Search results for query: *

  • Users: hruza
  • Order by date
  1. Should armor be more effective?

    I really wish armor felt more impactful. It feels really bad getting all the best armor in the game and still getting killed in a few hits

    Can you please specify how many hits is "few" for you and in what kind of armor? Also weapon that hit you is something that is interesting to know, because they have substantially different effectiveness against armor.

    When I am using top tier armors, I don't experience situations where I am going down in "few" hits against standard attacks by non blunt weapons. Even mid tier armors give substantial buff to survivability against non blunt weapons.
  2. Low Tier units vs High Tier units

    even in real life, angry peasants with rocks and folks can't hurt that much on a skillful full armor knight

    I am pretty sure that rock landing hurts regardless of skill. As for armor, unless it's full plate it won't protect 100%. And plate armor is not in the game. And even in full plate, 10 guys throwing rocks isn't probably going to be a pleasant experience.

    I said 1 T5 should be able to (barely) outlast 5 recruits.

    I'm not sure if you've misunderstood me, but to clarify, Swadian Knights each being able to kill 10 Recruits is just an example of what a powerful-feeling high tier unit looks like. I'm not actually saying T5 units should be able to kill 10 recruits each, just half of that.

    I know, I did not mean you specifically.
  3. Low Tier units vs High Tier units

    even you have the best armor, a group of 15 pesaant looters can still beat you with rocks, folks

    Kind of realistic.
  4. Reinforcements Spawn Points Ruin Battles!!

    Spawning is proportionate to the overall ratio as far as I can tell, therefore if you outnumber your enemy, your spawn "limit" will also outnumber theirs. You will have more troops on the battlefield on average.

    Problem is, that reinforcements come in waves and geography also get's in to a way. If you fought your way to the enemy spawn point, you may suddenly find yourself outnumbered because enemy reinforcements spawn right were the fight is.

    Unfortunately there is no way to avoid it unless you want to put hard limit on to an army that would be equal to a battlefield limit. I did not see anybody offering viable alternative to this mechanics, therefore you simply have to account for it, keep track of overall numbers and keep your forces back until the last reinforcement wave spawns. Common mistake players do is to go on full pursuit after initial engagement is won only to have their troops run piecemeal in to fresh enemy reinforcements far away from own spawn point.

    This is an old issue that existed already in the first MB.
  5. Low Tier units vs High Tier units

    Progression is the other big thing. After putting work into training your troops, you want them to feel powerful, to be able to easily crush the weakest enemies in the game. In Warband, each T5 Swadian Knight could kill 10 T1 Recruits.

    Yea, but he wasn't able to crush them so easily because he was trained, expensive and well equipped, but because his horse had magic impact damage and was able to plow through pikes and spears.

    It was result of a flawed mechanics. Non heavy cavalry high tier units were hardly more effective against recruits in Warband then in Bannerlord. And that's because all other mechanics were basically the same. And the main one is the lack of fighting skill difference between high and low tier NPCs. In theory high tier NPC swings slightly faster then low tier one, but in practice there is hardly any noticeable difference. On average both low and high tier are landing about the same number of hits. Or with too small a difference.

    At the end it's down to damage of the weapon and resistance of the armor and slightly higher HP. And that's not going to make 1 T5 outlast 10 T1 in combat as some of the players would want. Especially not if it's one 1 T5 against 10 T1 at the same time. Which is also what many players would like.

    Not that it would be a good thing in my opinion.
  6. Having a lieutenant role in your party

    Just an idea but it always felt weird to me that if you get unlucky enough to have a arrow shot in your face at the beginning of a battle and go down, your army just goes berserk and charge all the way

    That's false as far as I can tell. If you are downed in a battle, the tactical AI takes over. That is the same AI that AI armies use. And it's not just "everybody charge".

    Assigning "lieutenant" would change nothing, as he would use the very same AI anyway.
  7. Can i put my compagnon i a town thats not mine?

    What is the point of leaving a companion inside a city that is not yours? Does it bring some benefits?

    It improves relations with local notables. And it raises charm of a companion. Although that's not specific to non owned towns/settlements. Still if you don't own town and want to train companion in charm...
  8. AI armies and warbands compositions

    Yeah, that's true. But the OP specifically requested information about recruited/upgraded troops.

    Well spawned troops are effectively recruited too. In any case they influence composition of the AI armies. I did not really follow all the changes through the patches, but originally spawned troops actually composed major part of AI armies. Since then spawned parties were decreased in size if I remember correctly but given how often AI gets defeated, they still have relation to how AI armies look like.

    Anyway, it was just a clarification.
  9. AI armies and warbands compositions

    They try to get a certain minimum of mounted units. Other than that, it is pretty much just split evenly down the upgrade paths.

    That's for recruited and leveled troops thou. The troops they will spawn with (including after defeats) are determined by faction templates (unless it was changed in some patch that I have missed).
  10. Seriously Missing feature making Bandit camp attack difficult

    Last night I spent about 25 attempts to take a bandit camp with 23 bandits, with my 10 elite troops. Very frustrating.

    When I thought about it , it became obvious that the problem is that my archers did NOT "look for cover" before releasing arrows. Nor did my melee troops hide behind boulders or trees. We have a "Fire at Will" command but no "Skirmish" command where missile troops advance to "cover" before firing. When attacking with such a small elites force, it is essential to preserve lives ! That's not happening at the moment, as they just stand there in formation, like geese, to be slaughtered.

    IF Troops looked for cover before engaging, a small force of 10 troops might succeed more realistically, more often.


    Enemies are spread around. Point is to engage and defeat them piecemeal. Against ranged enemies use shieldwall. You can keep your men in a shieldwall whole day against ranged enemies, just make sure they are facing right direction. If you bring ranged, assign them in to separate group and keep them well behind your melee troops. Don't bring ranged only, they will be shoot to pieces eventually. Choose your path in such a way as not to draw too many enemies at the same time. If possible keep your man back and lure enemies to your men one by one or in small groups.

    If everything else fails, use attack and retreat over several days. Go in, kill few enemies, retreat. Repeat until only few enemies are left inside hideout.
  11. Complaints!

    except they dont plan to develop it like 7 days to die. didnt they say its almost feature complete? mostly bugfixing now and QOL then 1.0 then dlc sales

    Planed or not, they are effectively developing it like 7DtD right now. And I like it.

    Improved or changed does not equal missing. Companions are still in the game, plus now they are dynamically generated. You can promote them in to equivalent of the land lords by assigning them in to their own party. How assassins made relations with lords more relevant I don't understand, as relations with lords were plenty relevant for ton of other, more important reasons. And tavern drunks had nothing to do with lords. Two pretty superficial features that I did not even notice missing until now. I am not going to respond to all the points as most of them are just personal opinions over particular features and to me sound more like author trying to find things to dislike at all cost. Basically a hairsplitting.

    Let's face it, there will always be players that dislike any changes from their favorite title. I saw that with all major game series. Like for example Fallout. Old pastures are always greener. 5 or 10 years from now when TW will be developing MB4, there will be players complaining how Bannerlord was so much better then the new game. You can bet on that.

    if u make a sequel, you'd think its an improvement upon the previous game, not just different. if you make a new car with very cool lights and seats, but dont build the wheels again, its gonna be ****

    Bannerlord is improvement upon the pervious game. From better graphic, to bigger battles, more and dynamic NPCs, better AI, bigger map, expanded skill system, expanded armor system, more realistic/historical equipment and weapons, better more user friendly interface, better and expanded sieges... I can go on and on.
  12. Complaints!

    I like that idea, and the mod community is going to have field days turning this game inside out and upside down. Bannerlord Star Wars, Bannerlord LOTR, Bannerlord 1200AD, Bannerlord Sword of Sparta, Bannerlord Rome... we'll be playing this game for decades.

    Well look at 7 Days to Die. The thing that makes that game so successful is that it's been in development for years, if not decades at this point. There's nothing wrong about playing game that gets ever evolved, as long as it is fully playable in it's actual version. On the contrary, it's a good thing.

    People need to stop thinking about games the same way as during time when they have been released on CDs. Especially games that are not been produced by big commercial companies with shareholders that expect return on their investments by the date X.

    As long TW can support themselves, their employees and their families from sales, they can take as much time as they want developing the game further as far as I am concerned.
  13. Complaints!

    Bannerlord already have more content then Warband, what are you talking about? It's a fully playable game at this point already that devs keep improving. I hope they don't finish it anytime soon.

    The best thing that can happen to game like this is that it newer gets to be finished. That way we can keep receiving new content FOR FREE and keep playing it.

    Please TW, keep NOT finishing Bannerlord and keep working on it. You have my support.
  14. Any weapons companions can use half way decently on horseback?

    They do fine with lances and spear. Of course they share the same AI as any other unit on horse, so yes, they are going to miss from time to time. But so will they miss with any other melee weapon.

    Infantry AI is made to use spears against cavalry and they do that reasonably competently. Therefore 1H and 2H weapons are simply no, no. I did not try swing polearms like glaives but I ques they will share similar problems as 1H/2H in that they will be decimated by spear infantry from the front.

    They need longest spear/lance you can get and decent horse armor. In longer battles giving them bundle or two throwing weapons will prevent them from charging in to the thick of enemy right at the start of the fighting, making them last much longer.

    Spear/lance + throwing weapons and shield is my favorite combination for companions. If you care about them been forced to fight on foot when dehorsed, give them 1H weapon, if not 2 bundles of throwables.
  15. Mercenaries in armies need to gain influence to cover the cost

    Just buy good workshops which provide you 150-300 denars daily and you can can easily pay wages for a party able to defeat any AI lord.

    Talking specifically about playing as mercenary, the thing is that it is balanced keeping in mind other sources of income.

    And that's the problem. Game assumes that you have other sources of income. Mercenary contract is then inevitably set with income that will not cower your expenses. Which makes no sense.

    And it's exactly the same problem as was build already in to pervious MB games.

    Moreover the same thing is to a degree valid for a fief income. If you don't own ton of workshops and caravans, you can't sustain half decent army from a fief. Which is ridiculous in a game that is supposed to simulate medieval feudal world.

    Problem of MB series since the beginning is that it simulates medieval world but with modern economy. Devs are probably very proud about very sophisticated and complex economy in the game and they have sunken many hours in to creating and balancing it. Except it's not economy of the world of Mount and Blade. It's economy of modern New York or Ankara. Medieval economy did not work like that. And it does not cause distortions only to player income, all the problems with starving garrisons and towns are also result of it.
  16. Mercenaries in armies need to gain influence to cover the cost

    Well to be honest, it is still too easy to make tons of money. I am even refusing to buy workshops in my last campaigns for this reason.

    Problem is that those ways to make tons of money does not scale well with the size of your party. Yes you can easily do questing that requires ~20 mid tier troops and be in positive numbers while at the same time signing up as a mercenary and take part in AI battles here and there.

    But try to raise your party to 100 T4-5 units and you go bankrupt in a few days. Your income as a mercenary should depend on the size and quality of the troops you bring in to fight and you should be able to support larger companies been a mercenary. Life of mercenary should be level up from running errands for local crime authorities, petty lords, innkeepers and hunting runaway daughters of local peasants.
  17. Mercenaries in armies need to gain influence to cover the cost

    Presently, being a mercenary for a kingdom is pretty awful. For one thing, you're barely going to turn a profit even if you're locked in combat 24-7.

    This is problem that persist from pervious MB games. Although it must be said that Warband saw the improvement in that mercenary payment is at last made dynamic.

    Anyway, do no why since I have newer looked on the numbers of it, but in my experience keeping your army small helps. If I keep my army under 50, I am able to maintain balance or even to do some profit. I still can't make it on mercenary contract money alone thou.
  18. Low Tier units vs High Tier units

    With regards to relief by units, we definitely know it was done.

    The fighting took place in this spot, which was unfavourable both from its confined limits and because they had halted just under the very spurs of the mountain, so that no missile failed to reach them. Nevertheless they strove with valour and endurance and sustained every description of wound. The forces of the foe were increasing and cohorts were continually being sent up to them from the camp through the town so that the unexhausted were always taking the place of the exhausted. Caesar was obliged to adopt the same course of withdrawing the exhausted and sending up supporting cohorts to the same place.
    (from Caesar's Commentaries)

    That is perfectly clear in meaning. I don't know how anyone could look at that and think there is ambiguity there. You can certainly say Caesar is lying immediately raises the question -- why?

    That text does not talk about some formalized system of replacement of front line troops during fighting. It talks about Caesar sending reinforcements and withdriving spend troops to-from particular defensive position in a battle that took place on much wider space as Romans and Gauls fought for the dominant positions of the terrain, Romans basically trying to cut Gauls off their supplies.

    At no point in the text it is suggested that Romans have somehow rotated their troops out during close fighting, that would require some special "technique" suggested by some people.
  19. Low Tier units vs High Tier units

    Well, the Romans IRL did relief by cohort, not by ranks. Or at least every surviving source points to whole cohorts being relieved and the timing on that being a decision made at a higher level than centurion. Other forces did reliefs in that same manner, unit-replacing-unit, but it was less common most likely because of the other concern: to match the enemy's front in order to prevent an easy envelopment.

    Except we don't really know what those sources talk about. These are all just interpretations. I have posted video above where whole thing is been discussed from the point of our current knowledge. Nobody knows how it was done and if it was done at all to begin with, that is when Tacitus and Polybius talk about it, we don't know what exactly they talk about.

    We don't even know how actually fights happened. We have no idea what people were doing in the first ranks during clash and what was going on there.

    Romans made do (usually) by having gaps between each unit, anchoring their formation against impassible terrain, or sometimes both.

    And that's pure speculation. We don't know if Romans had gaps between the units during actual fight.

    As strange as it might be, we don't actually know how exactly fighting happened up until the Napoleonic wars. See for example dispute about what happened when two pike formations clashed together. And even from Napoleonic era our knowledge is very vague. First of all we are in the firearm era and second of all, when hand to hand fighting happened, for example during bayonet attacks, it seems to have been much less climactic then we tend to assume. Usually one side broke out before actual contact. That is if defenders see that attackers are determined, they broke. On the other hand when attackers saw that defenders are determined, they broke charge off.

    When looked at the data we have from another angle, it's clear that combat must have been way less intensive then we usually assume. I have already posted statistic from classical Greek wars that shows that casualties during actual fighting were in range of 3-5%. And that is during battles that lasted hours and in some cases days. That's impossible if armies have clashed in a way shown for example in that scene from Rome series above. If armies have fought in such a way, battles would only last minutes and casualties during combat would be 30-50%.

    To sum it up, I think that battles must have been much less violent and intensive (that's what overall data suggest) and fighting was more of a test of nerves then muscles (that's what early modern data shows and also some anecdotical ancient evidence). In such case there would not be general need to rotate anybody and in case there was, it would not have been any problem because opposing formations were not in direct contact most of the time.

    But that's my speculation. At the end what we know is that we don't know almost anything.
  20. Low Tier units vs High Tier units

    On a more serious note, that kind of rank rotation seen from a gameplay point of view and not from the armchair of the academy, I think would be interesting if they were brought into the game itself.

    What exactly would that add to the game expect making things even more complicated for the AI that already struggles with complexities of the existing combat system?

    BTW.: It's funny how so many people insist on Romans "rotating" their men in combat while at the same time not bothering with the question why nobody else in known history found that necessary. It's not like Anglo-Saxons standing in the shieldwall at Hastings, Athenians at Marathon or Spanish tercios fought in principally different way then Roman legionaries.
Top Bottom