Search results for query: *

Just want to toss out that I am on 1.1.6 and it's still an issue. Is the fix for 1.2?

This is a copy+paste from my bug report on steam which is the literal exact same issue.
Summary: Mounted Companions are regularly in the wrong formation. Melee cavalry will be infantry, archer cavalry will be either infantry or cavalry.
How to reproduce: Get companions, equip them according to the way you want them to fight and give them a mount.
Game Version: 1.0.0
Mods: Without mods on freshly installed game
Cheats: None
Scene Name: Any battlefield

geala said:

Is this new in 1.9.0? Newer ever had such problems, but I'm still at 1.8.1.

Click to expand...

No, it's not a new feature, just an incredibly clunky implementation of a new feature. I've long given up on a good pre-battle assignment setup from TW, I'm relying on modders to fix the game there, my complaint is that if they were gonna do that stupidity they could at least have it set up so you could pick out what you wanted to go where. I mean, maybe I'm wrong but I feel like an option that maybe says "is mounted" along side the "has polearm, has bow/crossbow ect..." option might be... well..... SUPER USEFUL AND INTELLIGENT. My complaint mostly is during the battle though, if they are gonna make this big complicated and mostly worthless slider assignment system that loves to auto-assign troops to the wrong formation then at least make it so when you transfer units in formations during the battle you can opt to do the same thing so I can at least get a general idea of how many of my cavalry are suddenly thinking that they are infantry, despite being rather well mounted yet.
It is, to me, incredibly frustrating because I am not a fan of the "CHARRRRGEEEEEE" mentality that they have assumed every BL player has, I get into battles and I want my heavy infantry to take the brunt of the hit while my light cavalry circle and go for the HA and my heavy cavalry intercept their heavy cavalry and my light infantry circle for their archers ect..... but instead what I get is.... "CHARRRGGGEEEE". The AI has better control over their troops and formations, at least give me what they have for gods sake.

I'm having basically this issue with my regular troops also, have several cavalry that are somehow being assigned to infantry and infantry that are somehow cavalry. Trying to move them around in the formations just results in more chaos. It's one of those things that I really appreciate about the new forced assignment system they implemented. "You wanted that guy with a horse and lance and no ranged weaponry at all to be a cavalryman? Nope. He is an archer."

The battle-time mod for warband did a decent job of allowing you to fight in battles, even giving you the option to take control of certain units so that there could be a dedicated commander for, as an example, the cavalry. With the current technology I don't think it would be super hard to add something like that into Bannerlord, even if it were just sitting and watching someone else play and then joining them for fights I think that would be awesome, you could basically just be a companion to your friend and fight with them in battles like an actual companion.

eddiemccandless said:

Oh the part about mods wasn't really referred to you, more to the OP, sorry I should have specified. And yes, heck yes. Mount and Blade is all about mods, it's just a little early for them to be stable (honestly it's impressive that we even can mod the game at this stage, I don't know of any other game that allowed mods of this scope this early).

Click to expand...

I never said anything about the mods being the fix, in fact I actually stated that it was my method of a temporary fix until the leadership tree gets fixed. My suggestion was to allow all lords to have a minimum of 25 leadership so that they can all get a training perk right out of the gate rather than only the few lords that lead armies getting them. If all lords are able to actually train troops right out of the gate then the peasant armies won't be as numerous, something that I personally found to be incredibly boring once you get to late game where its pretty typical for a 1,000 man army to have about 500ish peasants in it making it basically just a walking xp farm rather than something to actually be wary about engaging, not to mention that in simulation those peasants get straight smashed by higher tier troops which allows for lords with significantly less men to take on bigger groups and crush them, which further leads to a lack of recruits being available for the defeated lords to replenish with, which means no armies to fight back with which means no defense as the enemy rolls down on top of them and slaughters them abd wipes them out.

I won't disagree with either of your points, there are definitely other things that make for the snowball effect coming into play, however one of the biggest things that I have personnally noticed, and thus fixed temporarily via mods, is the recruit armies. It has made a massive difference in my games in the first years to have done this, the major countries that typically snowball for me (Vlandians and Khuzaits mostly) have been kept in check by the other countries and I very strongly believe it is due to the fact that the lords are able to actually train thier replacement troops rather than constantly rushing into battle with an army of recruits. Maybe this issue has been fixed in 1.3, I am just now starting a new game for the 1.3 branch so I can't say I have any real experience with it just yet but this has allowed those countries that are in multiple wars, and thus using every single recruit around (annoying if you are trying to find troops of the same type if I say so myself) to actually fight with decent troops rather than simply recruiting a full stack and then promptly losing the whole thing in the next major battle because it was mostly recruits.

It has been said that the snowballing effect is different for everyone so this may not be the fix for you but given that it has worked so well for me I would have to say that it is definitely a step in the right direction.

I have to say my biggest snowball offenders tend to happen within the first two or so years of the game, those that win the first early battles or get a lucky siege suddenly become top dogs by wiping the faction that lost that battle/battles and taking thier lords. Changing this so that those lords have actual troops in their armies means that even if they lose a battle they still have a snowballs chance in hell should they happen to run into another enemy lord later on, rather than simply having a peasant army get slaughtered by a trained army of troops that didn't see a defeat or Pyrrhic victory.

I love this idea, it is one of the biggest things that I hope they add to the game. The ability to custom create an army of my own "culture" would be absolutely amazing and I think it would actually fit decently well with the lore of the game given that so many people use so many different methods of fighting. Setting up an army tree that "copies" several different other cultures to make a tree that fits your own playstyle more closely would be amazing. I think the easiest way to implement something like this would be to have you "choose your culture" when you create a kingdom and then have any villages that you conquer slowly convert to that culture over time, which will allow you to recruit troops of your own making from the villages and towns as your kingdom starts to expand. This would also fit in with the idea that instead of just helter-skelter throwing together an army you are rather taking the time to train and prepare an army that you feel will allow your kingdom to prosper, something that nobles and kings often did in real life when they found some sort of armor or weapons that they particularly enjoyed.

This happened tp me when the launcher put the default modules in the wrong order, there is a launcher mod on the Nexus that allows you to sort the order of the modules and if you use the auto-sort feature on it then it will sort the default modules to the correct positioning. I was having the same problem for a while and that fixed the issue for me.

As of right now the stewardship is the only skill that the AI can train so from a balancing perspective its necessary that it be set up like this to ensure that the AI aren't always constantly running around with little 50-80 man parties and getting smunched on by the bandits everytime they end up needing to get some more recruits.

Not that I am against allowing the AI to train leadership in ANY way at all. I would MUCH rather have them train leadership, especially for the perks, than train stewardship.

I agree with the premise for a couple of reasons, the largest being that with a character being of that age in that timeframe they would tecnically be considered already in the later stages of their life since the average lifespan of people during that time was around 40-45 years. Secondly, and also somewhat of an issue imo, is the character skill level at the beginning of the game. The skill level of the character is lower than what you find on 18-19 year olds, let alone the older companions and with a background such as the one created for the character it seems like after learning the various skills the character then just spent the next several years letting them atrophy until the beginning of the game, which seems counterintuitive to me and not just a little silly. Reducing the character age would allow the character a more realistic start given the skill levels and would also allow for a more realistic start from a roleplaying/authentism perspective.

Hewcumber said:

My dude I didn't say you couldn't make profit with current mechanics, I was just agreeing about the high end goods largely dipping after a couple sold. My biggest issue is selling everything I smelt because it dips so much, like Fine steel will go from 800's to 500's after one sold; what do I do with the rest of the thousands of smelting mats I have...? Give it away less than at cost.

I do seem to run into problem with this green / red text? I never get that in my trade window. My specs are full out trade and charm too.

Click to expand...

The problem isn't that the goods drop too quickly, its that you are selling them in the wrong towns. I see this happen most often with ore related goods but it definitely happens with other goods as well, horses and certain foods being others that I have noticed. The trade is dynamic and you have to pay more attention to it than just "I bought it low here and it sells high here so bam done". If, for example, a city has a forge and that forge has been having issues getting iron ore to continue its work then the iron ore obviously goes up in price so it seems like a good place to drop your ore. However if you aren't paying attention to the tides of trade around there you might think you can just drop off a ton of ore and make a killing but the issue they were having wasn't that they couldn't get enough ore, rather it was that there was too much demand for the ore at the time, so you went to dump your cargo and flooded the market with so much material that they have no idea what to do with it. Conversely however if the town is struggling because of war and bandits and they desperately need that ore because they can't get it anywhere else then they will be more willing to pay a premium price for the whole cargo. Selling high end items, especially like tamaskene steel and the like, have a niche market and while the original price may be quite tasty unless that market needs large quantities for some reason the price will very rapidly dip.

The trade mechanics in this aren't just point and click, if you want to be a trader then you have to watch the wars and the bandits and find the cities that need cargo and buy from the cities that have plenty/can't get rid of their stock. It is a fantastic and wonderful system that makes trading so much more fun and invigorating because if you aren't paying attention, or you miss something small, then the cargo that you thought you would be flipping for a 300% profit suddenly dips to a 30% profit.

I am not arguing that at all but you would know HOW to aim it if you were running it. I didn't even know there was a way to stop the charge on the pulley until you mentioned it which means that the literal only way someone is going to learn that is if they happen to do it by accident in a battle and know what they did to make it work like that. Simply adding some sort of UI or even a tutorial training popup or something that tells you that you can charge the catapult instead of just firing it at maximum would make a massive difference.

I agree with every point except the first one, it might could be changed just a slight bit but to be honest I don't really have a problem with that setup. If using a shield it is very easy to feint and cause them to attack then while they are in recovery you smash one of them and whittle them down that way. Also trained soldiers very DEFINITELY fought in that fashion, there is a solid reason that armies which conquered the world were able to do so. A Roman military maxim was "Bloodless battles and bloody drills" which is basically to say that they trained to the point where it looked like a simple drill exercise with a ton of blood and death when they were fighting on the field. That part I don't find an issue with because even looters can get lucky and attack at the right time. The rest though.... SPOT ON. It straight annoys me that I can send my armored cataphracts thundering into battle only to watch the charge come to a full halt due to some Beduin warriors that found some spears and flailed them in the general direction of my cavalry.

Even more annoying though is the knowledge that I am wearing 50ish armor and someone whacks me with a sword that does 65 damage and instead of taking about 15 damage I take about 40, like at that point is there even really a reason to wear the armor? It feels like Dark Souls where you can max the armor out but the actual defense ends up being like 50% reduced damage (I know I exaggerate). Not sure how the armor rating system is supposed to work but it seems like the armor should be 1-1 for damage blocked and then the extra damage would come from swing speed and so on. It honestly feels like the player takes bonus damage because I have fought with enemys that have equal armor, and probably less skill for damage multipliers, and I will strike them for 17 damage with 48 blocked and they will respond with 35 damage and 12 blocked.

EDIT: I understand that multipliers that can be added to an attack but that formula should be something like (baseweapondamage-armor)xdamagemultipliers=damage dealt. So a sword that deals 65 damage hitting a person with 50 armor should be 15xdamagemultipliers=damage dealt. It should NOT be a 65 damage weapon hits 50 armor and the amor blocks 21 damage and recieves 50.

AnkMah said:

Thank you, this worked for me! Now I can continue the main quest, I simply reversed what I did and removed the mod after doing the two hideouts.

I have no idea how you figured it out this way, but good work!

Click to expand...

I am just sharing the wealth, some other person did the footwork and I used that info for myself. If I knew who to credit I would tell you but unfortunately all I can say is that it wasn't me. Glad it worked for you though, thats more sign that the problem lies with the perk itself and not something else.

JaffalAllaYourMum said:

the elevation can be controlled.

when you pull it back, press F again to stop the pull back.

Only issue is its so hard to aim without a pathfinder/crosshair

Click to expand...

Wow that seems like something that should have been taught, or had a visible mechanic to use, rather than something that someone would learn by accident. I'll have to check it out and see if I can get the hang of it. Either way this still proves the point that the siege equipment needs some sort of overhaul even if its a simple UI fix.

The system as it stands doesn't seem that bad to me, I like the way it is set up, but the algorithm definitely needs adjusting. It is ridiculous that a town of 50,000-100,000 (give or take) is suddenly forced into starvation by an additional 200 people. The granaries should be able to store more food and the garrison should have a siginificantly less impact on the food supplies. Also the food output from the villages needs to be adjusted to be either higher, or to have more impact on the prosperity so that, in the example of the OP, a town that isn't suffering from war and banditry will be able to essentially grow infinitely due to the prosperity of the villages.