搜索结果: *

My considerations are peace time maintenance and how to solve your money problem then. Caravans and workshops can cover peace time expenses well. Workshops you plainly have different types so they can average each other out. Caravans are not 40k but half that and in limited war they will not be destroyed that quickly. In comparison to high tier equipment for yourself and companions caravans and workshops are really cheap anyway.

To think about rebellion you must have a good profit margin with whatever money you make because for independence you should have a million or so in the bank so you can buy yourself peace fast and one or two clans to switch sides. Lastly army sizes are campaign dependent. 2000 sounds weirdly much. Barely face that late game ever (aka as an established kingdom against peer adversaries) in various campaigns over the years. Norm is 600-1000 and if you are lucky every AI lord idiot creates and army and you get to drown 300-400 men puppies.

Big armies also lose cohesion faster so waiting for them to break apart becomes viable and inversely if you start a war you best try to smash up the enemy before they concentrate aka you should try to be aggressive and not just wait for the king to gather everyone and walk up to your gates.


Until then you don't need reserves of high tier units. These are fix costs on your tight budget not making you profit until you can think about rebellion. In the same vein storing exotic units you don't use. Yes, you can do that... when you have no money problems anymore. And I'd rather have the elites in my companion parties to begin with. The sharper your edge at the start the less it matters if you face 2:1 or worse odds.

Also with battles and good leadership perks upgrading units gets really fast and high tier units are less likely to die outright to begin with.

With prisoners I usually don't recruit for roleplaying purposes so I sell them. Better than lugging them around or them clogging up dungeons if you don't use them. Particularly with allied lords donating they can be a good piggy bank you may have forgotten about. if you want to use them be selective in what you keep. I am more worried in having their recruitment drop army morale which affects my travel speed.

inversely releasing lords should be considered on how the war goes, If you can buy yourself a peace fast it does not hurt. If you need to grind the enemy down first it does because imprisoned (and equally executed) lords are the defining index of how much manpower potential you destroyed, not the casualties inflicted.

@BoardChampion: One remaining money trail is trading. Not sure if you started out as a trader but if you keep trading on the side aka you just buy and sell as you march along with your army you can also have plenty income if you build up your trader skills. Though you need a good deal of investment as you are not a fast profit seeking caravan but just buy cheap and when your army happens to get to a city where things are profitable to sell you do that. So quite some money can be bound in goods at a time.
Still, that is actually an avenue to make money while building an army and not at war. Easily a couple of thousand in profit at every other town you stop by.

Your army expenses sound pretty big for someone having no kingdom or multiple cities. I am late game and my main party of 380 elites is at a bit more than 5000 denars.

Only keep low tier units as garrison. Dismiss everyone expensive or take them into your party. The wages also go 2->3->5->8>12 so from tier 3 onward is alot more expensive than tier 1-2 when considering numbers. I usually keep garrison at tier 2 so I have some specialized archers and the infantry guys have shields. That already ups their efficiency for battle tremendously to add meat to your army. Your own party is what should have a hard core of elites. Still it may be worthwhile to limit yourself to 50 elites and not upgrade people just because you can. Leave them in the wings to replace losses and increase your elite core only with your income.

That said, shape your army around your budget and when in doubt your party beats garrison every time.

Also if you want to stick with Sargot, get workshops there. 100-200 denars a day can pay a good chunk of your garrison.

I would also disagree on the caravans. If your problem is Vlandia being too peaceful they can actually be worthwhile.

Also the worthwhile thing about tournaments aren't the bets, but the victory prize. That can be 5000-10000 (particularly noble mounts). Sell them.

Overall however ponder what you want to do. You can still ditch Vlandia and seek a more action filled kingdom. You can also start your independence war (but your should be able to have a stable companion army of 500+ and money to pay yourself out of wars) or be more aggressive when a war happens. Wars usually pay for themselves so if you say your loot does not suffice, fight more equal battles alone. Battles should rake you in tens of thousands of denars with the ceiling being town merchant budgets, prisoners can regularly end up ín the thousands as ransom as well.

Also a smaller but faster force (more cavalry heavy) may be needed so you can hunt down enemy lords and caravans. Also makes a pretty penny and fighting outside a large army gives you more pieces of the cake.

Boar Champion 说:

But without smithing, there are only 2 Sledgehammers to chose from, both of which being subpar weapons.

点击展开...

how much do you need to one shot cataphracts? Just by a polarm.

I made my suggestion here https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/escape-mechanic-for-fleeing-armies.457003/

Imo the bigger problem of it is a death spiral for the losing side if they retreat because it means they are in worse and worse odds and cannot run away. Aka a sensible decision by the AI to retreat is actually bad for it and they should have continued the first battle with continuing reinforcement waves.

Clsy 说:

how about smithing not being a skill, it just solve all the problems

点击展开...

I mean that thought should be made by TW.

Because the main flaw of the system is that it imo has no thought what it is there for. I would argue the only benefit of this feature is the coolness factor of being able to customize your own weapon. But the implementation is so grindy and tedious that in actuality you are able to afford tier 6 equipment that you cannot smith before you have unlocked the parts to design a good enough tier 6 weapon.

Other than for the money exploit there is no reason to use this feature and for the fun aspect imo locking all those parts is the death sentence.

I tried in my current campaign and even now in the end game with dozens of settlements and full tier 6 gear the smithing tree still is useless plainly because I cannot design a weapon worth my time due to locked parts and unlocking them is horrible busywork by chance.

_ares 说:

I don't dislike having time pass automatically as you smith, that certainly works.

But it might make smithing not viable for story mode playthroughs because of the time limit on the main quests.

Smithing would really only work in a sandbox mode with no time limits.

点击展开...

I mean, if it is viable at the moment then you can balance it the same way.

That said the fact that smithing is viable to something time specific is a problem of how OP it is. Overall it is a bonus feature at it exists weirdly outside the gameplay loop to begin with.

Inversely there is no reason for the timelimit of the main quest either. And at this stage I would rather TW scrap the campaign aka make generic quests more and better and concentrate on sandbox. That is where this game shines. This is not a Skyrim and even there Bethesda has problems with making good quests with a lot more resources.

Stuff really should unlock faster. Smithing skill past 175 and it is still a long way to get **** unlocked. It is annoying and grindy.
I still can often not create a weapon to specs of an order despite above skill level. We talk not even difficult orders.

Imo the late game issue is more a question of intent:
Is the goal to win by conquering the world?
Or is the goal to play your clan?

In CK some people may go for world conquests but the fun is in having your dynasty (=clan) go through time with plenty of **** ups and reversals. You planned to have your great heir gain the HRE? Well, sadly he fell off a horse so now you have to make due with his drooling, humpback brother who shows signs of insanity... where is my cousin and how can I arrange a hunting accident for my own heir?!
Right now there is nothing in the clan development to make it fun, heck I don't make it to my children being of age before I am tired of a campaign. There is simply nothing to play with the clan other than you are in dire need of more companion type characters to fill all the roles you need.

And if the goal is world conquest, then it probably should have an earlier cut off time and last challenge before you win.

_ares 说:

I'll have to test this out on a new game. If that's true that sucks! It basically will punish you for crafting weapons and probably increases your chance of save corruption.

点击展开...

Yes, it works that way.

Gets more fun with the mod "My little warparty" when you have pages of crap to scroll through. On the upside it means you can use your crafted weapons to equip troops in that mod.

Still, I would also like to have a garbage collection on custom weapons.

_ares 说:

Stamina is fine for smithing, what is not fine is how limited it is to recover it.

You should not be forced to wait in a settlement to recover stamina.

It should recover just like medicine does - passively on the go or by staying in town.

Why they thought it was a good idea to restrict stamina recovery is beyond me.

Now that I'm thinking about it maybe make recovery of stamina passively a smithing perk effect?

点击展开...

Imo there is no place for stamina at all.

What it is is time spent crafting stuff. So make time pass as you smith things. The stamina just chops it up into a weird two step process of investing stamina, then waiting to recover it. Just cut it and make x amount of weapons take n amount of crafting. Though obviously if that is engine specifically blocked then your passive recovery would be better as well. Just the fundamental idea of having stamina is a weirdly convoluted approach to start with and in my view tries to do something in an inelegant way. Bannerlord does not have something like stamina (a character stat you can exhaust) anywhere else.

Then remove the bloody grinding parts. Have it unlock tiers by skill and just a higher failure rate of producing sub optimal gear when you smith high tier things with low skill.

woofulous 说:

give all tournament participants the same armor, its frustrating losing just because the other participant spent more money on armor.

点击展开...

Imo part of the progression. By mid to end game you have the better armor than most participants.

I would actually like to expand on having tournament equipment paid and bought. Yes, the high nobility had better and far more expensive gear.

I feel there should be more build on tournaments overall. Break them up in multiple competitions with you having to choose one and nobility only competes in the richest one. Based on that split it into weapon disciplines.

Noble competition is mainly mounted (except Battania) and only has the noble lords and high tier units/noble elite units. Combat style should be based on culture, e.g. Vlandia and Empire cavalry with lances, Khuzait/Aserai with a ranged weapon
Then have a melee competition where you can choose sword and shield or two handed sword
Another have skirmishing with throwing weapons and one with polearms, maybe with a barrier to have both sides at an effective stand off distance.
And lastly an archer competition

And great candy would be having a Buhurt (group fight) where you can sign up with troops from your party. That would all create opportunities for you to decide where to compete, which troops enter which competitions (so you do not luck out on having peasants in your noble tournament for some tens of thousands type of armor) and even farm some xp for troops.

Immersion wise it also would make tournaments feel like a bigger affair

veronicaaltoids 说:

I feel like in this game, because archers high damages, every battle tactics is "defensive-then-counter-attack",

your tactics is great for defensive to large army, but what about attacking enemy?
Enemy AI always use the same tactics, it's so boring after beating them again and again

点击展开...

Well, part of the power fantasy.

That said, you can also use it offensively. The two infantry units allow you to have one engage first so the second can get around the flank and attack the rear.

Also creeping archers and HA around the left flank gives them great way to shoot at exposed sides and back of the enemy.

Currently playing Aserai so rather archer heavy. Pondering to add a shock troop just for flavor though not sure if I can keep them alive.

I agree that it is easy though most battles are already kind of pre determined. The only nasty is overcoming armies when the enemy is still heavy on elite troops. And maybe to keep your units not too disorganized if it is a multiple reinforcement battle.

infantry in shield or square formation, broken up in two or three groups. Behind them the archers.

Main reason is to be able to protect a bigger archer line and the infantry capable to cover a wider line in their tight formations. Mainly something defensively and against superior numbers as the infantry is strengthened defensively and with the right gaps and distance to archers the enemy will wrap around the infantry while the archers can keep pouring fire into their flanks even at close distance.

Pondering this a bit more I really believe castles should be an inbetween of a town and village.

In essence it should have all functionalities of a village which, as fortified, will not be easily raided and maybe have some boost to be richer than villages. It should also contain notables and quests and produce something. Elite units should be mainly gotten from castles, not villages. Access to castles probably should be tied to relationship of owner. Thus you cannot get elite troops/knights from a clan that dislikes you.


That way you would like to foster relationships with castles insteads of villages aka actually go there, but may face problems when the owner slams the gate in your face because he dislikes you.

_ares 说:

Stamina is fine for smithing, what is not fine is how limited it is to recover it.

You should not be forced to wait in a settlement to recover stamina.

It should recover just like medicine does - passively on the go or by staying in town.

Why they thought it was a good idea to restrict stamina recovery is beyond me.

Now that I'm thinking about it maybe make recovery of stamina passively a smithing perk effect?

点击展开...

Imo fixes a problem that does not exist.

Smithing things should simply take time => Voila, stamina can be cut and is automatically embedded in the game mechanic.

As is it is a bolted on mechanic for no reason than the fact you could sit in your smithy in a town one game day and become a master.

froggyluv 说:

First off I’m pretty sure they’d need to ask as they would be directly profiting off another’s hard work. I’m not just talking some small battle order mod - what would stop them from grabbing and packaging huge overhauls like Pendor?

Though I’m not positive the legality of such a move I’m pretty sure they’d be violating some sort of intellectual material grab. I like my idea of them compensating modders either their competition and/or sub contracting / hiring

Your welcome to donate but don’t try and speak for others work

点击展开...

It depends on what we mean with "ripping off".

You cannot copy someone's source code.
You can certainly take the idea and implement it with your own code. You cannot copyright ideas.
And given they are mods TW has ownership of the core code engine so mods are themselves in a gray area concerning copyright and mainly exist because they are good PR and if they don't make any money with it themselves, don't hurt the game studio.

Not saying this would go down well in public necessarily but a modder cannot really challenge if TW implements a comprehensive feature in the engine that mirrors a mod in the game, because it is their game engine in the first place.

The problem with zone of control: It is very arbitrary and while okayish with something like Paradox games which have a tile system pretty clunky for realtime like Bannerlord.

Plain fact is also that the idea of frontlines is only something of 20th century war. Not how things worked before, kinda the very reason you had so many castles simply so people could seek refuge.
However one must say Europe had tens of thousands of castles and probably hundreds of fortifiedcities. In a war usually only specific ones mattered in a military sense that would make an army siege them: Namely those protecting bridges or other geographic bottlenecks or having politicial influence that determined if a region was for or against someone.

I guess one could start with bridges not being randomly on the map without a castle or settlement there which immediately would affect mobility of the opposing side, if they had to run around the river or somewhere where they control the bridge. And controling these things was what made castles important economically as well, when they allowed controlling the flow of trade through a region.

The history of my town into a state capital essentially is based on its lord sabotaging a bridge further up river to shuffle the trade through his bridge instead.

I could see castles getting tolls from caravans passing through their area and having parties spawn that intercept caravans and plunder them.

Also all villages may be owned by a castle and castles belonging to towns. With the intent being an isolated town at war having a hard time being supplied.