搜索结果: *

1. The armor works fine.
2. No the arrows aren't too accurate at all.
3. The overall depiction of projectile effectiveness isn't too much.
4. And how it is depicted currently is the only reasonable way for simplified depictions considering gameplay concessions.


Selective memory syndrome is a b**ch.
- You never count all the arrows that missed you in the game
- You never notice all the times you were just lightly grazed with am arrow that hardly dealt any damage
- You don't remember the times all the archers missed as you led your cavalry to enemy flank
- You never remember at which distance the arrow hit really hard


Instead you only remember "that one time"...
- you were hit at an unusual distance
- or, that time you led an idiot charge, presenting yourself as the easiest target in front of dozens of archers all targeting you
- or that time you went in full speed on horseback, getting hit with a full speed bonus impact

...

So, I will present something I hope people think about here:

1. We perceive the bar as "Health Points" because it says so. So when this bar gets damaged, you think that we're getting hurt.

2. However, if people like realism so much, people should not be omitting another crucial part of realism, which is IN REAL LIFE THERE IS NO HP BAR.

3. Hear me out:

• In real life, one good penetrated shot from an arrow will almost surely immobilize you and drop you on the spot. In real life there's no "oh, I'm a tough warrior, I got shot three times but I can handle it and just pull arrow out like a boss." No sir. In real life, you're going down, on the spot unless it was a very, very light penetration.

• Same with strikes from melee weapons -- a slash or stab that penetrated, or made through damage parts of the armor, or bypassed the armor through weak points, doesn't just hurt. It almost INSTANTLY MAIMS you. Unless the strike was very luckily light (which is still gonna see a helluva lot of blood), if you're hit in the arms that arms done for use in battle. If it's the legs, you're down. If it's the torso or head, you'll probably die from it.

• So, in real life, the armor will protect you very well, enabling you to function, move, so you can fight and survive. But an armor is not an invincible shell. It has weak points. It has openings here and there. It will be damaged with continuous strikes and eventually fail to stop a shot or a strike.

• So, let's say the game changed its depiction to the ultimate realism: armor now almost completely protects against damage. But now, the armor will also get damaged, with each attack it stops the likelihood of failure will rise. So, while the armor holds, you can be shot 6~7 times with arrows and nope, you're fine. But, after taking such damage, eventually the armor will fail, and an arrow lands on you and you go down. A sword slashes or stabs you, and you're critically injured and go down.

.... so how's that different from what we currently have?


What we have in the game currently, exactly works like that, doesn't it. Thought experiment ==> change the term "Health Point" into "Armor Durability" and it's exactly the same thing.

In the current game, with the highest tier of armor, and strong physical conditioning, I get around average 150 "HP"(=AP) in total, and from over 150 meters, average arrows that land on me do what.. 15 damage at max? I can get hit with it like 10 times and I'm still up. However, if I go charging head-on and then get hit, I can get like 40 damage.

Ohh! The armor should have protected me! This is bull****!

Is it? I'm functioning normally. There's no "realism of damage" in this game. Which means, getting hit by damage and having your "HP" go down, is conceptually and practically the exact same things as armor protecting you from damage but the armor durability going down until it fails. And "armor fails to stop damage and you're hit" is the same thing as "HP dropping to zero."

There is LITERALLY no difference.


So, let's not bullshi* ourselves.

What you guys want isn't "realism." What you guys want is "selective realism" where you want:

(a) armor protection against damage is realistic
(b) armor durability is unrealistic (armor never gets damaged)
(c) physical reaction to damage is unrealistic (doesn't matter if you're impaled through the chest so long as HP>0)

The most ideal and fantastical (= improbable the devs would ever give a f***) solution, would be to re-balance polearms as a whole. Particularly, swinging polearms are just way too high in damage+way too lenient in it's handling.

Also, there's a reason why large swinging polearms weren't usually all that popular on horseback in real-life. I won't go into detail here, but swinging polearms on horseback are almost non-consequential in the history of horseback fighting. It is very commonly depicted in media that "Asian cavalry" carry around glaives (ie., the famous imagery of Guan Yu from the RotTK), but the reality is even in Asia, glaives were predominantly infnatry weapons.

The very rare, almost only, exception would be late-16th ~ early-17th century Ming heavy cavalry, whom experimented with glaive weapons to fight AGAINST increasing incursions from tribal warriors such as the Jurchens -- but this experiment was also short lived since East Asian armies rapidly transitioned to firearms with the beginning of the 1600s.

The reality is, since the earliest artifacts depicting Scythians, to the famous Companions of Alexander, the powerful heavy cavalry of the Persians, famed Celtic and Germanic cavalry serving under Caesar, the Cataphracts of the Sassanids, tjem the cataphracts of the Eastern Empire themselves, the earliest knights that fought in Hastings, the ones that roamed Europe and invaded Middle East during the Crusades, the Seljuk cavalry that fought against them during the Crusades, to the Hussars of Poland and revived lancers of the Napoleon Era... the tribal warriors of Alans, Cumans, Huns... the Central Asian Khwarezmian cataphracts that fought against the Mongols, the Mongols themselves, the Khitai, the Jurchen... the Chinese cavalry from Han to Ming, the cavalry of the Korean peninsula.. Japan.. etcetc..

They were all spear-armed. Predominantly, throughout the ages.

...

The simplest solution? Disable use of swinging polearms on horseback.

Apocal 说:

It is the opposite: noble mounts used to get eaten by cavalry upgrades and everyone hated it.

点击展开...

Back then noble mounts were only a handful in variety, and not this abundant and accessible -- which opted people to treat them as a special commodity sort of like how "Lordly/Masterwork" items are these days, with the assumption they'd only get a limited amount of those only through tournaments, or by horses breeding a pureblood.

mujadaddy 说:

'Kinda' but not really, OP.

Cav has gotten significantly better than last year, it just needs a better sense of when to flee than it has.

I should not have 50 cav bunched up in an infantry line for 2 full minutes. You have a horse. Get out of there.

点击展开...

What's stopping you from ordering a retreat or repositioning them?

If you have 2-3 people to hit? The horse should be running away. That's it. I know there are limits and compromises. Just use the horse.

点击展开...

Push 3. Pick position for horses to regroup and click mouse button. It takes like 2 seconds. Literally.

Horses were so much smatrter in Warband...

点击展开...

No they weren't. They simply bulldozed everything in 1 charge, so people simply did not feel the need to regroup anything.



Whatever one may think about the sarcastic tone the op was using, what he wrote, isn't wrong.

It's not frozen per se.

At the end of the tournament, as you leave there should be a screen that shows the messenger and a short dialogue about you succeeding/failing the quest -- and currently, there's a glitch which the game fails to display that screen. So, usually, after the tournament ends, try clicking the mouse. You can hear the click prompt, and shortly after the world screen will load back.

braiam 说:

You can pick it if it's on the field. Also depends on your relative speeds so you can kite them, as I'm usually a heavy tank in battles.

点击展开...

Then technically, that comes down to your ill-preparation.

Seems to me you simply fiddled with the FOV somehow.

SpartanBG 说:

I'm not arguing with those things as issues, thou i don't agree for example with this:

Problem: Bannerlord is very slow, repetitive and grindy. Unlocking all smithing parts takes 12 hours of clicking. Reaching Clan Rank 4 takes a long time. Companions and heirs take a huge amount of grinding to level up.
Solution: Reduce the renown needed to go up a clan rank, and the weapons you need to smith to unlock a part. Make companions and heirs have better starting stats, so they don't have to grind for so long.


Your solution would just dump down the game, I started playing realistic difficulty after my first few hours from my first campaign, just to feel it harder.
I'd suggest adding another difficulty after realism (Survival) or something where you would really need to mind a lot of stuff, where decisions and stuff will be meaningful. Where you need time to sleep to be battle capable and such.

Regarding the smithing yes its a lot of clicking. but reducing the requirements is just another handy-cap. Wouldn't a better solution be to have the option of mass destruction so you don't have to click 14 000 000 times

点击展开...

Ah... a man after my own heart. My sentiments exactly.

I don't have any problems with first person.

The point isent about war horses. That was more irony.
But what to do with 40+ noble horses? I havent notices any troops use them in upgrades.

点击展开...

It is very likely the noble tier was to be designateed as a type of a war mount, but they messed it up somehow.


I strongly believe the devs made a mistake somewhere, and forgot to add some sort of condition/tag to treat them as a higher-tier war mount (= compatible for purpose of cavalry upgrade).

Otherwise, their existence does not make any sense as already mentioned by many others. Circumstantially speaking, there are mountains of evidence to support the argument:

• Like many have mentioned, if not compatible for upgrades then it has no practical use other than the first few you obtain to equip for yourself and comps. But compared to such little practical use, there's just too many of them piling up after mid-game and larger battles.

• One of the most common complaints during the early access versions was that people had trouble finding enough war mounts to upgrade the cavalry. So, one solution to the problem would have been increasing the overall number of war mounts available in the game, but have them in certain tiers with different prices to pay. (= acting as a balancing tool so that forming a large band of elite cavalry too early too cheaply in the early game becomes difficult, but becomes much more easier and affordable(+available) after mid game. The current Noble Mount tier perfectly fits that criteria -- but for some reason, they cannot be used for upgrades.

• The names of some of these noble horses distinctly[/b[ denote their existence as war mounts. For example, the two types of "Destrier"s are actually a historical horse breed that were practically synonymous to 'war horse' in the Middle Ages. If it's a war horse a knight is riding, then the chances are, it is a 'Destrier.' A Destrier is THE most well-known war horse breed. And yet, not being able to use them as cav upgrade. Personally I find this naming the one evidence that's most compelling.

• Like others have mentioned, many of the high-tier regular units in the game ALREADY rides horses designated as "noble mount" tier -- again, adding weight to the argument that this was a dev mistake.

• Currently Cataphracts and Vlandian knights have their horse type switched around. My theory is that they made this mistake after implementing the "noble mount" tier with the intention of making them a T3 horse/T2 war mount. So after the noble horses were introduced, they went back to the game data and re-designated which mounts the cavalry were using with the new noble mounts. Someone brings up all the data and just types in data from a spread sheet, and during that process they made this mistake, along with the mistake of forgetting to make them available for cavalry upgrade. This is my hypothesis.

five bucks 说:

That's a long long time of getting your fiefs raided over and over by dudes who get free money to recruit troops and demand tribute to make peace. Instead of 5-10 years it should be 1 year at the absolute most.

点击展开...

How much do you want things to be dumbed down?

As it is, the only thing that really make sense is to build an army(a party), as fast as you can, and go out there and beat up enemy lords. That would be how you make the kind of money needed to buy high ticket gear for you and your companions. However, once you have an army that you can use to beat up everyone around you with.. you are just going to start saving up to buy clans, because that provides a much higher utility.

点击展开...

There is no point of every other arms and armor really. Just like that people always use the overpowered troops instead of the crappy ones. If you think this is okay, then everything is okay.

点击展开...

I think there is a dual problem here. First of all is the conflict between the player wanting to get involved in fights for their own enjoyment (something the game should actively encourange), and the fact that getting knocked out throws the battle. Even in Warband it felt awful to be on low health and having to wait around for a siege to grind out. It's not even a good "punishment" either, since in the phase of the campaign where you're leading a party of about 80 or more, the player's ability to get kills doesn't affect the battle much, and as a result better armour is just for prolonging the player's ability to actually play the game. It doesn't really affect the pace of the campaign if the player has top tier armour at that point.

点击展开...

I really have to point out arguments like above, comes from a seriously skewed view on the pacing of the game, which, originates from years of early access where the problem of smithing was not properly addressed.

Everything design-wise of this game screams of a stretched-out, slower paced gameplay.

The character has around 30~40 years of lifespan. The character has the ability to keep the legacy going through children. And the difficulty of managing the financials without abusing smithing warrants a step-by-step process of the character progressing through the world, expanding one's power, which is limited by the means to afford it, which also takes that much time. That's the pacing the devs have envisioned, I'd say.

The problem is, the existence of smithing and its regular abuse practically destroyed all of the intended game pacing above and seriously skewed the views of the players towards wanting stuff and expanding military power way too fast. Something that's in no way possibly "normal" has been "normalized" -- is what creates this problem.

Like someone said above, people began to treat all the middle-steps of character progression as "pointless" and "crappy." That's skewed view literally devalues the intended pacing of the progression in all of what the game offers.

Frankly speaking, what's there at the "end game"? There's nothing. The entire charm of the game is in the progression of the character, and people are asking to just cut out all the middle parts and let them access what should be given toward the end of the game just up front, from the beginning.

People need to understand the cost of some items in a game -- in ANY game -- are not always in relative scale that matches real life.

If people are allowed to get their hands on a t6 armor with 50~60 body protection at level 2 after just 1 hour of following tournament and selling a few prize horses, what's the point of every other arms and armor in the game?

As it stands, expensive arms and armor natural become a symbol of player progression, and the player's overall status in the world. When at lower levels with lacking funds, you're forced to make do with whatever you can get your hands on at a bargain price. But if the player becomes a powerful lord with high regular income, winning large battles with tons of loot to bring in big bucks, then he's at the luxury to buy expensive armor. That's just how it is, and I don't see anything particularly wrong with this.

No matter how one tries to disguise it, in the end these complaints about item prices comes down to "I want to use the best equipment, when my character in this world has not made enough efforts to justify the ownership of such equipment."

People want bigger rewards with smaller effort, and that's really not good for the game.

If people want to throw that concept of balance out the window and just have everything easy-peasy, there's a solution called "mods." That's what such mods and cheats are for. Use them.

...think it should probably be fine if:

1. mercs are made to refuse offer to join fallen kingdoms
2. clans jumping ship reverted to the old crazy rate of defections just for fallen kingdoms

Fallen kingdoms should be essentially running on a situational 'timer' of sorts, and things should be arranged so that naturally 'die out' around after 5~10 years if they fail to recover any land.

Doesn't limiting the troop wages stop upgrades and additional recruitment?

ldgarrett 说:

no. it's the mathematical end state, tested in unmodded play repeatedly during my thousands (not joking) hours of play mostly focused on analysis of the mid and late game strategic layer. It is a condition often met by a player when a castle is secured early enough to have 800-1,000 game days of growth, and can be occasionally reached by AI fiefholders in the post game day 2,000 period of dynastic play. I happen to have -just this week- seen Hongard castle in the "rear area" of a Vlandia that had not seen war crest Prosperity 2.2k in the hands of an AI at game day ~2,500.
**But that's discussing case, not the inquiry.**

You are correct in a number of your observed features of actual gameplay, but my question remains: If you have seen a condition where a Castle at its natural (mathematical) full development undamaged by war does not deathspiral its Granary and then its capacity to maintain any Garrison at all, could you please show me?

点击展开...

Looking up the records for two recent gameplays with both over 30 years of gameplay, game 1 (34 years) has 6 out 58 castles (10.3%) at over 2k prosperity, game 2 (31 years) has 2 out of 58 (3.4%). All of them are stabilized at around 100~130 garrison, most of them have food stocks at 0, but loyalty and security all remain stable with negative effects counteracted through governor effects, and those are impacted by the food have their prosperity in slow rate of decline without any kind of visible signs of catastrophic failure.

So where's this "death spiral" supposed to be at, again? I don't see it anywhere at least in my games.

But the deal is "not having what you want" can understandably a disadvantage of varying degrees, but never to the extent of something that is either impossible, or game-breakingly difficult.

Sometimes all the pieces fit to make things a bit more comfortable, other times it does not. That's part of what makes a sandbox game, and overcoming given difficult conditions to either find a work-around, or alternatives, changing plans and etc.. all part of the game as well.

Again, it comes back to "why should the game pander to everyone's every need exactly, instead of the player oneself coming up with different solutions to solve the problem."

Also, the things you suggest also don't seem to support any kind of "different playstyle" at all. Rather, its more indicative a pre-set playstyle in which a player will always select the exact same set of choices that make initial gameplay easier, and therefore, go so far as to just drop the game completely if they don't get to have one or two wanderer type.

ldgarrett 说:

@kweassa I believe that overlooks that Castles with 2 villages have a peak resting point of Prosperity of over 2k (uncapped) which is so high that no garrison can be maintained as Food (granary) parks at -0- (negative input if Loyalty, Policy or Governor add Prosperity) and as no food can be added to a Castle's granary, they collapse in sieges even with substantial militia. If you have contrary information to that, I'd appreciate seeing it detailed.

点击展开...

A castle that's over 2k in prosperity is itself an abnormal thing, imo.

Castles that serve as the frontline between two kingdoms for an extended period of time, will almost always suffer periodical damage to its prosperity whether be it from assaults, changing of hands, destruction of villages and etc, and therefore at the gross average such "frontline castles" usually stay around something like maybe 1200 props. at most.

OTOH if it's a castle that you've taken very early in the game, and as a result has had decades of peace benefiting from irrigation projects to boost villages that switch over to housing... then the chance of such a castle meeting an enemy army is also very low, since its most likely a castle way behind frontlines deep into the heart of your own territory.

Empirically speaking, towns average in around at 5~8k in normal gameplay, and castles almost never reach 2k in the first place, so I am wondering if such abnormal levels of prosperity as to "break the game" you're speaking of, is a result of using mods or cheats to propel them above normal growing pace and overall strat situation.

I get the intent, but I don't necessarily think the "band RNG" is a problem. I don't think a game that fine-tunes everything in the player's favor is a good game. Not to mention, it's pretty unlikely that the game's random chances are so bad that you can't have the certain archetype you need.

For example, sure, when on bad luck, sometimes you don't see the 120 Scouting or 120 Medicine or 120 Engineering wanderers around, but still there are alternatives with 60~80 skill versions of them. I don't seem to recall any instances where none of such archetypes are available. Either the 'superior' version or the 'inferior' version, at least a version (I think) is coded to be always present.

I think it is HIGHLY inappropriate to drag in drama irrelevant to the game and its related discussion, into the forums.