RP.

RozBritanicus said:

This just happen to me in my campaign all 3 empire faction unit and attcked bittainia the faction i was in . 5 years in game war i was getting really board . I don't like to chop off heads because to AI doesn't seem to do it . IF i chopped of the kings head and his brothers i expect the next enemy enemy army from that faction is very likely to treat me in kind but no . They let you go ... crazy. I don't want executions removing but they need work. If you execute it should be murder or revenge but there should also be a faction justice system a vote for public execution . Just done the same as voting for laws or wars. All voter who said yes lowers relationship with victims clan and friends not the entire planet.

Click to expand...

Executions have been poorly executed. Heh.

You execute their enemy but YOUR friends hate you for it. Huh. And then you get deceitful instead of cruel. Like really? Liars are killers now?

Apocal said:

I'm right there with you on defensive walls not doing much because the AI doesn't understand how to use them.

Click to expand...

Very good points. In that thread, someone else mentioned height advantages. That's a +1 from me too.

And it was the Aserai/Khuzaits; back then there was a separate bug that made them more likely to be at peace, so everyone else would lose a bunch of troops fighting battles and sieging things, while Aserai/Khuzaits declared peace early then just grew and grew in strength until nothing could stop their armies with hundreds of tier 5/6 troops when they finally did declare war.

Click to expand...

It's always the Khuzaits. TW has a crush on mongols lol

The current campaign AI doesn't understand how to manage a consumable resource that can only be replenished long-term. And even if it did, the result probably wouldn't be fun because turtling becomes a very strong strategy, which deprives players of game content for long periods.

Click to expand...

Turtling is a strong strategy. That's why castles were built? To hold strategic locations with a minimal amount of men until such time that it can be relieved by a field army. I don't think it deprives players of game content. There's still raiding plus search and destroy missions to do. On that note, I don't think raiding ought to have all the negative implications that the game currently confers. I mean, no one wants to have a red trait right? But why should we get a red trait from raiding enemy villages? That's how wars were conducted during that period - chevauchee. But let's face it, who actually raids in bannerlords? The rewards suck and the punishment harsh.

In Warband, I would raid at least once in the beginning just to get some decent gear but raiding in bannerlords is totally pointless.

Well, they got snowballing under control out to ten in-game years way back in August 2020ish. People just wanted to push it out even further, to twenty years, which took another five or six months of testing and changes.

Click to expand...

Yea it was pushed out through "artificial" means. It's just another example of TW's conflicted vision. They want generations but also fast paced gameplay. Why bother having children when the world gets conquered before your child even turns into an adult?

JunKeteer said:

Almost near identical to mine with about that same span of years. I don't mind the other two empires wiping out as that adds a bit of a 'narrative' to the playthrough but the rest is always consistently the same as previous patches to some degree.
And the terrain map is a significant factor for this that has not been addressed or ignored to 'balance' it better'; clean up some pathing, add roads in forests, remove dead end blockers, make towns accessible from more than one 'gate', river/lake crossings, etc...

A lot of kingdoms instantly sue for peace (multiple wars factor) I think in part because of the rebellion clans that have war dec'd and after a good couple years in certain playthroughs, a kingdom can be at war with 7 clans or so. Maybe they added those as part of the calculations for war/peace decisions whereas it should really only factor the major kingdoms.

Click to expand...

Well, sturgia suffers from poor geography, worst strategic start and lousiest troops. So it's a given that it'll be destroyed. Tyal is way too isolated from the rest of Sturgia and at the speed sieges are currently conducted, it often falls before the reinforcements from Varcheg gets there.

Vlandia, Aserai and Khuzaits are blessed with better troops and better geography.

Having said that, in my current playthrough of 1.8 unmodded, the Khuzait homeland is nearly swallowed up by SE while Sturgia has fallen to Khuzaits. I wonder if it's because I've been harassing WE and Aserai?

I've also noticed that my faction has more restraint now and we automatically sue for peace to avoid multiple wars. That's quite an improvement.

Rebellions are occurring more often which, while fun, opens up a rather cheesy way of uniting Calradia, i.e. capture them without forming a Kingdom. If I recall correctly, as long as I don't form a Kingdom, the other Kingdoms can't declare war on me. That needs to be fixed.

Apocal said:

Almost every single battle in Bannerlord ends with the losing party/army being wiped out. That's the definition of annihilation. It's an outcome, and not incompatible with attrition.

Click to expand...

Oh right. Fair enough. You quoted Cannae in the same breath so I assumed you meant annhillation without the attrition bit but yes, Bannerlords is 100% annihilation and attrition but only in autocalc. They should implement retreat better and or remnants breaking off to regroup which could either become deserters or returning to garrison. But TW went for the cheap decision - total annihilation and high replenishment.

It is also the reason for the high replenishment rates; without them (and this is easy to test for yourself by making notables spawn new troops slow as ****), the snowballing happens right from the go on the campaign map.

Click to expand...

Ok. My preferred solution would be to make notables spawn new troops slower so as to make outcomes of battles more impactful. To slow snowballing, we need to do 3 things, first fix autocalc, second, make sieges harder and 3rd slow down replenishments. As I've mentioned before, it's quite ridiculous how easy it is to shoot an archer inside a shelter. Let's face it, the walls currently offer very little defensive bonus.

Who snowballs btw? Still the Kuzaits? Be interesting to know.

Why is giving every faction more cav the incorrect solution? It solved the problem without breaking anything else.

Click to expand...

One, lore. Battanians aren't horse heavy. Neither are the Sturgians but here we are, everyone's the Kuzaits now because it's easier. Every army is practically the same Maybe we should just get rid them all and have more empire factions. Don't get me started on how the background story doesn't even seem to matter. Shouldn't the Banu Sarran and the Banu Qild be feuding? Btw, I might have just found another minor bug. Tariq has apparently swore vengeance against Tais (what does this actually mean though?) but the clan leader Adram has not. Anyhow, what does sworn vengeance mean? Banu Sarran cannot attack Banu Qild.

Two, because it didn't really solve the problem. That's why they need to up replenishment rate to such a high level and force winning factions to declare war on everyone else.

The big battles happen often because TW wants them to happen often. It is the M&B experience after all. If you expect them to turn away from that, you're going to be disappointed because they've shown zero (0) interest in making large battles infrequent.

Although with the benefit of hindsight, the "problem" of snowballing being expanded from the original (like this) to players who wanted to **** off for twenty years of game time without having Sturgia disappear was probably a mistake and a waste of time.

Click to expand...

Nothing wrong with having big battles but the bigger the battle, the more meaningful it should be. Snowballing by itself should be an eventuality? Big tends to win small. The bigger you get, the easier it ought to be to unite Calradia.

The issue is not snowballing per se but how fast it happens. I recall in 1.0, Kuzait took all of Southern Empire even before I got my first fief.

Apocal said:

They sure do. But a double envelopment doesn't mean every troop is defending from multiple attackers. In Bannerlord the troops (as a whole) do attrition exchange while being outflanked just fine.

Here's a video.

Formations don't do anything and tthe morale effects are far too weak to matter. That makes it impossible to replicate Cannae, except in the sense that Cannae was an annihilation battle. But annihilation battles are standard in Bannerlord so...

Click to expand...

Agreed and armour is pitiful. If they fixed it, it would be possible to replicate. As it stands though, you can somewhat replicate it, but by the use of horse. If you time it right, it's possible for both your cav and infantry to hit the enemy line at the same time from different directions and often it's an immediate rout. It rarely happens of course because your troops tend to charge in different directions.

I disagree annihilation battles are standard. It's currently more along the lines of attrition. Only the player is capable of annihilation. Which is why autocalc sucks.

That's because you keep muddling it. If your point is about AI vs. AI, then why do you give a damn what factors go into things? A player will never notice unless they go out of their way to stare at two AI parties/armies battling. The one serious negative effect (snowballing) was fixed. There's no reason to give a **** that autocalc looters occasionally kill an AI's high-tier troop, at all.

Click to expand...

Because factors will change the outcome of snowballing in a proper way. The way it was addressed is incorrect. Giving more cavalry to everyone is not the optimal solution. Of course there's a reason to care if AI is losing troops unnecessarily. Butterfly effect and all that. Plus the devs approach is more cheating and by increasing the replenishment rate etc. which leads to why battles feel meaningless right now because 2 seconds after a fight, the same stack will come barreling your way. It's ridiculous.

If I'm muddling it up, it's because everything is connected and there are several root causes, one of which is autocalc. We need to address the cause instead of the symptoms.

If your problem is that they kill YOUR troops, then attack the problem at its source: why the hell does anyone feel the need to engage looters when they have tier 3+ troops at all?

Click to expand...

Well for 1, there's no other way to clear looters and if you don't, it's unsightly and if left unchecked will cause starvation.

Why does the game even allow it? Just have the looters surrender if engaged with a moderately leveled player party and gradually despawn every single last group of looters off the map once the player hits Clan Tier 3.

Click to expand...

A fine question! Why indeed? Or have manhunters deal with them.

"But how will I level my troops???"
By time you're a vassal, there should be ways (skills, fief, money, influence, relations, companions) that you can acquire a decent starter pack of troops, already leveled up, every single time you wipe and a sustainable flow of them to replace the losses you take while campaigning. It would eliminate the literally pointless grind of having to stroll obsessively around the map, stripping every village you come across of appropriate troop types, then finangling ways of pinning large groups of looters in place in order to level. It is only grind we'd be losing: nothing interesting will ever happen, there are no decisions to be made and it takes IRL time. Just give decent troops.

Then there would be absolutely ZERO reason to even have these ****ty looters after the very start of the game and we can stop seeing complaints made by people who feel the need to obsessively grind them to level up all 400+ of their T6 Fashion Plates before they feel comfortable doing anything else.

If your issue is that autocalc doesn't produce blowouts, then yeah, right there with you. It doesn't.

Click to expand...

I don't level my troops on looters. So no argument there. I think there are enough ways to level troops now with the ability to sacrifice loot for xp.

My issue is autocalc is a lousy simulation of actual battle and since the majority of battles are between AI, it needs to be addressed properly.

Another example, there are now stacks led by nobles with poor tactics. I've seen meganhelda with troops before and as far as I'm aware, she's got 0 tactics. She should get utterly crushed by any other noble...but she's not.