搜索结果: *

artenio 说:

it was extremely difficult! I'm at level 38 I have the full set of dark knight and even then I lost all my army and almost didn't get it! I have 25 strength and 7 shield and even after collecting the blood of these werewolves when I arrive and ask about the curse... MY CHARACTER SIMPLY REFUSES THE CURSE! WEREWOLF, VAMPIRE AND LINCH he refuses them all and in fact the option to accept the curse doesn't even appear in the dialogue...

点击展开...

If the option to accept doesn't appear, it means that you don't meet at least one of the conditions, so you cannot accept. No idea about which condition you don't meet. Are you already an Anti-hero, Vampire, etc.?

That sounds like an issue for the bugs sub-forum, rather than General Discussion. I've got a GOG download, which works fine on Windows 11. My previous downloads from other sources did not work on Win11, but your game is "half-working" if it got to the character creation screen, so no clue what's causing it, other than possibly a graphics driver incompatibility or remnants of some mod interfering.

The NPC lords are not bound by the prisoner limits, so they can carry as many prisoners as they capture.

I suspect that they can also defy the party size limits as well, but may then release deserter parties with the excess, or I might be completely wrong about it. I recall seeing Harlaus with over 700 men in his party, including a LOT of Khergits and Rhodoks. I know that deserter parties also spawn automatically in the same manner as bandits of various sorts, so there's always roughly the same number of them in the game, so I'm not sure about deserters being released by lords' parties.

A high number of prisoners makes the party move slower, so a small party of survivors of a major battle with a ridiculous number of prisoners is likely to be beaten by the next enemy that comes along, adding all of those captives to the enemy party. That lord with 587 prisoners would provide an insane boost to any party that defeats him, UNLESS it's the player, who is hard-bound by party size limits.

I'm pleased to see the location changed to Colorado. Ohio really didn't work for a "historical" setting, as it was mostly heavily forested at the time, far from the "wild west", and hadn't seen violence on a significant scale since the French and Indian War (where George Washington was a promising junior officer) nearly a century earlier. Colorado is ideal for a mostly mountainous "wild" setting (with a few areas of plains and numerious mining camps and small settlements), whereas Oklahoma would be a better fit for mostly open plains with widely scattered settlements, and still a bit on the "wild" side.

Wyzilla 说:

Shockingly the bulk of people in historical battles are not seriously injured or killed on the losing side of battle, so evidently somebody's thoughts on historical warfare are wrong and it's not mine.

点击展开...

This needs to be clarified. The bulk of professional or properly trained and equipped troops in historical battles were not seriously injured or killed. The losses among conscripts, revolting peasants, or other poorly trained and equipped irregulars were another story. Trained troops in proper armor could wreak havoc on such as these almost without losses in return, and many armies considered them useless.

Injuries to wearers of full hauberks or other highly protective armor were generally minor or quickly recoverable, although it's quite possible to cause bruising, or small punctures with thin blades and arrows. Such injuries will probably not stop the sufferer from continuing the fight. Armor is NOT necessarily designed to stop the hardest strikes, which require a long swing from a drawn-back position and are generally easy enough to see coming and block, but it is often intended to stop the quick jabs and light, fast strikes from degrading one's ability to fight. Most tactics involved aiming attacks at weak points in the armor, striking open faces, or angling strikes up beneath the protective armor.

Hitting a helmet even with a polearm generally won't penetrate the helmet without a full swing and a clean hit, but it can cause neck injuries from the impact on the head, or broken collar bones with helmets that rest against the shoulders, which is why organizations like SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) forbid striking with polearms from more than a vertical position. I've seen a polearm strike knock a contestant to the ground even with that restriction.

Note that many medieval swords utilized one sharp edge and one blunt. The sharp side was for slicing and dicing unarmored peasants or conscripts, while the blunt side was used for striking armored targets without notching the blade. In some companies of knights, the officers would carry maces for dealing with heavily armored opponents, while most of the group carried spears and/or swords for more general use.

Several historical accounts of pitched battles between several thousand men on each side have placed casualty figures in the dozens or low hundreds, and a few battles were said to have lasted for hours until both sides were too exhausted to continue. That doesn't sound anything like M&B's combats, which play out as fanatical fights to the death between lightly armored opponents, without bothering to hold formation or utilize tactics once contact is made. It quickly turns into a disorganized brawl.

As a battle generator, and not much more, Bannerlord should be fine. It's got a few balance issues, but original M&B did as well. Bannerlord is visually more impressive, but even shallower from a campaign perspective, and all but useless as a role play experience. The Companions and Lords are now randomly generated, and are basically non-entities for any kind of interaction, failing to live up to even the rather low bar set by original M&B in that aspect.

The real vitriol and condemnation come from the failure of Bannerlord to provide some of the already meager kingdom management options which were added in Warband, and from TaleWorlds backing down on a long list of promised features such as castle building, an actual "economy", and other things which matter in a long campaign, but are irrelevant to a simple "battle generator". It's not so much that Bannerlord is significantly worse than its predecessor in its basics, but that it's still a relatively empty shell of a game after a decade of development. It's fine for 50 hours of play, but that's about it.

I just spent an evening playing an old M&B mod: Sword of Damocles, which adds a heap of kingdom management features to original M&B, far beyond anything in Warband or Bannerlord. If modders could do that with the old engine, why can't the developers do something interesting with the new "improved" engine? The downfall of the mod is that "Universities" work in reverse, causing your "badboy" (infamy) to increase instead of gradually decrease, so after the AI builds Universities in most of the cities and then you conquer them, you can't avoid becoming the most hated ruler in Calradia, while you race to build up a kingdom strong enough to face the inevitable Legion invasion.

This is just one piece of a much bigger problem. Aside from the battles, there is very little point in doing anything else, with the exception of crafting to raise obscene amounts of cash (as if there's a whole lot of stuff worth spending it on).

Diplomacy? All but non-existent, mostly RNG driven. War and peace are random.
Economy and Trade? Everything appears and disappears by magic, and are not actually "used" by the NPCs.
Relations? No effect outside of a few specific actions. They'll still attack your villages.
Interesting Companions? Now they're just randomized collections of stats, with no personality and no background story.
Ruling a faction? You have virtually no control. You can't increase the prosperity of your kingdom by governing, only conquer more.
Playing "dress-up doll" with your Companions? Better and more expensive armor has almost no effect.

In short, it's nothing more than a battle generator. After you've fought a few battles, it gets dull, not surprisingly. Warband was a bit thin on the non-combat aspects, but Bannerlord has managed to remove most of what little was there. In exchange, we got the ability to raise a successor, it you've got the patience to stick with a long, boring campaign long enough for that to matter.

The concept of levies and knights seems to be misunderstood. Much of Europe after the fall of Rome utilized a small contingent of knights who were essentially "professional soldiers", billeted on large estates (farms or small villages) throughout the kingdoms. In most cases, they were FORBIDDEN to take other work, and were supposed to dedicate themselves to training for war, while the farmers were required to feed and house them. They were neither nobles nor peasants.

In any campaign conducted at a distance, ONLY the knights (and a few squires to support them) would be sent, as it would be too costly and impractical to send more than a small group of trained troops. Tournaments were often held to determine who was "the best", so the nobles could send a small but effective force of high quality (if you can only afford to feed 200 men in the field for the length of the campaign, you only send the best 200, whereas Rome had the logistical capacity to send and supply thousands).

In a defensive situation, in some places the farmers could be called up for service by the local noble with whatever implements they had to fight with, usually with occasional practice sessions to make them a bit less useless. In other places, the famers were forbidden by law to wield weapons or engage in warfare, and could NOT be conscripted.

In some kingdoms (as was done in the late Roman Empire), basic equipment was provided by the state, and training was done regularly, so the called-up farmers would qualify as "militia", rather than "recruits", and provide a local source of support for the professional Legions. Still, they were rarely sent far from home, due to the expense and difficulty of supplying a large force, and because the vast majority of the population (as in 95% in many places) was needed just to provide a tiny food surplus for a relatively small group of professional soldiers.

Calradia relies on what can only be described as a fantasy system for levying troops, and there are no consequences for having hundreds of your farmers butchered.

Smithing is something that should primarily be left to NPCs. Recruit or train up a Blacksmith, and you can have them upgrade weapons gradually over time, without having to pay a smith in town to do the job. The skill of the smith would limit the maximum quality that he or she could repair a weapon up to. This would go well with a weapon degradation mechanism, where in battle there's a VERY slim chance for a weapon or armor item to drop in quality by one point when hit (armor) or blocked (weapon). The odds of it happening to the player's equipment in any given battle would be low (or could be an option), but in a large army, there would likely be some damage after a major encounter. A skilled smith could keep the army's equipment up to par, repairing items over time. Ideally, an army on campaign would accrue more damage than the smith could repair in the field, so it would tend to provide one more limit to snowballing, as armies would need to rest and repair in a town or village after a while.

If the player WANTS to RP a blacksmith, I can see where having the possibility in the game isn't necessarily a total waste of development time, but it shouldn't be the primary money-maker, or anything close to it. As it stands, it's extremely unbalanced, but practically nobody would use it if it weren't so lucrative.

xdj1nn 说:

There are many things that could be made that would indirectly affect the AI on so many grounds that it would behave logically and life-like. As is, it's pure anarchy, AI is single-minded with no conditionals, they do stuff that don't even make sense most of the time. And since they don't abide by the same grounds as the players, they also have nothing else to do other than go to war infinitely.

点击展开...

The AI is primarily driven by the Ransom Number Generator. It doesn't matter what your relations are with another kingdom, whether one or both of you are already engaged in other wars, whether one is significantly stronger or weaker than the other, or much of anything else; if the RNG says "declare war", we get yet another stupid, pointless war.

For all of the complexity put into the combat and animation systems, I'm appalled by the lack of thought and effort that's gone into politics, diplomacy, and economics in this game. Some of this should be almost trivial to add, but nobody bothers. It seems that TaleWorlds is content with the game being nothing more than a battle generator.

Mount & Blade, in all of its versions, covers at least 3 distinct groups of gamers, with plenty of sub-groups and crossovers to confuse the issue.

The first group would be the FPS combat players, who are also the prime (if not the only) multi-player participants. Their primary interests are in better combat mechanics and animations, better framerates, and nicer graphics. This should have been a "slam dunk" for Taleworlds. Thanks to balance issues, interest in multi-player is WAY down.

The second group would be the RPG players, for whom the action element is an essential but not overriding concern. Their main interests, however, are in better dialog, more meaningful effects of player choices, and more distinct and interesting (not "more overpowered") NPCs, or in short, a more "living" world, with better graphics a major concern for some (more "immersion") but not others (possibly requiring a bit more "imagination" on the part of the player). A few pieces of this were already in place in Warband, and more was promised, but instead most of it has been removed or broken in Bannerlord.

The third group would be the Strategy players, for whom diplomacy, the world economy, fief management, and tactical combat would all be important. Making the outcome of major inter-faction battles more meaningful, improving the economic side (such as a world economy, local pricing and availability, and items being produced by craftsmen in towns rather than springing up out of thin air, ESPECIALLY when troops are created or upgraded) would certainly help. Troops (especially high-level) and their equipment should not an inexhaustible resource for the AI or for villages, and over-recruiting should weaken your economy (which doesn't matter at the moment because the player gets more than enough money from loot and Smithing certain items, and the AI doesn't use money). The AI also needs to be more willing to come to more rational terms (we may be down to our last castle, all of our armies are defeated, and we're at war with two other factions, but we're demanding that YOU pay US thousands for a peace deal that we'll inevitably break in a month), rather than starting yet another pointless war just because the Random Number Generator said so.

I suspect that MOST players have at least some degree of interest in every one of these aspects, although the balance will undoubtedly be drastically different from player to player. Unfortunately, in its efforts to make a "shinier" game, improvements in the RPG and Strategy directions have been minimal, and some former elements have even been removed. On top of that, the balance isn't there for multi-player. In essence, this game fails to live up to its predecessors in ALL of these dimensions.

Instead of turning this game into something INTERESTING, we'll likely get another patch which addresses a couple of clipping issues, as well as some optimization to help stutter problems. The sandbox will still be empty, but it will look prettier.

froggyluv 说:

This game has no Soul -it needs a Priest some Holy Water and some Latin thrown in there -in short, it needs an exorcism.

点击展开...

The game would require a demon soul to exorcise, but since the game has no soul, it would be an "exorcise" in futility.

Killer Kitten 说:

Warband had a system where you had to actually ask someone where a Lord was. And I loved it because they provided where the lord was last and where he's headed.

And it was awesome.

It was not precise, but it was better it wasn't.

点击展开...

..and the lord was heading toward the far end of the map, then changed course 90 degrees along the way. You asked twice to see which way he is going, and went chasing after him, except that he didn't hold that line and went somewhere else. When you get to where he used to be heading, he's nowhere to be found, so you have to go all the way back to his faction to find someone else to ask again. Quest failed.

It's easy if they stay in one spot, but they don't always do that.

I haven't dug into the modding potential and details beneath the hood of Bannerlord, but one of the limiting factors in basic M&B and Warband was the inability to place "inactive" objects into a scene, where they were invisible and intangible until/unless activated. To illustrate the problem:

With active/inactive objects, you can place additional scenery, buildings, walls, clutter, and so on, and have those items activated under certain conditions. Your character builds a village wall, so the wall becomes "active". It was always there, but now it's visible and blocks movement. The town gets more prosperous, so more "wares" and other clutter appear, or gets poorer and things are gone from the scene the next time your character enters. You can have one scene for the town, and all of the POTENTIAL objects can be pre-placed, to be activated or deactivated as the course of the game requires.

Without active/inactive objects, you need to make two complete versions of the scene for each "option": one with and one without the object(s) in question. Each combination of upgrades or changes requires its own complete "scene", so if you have 4 possible upgrades, that's 16 versions of the same setting. 6 choices and it becomes 36 different versions of the same scene. It gets unmanageable in a hurry.

M&B and Warband did not have this, I don't know whether or not it was added into Bannerlord's updated engine. If not, then I understand WHY a lot of proposed changes were NOT done, because it would be too unwieldy to do them with the current engine.

Nawari 说:

The "sandbox" part offers too few ways to build your Kingdom, manage your city... You control almost nothing.

点击展开...

TW gave us a "sandbox", but forgot to put "sand" in it. As it currently stands, aside from a few stray grains in the corners, it's empty.

The game lacks a few "small details", like meaningful diplomacy, an economy, village/city building/development, personal interactions with ANYONE (all peasants with the same "filler" dialog, Lords with the same handful of mostly meaningless options), or a reason to CARE about anyone or anything in the game.

Modders have shown that it's possible to do so much more with it, but despite all of the glowing promises for buildable castles, meaningful politics, a working economy, and so on, after a decade of development TW has barely even begun to put a touch of "life" into the game. What little has been done mostly serves no actual in-game purpose and has no impact on anything, so once you've seen it, you can just ignore it.

The strength of the game is that you can tell your own story. The weakness is that there's nothing to tell, except "I fought 300 battles".

black_bulldog 说:

It happens to most if not all companies, once they get a taste for money there's no stopping it.

点击展开...

It's a natural sequence of events. The original small team or individual has a vision, puts in whatever time and effort it takes to make it a reality, and if the money gets tight, they do whatever they have to do to survive until the game pays off. Money may (or may not) be a long-term goal, but may only be a secondary consideration in the short run.

Then they're successful, so they hire a bigger team. The new guys aren't going to go without a paycheck or take large pay cuts if things aren't going well in the short term, and any loans taken out need to be paid on time, so the company MUST make at least a certain amount of money just to stay in business. If that means shipping an incomplete or inferior product, then so be it, whether the original creator likes it or not.

Worst case is when the original developer turns control over to a bunch of investors or managers, who have no interest in the product itself, only in its ability to generate revenue. Quality inevitably goes down the toilet, innovation is kept to a minimum in favor of "safe" ideas, and we end up with a shovel-load of garbage being churned out on a mass-production line. Look what success did to Bethesda, or any of a handful of other game companies that went from a few people with a dream to a sizable corporation.

I suspect that TW is (mostly) in the middle situation, with pressure from investors as in the third case, but Erdogan still has a fair amount of control. I suspect that the problem isn't so much him, it's the rampant growth of the company which makes this kind of behavior all-but inevitable.

In the process of TW going from a small indie game developer with a vision to just another medium-sized cash-grabbing soulless corporation led by accountants and investors with no interest in the product, they lost my support and interest. I'm hanging in there for the mods, because by this stage I'm convinced that the game is never going to turn into a "classic" like M&B and Warband. It's not that it's a BAD game, but it's inferior to the previous products in numerous ways, rather than building on them and moving forward. Until/unless the modders manage to breathe some life into this corpse, there's no reason for me to play it.

Taleworlds proved that they could hit the target (twice, with M&B and Warband) with a team of a mere handful of people, then hired dozens of additional personnel and set themselves a higher mark to shoot for. After several years of effort, they downgraded their goals to essentially a prettier version of what they had already done, with a few extra bells and whistles. After a few more years, they downgraded that target (several times, repeatedly dropping features which they initially boasted about, then admitting that several previous features wouldn't be included either), and since then have failed to live up to the previous games in anything but graphics and a few tactical combat details, which do not make up for what was lost.

It's not a matter of hating the game, it's a matter of seeing clearly how far Taleworld's vision and expectations for the game have fallen, with most of the long-term fans realizing that we're going to be getting a game that's a pale shadow of what it could and should have been. Instead of a GREAT game, building on the previous great titles, after more than a decade of work we're getting a "fairly decent" game at best. For me, there's no point in playing it, because if fails to deliver what I enjoyed about the earlier games. I'm still playing those instead, despite having "worn them out".

As in stevepine's reply, I also don't play it. I went back to playing mods for original M&B and Warband, where I felt like I had some sense of purpose. This one just doesn't give me any reason to play.

I can live with outdated graphics if the underlying game is good; I cannot deal with a mediocre game no matter how nice it looks, and this one is a big step down from the previous games in the series. Unless Talewords puts some life and purpose into the game, it's just grinding for the sake of grinding. Some players don't need more than that; I do.

So, what happens if you boost the experience requirement for the top tiers? It will take longer to train up those elite troops, leaving the armies with more mid-tier troops as it should be. Recruits will train up as quickly as they do now, but each additional tier will take longer, creating relatively few elites. They SHOULD be rare, both for the player and for the AI, so making it harder to get them seems like some kind of answer.