Kingdom creation is part of the main quest. After forming your kingdom (or joining one of the others), the next quest is to defeat every faction in the game (they surrender when they have lost a certain amount of land). After that you are done with the main quest.how do you form a kingdom without completing this main quest ? like why im forced again? to complete it so i can have a kingdom? make it optional this quest line is complete boring clownfiesta.
I think the timer stops when you choose a side to support. Problem with that is that the conspiracy timer starts ticking and when that finishes, all empire or non-empire factions become allies and declare war on your faction. So there is still a time limit sort of. Correct me if I'm wrong though since I haven't played the main quest since the change.IIRC only the initial quest has a timer now, after that you're free to do as you wish.
Maybe they do have something else in mind, but how are we to know when there is no communication from them at all? All we know is the current state of the game and we have to form our feedback around that. Speculating about what the developers may or may not intend for the game is useless.I dunno, have you ever considered that you might be wrong? Or that the devs have something else in their mind? Like for example redoing something fundamental that would make this numbers tweaking irrelevant? They have been shown experimenting extensively with the blocking system, changing it from animation-based to coordinates-based and then back. What makes you think they don't experiment with other basic parts of the game? You literally don't know what you're talking about, yet with the tenacity of a zealot.
Well what I meant was the difference between the two are "staggering" as in "shocking". But you have a point as well since the AI stopped blocking attacks in 1.1.0. Hopefully that is just a bug that will be fixed soon.Indeed, in 1.1.0 beta, when a unit get hit once, he’s doomed to be combo to death. Armor protection is so pathetic that almost any hit result in staggering.
I agree with this.Peple seem to be discussing several different problems simultaneously, which leads to confusion. The issues that lead the the current bad situation with battles are separate:
- All ranged combat is overwhemingly OP. The talk about looter stones, Imperial crossbowmen last week, forest bandits etc. are all symptoms of a much larger problem. I played Warband&mods in the couple of weeks before the release, and the difference is staggering.
- Create a character in Warband with no ranged skills and try to hit something beyond 20m away, let alone land a headshot. Yeah, that's what I thought. In Bannerlord, a character with 0 skill, whether player or companion can pick up a ranged weapon and start chaining headshots like nothing. Starting with near perfect accuracy is OP.
- Warband you needed a heavy skill investement into power throw/draw and horse archery to actually do damage. A novice with a hunter's bow could land headshots on a heavily armored knight and do virtually no damage. Bannerlord, ranged gamage starts massive from the get go, skills only slightly increase it. And also for some bizzare reason, blunt weapons like stones do tonnes of damage to heavy armor.
- Crossbows had a low-ish skill requirement in Warband, but you still needed Strength and reloading was slow. Also, if you wanted horse archery, you were locked out of the most powerfuld bows crossbows. Bannerlord has an early perk that lets you shoot anything from horseback.
- Overall ranged combat needs an major look at. Low skilled bow/thrown weapons need to do far less damage against armored opponents. Low skilled ranged weapons need to be far less accurate
- The second issue is fantasy recruits with swords and shirts. And nothing else. It's odd, it has no historical parallels anywhere. I don't understand why people say "meat on legs", that wasn't a thing either. If a lord went to the trouble of recruiting manpower, they usually expected them to at least not dieinstantly. Shields were one of the most basic ways of protection so there's no reason why most troops shouldn't start with one.
- So yeah, recruits need a more varied weapon selection (far fewer swords, more spears/clubs/axes/throwables) and they absolutely should have some kind of basic shield.
- The third issue is campaign behaviour. There's 2 parts to it:
- First is overzealoous lords who raise and army and promptly rush into battle again with 2/3 of their army being raw recruits. This is clearly unitntended behaviour and needs a fix.
- The second is game mechanics. "Let's make my recruits into trained troops by chasing some bandits" said no lord in history ever. Troops even have names like "Trained Footman". Chasing looters is not training. Aand even for the player, after a while it feels like busywork, keeping you from the "fun" activities. Castles and towns need some kind of "training grounds", where troops could be trained (spending time and money), rather than rely on notables in settlements to roll what you need.
- Another part of the issue is bandit behaviour. The bands <10 men are usually too fast and not worth chasing for most lord armies (or the player for that matter, outside very early game). Bandits needs some kind of consolidatiom mechanic, where if a band hasn't had a successful attack on villagers/caravans in a while, they try to merge with another bandit party in the vicinity, or failing that, go to the hideout and merge there.
- Then there's battle AI issues but these are minor in comparison.