Search results for query: *

geala said:

Also flinching because being hit by another arrow, so that my perfect wannabe-headshot misses.

In the arena (mostly, because in battle one on ones are seldom for me) I sometimes have the feeling that my shield is pushed away despite holding it up, and I get hit by the AI. Do others have similar experience?

Click to expand...

Askorti said:

Going back to the original question of "why the AI doesn't use those moves?" I believe the answer is very simple. It would probably be a huge pain for TW to code it. I hope I don't sound too salty when I say this, but the AI in Bannerlord is extremely bare bones(or, to be more honest, just brain dead) as it is. Adding kicking and shield-bashing, with the prerequisite conditions for use would be a pretty major endeavor for TW, I believe.

Or to put it another way, if they can't be bothered to make an AI that utilizes the most basic of functions of attacking, defending and moving proficiently, I don't think they would be willing/able/both to make it use kicking and shield bashing effectively either.

Click to expand...

Marajah said:

Epicrotea got a map with a river you cannot cross, except through the bridge.

They might use the same for Amitatys, eventually. If there's one thing we know for sure is how TW is slow

Click to expand...

Dabos37 said:

Mid-tier I would say. What usually happens is that clans start going to bankrupt, and lords start disbanding units but at the same time they continue upgrading them. The money invested on these upgraded units is a waste, because they disband these upgraded units after some days too.

Mexxico added an AI behavior to stop recruiting when lords' parties reach the wages limit, and maybe they should also stop upgrading units. I know that this could be a double-edge sword because people could complain about lords having too many low-tier units, but it is also a bad thing to having to face really small lord parties. Plus, most part of these upgraded units are going to get disbanded after some days, so the AI is spending money unnecessarily. The new system for limiting AI parties' wages is great but it needs some polishing. If I remember correctly, before this we had a system where the AI did not pay wages if clans were pretty low of money, and I have the feeling that devs have replaced this system with the new AI limiting party system, but now the AI needs more money. Maybe it is just about increasing taxes a bit, while increasing prosperity and adding some buildings for some kingdoms fiefs.

Click to expand...

Dabos37 said:

To be honest, it was just an idea. Actually a lot of things would need a change before making workshops and caravans tied to trade skill.

Anyway, I am currently playing a campaign as mercenary without any workshop or caravan, and it is still pretty much doable. I can pay my expenses and still increase my treasure progressively.

Click to expand...

caledoni said:

I quite like this idea but IMO Trade already has one of the best Perk trees. Adding your suggestion would make it pretty much essential for every playthrough. Bear in mind that Trade has the Renown for workshop perk as well as 'Spring of gold' and 'Everything has a price'.

Loot is pretty lucrative income at the moment. I guess nerfing that would have more effect on the player than the AI? If so then surely a better option than nerfing fiefs.

Perhaps reducing item value in general is the answer. This would also help nerf selling crafted items. It doesn't really matter if the player can buy good items (because they are cheaper) early on when they can just marry and steal 200K armour pieces anyway.

Click to expand...

granitestone said:

Shots from my first 1.6.1 siege:

And no, it did not eventually resolve. Come on. I mean, come on

Click to expand...

granitestone said:

I... don't have a good enough imagination to imagine this being fixed. This can't be real, right? I'm downloading it now. If these are really - I mean REALLY - fixed, it will buy Taleworlds my goodwill for like 8 months. I'll start acting like I only paid $47.99 for early access.

But it can't really be fixed though, right?

Click to expand...

order_without_power said:

Alright, turns out that you do not need to use Harmony to patch both of those methods. You can just create a new model and inherit from the existing one.


This is some very rough code that I came up with. Take note that it doesn't display an extra line in the tooltip at the bottom right corner explaining the food provided by a clan's village hearths. But other than that this code works:

C#:

    public class HearthsProvideFoodModel : DefaultMobilePartyFoodConsumptionModel
    {
        public override ExplainedNumber CalculateDailyFoodConsumptionf(MobileParty party, bool includeDescription = false)
        {
            float num = base.CalculateDailyFoodConsumptionf(party).ResultNumber;
            float num2 = 0;
            if (party.LeaderHero != null)
            {
                foreach (Village village in party.LeaderHero.Clan.Villages)
                {
                    num2 += village.Hearth;
                }
            }
            num += (float)Math.Floor(num2 / 10) * 0.05f;
            num = Math.Min(num, 0);
            return new ExplainedNumber(num, includeDescription);
        }
    }

Also take note that I didn't implement this part.

Click to expand...

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using TaleWorlds.CampaignSystem;
using TaleWorlds.CampaignSystem.SandBox.GameComponents.Map;


namespace VillagesProvideFood
{
    public class Main : DefaultMobilePartyFoodConsumptionModel
    {
        public override ExplainedNumber CalculateDailyFoodConsumptionf(MobileParty party, bool includeDescription = false)
        {
            float num = base.CalculateDailyFoodConsumptionf(party).ResultNumber;
            float num2 = 0;
            if (party.LeaderHero != null)
            {
                foreach (Village village in party.LeaderHero.Clan.Villages)
                {
                    num2 += village.Hearth;
                }
            }
            num += (float)Math.Floor(num2 / 10) * 0.05f;
            num = Math.Min(num, 0);
            return new ExplainedNumber(num, includeDescription);
        }
    }
}

Askey said:

Then I don't understand how a city can starve, you would think if the granaries are been used then the city would have first dibs on any food coming into the city to fill the granaries back up.

Click to expand...

darksoulshin said:

ECONOMY , LOGISTICS and WARFARE SUGGESTION LIST
In the link I wrote there is a thread related to logistics and supply lines that suggests a way to introduce them using assets already in the game.
In summary, it recalls what you have proposed but solves some problems that could arise by simply associating the villages to a supply parameter over time.
This is because questions such as:
Should the parameter be associated with the owner lords?
If so then a player would hit that lord's territories and not the others.
But usually it is the border territories that provide support lines for a possible invasion, as supplies must necessarily pass through those places.

another doubt: If it is not possible to attack the border villages (because they are not sensitive objectives), one must necessarily enter enemy territory.
But this leads to a "waste of time" for those who want to defend themselves from an invasion, since only to remove the supplies from the invading army must enter an enemy territory, while the invader is already in allied territory and can act in the same territory. manner and therefore remove the defender's supplies to prevent him from acting against him.

The supply line must have as its main purpose that of making invasions more difficult and the defense of the territory easier, not the other way around.
Since in the first case it can be used as a lever for any problems related to the snowball effect.
It is enough to adjust the quantities of food transportable by the wagons, their speed and frequency, their visibility, route, etc. to determine the survivability over time of an army according to the quality of the supply lines.
It also forces armies to split up to defend the lines.
But if they were just numerical parameters associated with some village, all this gameplay depth would be lost.

In general, I am in favor of the proposal, but I would prefer it to be more substantial and "visible".
The wagons are assets, the villages are there, the caravans can be made ...
In the link I inserted you will find the thread related to this issue (in addition to others if you are interested).

Click to expand...

mexxico said:

Yes this can increase army's life as you said but this will have negatives also. As you know when an army enters a town each party try to buy food and even with current 10 days rule they nearly buy most of town's food and some players complain about their town left with none or less food after one army enters it. Actually current design gives nearly nothing to town if an army buys food from there. Only 5% of paid money is added to tariff tax which is nearly nothing for owner.

Maybe before heading to objective, armies should enter nearby town one more time to buy food with current 10 days rule. This will need extra layer in army AI, short Term Behaviour should be set to visit settlement with a nearby target settlement before heading objective. Only for offensive ones, defender ones should be quick and no big food need for them.

By the way @Bannerman Man I suggested you to team several times previously. I do not know if you consider or not but if you consider probably you can take a freed seat in campaign team with your knowledge and control over code in future.

Click to expand...

Bannerman Man said:

Last time this subject came up I meant to mention something related to armies' food management, but never got around to it, so I'll post that comment here.

As far as starving armies goes, one thing I'd like to point out that I've noticed, is that after an army has gathered, they often don't enter a settlement before heading off toward their objective. This ends up being fairly important to the success of a siege because there is a difference in the amount of food supply a lord will try to maintain when they are in an army vs. not in an army.

If a lord is not in an army, then any time they enter a settlement that sells food, they will try to buy enough to maintain a 10 day supply. So this means most solo lord parties will be running around the map with roughly 9-10 days worth of food at any particular point in time. However, if a lord is part of an army, then any time they enter a settlement that sells food, they will instead try to buy enough to maintain a 15 day supply.

When an army is formed, it usually takes roughly 1-2 days for all of the lords to reach the rally point, and all of the lords will continue to consume food each day while waiting/travelling to the army, meaning by the time the army is ready to head off it might only have anywhere from 7-9 days worth of food left, since the lords only try to keep 10 days worth as individual parties.

An army that stops in a settlement before heading off to their objective will stock up on 15 days worth of food, giving them roughly an extra 6-8 days of food vs. an army that does not visit a settlement before moving to their objective. This also makes an army more resistant to the food draining effects of the multiple objective switches that will send them walking back and forth across the map that people have pointed out already.

So, all that said, it might be a good idea to introduce a one time only factor after an army forms that boosts the utility of stopping in the next town an army passes by for food, so that armies will more often start with about 15 days worth on an offensive campaign rather than 7-9. Since it's more important for defending armies to be quick rather than to be fully stocked on food, maybe that factor is only applied for offensive armies.

Spoiler: Source

Click to expand...