搜索结果: *

Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James 说:

I disagree...
The lategame should be when you own like 30% of the map and all the other factions who aren't on good terms with you should attempt to unite and beat you in one final confrontation, and if they lose they capitulate.

点击展开...

That is basically same as an alliance against the player.

I just think some event which has a chance to give you serious trouble, makes it more interesting.

So what if it makes the game bit longer? Rather a bit longer and interesting than a shorter and yawning end game.

I don't think the "end game" (if it means being a ruler of your own kingdom) was particularly long, either. Thanks to the tribute insanity, I didn't make a peace but once, I think.

Totalgarbage 说:

b) Give the different empire faction locations different noble troops

What do you think?

点击展开...

I think all armies in Calradia look the same. They may start looking different, but after a while they are a mix of all troops in Calradia. And I do find it lame.

Zorion_no 说:

For the record I use Diplomacy mod and it fixes alot of the imo design flaws that TW did with the game.
Without Diplomacy I tried again now with the current Beta and it just isnt fun.

点击展开...

I tried Diplomacy mod, but it didn't work, caused a crash or was grayed in loader, don't recall, many months since I started the game.

Because mods often have conflicts, important features really should be in the vanilla game.

I feel sorry for those few last troops, who uselessly walk into their death, against couple of of hundred archers adding weight on their shields.

five bucks 说:

Brave lords should never surrender (like now)

点击展开...

Brave lords should surrender too.
Maybe add a new trait: "stupid". They might not surrender at all and get their men killed because being complete idiots.

Zorion_no 说:

Specifically what I would want to see removed wasnt necessarily the size, but make sieges take alot longer to build up, so its not like a 1-3 day thing. ...

Example Sturgia : Just without an army, and normal speed for my party, try travelling from Revvyl to Tyal.. So if you are at war with Vlandia and then Khuzait decides to attack.

Before you can reach Tyal that is besieged, its captured..

点击展开...

Yeah. Also, the difference between tiers. Militia is absolute rubbish in siege battles. Often in sieges, even if the other side has hundreds of defenders, I don't have but a handful of casualties, as my high tier troops spawn first.

To say it bluntly: sieges are child's play. Too easy. After a little experience, you cannot lose one.

In M&B Warband starvation, all kind of events (hunting and ambush parties), sallying out, building siege fortress, sending agents into the sieged garrisons, could cause heaps of problems and different outcomes. I'm not saying you should add similar text-based random casualties events as Warband had. But definitly sieges could use some spices. Just watching the siege-engine battle, that's a bit dull. And the danger of enemy gathering an army (or getting aliies) that tried to break your longer lasting siege, would be welcome to the game.

Zorion_no 说:

Kind of wrong to say, but "its just to much war", should have some mechanics in play to limit it more (longer peace time for one would help out, as I enjoy the games where I set the minimum peace ot 125, with this I see typical weaker factions like Battania get up back again and reclaiming lost lands).

Also as others point out the casualties of war should account for something, I mean growing battleready troops typically takes 18-20 years after all.(Diplomacy-mod lets you put this as a factor for "warfatigue" aswell).

I get that it needs to be war in the game and all that, but for some of us players if we play the game vanilla we have 3-4 days of peace in a period for 10 years.. most of the time at war with multiple factions.
Thats just not fun.

点击展开...

Not fun, not reasonable, leaves no time for strategy building meaningfully garrisons.
There's time for war, time for peace, you could use both. And you could use DIPLOMACY to try and work navigate there in between. Instead of the current random war declarations.

What I find problematic with the big amount of lords and parties is, that they stick with their clans and kings, even after they have been soundly defeated, and all they do is try raid villages.

When these lords are released or escape from captivity, they all get a new party for free. It's a rubbish party with a lot of recruits. Completely harmless against player (or a kingdom which is still victorious) in a battle.

You can find couple of dozen of these defeated parties swarming around someplaces. The A.I. is so stupid, it often happens a vassal of the player goes and attacks one of these harmless parties, and a dozen (or more) of these parties join the same fight. As the battle is fought only by numbers on the campaign map, the huge number of these harmless newbie parties can still defeat a strong NPC-party, even if they had no hope in a real battlemap fought battle. This continues endlessly, as them defeated parties always start with new free parties, and they won't abandon their clan or kingdom.
In my game there's even several non-kingdom factions brought by mods. Their parties are absolute rubbish, as they've lost a battle some time. They keep declaring wars against me all the time, but it is completely meaningless.

I voted for bigger maps and more lords, but the system of them getting free parties and sticking with their leaders needs to change. I might solve this by breaking these clans, and adding these lords into towns and villages. Make them merchants, gang leaders, farmers, what ever. And also seeking to join other factions or starting their own. Loyalty is too high in this game.

With the stupid tribute rules I won't ever make peace with kingdoms I'm at war with. I don't loot villages, they do, and as a result they still demand tributes when they are soundly defeated and lost all their towns and villages: no military power left. After I've defeated 2-3 of their biggest armies, their troops start to be rubbish, and they can't recover from that.
In my current game there's only two kingdoms left besides mine. The other has half a dozen towns, the other only 2 castles. All the defeated kingdoms still are around, they declare wars, and their troops are absolute rubbish.

If I talk some of these defeated parties, their reply is always that I need to find their clan leader to talk about deserting their kingdom. They will not desert their clan leaders. And as I don't have time to ride looking for these clan leaders, I never bother hire existing clans. I just create new clans by giving fiefs for my companions. MUCH easier and faster.

I think the game needs more kingdoms, so kingdoms have time to rebuild.
And it needs small kingdoms that players who start the game, can have easier adversories and defeated kingdoms could rise again fighting someone who they have chances against. (Yeah I know there are rebelling towns, sometimes a few: that is good).
And it needs big kingdoms who don't try to declare wars against all the small kingdoms first.
And it needs alliances, so that even small kingdoms can find safety. Of course it needs politics so this could happen.

And it really, really needs to get rid of the stupid different culture governor - different culture town penalty. That artificial rule to stop kingdoms from expanding (and guarantee the player wins every campaign) is the biggest nerf. Yeah I know it exists because it can take a long time to rise from farm boy/girl to a prince/princess, and they obviously want the campaign map still exist with different kingdoms. But it could be done otherwise than nerfing the expansion of all kingdoms. And if you spend decades being employed by another kingdom, is it so wrong that one kingdom (other than an Empire faction) could rise in the hegemony in the meanwhile?

If you have a campaign map with only a few kingdoms, it would be just about one war against each. And the defeated have no chance to rebuild. A very short campaign.

In a big map you might have some use for strategic planning even. Which front should you bring your party/army? Which garrisons need to be strengthened?

Unfortunately in current state of the game, there is little chance you could strengthen any border garrisons. NPC-lords don't do it, and when there are continuously wars, you can either transport troops between garrisons (boring), or go have fun and fight battles, but you don't have time for both. Especially in the end game you have not a single day of peace. Meaningful politics, both for declaring wars and trying to get time to rebuild, get allies, would be needed into the game.

I play with Custom Troop mod. (My Little Warband did not work in my mod collection).
It works kind of, but only my own party can recruit them custom troops. Or actually transfer other recruits into custom recruits. As no town or village have my custom culture as their culture.

And if I could custom other kingdoms' troops too, I would. That would be cool.

And if I could lock all kingdoms to recruit only their own troop trees, so that all armies wouldn't look like mix of every Caldarian culture, that would be great.

Yeah, definitely, I want these things.

Gadheras 说:

Good way to destroy your game regardless if you want to marry clan leaders from other clans and have them join your clan.

点击展开...

What do you mean? How marrying a NPC clan leader destroys a game? (Besides the mod's bug)

I'm playing e1.8.1 and if you play a male character and marry a female NPC clan leader, nothing else joins your clan but she. Her former clan chooses a new leader, they won't join you. Maybe it's different in the release version.

Anthropoid 说:

I also added: .... and Marry Anyone.

点击展开...

Be sure to use the latest mod version for that!
I hope the new version managed to fix the bug which caused that marrying clan leaders resulted into your own clan getting kicked out of your own kingdom. That bug ruined a game of mine.

Lord Irontoe 说:

How many men are getting wounded in your sieges? Is your entire army even spawning in?

点击展开...

No, they aren't all spawning. But I didn't expect the low tier missing the battle entirely. I'm not sure how many actually spawns, never counted together the men of all the units. Estimating, from memory, maybe around 500 troops on one side?

Now that I know this "Units Spawn Prioritization" in options -thing, it makes sense there are very few low tier in the (early) battle. I was suspecting this, as seen from the first comment, but didn't know exactly, nor why.

DrDragonlance 说:

I'm upset when 10 guys die, what is your Medicine skill?

What tactics do you use during sieges?

点击展开...

My surgeon's Medicine skill level is 200. But why I don't usually lose men in field battles, is because I lead an army (only my own clan, but it's still now bit over 800 men), and use my own character to solo attack enemy first. Usually the enemy will not attack right away (except looters), as I have upper hand in strength, so my character has time to cut down their numbers, usually it means they lose all their cavalry and some infantry, often I go at archers next. My troops has a lot of archers too, mostly horse archers. The result is that the enemy usually dies before they get to melee distance. (I play with the Bannerlord difficulty level, realistic damage).

For the next game I planned to not do hero character solo attacks at all. It's unrealistic leader of the army attacks alone.

Siege tactics? I usually use trebuchets to bomb down all the defending siege machines, then build an onager or two. Sometimes I use my hero character to shoot at enemy archers, sometimes I rush to setup ladders and climb on the walls. If I broke the walls, then I usually lure the defenders out. If that's what you mean.

Lord Irontoe 说:

It makes sense if the high tier troops are spawning in the first waves.

点击展开...

Maybe. I don't think I would quite agree with that. But when the only troops dying in siege battles (probably other battles too, I have't followed that as often I don't lose any troops in field battles) are high tier, it doesn't make sense. Should lose sometimes lower tier too.

Lucius Confucius 说:

I don't know when it was added, but in the options menu there is an option for which units gets placed on the battlefield first, I think default defaults to high tier units. Perhaps this is your issue. Also, tier 7 is only with mods.

Why don't you play on the release version? Mods?

点击展开...

Oh, "Units Spawn Prioritization" in options. Never noticed that. Thanks!
I have it default, which means "Units spawn according to their position in the roster". Errr... what roster? Does it mean units that are selected with hotkeys in battle?

Other choises are: high level, low level and homogeneous (equal rate of high and low level).
I think I'll change it to homogeneous. It's most realistic I think. And I'll see if it has any change to those who get killed.

Yeah, tier 7 is added by mods.
Yeah, no release version because of mods. Don't know if all these installed in the campaign I play work with release version.

Lucius Confucius 说:

What are your favorite mods that have now been abandoned?

点击展开...

GT_Megabody
The graphics update that made harem a must for my Aserai hero.

Many modders just don't play any more. It would be really useful if the developers added some of the popular abandoned mods' features to the game.

At Nexusmods there is an optional file "OnHeroHealedWhileWaitingWorkaround 1.0.0" which is made to solve this bug. It is found on the "OnGovernorChanged Workaround" mod's file downloads https://www.nexusmods.com/mountandblade2bannerlord/mods/4291?tab=files.

EDIT:
I've tried once now, the game that previously crashed, did not now crash. Can be installed in an ongoing game.

Mod's version 2.00 is made for the release version of the game and 1.00 for e1.8.x game version.

(Going back old saves proved not saving my game, the crash happened still, only on a lucky case it did not happen).

mujadaddy 说:

So it's not a big deal then? Some people seem to think it's a big deal and whine constantly about having to pay tribute when they're not ahead, and then, when the enemy is completely dispossessed, they whine about having to pay tribute instead of fight, in a game about fighting.

点击展开...

There is NO FIGHT LEFT when the enemy has been totally destroyed, they have lost all their towns and castles, and their lords sit in your prisons. Their troops are rubbish recruits that any half-witted thumbless fool beats without anny losses of their own troops.
No fight left. The only thing the enemy is capable, is trying to raid your villages.

It's a fail in game development, not proud and stubborn enemies.

I have exactly the same Outer exception callstack. Game crashes when travelling on map.

I don't have Serve as Soldier -mod.

I bought the game from Epic, so no Steam downloads in my game.

It is some sort of conflict which happens with the mods and/or the native game. I had to delete 4 of my latest saves, as they all crashed when I reach Autumn 16 1095, and after "Daily Gold Change" message appears.

Fortunately I had earlier saves that can go past that date without crashing. Otherwise it would have ruined this whole campaign.

Playing game version e1.8.1