搜索结果: *

Yea 1.5.6 definitely walloped by army bank account for sure.

Apocal 说:

Alliances were still being hashed out in October. Party control wasn't on their radar until August. There were a few placeholder elements laid out in the code but they didn't connect to anything at all.

点击展开...

Based on how things are going now, I feel like they've developed something like a GDD, but I DO agree that it's obvious (especially having torn through their incredibly convoluted code structure) that at first there was practically zero coordination or foresight.

VineFynn 说:

Imagine thinking you can get 3 programmers to agree on anything.

点击展开...

You can, but it takes preperation and planning and detailed laying out of concepts and ideas before you ever touch a single line of code.

Will Greaves 说:

In 1.5.6 (I own GOG version and beta version is not available for us), when you start a campaign with the Generous trait, after leaving the training field, you travel for about two seconds and then lose Generous when a popup tells you that your men are starving. This is 100% unavoidable, as it happens before you're able to get to the closest village to buy food. I've reloaded and created new characters multiple times, and it always happens. Is this part also fixed in 1.5.7?

点击展开...

So the reason you lose the trait is not because of starving (which is odd as you should start with like 10 food, ive NEVER had what you describe happen) but because your generosity (assuming it's not set to EXACTLY be at the dividing line) has a calculation run on it and the way the 1.5.6 and before system works is because the score is incorrectly set during character creation, any change to any trait causes that trait to get reset to 0 on the first modification (it works fine after that).

So, no in 1.5.7 this shouldn't happen (the starving thing definitely shouldn't) because they are setting the traits correctly in the beginning now so losing/gaining any points doesnt reset a trait.

Apocal 说:

They (probably) don't have long-term plans related to content or mechanics.

点击展开...

I highly doubt that is true. Fundamental project management insists otherwise. What does seem to be an issue though are the details. The fact that there is a forum thread with a dev asking people what we want to see does seem to indicate that they're at least somewhat fishing in the dark.

There SHOULD be a GDD (Game Design Document) that has EVERY little detail that's desired laid out that they follow in construction. Their current path of development suggests they never made one, or it's not complete.

Confirmed fixed in e1.5.7 Beta

So I have picked up Party AI Overhaul and Commands mod (It's now Party AI Overhaul and Commands Continued on nexusmods) and it has a number of the features as well as methods to accomplish what it sounds like is being discussed here. It was very popular before I picked it up and my updated version has already been downloaded quite a bit. It focuses on interactions with clan parties rather than kingdom elements but the most popular seem to be:
-Setting a limit to patrol with additional restrictions. You can set a "place" to patrol, and tell a party to either help or ignore calls from help from other clans territory, tell them to travel the land for goods and return.
-Setting recruitment restrictions. It's not exactly the most intuitive system, but it uses the unit system and existing UI to let a player tell a party what To/Not to recruit.
-You can give orders to parties to follow yours but not join as an army.
-You can set limits on what they attack, only attacking considerably weaker forces for example.

Apocal 说:

In terms of balance, the game does not need more ways cavalry is advantaged over infantry. Cavalry parties are already so much faster, there is no reason they should get caught on the map unless trapped.

点击展开...

Except you can have cavalry as part of your slower, larger infantry force. If my main force gets hammered, the cavalry shouldn't be getting killed, especially if the enemy doesn't have cavalry themselves
Cavalry is perfectly deatable, I do it all the time. It takes tactics and planning. splitting your infantry into 2 groups, one on each side while your archers in the middle shred them works wonders even against horse archers.

iRkshz 说:

Hi guys.
I completed the game four times completely (twice with my kingdom). But not once until the end of the game I was not able to make a leadership of 150 points.
Yes I play only "realistic" difficulty level, but what difference does that make? The harder the game, the longer it takes, the more effort needs to be done!
Until the end of the game, I make many parameters 150+ points, but not a leadership.

Veterans Respect (convert bandits into regular troops) - this is a principled skill - part of an RPG - part of the player's choice = playstyle.
But 150 points - it is unattainable.

I don't understand the developers' solution. This situation is very annoying.

点击展开...

Yea I'm sitting at 225 leadership pretty quick buddy.
Once you have a second party, simply activate an army and bring it in, it costs zero influence and it maintains cohesion very easily and you get Leadership points like nuts.

Well the last time I checked, when an enemy force was routed then they were completely screwed, What NEEDS to happen is that part of the calculation is determining unit composition. After all, infantry should have zero ability to "chase down" a retreating cavalry force.

OlderThanBefore 说:

After several tries, I really can't figure out which workshops make the most money.
What are your best workshop choices?
I need your help

点击展开...

It's more about what's close than what's best. After all, if any particular workshop was "best" then there would be no POINT in the others. I've had a silver mine make 50 and a leather shop make 250. It all depends on what resources are near by to your settlement. If you try to stick a silversmith and the nearest silver is half way across the map, it won't make any money because the inputs are too expensive.

TeutonJon78 说:

Except their engine is already outdated. It needs a DX12/Vulkan backend if they really want to get the performance for big battles.

DX11 performs terribly on AMD hardware, and if they plan on a console release like they've been hinting at, they are going to need to fix that.

点击展开...

I have absolutely zero problems with 1000 units on the field at the moment so it's not like the battles are small. 500 vs 500 is till more than enough to deal with. Once you start getting too big you'll needa completely new way to view the action and give commands.

CaptainLee 说:

Well I assumed your argument was the lack of historical authenticity for Bannerlord shield walls was a reason not to bother having Sea Raiders use it, hence why you brought up the depth of men required irl. If it's purely that it isn't effective as is, I would argue even for the sake of flavour and the minor benefits of closer support and protection it would be. Someone on the bandit side needs to use formations.



Agreed. The speed is the issue, as they tend to be guarded quite well. Seems all those trade goods don't stress mule backs too much. I've seen bandits attack caravans a fair few times, with mixed success. Actually, I think they do better versus weakened Lord parties.

点击展开...

Definitely. The caravans often have top-tier escorts and I've gone carefuly into 3 vs 1 fights (me with the 3) and come out as a victor with my nose seriously bloodied. The way I see it, if the caravan is empty, let it zoom along. If it's loaded with trade goods, it needs to slow down.

Shield walls definitely CAN be effective, the issue is they are not an end-all-be-all. for example, I rarely keep my infantry in a shield wall until the last minute, and then I only KEEP them there long enough for archers/horse archers/cav to get behind the force that has become locked on them. Even a small shield-walled force can lock down a much larger body for at least a little bit.

I think bandits should have the occasional "robin hood"-esque leader pop up that unifies the bandit team he is with to offer more challanging opportunities. The leader could lead an army, and send out lieutenants that actually use formations to give the ocasional time of having to deal with organized bandits...but then they all die and it goes back to usual for a while.

Fate 说:

I think their patches show they are not doing this well and need all the help they can get

点击展开...

Their patches are chock full of fixes and additions. 1.5.6 alone added over 40 new large detailed scenes. Features were added, crashes fixed. Simply because the bugs are still behing smashed doesnt mean they're not doing well. Game development is no where near linear enough for such a thing to be true.

CaptainLee 说:

Then the shieldwall needs to be removed completely if we are being completely faithful to history. I don't think I've ever seen true shieldwall in Bannerlord then. Lets assume though, that this shieldwall is a mobile method of advancing to provide maximum protection from missiles. Let's have Sea Raiders at least use that. Even the Skein formation. Something.



Slaughtering tens or a hundred people a day (as outlaw parties are so ubiquitous) would most certainly would have a delitarious effect on morale. The Psychological Effects of Combat is of course extensively studied, as is the effects of killing someone. It simply isn't feasible to do so and maintain any kind of discipline. The fact they are criminals rarely seems to factor in. Killing is killing.



If I am laden with trade goods or have a great deal of money with me (let's say 10,000 gold) I really think a target should be painted on your back. I have no issues with seperate groups of bandits banding together for this and at least provide some threat to my mobile bank. They'd be poor bandits to at least not try. They try it with caravans, after all. They also capture lords surprisingly often, even with professional troops in the party.

点击展开...

Again, not sure why the shieldwall should be removed. You're running armed forces of hundreds and thousands around. That's plenty for shield walls. It's just that smaller units shouldn't use it and expect results. Even in game archers can very quickly rotate around a shield wall because it can't turn fast enough to stop them.

I agree skeins and other formations should be used because all the skein was was a method of forcing a body (usually dead by the time it got there) through a defensive line, and a skein of men running through an enemy formation should happen. And you CAN use the shield wall properly, I do it all the time: I'll have my archers in the middle and infantry on both sides in relatively blocky/square shield wall ranks so that cavalry won't be able to break through when they try their expected flanking attack. Using the saved formations mods make this super easy. You don't HAVE to have a 2-man thick shield wall. What I don't KNOW is if there is mass in the game, because the entire point of stacking up troops in a shieldwall is to let them PUSH, so the idea was that they would try to push a shieldwall at a weak point and cause it to bend and effectively break which would cause the broken wall to lose men super rapidly.

and yes bandits should attack caravans, and in fact they might actually even TRY to already. The problem is that most caravans are usually racing around at like 6.0 speed and even with a full cav force I often can't catch them...which makes no sense. The caravan speed DEFINITELY needs to be nerfed. The only way they get in fights at the moment is if they get trapped beween 3 or more groups.

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James 说:

I agree, but what I meant was more a marketing thing, that they're planning a game completely unrelated to the only thing they're known for.

点击展开...

Game companies don't have to do only one thing. In fact, branching off into a different genre with your proven tech can be a wildly succesful venture. There's nothing bad about it. In fact it can generate news that will draw attention to them for it, and as its been said, "No publicity is bad publicity"

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James 说:

Im not too surprised that theyre starting a new project, but what does surprise me is that it's a scifi game before any DLC or MnB 3 or whatever. Starting a new title unrelated to any previous work is always a massive risk, and for a company in such chaos it's very odd that they would take such a risk right now.

点击展开...

Actually, not so surprising. Right now BL is doing three things: Cleaning code/bugs, using the current code to add features (quests and interactions), and adding in art (new towns/villages/castles).

That actually doesn't require a huge team to do, especially with the proper tools. So it's a perfect time to take all the people who developed the engine and game structure in the first place and shift them over to a new project, especially if it's a project that will require may parts to go to square 1 in development, which a sci-fi themed game would require. No matter how good their underlyign system is, sci-fi will requrie specific tailoring to make it work.

veronicaaltoids 说:

only if you have good skill on foot and well shield and well equiped

in Bannerlord, if you are not careful, even 10 + peasant with pitch forks can throw rocks and kill you

点击展开...

I was about to say...my character in full armor is still too slow, especially backing up, to maintain distance from the npcs and I always get swamped unless I can find a way to cover my sides.

Thiil 说:

Maybe they need more monies already? ?‍

点击展开...

I never understood how they didnt tank years ago. They went like 8 years with basically no product being made, and you can only sell so many copies of warband after its already been bought. And they ramped up to a 70+ person size which is a ton of money. SOMEONE was pouring money into TW.

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James 说:

Im not too surprised that theyre starting a new project, but what does surprise me is that it's a scifi game before any DLC or MnB 3 or whatever. Starting a new title unrelated to any previous work is always a massive risk, and for a company in such chaos it's very odd that they would take such a risk right now.

点击展开...

The appearance of a game does not neccesarily have to have anything to do with things. The core of bannerlord is not what it looks like, that's completely incidental. the core is a campaign system that can reliably allow dynamic movement of entities and their expansion, and a combat system that can allow high-fidelity movement of the player and ai units number up to (and likely beyond) a thousand. THATS the real bannerlord, what you put on top for humans to see can be horses and knights, tanks and gunners, or spaceships and lasers.

CaptainLee 说:

If we are going for the historical analogy, there would be no Viking raider that did not know how to fight a mustered Fyrd or local village militia in a shield wall. They could use formations such as the swine array, especially as we even have the Skein formation in the game. Against peasants and monks? Sure. An organized mercenary company? You can be damn sure they are employing tactics.




I disagree. They are so ubiquitous as to be a vital part of the early game. There should never be a free source of XP and loot as they are at the moment. This is simply poor design and frankly lazy. Risk/reward might be gamey and a bit artificial, but it is by far the best option for increasing tension and challenge in a game. So far Bannerlord lacks both of those.

On a personal note, I much prefer to play the game as an unaligned mercenary commander than a wannabe Lord or vassal, but that's just me.

--------------------------------

II'll admit I've found the most recent updates quite fun, but this element of the game needs the bolts tightening up. I propose:
-Reduce the number of outlaw parties on the map by as much as 50%. They are swarming most of the time and some come in stupidly small numbers.
-Remove the exact party numbers unless you have a high Scouting skill e.g descriptives of the approx number to increase tension and make it more of a considered decision.
-Let the bandit party leader level up, maybe even so they can develop unique names. Let them use basic formations. Make them more of a threat.
-Have negatives to attacking outlaw parties. Repeated one sided slaughters should reduce moral, not increase it.
-Have more reasons for outlaw parties to come after you rather than 90% of the time running away. Let small parties band together as one group and, if you are carrying lots of goods or have lots of money, actually do some banditry by coming after you. Doesn't that make sense?

This is just for starters. I'm sure there are other ways to improve them.

点击展开...

A couple things:
1) While yes vikings knew the basics of group combat like a shield wall, those things were not often used by raiding parties because shield walls require LOTS of people to use. I read a report once that analyzed shield walls and it found that one reason the romans excelled early on was they learned that a shield wall didn't need to be 10+ men deep but reached peak momentum efficiency at 6 rows...but still..that means for every spot in a shield wall you need 5 behind him (otherwise the wall gets knocked around and broken) Even a raiding for of 60 men (that's 2 medium or 1 large longboat) would wind up with a shield wall only 10-15 wide which tactically is pointless because a force that small can easily be maneuvered around. Shield walls were used by armies and fyrds due to the number of men they could muster and strategically place to protect the flanks (the weak part of a wall). So not seeing raiders in a shieldwall makes perfect sense to me.

The game needs to include the leader system from Prophecy of Pendor: Criminals would keep spawning small units that over time would migrate into a main force, which would eventually spawn a leader and it would become a criminal army, which made it important for lords to keep the criminals down to prevent the armies from forming. That would solve the bandit issues I think by reducing the number of parties, but making it so that over time you have an ever growing threat that eventually requires focus to remove.

Attacking outlaws shouldnt reduce morale. Constantly wiping out criminals would boost morale in unit and the land because everyone knows they'er protecting their families. Slaughtering a village however...

bandits run because they have relatively low levels and its super easy to level your force well beyond theirs. Criminals rarely ever attacked military forces unless they were utterly desperate because the military's equipment and training would see them slaughter the bandits even if outnumbered. bandits were usually bandits because they wearn't good at anything...so they wearn't the brightest of the bunch. Now the growing force idea would work because the bandit 'army" could eventually get to the point where they start trying to raid villages, which would force you to engage them, rather than trying to find a way to force them to engage you.