搜索结果: *

BG3 is a sequel to a classic game by a successful RPG developer that was making good games in the same basic vein prior.

Name recognition, nostalgia, good reputation, no BS monetization, and not trying to copy and shoehorn every new fangled AAA feature into the game to keep up with the Joneses but focusing on what this kind of game should do best all went into BG3.

Bannerlord actually has a lot in common with it, the big differences being TW is like 1/4th the size of Larian's BG3 team, probably had less money thrown at them to make Bannerlord, and they were more indecisive about the direction of the game during development - which is also a more complicated game in some ways I would think - the turn based with pause formula is not very demanding compared to the kind of crazy stuff Bannerlord's mass real time combat involves.

So I don't really think there's that much for them to learn or that they deserve flak for not being Larian, which had the fortune of a variety of things converging in their favor when they were given a major IP to work on. Credit is certainly due to them for handling that opportunity better than most would, however.

I'm still glad they went in an ambitious direction, and not surprised the bigger changes needsome tuning.

I can still see why he's avoiding playing on this patch for now, but I'm still very optimistic about the potential of the targeting system. The kinks seem like they shouldn't be too hard to iron out. Right now it looks like they applied a lot of things generally to all troop types, and they need to adjust some things to be particular to certain troop types.

The block spamming clearly needs to be toned down but also it would make sense for shield and non-shield troops to behave differently, with non-shielded troops being more aggressive. Archers need to have the distance at which they cease to advance increased.

Cavalry... okay cavalry still need a lot of help.

Ananda_The_Destroyer 说:

They were supposed to make it so the price to pay for peace would jump up exponentially if you keep attacking as an independent so that it would become unreasonable to do so. It worked for sometime but I think it was compromised by some update since so now you can easily pay for peace, but I'm not sure how easy as I haven't done lately. This is just going after other people's claims. If it's very expensive to make peace then this is worthless because if you need to grind up hundreds of K smithing (or anything) in between each fief, that a huge waste of time and it's easier and faster to just stay at war and make a faction.

One draw back to not being a faction though is not having loyalty policies, this means you have clear hideouts and do quests otherwise you can have rebellions. It's annoying so the game is better if you just make a faction and pass them so you don't ever have to do this.

All in all it's very easy to just keep taking fiefs and then make a faction at rank 4 too, so it barely matters. It always faster and easier to just keep hammering a faction until you've taken all their fiefs rather then making piece in-between. It's like choosing to fight the full force of the faction each time you start war or keeping them at a diminished power by keeping the war going, keeping prisoners and such.

I do agree it's weird that there will never be a war declared though. Making it like war band where you are considered a faction once you own a fief alone would make sense but probably conflicts with needing rank 4 to be a faction and other stuff under the hood.

点击展开...

When taking fiefs as independent you don't have to worry about multiple front wars. I agree there's a point where it makes sense to make a kingdom, but in my experience the easiest/lowest risk method of starting a kingdom is to take over the entirely of a faction's land and recruit all of their clans before starting a kingdom. You can take all of the towns of your character's culture and get huge daily income without dealing with being voted against or not being on the vote at all, and you can just gift every clan a single castle or whatever since they tend to drain money anyway.

Basically I just think the AI should be able to declare war on independent clans, at least under certain conditions. Maybe if you have more than 2 fiefs of their culture, or something. That lets players use the independent stage to prep for kingdom expansion before dealing with too much war a bit, but not exploit it.

offconstantly 说:

Honestly though Calvary is already kinda trash so idk why they had to add a bunch of nerds for them.
P.S. make Sturgias noble line infantry!

点击展开...

Targeting will be a buff for them, though. You'll be able to target archers without your cav running straight into spear walls as much.

(And also what they guy above said)

So cavalry is improved where they suck, and nerfed where they were kind of stupidly overpowered, since cav being the recipe for winning autoresolves was quite silly.

Qwezz 说:

What happend?
Patch notes have no mention of Sturgia

点击展开...

Terrain and weather maluses affecting cav and archers. So indirect buffs to Sturgia. Cav won't win autocalculation as much.

Also it takes longer to siege in rain and snow, which helps Sturgia more than anyone else.

Some of the changes to AI behavior may help infantry further, we'll see.

Sturgia will likely still be the weakest faction, though.

VVL99 说:

All game mechanics are hidden from the player and only TW knows how everything works.

点击展开...

Some mechanics are a mystery even to TW.

• Introduced Formation Targeting.
  • The system allows players to target specific enemy formations with one or all of the allied formations.

点击展开...

Massive game changer in the right direction, awesome.

The spouse can now get pregnant when traveling in the same party as the main hero (no longer requiring you to wait in a settlement).

点击展开...

Nice. Some good quality of life changes in here.

Removed Rhagaea’s gloves.

点击展开...

Okay...

AI troops now fight less recklessly which, on average, increases the duration of combat.

点击展开...

Excited to see how this plays out, might change up infantry troop balance.

Currently there's not much of an effect, they make certain dialogue checks with characters you share traits with easier at least. With charm perks they affect how much relation you gain with certain lords, namely merciful and cruel.

As a merciful character, I never call cruel lords to army because I lose relation with them for showing mercy to towns I conquer, for example, if they're in my army when I conquer it.

I think they affect NPC AI behavior to some extent too, but I can't tell if this is player speculation or not.

Hopefully they do substantially more with traits in the future.

Finished world conquest, now I really want an update before my next campaign but I don't want to wait QQ.

I think Empire victory is probably > Barbarian victory for world conquest, since the Barbarian victory scatters the Empire lords into other factions you don't necessarily want having more clans. I got lucky and most of them went to Khuzait which had 0 fiefs so they just ended up a nuisance occasionally raiding villages.

Been a common request since Warband but we can dream.

Yeah this is on the list of IWIN buttons I don't use because of how broken they are.

The others being smithing IE money printing cheat, battanian culture bonus IE catch/escape almost anything cheat, minister of health perk IE nigh invincible troops cheat, Khan's Guards/Fians IE my archers are also shock troops cheat.

I'd actually like to play Battania 'cause I like the Celtic theme but the faction is basically pure cheese right now.

Might be forgetting some but there are too many things in the game that are just way too strong for the player such that you practically can't use them if you want a reasonable challenge.

I'd almost put mounted patrols+keen sight on there, but it seems more like an essential massive time saver than an IWIN button. The game needs some other more interesting ways to stem the tides of the AI making endless junk armies, really.

AcG 说:

Females have a minor bias in birth chance at %51. However this can be changed easily by mods. Also a random coin flip can feel rather unlucky at low sample counts. Hope you're not too mad at your daughters about this.

点击展开...

Best way to resolve this, considering sons are currently far superior for clan growth and pregnancy chances get lower the more kids you have, is to make it so the more daughters or sons you have the more likely the other is to be born.

Currently if your first 2-3 kids are daughters you're potentially not having any sons the rest of the game, which just sucks for anyone playing a longer game. It's RNG that doesn't add much other than frustration to the game.

Alternatively, daughters could be handled differently. Maybe you can pay an extra fee to have their husbands join your clan instead of vice versa. And/or, any daughters you marry off don't count toward child count for purposes of pregnancy chance.


If you're going to feature a dynasty system you don't want it to be complete RNG whether people have heirs or not.

I'd add that I've seen this complained about in several posts on these forums and on reddit, so it's not an uncommon issue.

I think a big part of this is just the difficulty of forming a kingdom, most particularly the phase of recruiting lords. Companion promotion helped but it's definitely still something that requires a great deal of grinding to accomplish. When you have enough lords you can afford to take more risks, but for a great deal of time your main party basically is the driving force of everything and losing it is absolutely devastating during early kingdom formation - I just delete and start a new game if it happens, honestly.

Relationships currently matter very, very little compared to power and wealth levels, you can't really build up relations and political power to start a reasonably powerful kingdom.

What would be a nice additional to the potential kingdom-starting strategies is to be able to get support from lords to defect and start a civil war (support from X% of lords required). Being able to recruit rebels would also be nice. That'd allow you to skip some of the farming that's currently necessary but tedious.

Right now the obvious strategies all involve cheesy mechanics like taking tons of fiefs before starting a kingdom, and/or capturing or executing lords such that your main method of winning is more about just having good map speed and baiting the AI into stupid behavior. It's a brutal slog to attempt much else.

I also think the sandbox mode should have a variety of alternate starts at varied money/power levels IE starting at higher clan tier with higher denars. Disable achievements for them or whatever if that really matters - though it involves no real risk or difficulty, just time, to acquire denars and clan tiers - it's more about giving players more replay value. I like the early game aside from the early campaign quests which are definitely not exciting to repeat, but sometimes I want to try things without going through the early game process.

I mean, what kind of ratio are the relative tiers supposed to have against eachother(assuming roughly same type)?

I think 9vs1, infantry vs. infantry, the 1 should be overwhelmed by sheer numbers unless they have a chokepoint and/or hold a defensive formation.

Recruit balance, I'd grant, is kinda wild right now. The scythe is far better than most other peasant weapons as it's effective against infantry and cav and does solid damage. The hoe is okay. The sledgehammer Battanians is get is probably the biggest outlier against infantry as it's far more effective than anything else. The little hammers are okay for mobbing things but pretty terrible in smaller numbers. I kind of miss the fairly effective hammers from Warband, like the ones that Rhodoks used. Sturgia's recruits get absolutely nothing and are basically fodder, Vlandia and Aserai aren't great as they don't get very effective two handers or polearms. So really only 3 out of 6 factions have strong recruits.

According to Bannerlord perks it at least was working, but there's a caveat in that it doesn't take effect until 24 game hours pass.

"Quality of life changes" still gives me a tentative hope that we might eventually get some basic aesthetic options like customizing clan or family appearances and choosing our horse color. It's just so weird and annoying that it locks you into one default horse color in character creation.

Spending 30+ minutes fiddling with character creation to get the right default horse color and a brother that looks about right for a theme you have in mind, then potentially repeating the process because it randomizes his height which it doesn't display in character creation, is a substantial barrier to coming back to the game and replaying for me. I might be a bit OCD about this kind of thing but it drives me insane restarting several times due to completely pointless RNGifying of these aesthetic features.

I also think the Banner selection in terms of colors and symbols is a bit barebones right now.

On topic and on the subject of workshops, though, it would be nice if you could assign caravans to a pathing which would synergize with workshops, or even set them up to focus on buying/selling certain goods. Each caravan could have a little drop down menu in your clan management section for it that gives you some options to change its behavior. Set a caravan to go on a path that picks up the input, and also to buy its output and take it somewhere it sells well. This would allow setting up workshops and caravans to be better integrated into a player's overall strategy, rather than just something they buy and forget about, occasionally setting them up again due to captures and so on.

This would also allow you to stop your caravans from being total numbskulls and trading deep in hostile territory.

You can toggle death for your character and/or other heroes off in the settings on PC, is this not in the console version? Seems weird they'd leave it out on console only.