Search results for query: *

To me the isolation Aserai have is clearly a boon. In all my campaign since 1.7 they've been the dominant faction (and major pain in the a$$ for me).
They're very passive early on, building a very strong economy (since their cities are never attacked) and by day 1000 they can usual boast a 11-12k strength ranking. And then they go on the offensive, stomping the western empire (that has been fighting for survival from day one).

In my last campaign I created my kingdom in vlandia. Couldn't be mercifull for each fief, so some got a prosp hit. On top of that some got taken one or two time already (sargot, charas) their props was really poor (2.5kish by day 900).
On comparison the lowest aserai town was in the 4.5k (that'd be a rich city for my kingdom) and the richest 9.2k (sanala).

Now they've started waging war on my kingdom every two years or so, a war last a year and then we take a break. I really dread this moment cause I know they'll be coming down on us with crack troops in the thousands. Usually stop playing for a while when that happens.

Also I'm very disapointed with the Khuzaits and S.Empire : they seem to be very friendly to the Aserai in all my playthroughs.

five bucks said:

Unfortunately yes. We need armor that functions more realistically against arrows! And take the Glaive from the Khan's Guard.

Click to expand...

Strongly agree with what you said.

However if we go that way, tw should also look at cutting damage. Always funny to one shot a chain mail wearing enemy with a slashing hit right in the middle of the torso.

RoyBread said:

Spending time walking around recruiting troops for my garrison is equally boring.

Click to expand...

Well at least it gives you something to do during peacetime. But to each its own.

When you get bigger armies is also the time where you should get fiefs.

A good use of a fief is to store troops (in the garrison) for replenishment purpose (plus they train a bit with appropriate building). It'll greatly lower the down time of your army after taking a beating.
Of course you have to keep the garrison with the troops you want, can be a problem if your fief has a different culture. Not a perfect solution but definitely helps.

+1 on ranged troops, use loads of them. Melee are arrows/bolts magnets, cav for disruption and ranged for the actual killing. 30% melee, 10% cav and 60% range is my usual army comp for battania/vlandia/empire.

Also avoid, if you can (if the AI can win without you), big battles (2000+ fighters). The way reinforcement works in bannerlord, you're bound to take heavy casualties at some point.

SadShogun said:

Currently we are aware of an issue regarding the food buying behavior which causes armies to ignore possible locations to buy food. I believe if there are more complaints with the army behavior we can look more deeply into this food buying issue. I agree that while it should be possible to starve an army, having no food should not be a common occurrence for army's reason of retreat.

Click to expand...

Heard the man, complain already folks :p

+1 for diplo

Well enemy parties probably don't have food either ^^"

Yeah that'd be a start but I also noticed that army leader would call parties that are already starving.

For example I had on multiple occasion an army disbanding after running out of cohesion then another lord immediately calling parties from that previous army. Not giving them time to refuel.

As a side note I reckon tw should review the whole army creation process, too many times an army is created with no clear purpose just wasting time, influence and preventing you to do something meaningful with your clans.

Yes

There is some "events" with local issues in fief themselves and bound villages. I don't find very interesting though, and more of a chore than anything else.

In my current playthroughs (> 1.7) late game is usually total war. Don't have much time for fief management tbh.

ssssnake said:

This discussion started me thinking about smithing.
I've started a new playthrough with self imposed limits that mirror my suggestions. I've actually decided to not ever buy weapons of any kind to smelt, and only ever smelt captured or crafted weapons.

Still very early game, but so far, it feels pretty good.

Click to expand...

That's how I play too. Tbf though, orders still vastly outshines pretty much any other money making legit means (trading is funnily pretty bad at making money probably a hint there).

EDIT : wrong quote ^^"

murtega said:

This was the dev who designed this war/peace system, I think.
You'll see this effect more clear if you check the kingdom war screen a few seconds after you eliminate an enemy army. Enemy will be way more generous on tribute as they lost significant amount of field force but if you won't sue for peace then, tribute will keep decreasing as they spawn new parties.

Click to expand...

Oh ok. Indeed I do have a smaller number of clans than the aserai (see previous post). Less war parties but with way more (and better troops).

I'd be interested to know what the X values in the formula is though. If it's too high it would mean that having (bs numbers) 10 parties with 10 troops is better than 5 parties with 100. And not sure I would agree with the idea behind it.

Currently running a successful campaign where my kingdom (vlandia + battania) has a strength ranking fluctuating between 15k and 16k. Yet the aserai (10k tops) keep declaring war on me every 50 days or so.

Each time asking for an exorbitant tribute (over 10k). Being at war against other factions does seem to contribute to a higher amount but only by a thousand or so.

I am quite puzzled as to how the tribute calculation are made and also why low strength kingdoms insist on declaring war on stronger opponents while they have much weaker targets nearby (anti-player bias?).

To be fair I'd say that the combat AI isn't the worst (especially at the highest level).

I'm a lot more annoyed by the tactical AI (leading armies) both in battle and on the campaign maps. The only workaround I found so far was to never be part of an army if I don't lead.

Agree with a lot of what's been said here.

I'd also like to point out that cavalry (not counting over powered khan's guard) is the only unit type that I am not really afraid of :

Archers and xbowman are accurate and do tons of damage (they should really tone done ranged damage especially at medium-long range).
While sword and board infantry are not that scary, you can quickly get overwhelmed/backed into a corner being unable to kill them fast enough. The one that are equipped with throwing weapons are very scary though.
Two handers are very very scary, one wrong move and you're back to spectator mode.
Cav on the other hand? I can count on one hand the number of time I've been couched lance (and I played 80% of the time on foot). The AI seems pretty bad at aiming from horseback.
When getting charged the highest outcome (if you don't kill the mount/rider in the first place) is to fall on the ground for half a sec. And knowing that it'll take at least 30sec for the rider to cycle back, I ain't too worried.
So yeah cav can be disruptive and annoying but that's about it.

To be fair when controlled by the player, I find that a small contingent of heavily armored cav has a valuable tactical role. Since they're good at being annoying, having them charge a shieldwall then retreat is a nice way to mess with the enemy formation and opening it for your archers.
Sadly the AI isn't good enough to pull that kind of thing, mostly doing kamikaze charges into your shieldwalls/archers' kill zones.