搜索结果: *

Honved 说:

That covers half of what I said. Without the other half, using diplomacy to form alliances against stronger adversaries, snowballing is inevitable. Wars lasting 15-20 days are ridiculous; it should take most of that time just to bring the armies up to full strength and gather for a campaign. Assaults on castles and towns should be devastating, and require time for the besieger to recover afterwards. Running home and conjuring up another 50-100 men from willing volunteers should only be possible once or twice; after that, you're either taking away your own castle garrisons or stripping the villages of peasants to work the farms, and recovery of that lost manpower should take a significant amount of time, not a couple of days. Once a faction has used up its "excess" manpower and starts dipping into productive workers, it should attempt to end its current wars, not start another.

Actually, I'd love to see a faction strength mechanism used for bandits as well. Initially, the bandit parties would be small and weak, but fast and hard to catch for a sizable army. If not kept in check, they have the potential to gain strength over time, and you'll see larger bandit parties capable of taking on patrols and often winning. Eventually they'll reach a size where they're not fast enough to outrun some of the faction armies, and the bandit faction strength will then get cut back quickly, once again leading to small parties that are hard to catch.

点击展开...

Apocal 说:

Why do you think this would slow the player down? The AI plays under the same rules.

As long as nothing cuts off the player's replacement stream, it won't slow them down unless they choose to be slowed.

点击展开...

• IRL, there is nothing to really cut off a warlord's replacement stream so doing that is just artificial without adding to actual simiulation.
  • Alexander the Great
  • Attila the Hun
  • Kublai Khan
  • Plenty of conqueror who conquered territory far larger than Calradia within their own lifetimes.
• Just because the AI plays by the same rules doesn't mean anything. Nobody cares that the AI plays by the same rules. In fact, it would be more challenging if the AI had more lenient rules. After all, AI are just not as intelligent or creative as humans are.

• Combat is the main focus of the M&B series. To slow down the replacement stream is to cut down on the fun. What players want are large battles with lots of slicing and smashing.
• There is no depth added to just artificially reducing the amount of troops a player can replace in a single time frame.
• It is better to emulate the reasons why historical rulers of countries didn't just go on a rampage like Alexander the Great or why wars lasted as long as they did (100 years war, 30 years war, etc)
  • Forcing the player to take other aspects of kingdom management into consideration before deciding to expand.
  • Recruitment has historically never been an issue either due to forced conscription or a lack of opportunities elsewhere outside of the army
  • Rulers had a concern with the passage of titles onto their heirs. It is no surprise that many internal conflicts come from claimants, not just disgruntled peasants.

Foohy 说:

Imagine being so dumb to think Bannerlord, with all the kingdoms, court intrigue, relationships between lords etc. is intended to only be a battle simulator. Are you only playing sandbox? Have you ever opened Warband in your life? Are you mentally challenged?

Diplomacy is what this game is literally all about, wars and battles are just a biproduct of how kingdoms interact with eachother diplomatically. If you are so afraid of not being able to start wars with regular kingdom votes, you can literally always just go up to any kingdom vassal and demand he surrender or die and it will start a war for you without anyone voting.

点击展开...

five bucks 说:

The game is designed around the heir system having a reason to exist, so while it's possible to conquer the whole map in the first generation right now due to a lot of exploits, it won't necessarily stay that way. Either that or they might speed up the timescale even further so that heirs grow up quicker.

At any rate, single-generation playthroughs probably aren't the intended final design, except maybe on very easy difficulties.

点击展开...

Aurex 说:

My unrequested and late two cents on this one particular issue.
There should be penalties for any noble who marries with a character from another culture, and the AI should do it only very, very, very rarely.
I see a lot of folks pointing out how monarchies worked like that. Sure, you had norman dukes in Italy and Norse kings in England. But they didn't intermarry - they migrated. A norse marrying a christian noblewoman in 900AD? Basically unheard of, unless he had kidnapped her during a raid and taken her as his woman. As for more recent european courts? Sure, they intermarried, but there isn't as much difference between an austrian and a frenchman (please, don't guillottine me) as there is between a berber and a scot.
Also, as pointed before, in the overwhelming majority of cases women adopted the culture of their husbands' and the children were of his culture, never hers. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's... well, the medieval way of things. They could make a new game with 15000 cultures and all the diversity they want, if the game it's good then great. Just not in a game which is based on clan on clan and culture on culture constant warfare. This ain't no Romeo and Juliet.

点击展开...

• The Kingdom Court and Minister, if implemented should have a more accessible interface. In fact, the entire diplomacy screen ought to have a better interface where it is easier to see the positions your court has and the ability to assign people to those positions.

• Minor faction bases would be really awesome! But then that would imply that minor factions are either implicit vassals to the faction their base resides on or that the minor factions are siegeable which means that they can be extinguished and that would be awkward for a minor faction. There aren't many neutral locations apart from training camps and those should be faction related because theoretically, those would be the places where a faction kingdom trains their soldiers. (I don't see massive training grounds in a castle or city).
• Deserters and Manhunters would bring more life and adventure to the adventuring Calradian player who doesn't want to meddle in the limited and petty politics of Calradia. I don't see why more enemies would be a problem apart from villager parties potentially never finishing their journey to the local city to buy/sell goods.
  • Deserters and larger groups of bandits ought to target caravans more often and prey on caravan routes. Leave the peasant groups to smaller bands of looters and bandits.
  • Bandits ought to have preset locations of banditry HQ that are only discoverable through dialogue or someone with a very high scouting ability. Organized bandits don't simply roam the map listlessly without knowing that where their next meal is going to be. Historical banditry would occur on favorable trade routes where they would extort passerbys and traders for protection fees. and they would just stay there because that would be where they 'earn' their bread and butter. Not by wandering the world without a purpose.
  • AI armies should not be roaming around with their full armies raised up. Why would they just gallavant around the map with 100+ soldiers to hunt down bandits? In fact, why are AI lords even bothering to hunt down bandits themselves? Their retainers should be leading hunting groups to do that for them.

Yertyl 说:

I have seen endless discussion about the specific instances of this, but to me it always boils down to the same theme:

• regular archers/crossbowmen are way more powerful than melee infantry. We all fear sharpshooters and fians, but laugh about axemen.
• horse archers are way more powerful than melee cavalry. I think just saying "Khuzait" is enough to demonstrate this point, even with their less than optimal tactical use of those troops.
• This also contributes to the fast pace of battles, as melee units either rush archers or die trying (mostly the latter)
• it is usually way easier for the player to rack up more than a dozen kills with a ranged weapon, even if unskilled in the weapon
• when I go down on the battle field, it is more often than not to a random arrow to the face -- less fun than avoidable melee damage
• A glancing hit with a melee weapon can be reduced to single digit damage in heavy armor, but arrows always really hurt.
• And lastly, looter rocks are more dangerous than their pitchforks

Putting aside all discussions of realism, the ability to fire from a distance is such a huge tactical advantage that if you ever want to make melee viable for reasons other than role-playing, ranged damage output can't be on par with melee. If it is, like in the current implementation, we effectively go from medieval to modern warfare in which the effectiveness of an army is largely decided by their number of ranged troops. Ranged weapons should be tactical and supportive, but as it is, ranged troops get kills and melee troops get killed. Even heavily micromanaged melee troops don't come close to the effectiveness of "fire and forget" mass ranged weapons.

The only ranged weapons that seem to be in a good place to me are throwing weapons, but their use is obviously much, much more limited than that of a bow or crossbow. Otherwise, I cannot think of a single instance in which the game would not be drastically improved by significantly slashing ranged damage across the board. I think this would bring the game much closer to what I feel the balance should be: A ranged fighter is more effective if they can shoot unimpeded for a long time and use most of their quiver -- otherwise, the melee fighter should win.

So please, just reduce those numbers? I am tired of every game being a decision of "Do I want to mass ranged units or do I want to make it artificially harder for myself?"

点击展开...

• The problem is that AI lords are often caught so an entire AI family would be wiped out pretty quickly
• Another problem is that in real life, not every noble who was captured was executed, even if they were the enemy. Instead, they were used as hostages for ransom or diplomacy to settle on a peace treaty. Granted, there aren't much diplomacy tools for the player.
• Families and nobility are just not fleshed out enough to allow mass murder of the nobility because there does not exist a randomly generated family to take over the extinction of another family (correct me if I'm wrong).
• Calradia is really small. The marriage system is also really messed up with nobles intermarrying way too often. Bannerlord endgame family is Habsburg and you just don't execute kinfolk even if you are at war with them.

Spyware 说:

Mothers are very important in the raising of a child though. They're the ones most humans spend time with the most of their early years.

Maybe culture should be strongly in favor, say 75% in favor of the faction itself? The player kingdom should be an exception though.

点击展开...

1. We do not have mixed cultures in Bannerlord. There would be too many combinations, especially after a few generations with its nonsensical marriages. Precious development time should be spent elsewhere.
2. Historically, women who marry into a foreign nobie family would adopt the traditions of their husband. For example, if she was Bulgarian and her noble husband was Norman, she would be expected to adopt Norman traditions and teach them to her offspring. The exception being that she entered a matriarchal marriage where her husband would be the consort which was not only rare, it seems impossible in Bannerlord unless the female was the player or unless the player just murdered off all the male nobility in a particular kingdom.

Lucius Confucius 说:

That would be utter crap. I and the majority of steam review users are happy with the way the developers are taking Bannerlord. In that it will be a combat-oriented game, not a diplomacy simulator. Of course, there are features that are still needed in the game, and it is not yet finished.

隐藏: Stuff

Like feasts, proper dismemberment, assassinations, being able to make your companions into new lords with their own clans, and some other juicy things.

Imagine being forced to sit through a bunch heavy weight diplomacy just to get to the fight already.

I have played Stellaris, and its biggest downfall is that there is too much build up/diplomacy and so few wars. Who would want that except for a noisy forum minority?

Praise be to getting to the action quickly. Heck, the game is slow enough with all the world map traveling already.

Thoughts? Feelings? No drama, only war.

点击展开...

1. The player and AI rulers do not have a court of their own. There is no "lesser nobility", though there should be. There are no titles and positions in a kingdom or a title.
2. There does not exist titles to take. There are no explicit laws regarding the passage and inheritance of land.

Worlok 说:

Is this some known bug in 1.6.0?

点击展开...

1. Introduce minor nobles for marriage if there is no suitable character within the same kingdom.
2. Always have females marrying the same rank or up before resorting to introducing minor nobles. Female nobles should never marry down unless #3 goes last resort.
3. Always have males trying to marry same rank or lower before resorting to introducing minor nobles or having them marry upwards.
4. Marriages to foreign nobility should not happen unless there is a treaty between the two families
   • I know this is also not quite correct as historically, nobles did frequently intermarry
   • However, this was only more common in later medieval history when there were laws in place to prevent titles from passing out of a kingdom.
   • Allowing the families of different kingdoms to intermingle too much leads to strange results where everyone eventually becomes related. It is a relief that laws are not a part of Bannerlord (though it should be). And there are a limited number of factions that represent their own individual kingdom with a very limited number of notable nobility when in reality, there are usually a ton of nobles who would be eligible for marriage into the more notable nobility scene.
5. The point of the above points is to provide continuation of families and to have clear distinctions of royal and noble lineage. In other words, it is to provide the player an experience that makes it seem like it is 'historical' when in fact, the rules of the game are a bit twisted behind the scenes so that the gameplay can reflect this experience. Calradia is a much smaller world than the continent of Europe.

Spyware 说:

Doesn't anyone else find it weird that when you're at the second generation or so, you're fighting literally a buttload of Sturgian Aserais? Sturgian Khuzaits? Sturgian Vlandians and Battanians?

点击展开...