搜索结果: *

I agree with nearly all the suggested solutions above.

The only one I disagree with is the “Decrease companion pool”.

I think the available companions needs to increase greatly. Even if most of them start as generic and relatively low skilled (few steps up from a base village recruit).

Would be good to be able to have more companions even as a lower tier clan, +1-2 extra per clan level (maybe also as leadership perk or from some other bonus to raise the cap). Thinking governors and caravan leaders.

Also increase the diversity greatly.

I have seen 1 engineer companion and about 4 medics, the rest (10-20) are combat and/or rogues.

Can’t find any potential companions with Trade or Leadership (although lone wanderer misfits loitering in taverns might not be the best target demographic for recruiting good leaders)

Would be good to see potential companions more active in the game. Hired by NPC nobles, working for minor factions, or leading non-aligned parties (whether they be leading bandits, caravans, militia or small adventuring parties). Plenty of scope then for recruiting (talent poaching) companions in the field.

Keen to see more upkeep cost for companions, both in terms of money but also loyalty and clashes between your actions and their personality (seen a tiny bit of this but no meaningful consequences yet). Adopting companions as formal members of your clan should also be an option with a large cost (maybe influence and relation loss with other nobles).

I checked again.
In my games the influence cost is deducted after you shut the Army Management window.

No indication in the Army Management window that pressing "+10 cohesion" costs influence or how much it costs.

The "influence cost" number in the top left hand corner does not update on pressing "+10 cohesion", so maybe that is the Bug

Not that it is currently a big issue as have more influence than I can easily spend.



[Edit: corrected "influence cost" is in the top left... still not increasing when pressing "+10 cohesion" ]

osarusan 说:

... but blasting through a forest at full speed on a horse in pitch black is not quite what I'd expect.

点击展开...

I seriously hope they add 'hitting a branch at speed knocks rider off their mount + causes some speed-related blunt damage" to this game.

Good suggestions in the OP.

One other option to add for night fighting, Torches and fires.

We could use some light.

Before starting the night fight you could get three options:
-Use torches
-Use no torches
-Set fire to the forest

BattanianDruid 说:

It would be nice if there was a way to pay a special blacksmith NPC to forge custom-made weapons as per our specifications for us.

Make it more expensive than forging it yourself so there's still a reason to grind smithing if you really want to. I personally have no interest in playing a blacksmith but very much want a custom sword or polearm uniquely fit for my character and given a cool name.

点击展开...

That would be my preferred option as well.

They could keep most of the current interface/system as is and just make it how you are creating a design or lodging a work order with some town-based blacksmith NPCs (or specialised town-based companions).

If it was a town-based NPC then just paying them a lot of money (then coming back in say 3 weeks time) makes sense (I think Viking Conquest and Fire & Sword had that kind of system, from memory).

If it is done via town-based companions then I can see a need for the player to keep their inventory stocked with wood & ore and/or give them a pile of coin to buy resources and setup a forge.

Town-based NPCs could have a variety of skill levels and preferences for culture-specific weapon styles. While the better NPC mastersmiths could be locked behind various reputation/renown/faction influence-based gates.

Although tedious, I don't think the train-up-your-blacksmith skill and DIY-forging should be removed from the game.

It might fit certain play styles where you are a bandit clan or some backwater indie warlord who can't get access to the main factions' mastersmiths. Or if they make crafting and selling good quality and 'legendary' weapons a viable economic strategy for a 'town-based merchant' play style.

Regarding the OP. I suspect the opinions towards smiths would vary greatly across time, culture and type of smithing. Your common blacksmith making plows and horseshoes was probably not held in high regard by high society. The royal swordsmith was likely held in far higher esteem. If an eccentric monarch took up weapon smithing as a hobby, the other nobles would often be too afraid to make a big issue of it.

Definitely need this feature in Bannerlord.
Missing it from Warband and needing it when commanding a large army which is too big to catch raiding parties.

Your companion's parties should do this for no or minimal influence cost (similar to when they join your army). Ordering parties from other clans to go on patrol should cost influence (or be an army related feature, where we have already paid influence to recruit them).

Lunarahi 说:

The title. At preset, executing lords gives you reputation for deceit. My character would be totally honest about his intent to execute every single member of their clan, if given the choice.

点击展开...

Yes. You clearly communicated your honest intentions in the pre-battle dialog options as well, so 'deceit' is the definitly the wrong word for it.

Not sure how the trait/reputation system works in this game.

Obtaining "deceitful" this way is the only one I know of (aside from character background choices at start of game).

Gifting lots of money to nobles and keeping my cities well-funded has not made my character 'generous'.
Releasing many captured nobles after battle has not made my character 'merciful'.

Very keen on the idea of the multi-category trait/reputation system. Needs to be explained better in-game and improve the naming. Maybe also some text log indicating that your character is gaining or loosing "Honorable" points with this action (similar to influence gain or money loses).

I get the impression that 'honorable' and "deceitful" are on the same (hidden) slider/scale.
So 'dishonorable' or 'ruthless' might be better naming than "deceitful" in this context.

I agree with this. Keen on any improvement to the system giving clans and factions character and polices some real impact and implications beyond a few numerical bonus.

Would be good to know why a war was started, why peace was declared, why a clan supports policy X and opposes policy Y.

Copying something I posted on another thread on 'minor factions as mercenaries' below.

Could add "War between vassals tolerated", "War between vassals forbidden" "War between vassals forbidden when Kingdom is at war with another Kingdom" as new Kingdom level polices.


"Actually the minor factions, kingdoms, and kingdom clans all need fleshing out more and given more character. I would like to see grudges, rivalries, policy preferences and agendas for each clan and minor factions displayed more clearly in the encyclopedia. Whether a minor faction joins or is at peace with a kingdom could be linked to the kingdom’s current policies. The implementing the more peasant/citizen rights polices could then the a key factor in being able to recruit some of the minor ‘rebel’ factions with a peasant/citizen rights background e.g. “Brotherhood of the Woods”.

More policies, more interesting policies, and policies with greater impact would be good. ‘Tolerance for criminal organizations’ or ‘Hiring of mercenaries allowed’, 'Allow peace-time raiding (privateering)' or ‘Ruler decided by election’ could be Kingdom level polices with major and interesting implications.

Currently the factions, clans, companions, and policies are largely bland and interchangeable. Hopefully it is currently just the bare-bones skeleton
where the flesh, character and depth will get added later."

Roads would be a good addition, especially if they also influenced AI behavior.

Roads could also be used for AI 'pathfinding' and giving orders to a companion's party.
Dialogue order: "Patrol the roads around [city name]"

Could potentially add special 'ambush locations' along some roads (e.g. road in forest or mountain pass) giving a preset site for players to wait and setup an 'ambush' battle. Maybe you (and AI parties) could only see and activate 'ambush locations' if your roguery or scouting skills are at moderately high levels.

Would sensibly scale to their wealth, not your wealth.

Maxoun 说:

Managing your relations with your own kingdom's clans is one of the most important thing to do in the game and I think it's a bit of a hassle as it is right now.
Under Kingdom>Clans, there is a list of clans that belong to your kingdom. Right now it displays banner-type-name-influence-members-fiefs. To access your relation with a clan, you need to first click on its name, then hover on its members.
I think a new "Relation" column should be added to be able to review relations level more quickly.
Alternatively (or in addition, as implementing both could be a good idea too imo), the clans in that list could be color-coded according to their relation level. For example Dark-red for -30 and below, light-red for -1 and below, light-green for 0 and above, dark-green for 30 and above. Since they're all brown right now, this could be a way to display this new information without having to resize the list.

Thanks for taking the time to read this suggestion.

点击展开...

Agree with this. More information the better for this aspect of the game.

However, might be better to have 'Relations to other Clans' also under the Clan screen not only the Kingdom screen.
If we are independent we don't have a Kingdom screen. Plus our relation with with Clans in other Kingdoms could also be important (selecting nobles to recruit/defect, etc)

Nikomakkos 说:

You guys just made a huge mistake. You should have gone to the Khuzait lands and bought a Long Glaive. Yuuuuuge mistake.

But yeah, my favorite activity is actually speeding along on a fast horse and impaling people on a lance or spear. Especially enemy cavalry with the upper thrust animation.

点击展开...

The long glaive is good.
A few updates ago it could even be used as a couched lance (unfortunately, not any more).

I currently switch between the long glaive or a lance (Vlandian or Mamluke... not too bothered as the couched lance strike does so much damage it does not seam to matter much which lance it is). Bow is still the primary, no shield for extra arrows.

I find the long glaive better if you find your self on foot (e.g. Bandit Hideouts)... I also broke down a castle door with the glaive after the troops abandoned the battering ram.

Revenant342 说:

What I'm saying is, these minor factions never joined the main factions before the update that changed mercenary behavior, so I'm not sure if it's intended or a bug that they started doing so.

As for whether they should, I liked it when they were doing their own thing and causing trouble for their main enemy factions. Was nice to have stuff going on like that below the kingdom vs. kingdom level. This makes them feel more generic to me.

I'd actually been putting a suggestion together to flesh these guys out with stuff like hideouts they drop their loot and prisoners at that you can interact with to buy their goods or hire their unique troops if you were friendly, or raid if you weren't.

They were also nice mod-game bullying targets as an independent, above normal bandits but not as dangerous as taking on a faction.

点击展开...

I think the changes after the update were generally an improvement. Seeing the minor factions hired as mercenaries actually gives them a bit of character and a wider role (rather than just being bigger and more valuable bandits wandering around in circles as mid-game targets (I made a lot of coin capturing Beni Zilal before I was given some cities, I assume they are some sort of rival monarchy given they have lots of those shiny Royal horse archers).

I like the idea of minor faction hideouts and hiring their special troops.

I agree the minor factions should get fleshed out more and should not be employed as mercenaries most of the time (unless the are described as a mercenary company).

Actually the minor factions, kingdoms, and kingdom clans all need fleshing out more and given more character. I would like to see grudges, rivalries, policy preferences and agendas for each clan and minor factions displayed more clearly in the encyclopedia. Whether a minor faction joins or is at peace with a kingdom could be linked to the kingdom’s current policies. The implementing the more peasant/citizen rights polices could then the a key factor in being able to recruit some of the minor ‘rebel’ factions with a peasant/citizen rights background e.g. “Brotherhood of the Woods”.

More policies, more interesting policies, and policies with greater impact would be good. ‘Tolerance for criminal organisations’ or ‘Hiring of mercenaries allowed’, 'Allow peace-time raiding (privateering)' or ‘Ruler decided by election’ could be Kingdom level polices with major and interesting implications.

Currently the factions, clans, companions, and policies are largely bland and interchangeable. Hopefully it is currently just the bare-bones skeleton
where the flesh, character and depth will get added later.