搜索结果: *

Yeah, there is definitely a bug in the code, either showing the wrong percentage value or calculating the outcome. 59% < 74%

Try starting a new Campaign (just grind to Tier 2 and join a random Kingdom as a Vassal). If that doesn't work then you might need to reinstall the game. Maybe there is a corrupted file.

It would be very awesome if everyone could vote on a map, even better if the team gets to vote on their faction.

Well, to be honest I enjoyed the game having an extra Party with the spouse, but as it is now "(5/4)" is a bug. Maybe they should implement a feature for Spouse = Party +1 regardless of Clan Tier.

Battania is almost in every match and they are by far the worst faction. They lose damn near 100% of the matches. It's terrible to play as and not that great of a game to play against.

On the bottom right of your screen (on the map) there is an icon with 3 flags. You can only access this if you are a Vassal or Ruler (not a mercenary) which requires you to be Clan Tier 2+ (to become a Vassal you must speak with your Kingdom Ruler and swear an oath). This brings up the Army Management menu. On the left you can click on Parties that are tan (dark brown means they are in another Army and orange means they are already in your Army) to add them to your Army on the right. You can add any Parties from your Clan for 0 influence, anyone in your Kingdom that is not in your Clan costs influence. When you are finished click Done at the bottom of the Army Management menu.

You can create Armies even without the Banner if you are a Vassal of another Kingdom.

Dual wielding is far more practical than single-wielding anything with one hand (which many units do already) it is also far more useful than weapons such as scythes (which are also a historically accurate weapon). If you want to take effectiveness into account scythes will always be the weak link in that argument, so will throwing rocks. The halberd is an evolution of the scythe in tandem with the spear (replacing both when effectiveness is taken into account) and I have yet to see a halberd in-game.

Also, I would much rather have a second sword for defense purposes than say a buckler, which was generally a defense only tool. Actually dual-wielding sometimes covers the weaknesses that a sword user would have which is (including a shield) 1-on-1 (also including a shield) and getting main-hand "trapped" (especially against reach weapons) as you can't trap 2 weapons simultaneously (and given that a shield is generally not an immediate lethal threat).

I think the % values represented are off. Statistically getting a success X number of times in a row comes down to a probability calculation and 74% - 3 times in a row is well over 1/20+, actually it is roughly 41%.

Make sure your loaded save isn't too close to the "window of conversation" and especially not loading "mid-conversation". There is a chance that the code of the game is "pre-loading" outcomes at set intervals, which you will be loading the same result every time hoping for something else. Or maybe even a set of outcomes to "trick" the player into thinking there is more complexity in variations, but ensuring that favorable results are not distributed fairly in accordance with your expectations.

Aside from these possibilities, it is bugged.

Damage is always going to trump HP. If dying is ever an issue then avoid combat (can't die if you can't take hits) while commanding your vastly superior soldiers. If your skill level is very high as a combatant then you are going to be the best soldier by a very high margin and part of reducing casualties of your own troops is in killing enemy troops. Which means the faster you can kill the better you can turn the tide of battle into your favor, which requires damage and with enough damage and the correct load-out you can "1-shot" enemies which is even better than HP in most scenarios as you will take less damage from trading blows. The only time HP is the best stat in a game is when you have healing and that healing is not a flat rate but a % rate. Any other time defense is always better than HP (which you can do very well with expensive armor).

But when it comes to perks there is no need to take a damage perk that only affects a weapon that you don't plan to use, in that case take HP instead.

It is very easy if you get a long-reach pole-arm that has a swing mechanic on horseback. Take very wide sweeps around the edges of infantry lines or chase down enemy cavalry. No one should be able to even touch you except for archers due to the reach of a pole-arm and you won't be riding directly beside an infantry with a spear pointed at your horse if you only make swings to the side (much easier to time hits than a pierce or couch as well). When units bunch together and you cannot make precise hits without making friendly fire then just approach from behind and run over enemy units so friendly infantry get easy kills on prone targets. You can secondary a shield on horseback if you are afraid of archers or you can secondary a bow if you have no issues with archers.

That's somewhat historically accurate (at least emotionally). lmao

Haven't made a caravan yet but I think you need a fief to create a workshop and/or a caravan.

If you are in a Kingdom and are Clan Tier 2+ you can create an Army. When you make an Army your Party is included and you use Influence to ask other Parties within your Kingdom to join your Army, any Party controlled by one of your Companions cost 0 Influence to join your Army.

If you are in battle you can make any soldiers that you have command over (all of them unless you are commanding only a certain group of soldiers in an Army) by pressing F1 then F2. Pressing F1 then F3 commands your unit to seek out and attack enemy soldiers.

The tutorial is great, however the part where you have to go all over the entire continent and literally talk to 10 nobles (all faction leaders I think) is one of the worst quest designs for a "main mission" I have ever encountered in any game and is certainly the worst part of Bannerlord by an extreme margin. It is extremely tedious and its literally the first official quest of the game. Quests should feel compelling and rewarding. Not just something to progress for any reason be it "mandatory story so just throw something in there" or renown. I have played tons of MMOs and am very tired of super triviality and "grindy" quests that were just there to make it look like the game has some form of content.

It would be 100x better if it was visit 10 cities and talk to a NPC, but I still find the number 10 is quite excessive just to find out some lore about a single event. Its literally like chasing down a rat in pitch black using a flash light and a Wikipedia coordinates radar. The in game encyclopedia is very useful and informative but I find it extremely anti-immersive being forced to use a meta-game feature to start the game right off the bat. I can understand using a meta-game feature to min/max certain components of understanding a combat unit or someone's lineage, but being the requirement for the main story line and lore? Honestly just going 100% sandbox mode and giving the player the option to create their own kingdom without any preliminary content in the game at all is better than something this terrible.

How about visiting a couple famous libraries or historians, maybe a couple of nobles from the entire pool of 10 that prefer to stay at their castle. Maybe visiting some nearby villages to the training post gives the player some info about the library at a nearby city and then the historian at the library tells you that the Lord of the town (who will 100% be present at his town) has some 1st-hand experience with the matter. Chasing down certain nobles could be very interesting when used sparingly, but don't recycle the exact same mechanic over and over, especially 10x on the very 1st thing. If you want to show the player that the encyclopedia is a feature and how to use I think they will understand just using it once.

It is kind of an unbalanced issue. You can't see the number of units an enemy stronghold has until you are 1 tile away. Yet the AI always knows how undefended your strongholds are and will attack it almost immediately.

If you are in War you can let captured Heroes go instead of making them prisoners to level up Charm.

I imagine Co-Op play as a Single Player Campaign exactly but with a few tweaked variables to make it possible for other players to be able to play in your campaign:

1. The host creates a campaign and is the owner of the campaign. Other players cannot save the game or affect the save state of the game. The host enables a setting that lets other players join and can send invites to friends list members or other members can search for the game name. The host creates a new character and clan in the same way as single player, the only extra step would accessing the multiplayer menu (this menu would be something accessible mid-game and separate from the current multiplayer launcher) after the tutorial and creating a Host Game Name, enabling others to connect, optional password, and option to invite players directly from friends list (Steam?).

2. Other players can drop in and out of the host campaign at any time and must make a character and clan in the same way as they would in single player mode (or see variable tweak #3). A connection must be made to the host game before starting the creation process. Optionally it would be nice to create a character/clan that can be saved as a preset then selecting any preset to be used after joining a host game.

3. When the host leaves the connection to other players is lost. When players other than the host leave the game their character/clan is controlled by an AI while the host continues to play the game. Optionally a host can enable in the multiplayer menu: allow incoming players to select another created character/clan to play that was introduced after the creation of the campaign (this way players don't have to start over every time they join the same campaign) and a longer campaign can utilize the same Clan across multiple players if the host doesn't want to start over or be forced to play with Tier 1-2 Clan friends constantly.

4. This is the probably the most challenging part for the development team. The campaign map must always be in real time from the host perspective and pause, speed 1, and speed 2 would only be manageable by the host. This means that the campaign map will continue to calculate a simulation while the host is in town and in the battlefield, otherwise other players would be paused on the map while the host is in town or on the battlefield and vice versa. For this reason a new time format needs to be introduced speed 0 (Hotkey: 0) which would be a multiplayer menu option to set speed 0 to any percentage of time pass and movement speed on the campaign map between 1% and 99% (can be changed at any time via the multiplayer menu). The host would be able to access pause, speed 1, speed 2, and speed 0 at any time (including during a battle, in town, and during NPC conversations via hotkey functions). There should be a multiplayer menu toggle to automatically pause the campaign map when the host and all connected players are not on the campaign map and a second toggle to automatically unpause the campaign map to the last used of speed 1, speed 2, or speed 0 when the host and all connected players are on the campaign map. This would also allow players to pass time when docked in town without being stuck on the town/castle/village menu.

5. Any player would be able to enter any instance including towns and battles as currently in the single player campaign. The only difference would be entering a battle of another current player mid-battle after traveling at any speed other than during pause (impossible to move). When entering another players battle they will join the battle in real time from a random location of the map.