搜索结果: *

That's a bug that's fixed in 1.2. Whenever this bug happens, you should quit the siege and re-join it to fix it.

Wulfric 说:

That's the corporate way of saying no.

点击展开...

You're right that it's the corporate way of saying no, but it doesn't mean that they never will do it, just that they haven't planned to at the point. I would love if SaS/Freelancer was implemented to the base game though, but it's unlikely of them adding it if I'm being honest.

Yeah, by snowballing I mean steamrolling the map. You really can't steamroll the map with 5 clans, you become relatively stable. If a faction controls 2/3 of the map (and if the overwhelming majority of the remaining 1/3rd is not owned by 1 faction), the lords should straight up be able to take over the map on their own within 2-3 in game years.

I've heard that you get trade xp from workshops but haven't tested it myself. The workshop changes are nice (better than warband in terms of interactivity) but workshops themselves suck at profitability due to their increased purchasing price added a few patches back & the deflation of the game economy until day 200-ish where they become somewhat profitable (but less needed).

Combat AI actually feels really different, though you may or may not like them being better at blocking (they're not as good as RBM but there's also no posture system either). Many people used to hate it until TW tweaked it a bit in 1.2.4. I do like these AI changes for field battles; Ranged units and Skirmishers actually skirmish when infantry gets close to them, shield wall formation feels like a good defensive formation, cavalry is much better at fighting other mounted troops, etc. Formation targeting also makes the battles a bit more tactical (and lets the player actually meaningfully command units for siege defences). Also, now you can build siege engines in siege defences.

The late game grind is a bit more bearable now that factions actually die out, but I imagine a full conquest is still painful and boring. I don't have the patience to try to conquer the map again until significant changes to the late game which enables the player faction to snowball after they get strong enough.

Weather feels very atmospheric and actually affects combat, so I really like it overall (and I also would like to see sand/dust storms added).

There's been a few changes to smithing, but I haven't tested it out myself. From what I've seen though, it makes the weapon difficulty and smithing skill actually matter, so if you try to smith a sword with 100 difficulty when you have 50 skill, you will get a negative modifier, but smithing the same thing with 125 will give you a positive modifier (might be RNG i dunno), and from what I know if you smith it with 150 or 200 skill you will get an even better modifier than you would with 125 skill.

I think that you should try it now, as it's relatively stable, and when the patch goes live play with the Old Realms total conversion mod who also recently got a massive update.

Honestly the ranged AI in 1.2 is generally very good in my limited experience, but archers/crossbowmen can occasionally have terrible aim for some reason. I've noticed it being bad mostly during tournaments, but didn't think much of it at the time, maybe the units had low skill. Ranged AI in general feels better at longer ranges and better at shooting moving targets.

What feels worse in 1.2 is melee cavalry attacks' accuracy against foot troops. I think it improved a bit in 1.2.4, but I wish to see it be made better.

black_bulldog 说:

Incorrect it was 81% - 4% per skill point 4x14=56% and add the 25% base. It was powerful and why most experienced players would try to max it out but it's not a guarantee of surfival.

点击展开...

Ah okay, thanks for informing me, I did know about the 4 n + 25, I don't know where I pulled 94% from.

hoboistice 说:

Last time I played Bannerlord you could get money from your unit's upkeep by having high enough quartermaster and relevant perks, or infinite food from quartermaster.
You can definitely get a lot more overpowered in Bannerlord

点击展开...

They patched units paying you out from the game a while ago (though maybe it still works with mercs?), but with specific perks and combos you can be more OP in bannerlord. You can beat every army with recruits by stacking all perks that give HP to your units & a captain who increases skills & movement + a good banner.

Nogand 说:

On their own, weapon proficiencies in Warband are about as impactful as Bannerlord, but in Warband they stack multiplicatively with the power skills so that together a warrior companion or high-tier troop is quite valuable. In Bannerlord this secondary multiplier doesn't exist, so your companions are mainly for captain skills, and you level troops for their gear.

点击展开...

That is true, I always forget that power strike & similar skills are compounding. Though some things Bannerlord has better are perks giving additional effects such as shield penetration for javelins and smithing weapons for optimal AI use. Grinding companions is a very lengthy process in BL not gonna lie, but they can become so OP thay you can take over towns with 10 of them.

Nogand 说:

As for party-buffing skills, Warband skills are more impactful as well, which makes sense because they had to be competitive with the smaller party sizes. 10 Surgery and Wound Treatment in Warband triples your healing rate and reduces your troop death rate to about 1/3rd of the base value, and 10 path-finding and spotting lets you catch parties half your size, and see them at twice the didistance.

点击展开...

I fully agree that party skills were stronger in WB (except for some combos like free recruitment of bandits & upgrading them to noble troops), but I mostly prefer how they are in BL, because they were too OP. You could have something like a 94% survival rate with 14 surgery and you could insta upgrade units with high training skill. As silly as it may sound, I prefer being able to upgrade units by discarding items, since there is a trade-off for doing so where the costs can quickly add-up over time.

Nogand 说:

The big hangup I have with vanilla Bannerlord is that there is very little character progression when it comes to personal combat skill. Even when your weapon skill is less than 30 tournaments are quite easy, the difference between an early-game and endgame character is what gear he wears, and how many troops and clan members he can call upon. It seems much more like a strategy game than the RPG progression system of Warband. RBM fixes this for the most part.. but it also crashes to desktop every 20 minutes (using Proton GE).

点击展开...

When talking about weapon skills without perks, agreed. Otherwise I disagree. One thing I really haven't missed about Warband was that so much of its tournaments' difficulty relied on bull**** such as giving the enemy a 2H sword and you a dagger. Also, while weapon skill levels (no perks) don't affect that much in Bannerlord, it in my experience didn't affect me much in Viking Conquest either (I had a warrior build with 22 STR with 10 ironflesh, power strike & power throw, 8 weapon master & about 350 proficiency in 1h, 2h & throwing at the end of the story mode). The rhythm of a fight was always attack -> block -> attack ad nauseam. What made me feel strong in VC was the fully upgraded Orm's Scale (please bring equipment upgrading mechanic in towns to Bannerlord TW, I'm begging you). What scales really nicely in Bannerlord is athletics & riding.

Of course, since the scale is about 6,5x larger than Warband at max troop count, you need to kill 6,5x more troops just to be as viable, which is not really that feasible. I agree overall that CNG, SOC & INT builds are much stronger than warrior builds, so you as a fighter feel inconsequential most of the time.

It's a good game that is very replayable with some very noticeable flaws (e.g. the AI characters lacking personality, lack of meaningful diplomacy, bad campaign "story"). However, it's not a great or a profound game, and while greatness is achievable (and will happen if the game receives further development), the latter is not. It's similar to other sandbox experiences where you create your own value. Bannerlord is a McDonald's meal rather than a meal at a Michelin star restaurant, it's a marvel movie, not Schindler's list. If you approach the game this way, it will become better in your mind. The mods are what truly makes the game "great" and many great ones like the Old Realms are already available or will soon be. But no matter how heavily you mod it, the game you're playing always uses most of the systems of the base game.

In my mind, Bannerlord with 1.2 has faaar surpassed Warband, and has surpassed Viking Conquest, my formerly favourite entry to the franchise until I replayed it last week, now Bannerlord is by far my favourite. "Success" is a very intangible concept, but in my mind, the core gameplay of Bannerlord is very successful in providing fun to me despite its flaws, even if the novelty of M&B has passed. You need to remember that people who focus on the negatives are always the most vocal in a community.

saittam 说:

During order of battle or in the battle?

点击展开...

Only in battle and only sometimes. Sieges start off with your troops in auto delegate no matter what so it never worked for me during OOB.

saittam 说:

Does not work at all i would say. One can press that icon until the fingers bleed. Nothing happens.

点击展开...

It worked for me sometimes if I told all troops to hold position and then told a specific formation to use the engine in a siege assault. It never ever worked in a siege defence though.

Oh you mean the gears thingy. Yeah they've been in the game for years now, it's to assign specific units or formations to siege engines. The problem is that it doesn't work that often due to AI command being delegated by default at sieges.

saittam 说:

I belive we havent seen the end of siege improvments. First we have an unused siege icon. Also with engineering skill there is build cap that does not seem to be in use.

点击展开...

Interesting, could you share this unused icon please?

Siege defences will be easy no matter what tbh, since TW programmed the AI to underestimate the player's party strength. If anything, this change will make siege defences more interactive, which is a good thing. Also you can straight up destroy enemy siege engines with an ambush, though I think the initial number of enemies should really be higher imo, as it's too easy to succeed with them now, but that's a separate subject.

This change will make siege offences harder by a teensy bit though, which is 9/10 of the siege battles players participate in. I pulled the number out of my ass but you get that players attack more often than defend. Players can't do keep battle defence either, so it's a balanced-ish trade-off imo.

Duh_TaleWorlds 说:

The long-term approach was touched on here

TLDR - No, 1.2.x will not be the last patch or content update.



Thanks for highlighting this, will raise it with the relevant people.

点击展开...

Hey @Duh_TaleWorlds @Dejan , will you be unveiling TW's future plans for Bannerlord? It'll be a year since the release at October. Pretty much every feature in the future/release plans post has been implemented to the game except for claimants, replay editor & some unnamed changes to the influence system you've talked about a while ago (and also whatever "diplomacy decision making" entails, which may have already been implemented).

Do you intend to release any DLCs, only proceed with free updates, or do you plan to finish developing the game after 1.3 (& only doing bugfixes & performance updates, etc.)?

Also, if TW is planning on releasing a DLC (& v1.3) for the 1 year anniversary, please, for the love of all that is holy, let the community know at least 2 weeks beforehand.

From my relatively brief testing, I was pleasantly surprised by the competency of the AI in combat.

I feel like despite improvements, melee cavalry still needs to be more accurate with their melee attacks.

Infantry is in generally a good place and they improved over the AI from the previous patches, though pikemen are still very weak & quite useless imo (I also didn't really see any changes to their AI compared to 1.1). I think pikes should just be longer overall, like at 300-350 length. Skirmish infantry is much better in 1.2, but I think that they should just walk backwards while skirmishing rather than turning their back to the enemy and walk until they pick another javelin and face the enemy again.

Archers & Xbows are still good & they benefitted greatly from formation targeting.

Horse archers are OP as always, though their banner carrier still commits suicide. Maybe Archer & Horse Archer banner carrier AI should be tweaked or maybe the way they carry banners could be changed.

rammler1991 说:

For me the biggest issue is the lack of longtime motivation. I often lose interest in the game when i have "everything". That means when i have top armor and weapons, huge armies and a few towns and castles there is not much left to fight for. That is the point where money is no factor for me anymore. Cause i have everything i could buy already. So the at this point in the game its just all about joining armys and get even more castles, which is always the same.
The early game Mechanics like quests, collecting money to get a slightly better sword or improve your soldiers, this is not a factor anymore in the lategame.

What i think is important for longer motivation is:

-smithing armor. So you can customize your look even more.
- customize your castles and towns more. This would give you a reason again to collect money even in lategame. So i have a goal again what i am collecting money for.
- some sort of more lategame quests that are more usefull and give more rewards.
- There is literall no reason to "walk around the town". The towns are still so empty you just klick through the menus. I have no idea what could fix this. Maybe more unique npcs? That travel between towns? Where you have to discover them by really walking around? Fuller towns with more busy npcs? Idk

点击展开...

I broadly agree with you, though since the game is sandbox, it is up to the players to decide on what the "end" is. But adding more end goals would keep the game fresher. Viking Conquest for example has several goals that the players could choose to complete, which would give some rewards upon completion (e.g. you get an increase to your 1h proficiency if you completed "Famous Warrior"). You can also select a new goal after completing one.

As for your suggestions:
- I like armor smithing in theory, but in practice it would be the same thing as buying armor (and probably would be an even bigger money printer than weapon smithing). Armor smithing just wouldn't have the depth or customization of weapon smithing, as armor only has the 2 values of Armor & Weight. You also wouldn't be able to visually customize it maybe except for its colour. So unless we get the ability to recolour our armor, I would pass on this one.

- This is a vague suggestion but I like it. I think there could be culture specific buildings for towns and/or castles to differentiate them, like Roman baths for the empire. One thing to make settlements more unique would be by having stationary/immovable and "moveable" landmarks/artefacts that provide some bonuses to towns (like +x prosperity per day or something). For example, real world examples for a stationary "artefact" would be the Hagia Sophia or the Pyramids of Giza, whereas moveable artefacts would be the horses of Saint Mark in Venice or the Venus de Milo statue in Paris, etc.. This would give more lore to Calradia, more incentive for the player to take over specific locations, possibly a medium priced money sink for buying artefacts & more control for town management.

- I don't know what specific late game quests you have in mind, but we will be very likely getting claimants (& civil wars) in 1.3, which would count as one in my opinion. Another would be a late game invasion that can be enabled/disabled at character creation. I also had a suggestion for a game option to enable perma/long time destruction of towns by the player and AI with very negative traits, which spawn neutral refugee partie(s) (party of 100 units which include peasants & looters, also FFS Taleworlds, add peasant women as units to the game), the amount of parties scaling with the prosperity of the destroyed town, that move to nearby (intact) towns. If they reach these towns, they increase its prosperity by a flat amount (idk let's say 100) but also add a stacking malus to security and/or loyalty (idk, like -0.25). So in order to deal with possible future rebellions you have the choice of attacking these refugees to stop them (which would give negative trait points), or destroy towns in the heart of the enemy territory to cause chain rebellions down the line, crippling the enemy kingdom's future war potential.

- There's at least some incentive for going to the town scene in the form of alley ownership. But I still hold the opinion that we should be able to upgrade our equipments' modifiers by talking to weapon & armor vendors in towns and paying them a fee proportional to the price of the equipment like in Viking Conquest. This way, we would have another money sink while also having an excuse to actually go into towns.

froggyluv 说:

Isnt that kinda what RMB does (Posture Break) to a degree or am I misunderstanding this?

点击展开...

In RMB, about half the time you break someone's posture (takes a couple of hits to achieve) you deal partial damage and stagger the enemy, and the other half of the time the enemy falls to the ground. The fighters' weapon types or weights don't matter, just the overall damage which decide the posture damage & athletics skill which determines the amount of posture afaik.

My suggestion would have characters who are blocking a hit with a 1h weapon without shields against a swingable polearm or a 2h weapon (this mechanic could also be made to take damage from any melee weapon over x weight or length) take some damage for blocking, but not be staggered by the damage. So for example looters (who don't have shields) would take damage every time they block a heroic linebreaker's axe attack. But in exchange, since the looters are not stunned/staggered by the damage they gained from blocking, they still have a chance of inflicting casualties as their shorter weapons are faster than the heroic linebreakers'. I don't know what the ideal % of the damage that goes through the block should be though.

Well, one possible remedy for single-player only is for units (including the player) to take some of the damage if they're blocking a swinging polearm or 2-handed weapon slash with a one-handed weapon (not shield) but they won't get staggered due to the damage. I'm not sure what the appropriate percentage of damage that is blocked/passes through the block would be though.