搜索结果: *

It's kind of hard to understand how a patch that came out as beta in june hasn't been released in October.
It's been almost 3 years and a half since I have been hoping to see a game that didn't feel like it turned into a chore the moment you conquered a few fiefs and all you had left was the more of the same against an inadequate AI and artificial barriers to slow you down.

Sadly all you said is true, along with other stuff such as not abandoning a siege with a significant garrison when there's a significant swarm of lords/smaller armies waiting for the sieging army's numbers to drop enough to be able to get the jump on them.

The way wars and peace are voted in favour or not...

The list could continue but these are the main issues to just try to fix what's there... as per missing features or improvements... so many of them in this game are incredibly barebones that I don't want to believe there's a need to name them... I'd start by adding what's in warband / viking conquest (making sure to keep some features as optional at the start of the game) and build from there...

Even if they did want to implement a fraction of what has been mentioned in this topic, I wonder how long it would take given the pace they have been going so far with the development (another few years minimum) and how much bare bones the new features would be.

I still like to hope I will be surprised one day, but I feel it's unlikely at best and definitely a very far away day.

Genuinely don't care about the graphics, it's probably the best part of the game, ironically. (Meant as a proper step up from Warband).
If only they could actually improve the AI/gameplay, fleshing out those barebones...

histamiini 说:

It's a new BG story copy&pasted into a Divinity Original Sin game engine. Hardly a massive feat. Completely different than developing new simulation engine from ground up, where everything affects everything.

点击展开...

So in your opinion, what they did with Bannerlord is actually way more difficult?
Well they certainly had more time overall, didn't they? 13 years give or take against about 6 but please feel free to correct me as I am going by what my poor memory is telling me and can't be bothered to double check things online.

In any case, we are comparing apples to oranges here given the completely different kind of games.
My humble opinion is that when it comes to complexity, an rpg with massive dialogue/event branches like BG3 that can cause quests to break depending on a massive amount of potential outcomes seem way harder to get right and to a polished state.

To say a game such as that is "hardly a massive feat" and suggest that Bannerlord in its current (broken) iteration in twice as much the development time is a bigger feat to accomplish, well I couldn't disagree more.

bbaydogdu 说:

I personally don't expect them to behave as real military masterminds. But atleast armies should have some situational awareness. Right now they have 0. The AI creates an army and directly goes for a siege. They besiege a settlement and launch the assult while enemies gather up right next to them. When the army lost enough men to be exposed for an attack from the enemies outside you know what happens. Now the army is gone and nothing is gained from this mindless kamikaze attack. Few more like this and the enemy can besiege where ever they want without worrying about any threat. This is the every war in Calradia in a nutshell. I don't think people actually wanted this.

点击展开...

That's exactly how easily you can conquer the whole map, despite your own faction lords doing the exact same thing.
You just need your own army to exploit this to an extent, you are only slowed/stopped by the stupidity in accepting/asking for peace or even worse declaring it at the wrong times.
With proper diplomacy/AI the campaign AI would be even more exploitable.

Totally agreed.
It's almost as if the game wanted to punish you for attacking an AI that is playing the waiting game, only to pull a pincer attack on you not because of a great tactical move, but simply because their reinforcements will spawn out of thin air behind your lines.
Just like in order to flee, any agent needs to run out from one of the edges of the map, so should reinforcements arrive to the battlefield, from one of the map edges.

Agreed.
Way too easy to exploit as it is...
I wish they were smarter and better at waging war rather than relying on respawning and creating new kamikaze armies over and over.

Agree on every point made about minor factions.

Probably a (another) bug, but in my latest game, I was able to recruit minor factions as lords, and able to give them fiefs, although at some point they would leave me just as when you hire them normally as mercenaries.

I think it would be a cool feature if it was possible to recruit them by elevating them to the rank of nobles (just like you can do with your companions for example).

Even more so than with other lords, we should be able to give specific orders to mercenaries such as which targets to raid or patrol and defend since we are paying them and they are not even nobles.

sh1ny4 说:

• Way too fast, a village with 200 habitants can't pull out new recruits everyday without losing in population

点击展开...

I agree on all points, but this one especially.

For the AI losing battles/wars doesn't mean much since they are able to recruit troops (albeit mostly peasants) at such a speed that they are back knocking to your fiefs in no time / declaring war again.

A couple of massive 1500 vs 1500 army battle should result in the faction that lost them to immediately sue for peace straight away or losing a lot of fiefs while they try to slowly recover, which doesn't happen at all in the early stages of the game, especially in AI vs AI confrontations.

I also wonder why the AI from other factions doesn't seem to (in case they do) to be trying to convince lords from other factions (including the player) to join them?
It would be nice to have such a history where you could easily check which clans joined which factions when.
It would be even better if we could have an easy access list with every clan leader for every faction for when we have our kingdom and we want to recruit new vassals.
And a search function in your party/prisoners screen. Such a pain when you have hundreds of prisoners and you need to find the lords you want to try and convince to join you...

I have recently finished conquering the whole map self imposing myself not to execute every lord I would capture.

Such a pain and such a needless grind because of the terrible AI as you mentioned, where defending fiefs rely entirely on you, and conquering them as well to be honest, as the AI will always go with numbers that are not enough to handle most siege, ending up in a situation where they try, have to retreat, wait for their wounded army to heal up and try again, only to be more often than not attacked and obliterated once their numbers get low.

The terrible voting system is also to blame for forcing you into signing peace when you are dominating or declaring extra wars you can't afford at random times, again forcing you to sign for peace with the other faction you were dominating.

I don't mind when it's the other factions that declare war on you to exploit the situation, but your own lords randomly making things harder for you is just too dumb to be acceptable.
You might be able to overrule them very late in the game, but it's unbearable while you are just a vassal yourself (if you decided not to create your own kingdom but join a preexisting one while waiting to be elected as next king) or at the early stages of your own kingdom when your influence is low.

Agreed on the wars, you never have the time to take care of anything else cause your faction is hopeless without you taking the reins by defending AND attacking.

I agree about the voting system as well, although more than for the fiefs which are useless anyway (they hardly make you any money, most of it comes from the loot obtained during wars) I think the biggest issue is having no way of influencing the votes / AI lord votes making no sense at all most of the times for both policies and war declarations.

We should be able to order other lords around by spending influence (or what's the point of being king) to make wars less frustrating.

Fiefs need a rework, as they are I can't even understand what's the point of having any, in the end game I don't even have to recruit anymore since I have an infinite amount of prisoners that I keep converting to top up my party numbers anyway.

Anybody else noticed troops spawning too close to the edge of a hill/rock and falling to their deaths as soon as the battle starts?
Obviously tends to happen when you are unable to use PBOD for whatever reason.

Also, bug with negative influence cost in the millions in still existing when in an army (happens randomly when trying to increase the cohesion, sometimes the cost will vary to a negative value, only to revert back to normal if I close the window and try again a bit later). I remember this happening since ages ago.

Another bug I have found relates to the peace tribute calculations... I was 2 cities from conquering the whole calradia and received a peace proposal of about 1mln per day... from a faction that was left with 2 starving cities and every lord being "very poor".

After accepting it, I declared war again (by now every lord was against the war and even tried to force me to accept the peace offers since the amount was insanely good), only to receive straight away another peace offer worth this time more than 2 millions.

Where are they getting that sort of money from exactly? I ran a simulation by putting the game on "wait" for a long time, and stopped after receiving more than 500 mlns overall in tributes.

I mean it was game over anyway, probably those kind of amounts only happened because of the massive disparity in strenght between the two factions, however I don't think a faction should be able to offer tributes with gold they don't have...

I don't have anything against the ideas being posted here, but I think that those alone wouldn't solve the "end game" issue.

They need to fix the campaign AI first and foremost... none of it makes sense in the way they choose their targets, or that they choose targets in the first place when they are HEAVILY outnumbered instead of focusing to defend whatever they have left that I am conquering one target at a time before going back and retake whatever castle they have managed to get which was left there with a 20 men garrison.

That should go along with a change in the absurd number of lords/ladies that keep taking to the field as you capture them, making it an endless grind to finally halt them from acting like a respawning locust swarm that will keep making tiny armies of peasants just to tick you off. At one point I had 80+ prisoners from a single kingdom, and yet they would somehow keep making peasant armies out of nowhere.
In my current game as I started to steamroll, all factions ended up declaring war on me and no longer declaring war on each other. "Wow the first thing that makes sense that I've seen the AI doing so far!".

Which would have been fine if it wasn't for the fact that the AI stupidity as per above AND the AI stupidity when it comes to kingdom decisions (insisting we sign for peace against a faction I've got 80+ prisoners while they have 0 and haven't made any gains in territory, only losses) which makes it an unnecessary and unfun grind. For as many thousands of influence I may have gathered at some point, they often make you waste 1200 influence for each stupid proposal you have to say "no" to, until when you can no longer cause you are out of influence.

Instead of aiming to artificially make the game last longer with their "snowball control" AI of "let's act against our own interest for the sake of the game lasting longer" (like when at the beginning they propose to declare random wars just because, forcing you to stop wars that were going well elsewhere), they should focus on making the AI try to fight and act smarter without the insane priority they have at the minute towards "kamikazing" to get your least defended castle on the other side of the map while you wipe them off the map.

Once that's sorted, the game could definitely use more content to make it more interesting. But first and foremost it would be good to see it actually fixed. Let's not even get to the main quest which I tried for the first time since EA, thinking that by 1.2 official release it would be working with no bugs. By the time I assembled the banner, I was already the kind of a pre existing faction since our king had died in battle. Turns out I couldn't offer the banner anymore and thus the quest failed, unless presumably I decided to give up on being king (and why would I?).

Killer Kitten 说:

I would like them to fix the ransom system. I would like it that when you're captured and you pay a ransom, you have one day to get your butt out of their territory before you can be captured again. This idea of paying a ransom, only to be dropped in the middle of enemy territory surrounded by armies, then picked up again by another lord, is stupid. Who's idea was this and why are they allowed to live.

If you're going to do that, then make it so you don't face any negative action when you take revenge and execute those who capture you.

点击展开...

What I find hilarious is that it works the opposite way when you ask to be "let go" during an encounter and pay up. I tried it recently for the first time after forgetting to pause the game while my party was still and being intercepted by an enemy army.

Basically I paid to be "let go" only to find out that for I don't know how many in game days, I couldn't attack any parties from that faction. Hilarious. I pay to be "let go" and I am the one that can't attack them afterwards.

I would normally think of it as a bug if I didn't know that there's loads of "mechanics" in this game making little sense that are working as intended because that's how they were designed.

It would also help with immersion if occasionally an enemy lord with a couple of peasants about to face your army of 1500 high tier soldiers would actually give up instead of always replying how they'll fight to the death.

Or if they couldn't just respawn with soldiers as quickly as they do at all times, looking like a swarm of locusts going all over the map that keep charging over and over to their death, only to never find death in battle because the % is way too low anyway.

I couldn't care less about roadmaps or not, so long as I get the finished product I paid for in good time.
It clearly hasn't been the case here, since the early access lasted more than twice the expected time and the final product in my eyes is a lesser product than what was shown and promised earlier during the multiple development stages (and it keeps being fixed and broken while attempting to fix it almost a year past release).

The good times for videogames were before the advent of DLCs and mainstream consoles, when you would get a game that would actually work really well off the shelf bar a few occasional glitches, had all the promised features and if successful it would eventually get a proper expansion pack, full of features and content for the price of a single small DLC and a half.

I fail to understand what's the purpose of having shops and warehouses in the first place unless they fix the obscene amount of money that you can get easily by warmongering (which happens all the time anyway) and smithing (don't know if it was fixed now as I don't bother to that either since money is never a problem, but I remember it used to be massively broken).

It's so easy and quick to get way more money than you'll never need, that it completely eliminates the need for an extra tiny source of money on the side. I mean just like many other bare bones mechanics like the alleys, I suppose that if they were to be fleshed out and expanded upon, they could provide alternative playstyles, but the way they are, I can't see the entertaining factor or the benefit of using them.

It also annoys me to no end how lords/clan members will consider leaving some men to a settlement's garrison, but only as long as it's not the player's for whatever reason.

But yes the ping pong is bad, not enough garrison is left behind (and this not only helps single enemy parties retake fiefs too easily, it also makes the rebelliions worse in a round about why since the militia grows too quickly compared to the garrison).

What's even worse though is how stupidily aggressive minded the AI is. I have screenshots of me being in a fief, an enemy army of say 600 men coming over to siege and one of our armies of 900 men in the distance.

The enemy faction begins the siege while our army proceeds to pass right NEXT to my fief being sieged, ignores it despite being able to achieve an EASY win, and proceeds to go and siege a random enemy castle.

It feels like everything has been programmed this way to make the game artificially last longer.

Flesson19 说:

The new marriage screen is awesome, 2 points. Level should "absolutely" been included. And it should work for all forms of marriage not just incoming offers

点击展开...

Whenever I receive an offer for my daughter/son, under "consequences" there seems to be written only who will join who and a slight increase in relations. There doesn't seem to be money involved at all?

Not that it really matters since by the time when your kids are old enough to get married you will already have more money than you can spend.

I would still like to understand whether there is some form of compensation involved or not.