搜索结果: *

I played 200+ hours. So I got my money's worth already. I'm looking forward to coming back to the game once it's out of EA. I thought, maybe naively that it might have improved by now. I think I'll have to be more realistic and think maybe 6 months to a year. I don't get the complaining though. Game's good for EA. The game will get better, one day. So just chill and be patient.If you've got 200 hours or more like me would you rather not have played the game at all and wait for a year or two for them to release a full and detailed game or have you enjoyed the majority of the time you've played?

I've found it fairly easy with 0 save scumming. I think the cost is based on your net worth. That's my theory anyway. It's the same as marriage. I've paid 5k for a bride and over 100k. I've paid between 100k and 250k for a Lord to switch sides. I suspect it may also have something to do with what holdings they are bringing with them. A guy who had just 1 castle cost less than a guy who had a city. Chance may also have something to do with your relation with them and their relation to their king.

The AI also seems to be able to get lords to switch. I saw a major Battanian Lord join the Khuzaits who I was at war with. That was cool to see.

I don't know I was using one and loved it. Kept using it after I could afford a better weapon. I was using it as a polearm on horse back. So for me the difference wasn't between damage and swing speed but length and swing speed. I liked how fast it was in comparison to the longer better polearms. I one shot most people with it. When you're one shotting everyone do you need more damage? I suppose that's relevant for MP but not SP.

Hockey85 说:

The biggest problem with battles is the blob.
When you order your line of infantry to attack they all go after the closest enemy and just collapse into the massive blob, disregarding any form of a cohesive line. The only way to maintain a line is if you have your men in shield wall formation and allow the enemy to come to you.
There needs to be a larger radius for a soldiers collision bubble, and they need to implement more "hold formation" type commands to improve cohesiveness in the formation. Basically new command features to manage your infantry and improvements to AI so they dont just collapse into a massive blob. So many of the amazing things about battles and combat in this game are ruined as you watch a fight turn into a massive 300 man mosh pit.

点击展开...

This! I'd only add that the AI does the same thing which is a also problem. Your elite infantry runs faster than your recruits. So if you are charging from any sort of distance the troops that the AI troops target first are your elite units who will always be the first to arrive at the enemy. I've been losing tier 5 infantry to looters because of this.

I turned off e-mail notifications for everything in preferences and saved but I'm still receiving e-mails. What have I done wrong?

duchuy613 说:

Again, none of the huge different in economic and culture between Mongol and China is gonna work in Bannerlord. As far as I can tell, the only real different between factions' "cultures" are troop types and equipments. Adding a china-based faction is just gonna create another inferior version of the Khuzait that focuses on infantries. And we all know how great infantries are in Bannerlord.

点击展开...

My point is that none of the factions are historically accurate so why would it matter if we added more factions which are not historically accurate.The only point that I'm interested in is would it be fun? Would it make the game better?

I'm really not interested in jumping into a debate between two other people. I disagreed with lazygamer on his take on the economy because different economies existed during this time period. It's again near impossible to accurately depict it, so who cares if the Chinese economy is depicted accurately when the Celtic economy isn't,the Frankish economy isn't, I'm going to guess that the Kievan-Rus economy isn't depicted accurately. So why in the world would the inability to depict the Chinese economy be any factor. All arguments of historical reality are nonsense. Unless we're talking about adding guns or magic or anything that really could not have existed.

Ryotarou 说:

I agree with you, if there is any dlc in the future in relation to that it would be much better than another napoleonic wars

点击展开...

Absolutely! There's no way I would buy a Napoleonic wars DLC. I want them to focus on expanding this world that they've created rather than a total conversion DLC. Total conversions are the realm of mods. Game expansion should be DLC.

duchuy613 说:

Which is the reason why there's no reason to add a china-based faction. We have the Khuzait, and the only different between them and a China-based faction is the fact that they have different culture. Their armors and weapons are almost the same.

Why add a whole new faction when the only differences are the culture, which is not really well implemented into the game, and the troop focusing more on infantry, the weakest type of troop, instead of cavalry. If we add China in as a faction, it'd just be a weaker version of the Khuzait with the same gear.

点击展开...

I very much agreed with the rest of lazygamers very unlazy post. There is a world of difference between the Huns or Mongol's and the Chinese. It's chalk and cheese. Complete opposites. In every way you have a cavalry based faction, the mongols vs an infantry based faction the Chinese.

To be clear my position is just for adding more factions, as DLC at some point in the future. My preference would be for a Japanese faction. Sorry China but Samurai vs knight is way cooler. There's also so much map to the South they should add an African faction too. But I'd also be happy with the Chinese.

avenger1024 说:

Yes. Though it is rather far into the tree. Also, lords currently seem to be willing to trade away fiefs for much less than they're worth in gold. (Though not nearly as bad as it was pre-1.1.0 when they would trade for literally 1 gold).

点击展开...

Thanks, time to put more points in trade!

avenger1024 说:

There is currently a perk in the Trade skill line that lets you trade fiefs.

点击展开...

Oh wow, does it work?

CasualLazyGamer 说:

Anyway, ancient Chinese ruling system are vastly different from the Medieval Europe, and it just cannot likely to coexist in the base game's mechanics.

点击展开...

Good post, but, lets be real, it's a game and European Feudal economies are not accurately depicted either. We also must acknowledge that economies in pre-conquest Ireland were not the same as the economy in the ERE neither was the economy of the Franks the same as the other two. If this is the great migration period feudalism is only just being established in many countries, while it has been established in some countries for a while and where again in the ERE the economy has far more aspects of capitalism.

So again there really is no argument for historical reality in a game set in a fantasy world. Where it would be near impossible to actually implement a good representation of the different economic systems that existed.

I hope, in time, you might be able to trade fiefs. When a king overrules a vote they get a negative opinion with the other vassals. I've seen one guy become an enemy of his king. But as there are no revolts or revolutions there's very little punishment. I have seen ai lords join new kingdoms so maybe that's something.

But no I disagree, the player shouldn't always get their way, even if it is unfair. That's the point, it should push you and other vassals to break away. It's also not RNG.

I haven't but I have executed people and their stuff was inherited. Also I saw a guy post that he killed his characters using the console and played through 3 separate characters. I don't think the player can die yet without the console.

CasualLazyGamer 说:

also, if you want it based off china, just make / wait for a mod....

点击展开...

Or better yet a DLC. Since mods have a tendency to go out of date or break the game some people don't like to use them.

daxiapi777 说:

The way I see it, the setting of this game is Medieval Europe. It's like a basket of nations or cultures based on historical geo-politics. Franks, Celts, Saracens, Byzantines, Vikings, Rus and later the Mongols and the Turks, they are all in the basket. It is negotiable who should be where at the map, because the game is fiction, it does not have to be 100% accurate. But it will be problematic if you want nations or cultures outside this basket, or if you want fantasy or Gatlin guns in the game. That is a whole other level of problem.

点击展开...

When choosing whether they wanted to set this game in the real world or in a fantasy setting they decided they wanted it in a fantasy setting. The only reason to do this is to allow themselves the freedom to break from historical reality.
As I said you need rules for any fantasy setting. A Gatling gun would be the equivalent to introducing magic. Back to my initial point, this game is about What if? What if China was not so far away? What if the Roman empire had expanded all the way to China? Or the Chinese to Rome. Alexander almost did and in fact there was a short war between Chinese and Greeks!
The Chinese existed in this time period, Gatling guns didn't. The two things cannot be equated because they do not break the same rules set for this fantasy world. Lets also not forget that this also has two Asian factions.

daxiapi777 说:

Glad you brought Lord of the Ring into the discussion. It's fictional, yes, but it has a setting. You can have dwarves, elves and orcs. But it will be really weird if you have yokai and Chinese dragon in the book. Being fictional is something we call in China 'based on realism but more than realism'. You seem to neglect that based on realism part a bit too much. The map of Calradia is not exactly like Europe but quite similar, you have a snowy region to the north, the sea to the west, the desert to the south, and the steppe to the East. And following this map building logic, and further down the road - the setting, China should be far to the East, and Africa far to the south.

点击展开...

I like that, based on realism but more than. In any fictional setting you have to set rules, if you break those rules it brings the audience out of their immersion in the story. I think this is the real argument. People on your side of the debate believe this is Europe. So bringing in the Chinese would break your immersion. I don't see the same rules as you. In fact the opposite. I see a place where nothing is really where it should be. Maybe I can see a Scandinavia to the far North, but it's too far east and contains no cities. I can see an overly large Cyprus, with no cities on it. That's about it. Of course there is snow in the North and deserts in the south. As long as we assume that the continent of Caladria is past the equator that's just logical.

There is room on the map for at least 3 more factions. The map already extends far to the east of the Khazits. Who did the Mongol's territory border in the East? China.

Not that it even matters. The Celts aren't where they were in reality, because the place they were in reality does not even exist on the map. The Vlandians are in the West but no amount of looking will tell me that they are in France. So things not being where they should is not a logical argument. Since things are already not where they should be. Since it's a work of fiction.

Which is why I say put in any faction from any part of the world that would be fun. The rule that things are where they were historically does not exist in this game.

daxiapi777 说:

'What if' is a good idea, but suggesting the game has nothing to do with historical realism, in my opinion, is going too far. Basing on Medieval Europe is a big feature of the game. Imagine having cannons or muskets in the game. Imagine the Vlandians being horse archers and the Kuzaits major in armoured knights. Those are what ifs, but will immensely break the immersion.

点击展开...

The important part is loosely based on medieval Europe. With a heavy emphasis on loosely. It's a fictional world. Lord of the rings is based on Medieval Europe but imagine someone complaining that you can't have orcs or elves because they didn't have an impact on the time period. If you don't like the Lord of the rings analogy insert any other fictional world based on medieval Europe. The point is it's fictional. They can do anything they want within the rules that they have set the story.

Mount On Blade 说:

Please stop. Do you see the map of Calradia? Do you not understand that it's an analogue to Europe? Which part of Europe did the Qing/Ching/Ming/Ting/Bing Empire inhabit? Not a single part.

点击展开...

In Game of thrones Westeros is the British isles with the pieces mixed around. That's how he created the map. The Map of Westeros is far more closely comparable to Britain than Caladria is to Europe.

This is a fictional place. Not a real one

daxiapi777 说:

In case you haven't noticed, this game is based on medieval Europe. So you have the typical feudal, the Celtic, Roman, Viking, Slav, Muslim, and even Mongol factions. But the Far East hardly had any direct contact with medieval Europe.

点击展开...

It's loosely based on Medieval Europe set in a fantasy world. It's a what if? scenario. What if the Kievan Rus bordered the celts? What if Byzantium could fight the Mongols? What if they could fight a Japanese, Chinese, African, etc, etc, etc faction? The game has nothing to do with historical realism. If that was important they would have set in the real world.

There is no case for arguing against something on the basis of historical realism.

Interesting. I did it the day before yesterday and found it to be easy and cheap. I paid the guy 100k. I think the value might be % of your net worth. The same way other barters seem to work. I've got married for 4k to over 100k. The value changes depending on how much you have. Same thing for when you pay to get away from a battle sometimes they want no more than a few thousand up to maybe 700k was the most I might have paid. So that's the theory I've been working on. That the amount demanded is % of net worth or at least money in the bank.

I wrote a glowing review. I'm honestly shocked by how good the game has been for an EA. I praised the Dev team for their speed at bringing out new patches. I understand that other people have had crashes and game breaking bugs. I haven't, I've had 1 crash and bugged quests which were annoying but not game breaking seem to have mostly been fixed.Performance wise the game has improved so much from the day I bought it.

Personally I think the best games give you the tools that let you make your own story. In a game with a linear story once you've done it once it doesn't change a second time. You mention the witcher. I love that game but after completion I found no replay value in it. In a game that is open world sandbox the story is never the same twice. Giving it endless opportunities for replaying.The story is what happened to you. Like the time I started a new game, spent all my money on troops and trade goods, got immediately smashed by bandits lost everything but went on to become a powerful lord. That's a story. A completely random event at the start of my game set the whole tone of that play through. That character became the guy who started with nothing and rose to the top. The next guy had a completely different story.

Although I'm sure they will add much more content. Calling it pre alpha which I think you did at some point is hyperbole ad absurdium.