Search results for query: *

Yeah, I currently have a town I lost to rebels (Hubyar). My only town. When rebels took it I besieged it planning to starve out the defenders. Then I got 2 other armies to help, but they also took control. We weren't at war, but then the Aserai declared war on us. They came and attacked our besiegers, but we won that battle with about 25 troops left in fighting condition. We recovered and now have over 300 troops to their 75 militia. The walls are down, they have no siege engines, we have battering ram and siege towers, but of course we don't attack.

I lost the town because the stupid game instituted Debasement of currency and I am empire culture. So loyalty is -3 because of my culture and another -1 due to Debasement of Currency. I do have an Aserai culture governor there (my wife). When I took over the town there was no fairgrounds upgrade in place so thats my top priority. Unfortunately the highest I can get loyalty is 20%, which gives 0 build. So I can't build anything and the town is constantly under risk of rebellion. At first 3 villages were flaming from having been raided. When they recovered they immediately had tasks for me. When I was over 15 loyalty I risked going out to do the tasks. I did 5 of them before it eventually rebelled. I spent probably about 2 seasons at the town just trying to get up to 25 loyalty so I could build stuff. It simply couldn't be done. Although this is off-topic for this thread, here's some questions for you. What use is a governor of the town with 300 troops if they don't do village tasks or fight off rebellions? They also don't take care of hideouts in the area. Nice that they can give you a bonus to loyalty, but they don't actually seem to perform any actions as governor. Why would any lord besides the ruling clan vote for Debasement of currency? Yet it receives 100% approval and can't be overridden unless you are the ruler. Why is the penalty for ruling a non-culture settlement so stiff that it basically destroys any chance of owning it unless you put all resources into getting fairgrounds in place (if able). I understand having a penalty that can affect your income from the settlement and force you to have a higher military there. But its ridiculously too high of a penalty.

Edit: Here's an update from my game play tonight...Rhagea came to Hubyar with an army of over 900. I thought, "Oh good. She'll gain control because she is the kingdom leader and she'll attack with her fresh troops that have them outnumbered about 6 to 1. Nothing happened even though the walls are still down, there's no ballistas/catapults in the town, we have trebuchets, and we still have the ram & siege towers. I decided maybe if I joined the siege and then left it would trigger it. Nope, didn't work. As an additional note, the rebels joined the Aserai, so now its even part of a kingdom we are specifically at war with.

Lol. I don't play mods, but thats amusing. Kind of glad to know dismissing a character will kill them. I believe at times I dismissed a character when I had a pressing need for someone of a certain culture, but it was either warband or simply something I considered. The plan would be to rehire them when I leveled or got more room, But I won't do that now. I like to show loyalty to those that join me.

Guscr said:

You have to be careful with this, firing in Bannerlord is the same as killing your companion, while in Warband and expansions the companions went to the taverns, here it says that they have disappeared which is the same as being dead.
Therefore, if you don't have space and want a better partner, the game does not allow you to put the fired player on hold until you have more space or want to change your style.

Click to expand...

If thats the case, you may want to make sure you strip them clean of any equipment you gave them before dismissing. I could see leaving them the equipment if you plan to re-hire them in the future at some point, but if not, its a waste.

I pretty much agree with the sentiment expressed that the battles are a bit better in Bannerlord, but the game overall is better in Warband. I always play a game like this with the primary goal to 'own' the whole map with a possible secondary goal of all kingdoms at peace with both me & each other; if world domination isn't viable. In Warband if you defeat a kingdom its gone, at least for a while. And in Warband small kingdoms tend to fight small kingdoms. In Bannerlord when you defeat a small kingdom its still around being a nuisance and has a bit of a chance to regrow, particularly if its on the opposite side from where you are currently fighting. Plus, small kingdoms don't attack other small kingdoms, they attack you with no hope of being anything more than a nuisance.

Other problems include...
The MAJOR issue that other lords of your kingdom refuse to contribute to any settlement which is yours and when you are ruler all settlements taken over start as yours. If you weren't part of the conquering army the settlement starts with 0 military. So of course every other kingdom looks at any settlement your kingdom has taken and if they are remotely close they say 'Easy pickings' and declare war on you. If you give the settlement to one of your vassals they will eventually add something to it, but by then its too late. This has been a problem for at least 1/2 a year and probably longer.

I like the idea that towns can rebel, but its too hard to get loyalty up when you are ALWAYS at war. So if you have multiple towns of a culture that is not your own culture its hard to balance control of them, especially if you only have one companion of that culture. As a ruler, you can give them to other lords, but its probably about a 75% chance it will rebel and you'll have to waste time taking it back again. On top of that, if you don't take it back fairly quickly it will develop a new clan. Then the clan will join whatever kingdom matches the culture of the town. If you are able to get a rebel clan to join you they will likely wait until they accumulate a fair amount of holdings, then defect to one of your enemies (although this is better than it was around the start of the year).

It would be nice if someone at Taleworlds actually played the game on a regular basis so someone there understood the problem and could relate it to the Devs without having to send a save everytime for something that happens on a regular basis in every game.

Didn't check the video, but this can also happen when you are captured by mercenaries working for a kingdom you are at war with. Then the mercenaries stop working for that kingdom, while still holding the lord hostage. Because they are no longer working for a kingdom you are at war with, they release the prisoner.

This has more to do when you are the owner of the settlement. I can take a settlement as ruler and go into it and other clan lords provide no garrison. I exit the settlement, vote some other lord as owner, go back in, then the other lords will all donate to the garrison. They SPECIFICALLY do not donate troops to the player's garrison. What you are referring to, Swally, is when other parties are low on troops they don't put extra troops in the garrison. That is something that actually makes sense. They are aware of this issue, for sure. But my point is its a MAJOR issue that has existed for over 3 months (and possibly significantly longer) that still has not been given any priority for resolution.

(shrugs) I use google chrome for the browser & don't use a separate VPN thing so I wouldn't expect that to be the problem. I've gotten in OK the last 2 days though, so hopefully whatever the problem was has resolved itself.

This continues to be a problem (at least) 3 months after being reported. I think I can clarify the problem a little from what was reported above...

When the player owns a castle or town lords that are not from his clan do not contribute to the garrison. So I (or fellow clan members) are the only ones contributing to my garrison. What is much worse is when I am the ruler of the clan. When I am the ruler all holdings taken are given to me before being voted on by other clan members. When I lead an army and siege a castle or town, after taking it, only my clan members in the army will donate to it (if I have other clan members with parties in my army. What is even worse is that if I am the ruler and an army that is not mine and that has none of my clan members in it takes a town or castle, NO garrison is given to the holding. It is undefended until a militia starts being recruited.

This is TOTALLY unacceptable and should be given a high priority. Its a game breaker and yet this bug has existed for months (I think there were other threads prior to this and I think this bug has existed a lot longer than just 3 months. I realize the devs don't play the game, but if they did this would have been fixed a long time ago. There are still a lot of bugs in the game, but this is one of the worst out there, if not the very worst one.

Thanks. I'm not particularly computer savvy, but I currently have the page bookmarked specifically to the Bannerlord-Singleplayer forums. I can try bookmarking it to a more generic Taleworlds forum & see if that works.

Over the past 2-3 weeks when I try to get to these forums I get a screen that wants me to check a box stating I'm a human. I click the box and about 3 out of 4 times it brings up the same screen asking if I'm a human. It won't get past that and I therefore can't check the forums (or post a problem). I'm sure some people I know wonder whether I'm truly human, but I'm not totally sure what the purpose of this even is. Why would someone run a program to get in here as a computer spamming something? In any case, you need to change your authentication program so when it asks whether I'm human it basically doesn't come back and wonder if I'm lying.

Again though, what Marda addressed is that its intended that the higher level commander takes control of the siege. You brought up the % of the loot after Marda's response. Thats 2 different (although somewhat related) topics.

I understand what you are saying and don't disagree with it. I'm just explaining what happens. For me the bigger concern is when you outnumber the enemy 10-1 or more and the new commander decides to sit there for days and days after arriving. The game takes too long to win as it is I don't need it lengthened unnecessarily.

While its not ideal, its not generally a problem. If they started retreating you probably badly outnumber them and will win easily anyways. If they did retreat you would likely have to play a second battle against the ones that retreated anyways and I'd rather not waste time on it. From a logic standpoint, you could always say a leader on the other side rallied his troops & kept them from fully retreating.

What he's saying is that its intended that the highest ranking clan (leading an army) commands the siege. In real life, that makes sense as the highest ranking commander would take control of the siege when he arrives. As far as the % of loot, I think (not sure) thats based on the % of kills/disabled your party is responsible for, possibly combined with the level of the troops your party kills/disables. Not that this is based on your party, not your full army.

Whenever it tells me I win, I immediately hit the F1/F3 buttons to tell my troops to charge. As you said, sometimes the retreating enemy goes to a corner then defends there, but also, even if they are truly retreating, I want my troops to get as much xp as possible so I can upgrade as many troops as possible.

See this thread for more discussion... https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...s-over-my-siege-and-then-does-nothing.456667/

I should actually clarify. When I said anything that "Anything that is the type 'mount' can be used to upgrade infantry units to mounts" I should have said 'Anything that is the "Mount Type: Mount"' can be used to upgrade infantry units to mounts. The 'Type: Mount' at the top of the description pretty much means nothing. The "Mount Type: Mount" at the bottom of the description is what designates it as something used to upgrade troops.

I believe the only way to get rid of rebel clans is to execute their leader. Once they become a 'regular' clan with the clan name reflecting the name of their leader I don't believe you can get rid of them unless all their lords are killed. Other clans can recruit them to join their kingdom, but the player is unable to recruit them (although I think this is a bug that needs fixing).

Anything that is the type 'mount' can be used to upgrade infantry units to mounts. Anything that has the type 'War Mount' can be used to upgrade horse units to a higher level. This is assuming it is a type that can be upgraded to cavalry and assuming it has enough experience. Even camels can be used in this regard to upgrade non-camel units, although I'm not sure the reverse is true.