搜索结果: *

Tulor 说:

it looks like they hot patched this today. Thanks taleworlds!!!

点击展开...

black_bulldog 说:

Thank god because trying to backpedal as fast as I can while getting a weapon out was damn annoying.

点击展开...

woop woop

I can whine no more.

Tulor 说:

the only problem is that you lose your sword and your shield equipped status. So if when the bandit boss pulls out his weapon or weapon/shield I just pull out my weapon and THEN I have to swap to my shield + weapon which involves a second animation. Forcing us to pull out weapons is fine but don't remove the shield as well

点击展开...

You're likely right, thinking about it. If they have a two handed weapon, they can get that out and swing it, I'll need to check with the bandits that have sword + board.

jak1up 说:

The leader did not start out with a weapon in his hand so it was easy to kill him if you had yours out already.

点击展开...

Agreed, I think the 2 sides need to start twice as far apart as they do now - there's often times my own troops get in the way and stop me from swinging in a duel (no Ai for personal space lol). But if we start further apart then both can have their weapons out or not and it be no issue. There's also the part where we take the "I don't duel brigands.." option and then have to issue the order for the troops to attack, as if taking that option and having the enemy bearing down on us doesn't make that perfectly clear. But nope we have to issue the order, whilst getting our weapons out and having the enemy close the 2m between us.

ste636 说:

No way!! Is this really happening??))
My question stands: "do they even play their own game? At least before a patch?".

点击展开...

It's one of those small things that likely wasn't an active decision but a side effect of something else being done, since I've seen no mention of the change. Similar to when they decided that Mercenary Guards should be a ranged troop, despite having a sword and shield only - well they did have a crossbow but the team removed that the same day they made them a ranged troop because logic.. Great fun watching your whole archer line yolo because there's 3 melee units in their lines.. If it was tested with max level characters, then their athletics and weapon proficiencies would let it by, at over 100 athletics, it's no biggie to get out of the way and have time to get ready, similarly if they have a 200+ One Handed character that they're testing with.

I'm hoping this is the relevant place for this, if not I'm sorry - but some thoughts with regards to the war+peace/diplomacy in 1.5.1 - couldn't Noble hostages help? They'd live for as long as the other side kept the peace and be released after an agreed period of time, or executed if the other side declared war. The factions within the kingdoms that have hostages with the enemy would naturally be less willing to vote for war while the hostages were alive but more likely if the hostages had been killed. An option to jump ship and join the captors side as an alternative hail mary option to being executed for the captive - give them a 500 (whatever "silly amounts" may be) relation boost with their "new" ruler to avoid them quickly running back to mommy when they're free. Tribute options beyond gold would also be cool, maybe troops/prisoners or food/horses could figure in the tribute negotiations. If the hostages had a high financial value alive, then they could figure in peace barter and also it would be desirous for their captors to keep them alive (i.e. vote against war). Maybe the option to offer/request children as hostages and they have a chance to defect when they're older or gain relation with the faction that held them/kept them alive but not the Kingdom.

+1 to all the above but I'd also like for it not to simply be the Aserai companions that are effectively a tier above the rest and objectively better. Aserai scholar gets 120 or 140 medicine, the Hyenas and Princes get some obscene leadership and scouting skills whilst the Spicevendor and Leopardess' skills also leave any caravan owner with little choice, if they want the better skills at least. Having to spend 2.5 or 3k gold to hire a companion because they have a nice one handed sword is sweet an'all but then maybe give them some bloody one handed skills - or a two-hander, if that's where their all of their skills are at. Not complaining, it isn't game breaking, just hope it'll be addressed once we get to the polishing stages.

Try the War Razor or similar Polearms (2m Voulge), the 2-handed ones that swing + cut, not so much poke 150 cut damage isn't a problem and as stated above, 100-115k is no biggie

Entirely with you. This is at the fine tuning stage, it isn't game breaking and we have nearly a year to go. Easy to forget that we are in early access when so much "appears" to flow smoothly. A Fallout GOTY edition is more buggy, has more conflicts and crashes more often than this does. I've had 4 in over 500hrs. For me, coming across from Warband (native, Console scrub), Bannerlord seems an awful lot easier to both start and progress through. I can grab an Aserai Skirmisher in the character build and have over 10k worth of weaponry to start, sell it and kit out or have the capital to start trading and have a caravan or workshop within a few days of entering the game. I've read a lot of people complaining about grinds and we had the whole XP change but I struggle to think that these people have much experience of the game historically. Great to make the game more inclusive/easier for new players but the investment required to achieve anything is what made so many of us keep coming back. Rapidly progressing to domination is what a million games do, we don't need Bannerlord to do that, that's not what made it so special and looking good doesn't matter if you play the same as everything else. A lot of the suggestions (including my own) end up making it just 'more of the same, as the rest' and not the game that these wonderful bastids over there knocked out for us. It's the being refused a dozen fiefs before getting the burnt out hulk of a town or spending a year finding a wife and another 2 making Daddy happy, only for her to die in a siege because reasons.
(Opinion, not intended as a statement of fact regarding how or why other people play the game).

I wonder if food production sees the same inflation percentile as say population (troops included therein). I mean, does having a Militia large enough to fend off bandits mean that a village can barely produce enough food or do the Militia troops (for example) not consume as much as the Army troops? With the volume of recruits that are making up the armies I come across, I feel that simply halving the food consumption of Tier 1 and 2 troops could perhaps have positive consequences elsewhere in the economy and for the campaign as a whole. It may also, just as likely, entirely break the economy..

I like the Farmers' Consortium and Rulers Reserve ideas, more parties I feel could interrupt the movement of goods even more and thus exasperate the existing issue (without additional balancing) but perhaps it'll be less of an issue once the perk trees are fully working for NPCs and players alike - half the starving armies today may well be saved tomorrow if the relevant perks come on-line and in turn, less food would be bought from towns across the board. I'd like an option to have a caravan simply run food/trade goods/horses/arms from "this kingdom" to "this kingdom" for example, a supply caravan more than necessarily an out and out trading caravan, although they would most likely make profit.

Seems strange how they're buying all the supplies and still regularly starving - maybe we need a more balanced spread of food producing villages or areas of production (could a village not produce Cows and Butter or Sheep and Horses?). Villages also get raided so often that it doesn't seem they ever benefit from these huge sales they consistently make. I've been experiencing similar, on the same version regarding the starvation element - I feel that Lords should be required to at least have provisions for the return journey they are planning and a little extra - not rely on supplying en route by raiding but building up "Campaign Provisions" before setting out for war. If they had to roam around their own lands buying supplies for the campaign - with that being a priority over chasing bandits even, then maybe the villages would be able to get their produce to market easier too (direct routes more often having friendly troops on them). It's become so prevalent that I don't really train an army any more - just wait to stumble across some massive starving army with hundreds of prisoners of their own.. Once (really before but..) it is clear they're just dying off and far from home, they should break up and run for the hills, not stay together and be scooped up en masse. Perhaps Parties within a starving Army should leave that Army when their own provisions will only last for the next day. Feeding their army just needs to be a higher priority for the AI. Preparing for war, not just always rushing into war - consolidating a force.. Out of curiosity, as we're on the same version - do any of the Sturgian towns in your games reach prosperity without you alone supplying the markets for them?

+1 The Charm gains are also worth noting. I haven't experienced the infinite loop that stops me completing the mission but can always return to the village whilst the mission is live and the conversation with the headman about giving him half of the profits is looped. As a minor note, it'd be somewhat satisfying for role-playing purposes if we were able to sell Minor Faction captives during this mission too. Or Lords from enemy Kingdoms..