搜索结果: *

Yes please. When the game mechanics are actively sabotaging you, that's one of the worst feelings in gaming. This is not something we should have to rely on mods (which are often abandoned) to deal with. I can't think of an argument for it to work the way it currently does, and we know it can be fixed because mods fixed it.

I'm actually surprised more people don't complain about this, but I guess it might be pretty low priority due to lack of public attention.

Giving lords 30 troops is not a serious issue. The can't do much with that, and it really is necessary to protect them from bandits while they rebuild.

What needs changing is their AI priorities after they respawn. It should NOT be "go raid player village and die again". That shouldn't even be an option. They should be focused on staying inside friendly lands and creating a strong party. Add some passive training to the game and then have them wait in friendly lands until their army is better than a bunch of recruits.

Neptune08640 说:

I agree but right now I think there is no train function even for ai lords, so they recruit and the only way to upgrade them is to fight, but they lose a lot and they don't farm looters like the player, so it's a circle I think

点击展开...

Exactly. Without passive training or auto spawn with high tier troops, only path to get a good army is to farm weaklings. AI lords aren't programmed to do that, and if you programmed every AI lord to do that, gameplay would get pretty wonky.

People clearly dont like lords auto spawning with higher tier troops, so we need passive training stuff. And then make lords play more defensively when most of their army is recruits. That will also fix the incredible annoyance of neverending streams of lords trying to pillage your villages, and also help fight snowballing, because after a defeat a lord will focus on defending their kingdom rather than running off to some remote village to die uselessly.

Training in warband was ridiculous because the player could stack it on every companion and it made the game greatly imbalanced in the player's favor. So any passive training options also need to be relatively equal.

Certainly it could be improved, but I'd also like to say, the goal shouldn't be eliminating bad decisions entirely. History is chock full of debacles, chaos and poor decisions when it comes to making a bunch of lords work together in an army. It would be extremely unrealistic if armies never ran out of food, or never broke up too early from poor cohesion.

Ghost_awss 说:

I guess I'm not sure what old system looked like, but I'm up for anything that works not like a lottery and not a random number that just growing for no reason

点击展开...

It's not a random number and the reasons it goes up are pretty clearly shown...

I'd like to see some attempts at adjusting AI troops quality before we go nerfing certain units. Archers are really, really, really good vs unshielded, lightly armored infantry. Guess what makes up the vast bulk of AI armies right now? Yup, unshielded no armor recruits. And as a bonus they have crap morale so the archers can rout them easily.

Let's have some playtesting where AI has enough upgraded troops to make a shieldwall and serious amounts of cavalry before nerfing archers IMO.

Paying people for peace isn't an exploit. It is a feature that should be in the game. It's just really poorly balanced right now vs the amount of money players have, and there need to be many conditions where the AI will not make peace at any price.

I don't know how you'd avoid using it, since it's the only peace mechanic we have. Unless you literally never made peace with any faction.

Had the same problems. After every battle have to check companion party and remove the 11 looters they recruited over their unit cap. Also have seen them disband dozens of high tier units for seemingly no reason (they are in an army with me so I'm feeding them, it isn't desertion because there were no warnings and it happened instantly all at once).

Mix of cav and archers. Cav for herding/slowing, archers for killing. Angle your archer line so they face left at the start because you know the HAs will come from there.

I think making the target rules too rigid wouldn't be a great choice and also unrealistic. However I think distance from friendly territory should be a much bigger part of the targeting calculation. AI should be willing to take a more strong defended but nearer settlement.

I do appreciate the AI avoiding the player garrisoned settlements though. I mean, yes it's annoying, but it is intelligent and I want the AI to be intelligent. A good opponent should annoy and frustrate you, not just walk into your traps. However I agree that a mechanic to more easily join an ongoing siege defense is needed. In another thread there was a suggestion you could sneak in with your companions without losing a huge chunk of your army. Possibly Roguery could be used to determine how many additional troops you can sneak in.

I'd rate 100 party size as pretty low but possibly doable if you have enough elite troops. When you run your own kingdom you can put in policies to bump this up, there's a +50 party size policy for faction heads and a +80 for the ruler. Then you can spin off a couple companion parties and army up with them to get 350-400 man army on your own. If you can fill this with elite troops able to take on enemy armies of up to 1000 men then that will go a long way, though depending on your composition attrition may grind you down.

Yes, the best way is often going to be F1s, including click and drags to get the right line facing and depth. You shouldn't need that many commands though, after setting the initial engagement its not like you're starcraft microing your troops constantly.

Regarding enemy horse archers, what the AI does with them is actually really dumb, they run them up immediately like they're invincible. They're not. Click drag your archers into a line facing left where the HAs will show up, and they'll just get killed before the rest of the enemy army arrives. Unless you don't have enough archers in which case...get more archers.

I agree something needs to be adjusted about this, though I'm not sure what. Granary lasting a month..maybe a castle, in a town the granary will last 2 days. I've seen food deficits of -120/day in high prosperity towns where garrison was only -4 of that.

Some ideas;
-Hugely increase granary size, especially for towns. A 2 day interruption of villager deliveries should not cause starvation for a town with full granaries.
-Give a management option to prioritize feeding your troops, this will cost loyalty/prosperity of holding but delay troop loss for a while.
-Let your troops and only your troops eat from the stash.

Yes the spam of small armies raiding your stuff is quite annoying. IN THEORY it should slow down after a bit because they will run low on recruits, but really all that happens is they show up with armies full of bad units. But you don't need good units to raid villages. So the annoyance continues infinitely.

This pushes players into two behaviors: mass execution (which I don't like), and building cheeseball archer armies that don't take casualties. Mass archer armies are utterly devastating vs the low tier infantry armies the AI lords bring at you, but from a tactical standpoint they can get rather boring (horse archers are fun if you take on really huge odds though).

But on the other side, if you nerf lord recovery then that makes snowballing more of a problem. So maybe, instead of making it harder for lords to recover, make their behavior more defensive if it's clear their kingdom is on the back foot. Slows down snowballing and makes the game less of a headache for players.

RE bandit camps, key is good armor and bringing good archers and being a good archer. Then dodging enemy projectiles like a pro while you kill them at range. I don't know how the hell you would do those camps as a melee group tbh.

Matt13 说:

I kinda agree with OP. While i also understand u cant magically appear in the castle with your army. Still its much harder to get to def sieges. Which i really miss. Its really rare that enemy comes to siege town/castle where u are at that moment. How about if your castle or town is besieged u can play that battle as one of the soldiers. U can choose which one. I dont care that i cant help with my army just let me play as castle garrison so i can experience def siege battles.

点击展开...

This is a cool idea. The way it is right now makes sense: AI should avoid heavily defended places, and you shouldn't just be able to walk into a castle under siege with your army. Your proposal avoids having to screw those things up. Another possibility is you can join an ongoing fight with just yourself, or just your companions, as that is somewhat realistic. If you allow this only when the battle is underway it avoids the issues of your army having no commander for a time.

Also if you're just trying to level leadership, clan members require 0 influence to get in an army. So after the army loses cohesion you can keep reforming your army for no influence cost with clan members. As far as I can tell there is no downside to being in an Army 100% of the time with a clan member if you want to bolster the size of your force.

The whole thing needs a lot of tuning because let's think about the real hours the player has to put in. It's like 20 years to get a playable heir. 1600 days. Then you play as the heir for a few hundred more days or something? Thats a multihundreds hour playthrough unless you sit and do nothing for long stretches.

99% of people don't have 200 hours to drop on a single videogame playthrough. If this is supposed to be a major mechanic that the entire level speed is based on, I don't think it should be tuned for the ultrahardcore. You could put in sliders to cater to those people but the default should aim to get you a complete character and heir transition in much much less time.

Not a smith but I am interested in seeing what is possible so I know if all the effort is worth it!

My impression is that the AI is very biased towards attacking weak targets over anything else. So if you can't get a decent garrison in there quickly and the enemy armies are not otherwise occupied you're going to get attention. I think it's less about "lets help the guy whos castle you stole" but more "there's a castle with only 80 man garrison, let's go get that".

130 skill is the standard for high tier regular troops in Bannerlord. Special troops go higher, for example noble troops up to 280.