搜索结果: *

Hey!

To reiterate what's been explained...

Garrisons take prisoners and put them in the dungeons, and lords will also "donate" prisoners to dungeons - but it isn't *just* lords but regular troops as well. There is no reason to put regular troops in dungeons, and even if there were (garrison potentially converting prisoners to troops) it does not make sense to prevent nobles from being put in dungeons in favor of regular troops.

Despite dungeon size, after sieges, there are TONS of prisoners, and they are all put in a dungeon, often to triple the capacity of the dungeon, preventing any nobles being placed in there.

When you join a faction you can manage your own dungeon, but as a mercenary you can be left with nowhere to put nobles leading to capturing them over and over an over again.

While it may be "intended" (though I dunno, just going off the comments in the thread) it certainly *looks* like a bug and is a poor experience and adds nothing to the game. It's not fun, nor is it realistic, nor is it a real challenge, just annoying (although I would argue anything that adds a challenge that is neither fun nor realistic shouldn't exist).

Thanks!

five bucks 说:

Multiple potential ways it could be done - any one of these or something different could do the trick:

* setting up camp (like in Warband) and fortifying it with stakes (like Viking Conquest) could give early xp
* the option to help rebuild raided villages: could give XP as well as positive reputation and Mercy trait gain

点击展开...

Rebuilding villages is a great idea - it makes sense in vanilla without any additional mechanics and beyond just providing xp. I am all for it.

five bucks 说:

* Skill books you can buy and read as you travel (like in Warband, which had an Engineering skill book)
* Similar to the above idea, Skill Trainers in different cities, who you can visit for a day to gain XP in specific skills, for example the "Engineering Master" lives in Danustica and will train you up to a certain level for a fee

The other thing is there should be more peaces concluded with neither side paying tribute.

点击展开...

That I can get down with - I also wish you could trade fiefs for peace. Like when my nobles take a town a million miles away, I can give it back for an earlier peace arrangement at no tribute.

Side note - paying a little bit of tribute can be an advantage as it buys you longer peace time. Kingdoms are less willing to fight you if you are paying them money and it's something I've only taken advantage of when I start my own kingdom. It'd be helpful if it was less tedious to track tribute amounts because they are also highly volatile - I've seen multi thousand denar swings in a day.

five bucks 说:

Yeah, that's silly.

点击展开...

Yeah it drives me nuts.

RozBritanicus 说:

Be good if you could build your siege equipment with out having to siege so you could carry some ready to a siege and have a sorter set up time. you could say for every 60 men carry one or have the weight really high on equipment. The heavy crossbows could be deployed on the battlefield too. This would let you increase Engineering. Also your could help in your cities building projects for a build time speed buff that could aslo give you engineering.

点击展开...

Ah. So, historically you would never deploy siege equipment in a pitched battle and it was always constructed at the siege, not beforehand. This was for a multitude of reasons. So in this case history makes things simple for TW. (A note on ballista - while deploying them in pitched battles was foolish in the early medieval period, the Romans who developed it did deploy it effectively in pitched battles - but their engineers were better and their ballista were a bit different.)

RozBritanicus 说:

What i would like to see is a chat between faction leaders king to king. The one that offer peace and the other then can except a meeting and meet face to face on a battlefield or city what ever and use speech checks to get the be deal you can. Could use some of that influence to make it more useful. The more intelligent and social kings would be best at this naturally but a threat of brutality could also sway a diplomacy meeting.

点击展开...

It's funny - this is technically possible, but you have to be faction leader talking to a faction leader and suggest peace which I have never seen in all my hours playing and testing.

RozBritanicus 说:

I think entering a region with a army without permission could raise tensions . So maybe a tribute of money to the kingdoms you pass through or if i can pass through your domain you can pass through mine. So more meetings. Thats have i would like to see it go. Plus when the player gets his own kingdom there would more to do and it would feel like you got real power as king or queen and everyone else doesn't. Obviously caravans would travel freely to keep the economy ticking.

点击展开...

They have code in the game for something similar to this that is unused so I am guessing there were some problems they didn't have time for at some point. I forget what and where I saw that in the source - but next time I see it I'll try and remember to bring the details to our little thread here.

five bucks 说:

I could have worded it better (trying to reduce post length), but what I'm trying to say is: you can't partake in sieges at all in the early game (or even some of the midgame), and there is pretty much no other source of Engineering XP, making it impossible for an Engineering oriented player to do anything with that stat for the entire first 25% of the game. The post used to say "there needs to be more ways of gaining Engineering XP" until I cut it short for brevity.

点击展开...

I am curious - what would you like to see gain engineering xp outside of sieges?

five bucks 说:

I think what most players want is for their kingdom not to propose paying tribute to a kingdom they are inflicting insane casualties, imprisonments, and fief losses on.

点击展开...

Tribute isn't about winning but willingness - willingness to wage war. I am on board with the winning kingdom not agreeing to pay extortionate tribute which I do see and agree with. A lot of posts I see. however, complain about the loser not wanting peace without the player paying which is usually justifiable.

To expand on this, I've been on the losing side, fought tooth and nail to finally get the upper hand only to have my fellow nobles sue for peace because we were getting a little bit of tribute after a long war.

five bucks 说:

Seems sensible to me. I don't think factions that don't share borders should never go to war, but it should be a bit less common than now.

点击展开...

Right on - and it's impossible to be perfect, as borders can change dramatically but watching vlandia march on Jalmarys from their starting borders I am just like "why?" - oh it has the smallest garrison of any town.

Two things I note on this list:

Engineering being slow to level? It takes only one siege to max it out if you use siege equipment and levels quickly throwing rocks off walls. And levels fairly quickly just laying siege.

Tribute - the system could be better, but most players seem to want factions to roll over when they are losing which is unrealistic and just makes the game easier. On top of that, you faction might roll over too easily - I am now in a faction paying 4k in tribute when we had finally captured all their nobles so we were ready to take some fiefs and they offer a 4k tribute and we took it because it was the oldest of our two wars.

I'll also add the AI should prioritize proximity more and garrison size less. They shouldn't know all the garrison sizes, really, and it's less a border gore thing and more a, hard to defend and you open yourself up to more enemies if you're willing to cross a fourth of the map outside your own territory. With minimal expansion from both I've seen Sturgia and Aserai go to war.

Just my three cents.

@pala_55 - I have had a similar issue and if I change my game from 1.1.3 to 1.1.4 I can load my save again - AND vice versa.

Flesson19 说:

My point is why was the change made. I was not like this in 1.0.3. So why was this crucial to the game and someone ha to worry about it. The system was fine so why tinker with a working mechanic only to upset your player base. TW explain that

点击展开...

Exactly.

It's why it being intentional caught me off guard. Why break a system for a feature that is neither fun nor realistic?

Gadheras 说:

My biggest gripe is it invalidate your banners, captains, and your own formations. If the game could save/remember your formations so the only thing that changed would be you didn't get the pre-battle readyness, but just rolled onto the field with your previous used formations it would been okay. But, no.. We get thrown into battle like a bunch of lemmings rushing for a cliff...

I stopped 3rd party battles a lot due to this. Just not fun.

点击展开...

I haven't played much other than mod testing because of this - and yeah while I don't agree with the design choice it would be tolerable if formation formation auto-assignment wasn't broken when order of battle is disabled.

I am still in shock that was done intentionally though.

Hey!
I need to chime in on this thread and cover two things -

1. Marking this resolved is bogus as this IS a bug. The bad design choice aside - your formations aren't preserved so you have archers with infantry, infantry with cavalry and so on. The ability to manage formations in battle is non existent so when you join a battle you have to tediously move units around until you can get your companions back in their right formations. You guys added functionality to order of battle to fix the incorrect auto assignments of companions - only to strip away order of battle in a majority of battles - if you want to keep order of battle disabled you need to fix companion formation assignment so archer companions aren't paired with your cavalry.

2. Disabling Order of Battle makes no sense. If you are getting ambushed - sure. But there are no scenarios currently where the player is ambushed. Just because you are joining a battle in progress doesn't mean you wouldn't form up. Marching your troops into the range of cross bolts and bows without forming up is absurd - all this intended feature did is create headaches for the player and a bug for you guys to squash and it isn't realistic or fun. It's wild, to disable a powerful feature more than half the time, but it's not mine to make.

I've been waiting for this bug to get fixed since it was first released (I forget when now) so I am a little disappointed with this thread. That said - I am not the game designer so if you want to disable a critical feature half the time, that's your call - BUT you have to fix companion formation assignment. That is a bug that is a glaring issue with order of battle disabled a majority of your playthrough.

Thank you for working on this, it's a pain once you have companions.

wizcas 说:

I found another issue regarding the Banner color management. The method BannerManager.GetColorId seems not correctly implemented. It tries to traverse the BannerManager.ColorPalette dictionary with index from 0 to Count-1, but the dictionary's indices are not necessarily continuous.

When a mod uses custom color IDs not starting from 193, it'll crash the game when loading a saved game or creating a kingdom. I have to rewrite this method with Harmony as a workaround.

点击展开...

I had to accommodate this in my succession mod as I wanted a specific subset of colors but they weren't being found despite being in the banner creator because I used IDs I knew weren't in other mods but then weren't continuous.

I am a little confused why this is marked resolve because the OP didn't post a save. All auto generated nobles are clones of existing nobles in every version of this game. If a save is necessary I wonder if you actually QA the game. I honestly thought the fog of war feature was to hide the fact that when generating nobles the game just clones existing ones.

I can confirm this is not only true, but it's because even if you remove the module entirely the colors still load. If you create an XML file with colors and then change it, you will load lots of different colors. Also if you have multiple mods with conflicting colors so you streamline it, it gets messy.

MArdA TaleWorlds 说:

I've been informed that this bug is fixed and the fix will be sent to the game with future patches. Thanks for reporting and sorry for any inconvenience!

点击展开...

glorious

five bucks 说:

If you can name some specific shields, throwing axes, or spears/pikes that you think need specific targeted changes, I can change the thread.

For me the aim of this thread was to show TW the big problems that people want to see attention for. If you can agree these are issues, then we're on the same page.

I think this is bad from a gameplay perspective, and not true from a realism perspective either.

Gameplay: it isn't fun to have to pay peace to someone who I am defeating.

Realism: in real life they would fear for their lives if they are losing this heavily. They would be tired of losing prisoners, losing their castles and towns, being executed, spending lots of money, and scared of maybe even losing their kingdom. This is why in real life losers paid tribute, not the other way around!!!!!

Armour is strong against melee but not ranged damage. Late game you can survive 4 arrows to the chest or 1 arrow to the head. That's absurdly low.

Warband had armour that was more than 2x more effective against arrows than Bannerlord, and that was a fun game.

As for realism, it is realistic for padded mail or lamellar armour to provide good protection against arrows. http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html

Beefier armour would also make AI parties harder to fight when the player doesn't have a fully leveled party, so it would even out.

Right now the game is very easy to cheese by spamming ranged troops. It would become harder to cheese if armour worked properly against arrows.

点击展开...

Eh, it kinda depends. Low level archers and xbowmen can turn you into a porcupine if you have the top graded gear. But yeah, the efficacy and range of both ranged and thrown weapons is over the top. The accuracy too is a bit silly... flip side thrown weapons would be way less fun if the abided by the laws of physics and range weapons would be hard to train if you couldn't shoot straight.

An axe to a cataphracts head does comically little as it is and when you play with higher armor coefficients in realistic battle module.

And when I talk about too easy, we already murder machines by mid game ourselves and as long as you take care of your party, you are usually one of the largest parties on the map and the player's party usually skews far more towards elite units than NPC parties.

Regarding tribute...

It is VERY realistic for it to be based on a side's desire to wage war. I think the issue here is people think they are winning because they inflict casualties, which is meaningless, and capture territory, which would actually make your enemy MORE willing to fight.

You want to capture nobles... I have only ever paid for peace when I start my own kingdom to avoid fighting multiple wars. When you capture nobles, they can no longer break sieges, they sue for peace.

In fact it's so easy to get tribute for peace I often get screwed at the end of a war because peace is brokered before I can take another settlement.

black_bulldog 说:

Well in real war the losing side makes reparations so making the winner pay for peace is ass backwards to how the real world works and why so many people hate it.

If everyone has better armor that doesn't make the game easier. It makes fights last longer for sure and in theory should make them more tactical. If you said you liked faster fights I could understand your pov but if you're saying it makes things easier for the player then you haven't thought it through. Personally I'd prefer that the ai was better at playing defensive rather that giving a big boost to armor the only exception to damage resistance should be against arrows because it's far too high. The game is easily winnable with just an all archer army. Personally I'd rather see individual soldiers have some kind of self preservation because right now the ai just gets in a swings away and rarely blocks and I'd also like to see some kind of line cohesion when armies clash because once they meet it's just chaos and the player has no way to try to direct his army.

点击展开...

100% agree with you on the combat AI.

And war reparations we're non existent in the early medieval period. The tribute in the game is just paying somebody to leave you alone. The mechanic would be less frustrating if dungeons weren't turnstiles, artificially prolonging conflicts.

I've been wondering why my photo mode was messed up. This is going to be a problem for most PC players I would think

Sorry to be a party pooper but this would be a terrible patch.

First, tribute payments is a measure of a faction's willingness to wage war not the war's body count or who is "winning". Your opponent shouldn't pay you for peace they don't want. The less they have to lose the less they'll want peace.

Second, the rest is all over the board but another one is armor. Head and body armor are plenty strong. You can take an absurd amount of damage on foot late game. Buffing it further would be less realistic and less fun. It's not just the player but the player party. Your party is often maxed out so 150 troops can easily take on 400. Beefier armor would make the game easier across the board.