Search results for query: *

So you can build a prisoner tower to lower the chances of them escaping. Not sure about modding but you can always savescum if they escape.

You guys still play? Haven't seen anyone on MP recently.

Lmao. I am just imagining you riding at full speed and then bonking someone with a sledgehammer on the way past. But as for your question, no it wouldn't be very good, too slow and not enough reach, and the damage is overkill. You are probably better of going with a classic lance, shield and long cavalry sword, or maybe a bow. Or a morning star would also be a good choice as others have mentioned.

Chest Hunter said:

Nobles come mounted/geared. Are we playing the same game?

Click to expand...

I'm playing Mount and Blade: Bannerlord v1.0.2. What about you?

Getting higher tier troops shouldn't be easy. In Warband, it was too easy, making low-tier troops essentially pointless because they would be bypassed instantly. However, even in Bannerlord, training up recruits still isn't particularly difficult. I can't understand how you can think it's too much of a challenge. There are plenty of looters that are easy to kill, and bandits aren't too tough if you can distract their attention (and bandits shouldn't be pushovers to low-tier troops in the first place, peasants are their primary prey after all, and if you're charging recruits directly into archers you are doing something wrong) There are also a myriad of perks to level up recruits without battling at all. Take 3 perks requiring only 50 Steward and 100 Leadership and you can level up tier 1 by doing absolutely nothing except waiting 17 days. Or, you could simply pay to level them up by giving them gear, or plop them in a fief with a governor and passively generate high tier troops. And with a good medicine skill, you hardly need that many recruits in the first place and can get by with tier 2+ unless you are throwing your high-tier troops fighting in battles with bad odds.

My problem with the levelling system is not that levelling up low tier troops is too hard, it's that levelling up high-tier troops is too easy, and the fact that there is no meaningful mechanical distinction between noble vs commoner recruits, despite the fact that Taleworlds have had a myriad of mods, which have successfully implemented a bifurcated recruit system, to learn from.

Athletics has a big effect, especially when you take the mobility perks. You can catch up to looters in heavy armour. A lot bigger effect than it had in Warband. There are also banners that affect movement speed that may be looking into, but like everything in Bannerlord you need to test them to make sure they actually work.
It's probably worth getting to 275 athletics for most combat-oriented characters since the 275 perk gives you a big boost to hitpoints, along with all the attribute bonuses along the way.

Draky said:

That's like saying that museum profit from the free labour of the painters who had donated their works to those museums

Click to expand...

That is nothing alike. Firstly, museums are usually not-for-profit. Secondly, when artists donate work to museums it is implied that is will be displayed and thus increased traffic into the museum. What you are talking about would be a for-profit museums making reproductions of famous artworks to increase profits.

The legal hassle of trying to work out agreements with dozens of different modding parties would be massive and more hassle than it is worth. Even if they could sort this out, mods require ongoing support, which would require contracting the mod teams to work on the game and coordinate with the devs, which again, is another massive hassle.

Thanks for the replies.

To give an update, my wife Daellian had a third child and it took approximately 130 days to get pregnant. But funnily enough, the fourth pregnancy only took a few days of waiting, which makes me question Taleworld's maths. Also, does anyone know if having twins counts for two children or just one?

Anyway, I hope they flesh this mechanic out a bit more. I understand why they might not want you spawning a near infinite amount of vassals, but making it too hard isn't good either. I think they should, for example, make the happiness of your wife dictate your chances of pregnancy, and to make your wife happy you should satisfy certain conditions, e.g. doing actions that align with her personality, doing quests that she gives you, giving her gifts, having a good charm skill, etc. That way growing your family takes effort.

There is no good way I know of, you have to give them all unique weaponry so they can all go in the same formation. You give them bows and have no other horse archers that is a companion-only formation.

Ralyks said:

Actually he is not. The mod its called Prophesy of Pendor. No more to it.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but neither you nor the creators of this mod are arbitrators of the English language.

Ralyks said:

Edit: its Prophesy and not Prophecy btw.

Click to expand...

Actually he's correct: "prophesy" is a verb and is pronounced "profe - sigh", therefore "Prophesy of Pendor" would be a command telling someone to make prophecies about Pendor. If the mod title is meant to mean "a legend/foretelling about Pendor" and be pronounced "profe - si", then prophecy is correct.

I haven't used throwing weapons in PoP, so it might be the case that they are underpowered in this specific mod. Though overall, they are very useful for an infantry player. In fact, I think they are the best way to kill cavalry as infantry in the game. With enough points in PT, you can down a charging warhorse with a single javelin, and you can kill an armoured knight with a single throw. When an enemy cavalry army gets stopped that's when they are most vulnerable to ranged weapon fire, however, with a bow you are very vulnerable to random cavalry running and slicing you from behind. With throwing weapons, not only can you kill stopped cavalry faster than using a bow, but you aren't vulnerable as you can still use your shield to block, and you can change back to your melee weapon very quickly.

Unless the government forces you, getting health insurance is completely voluntary.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) said:

The US has instances of long waiting lists for essential procedures.
That doesn't occur to such a degree that people die in economies with socialized medicine.
The size of you wallet should no determine whether or not you get treatment.

Click to expand...

Who exactly is arguing for the current US system? And are you sure that no one is countries with socialised medicine doesn't die from lack of essential services? http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/health-news/some-people-die-waiting-lists-7734104

No one should be forced to pay for your healthcare. 

kurczak said:

Hmm, so let's run the numbers and let's pretend I am an average earner.

In America I pay something under 300 dollars/month for insurance which doesn't even cover everything and I will have to pay the first 3-ish thousands/year out of pocket. So, to be safe I need to budget ~ 7 500 dollars/year. I make ~ 40k gross /year which puts my health expenses at ~ 19% of my gross income.

I absolutely cannot go wherever I want and expect to be treated immediately. I have to check which doctors or facilities are in my network, what exactly I am insured for and which are not or pay even more.

In the CR, regardless of how much I make, I pay 13,5% of my gross income if I am an employee (6,75% if I run my own business) as de facto health tax which makes me covered for literally anything from sprained ankle to ass cancer. I never pay any out of pocket expenses, except dental. But then again dental is usually separate in America too.

As far as waiting times go, my personal experience is that there is no difference for relatively routine treatment. There's no government agency telling you where or when you can go. If one doctor is too busy and has long-ass waiting times, then go to a different one. Maybe (or maybe not, I don't know) they are different for complex surgeries etc, but on the upside you don't pay like $ 250k for them.

And if you have spare $ 250k on your hands anyway, you can go to a cash-only hospital and have (presumably) shorter waiting time here too.

Click to expand...

There are lots of examples of long waiting lists for public healthcare. Take the UK which has smaller private healthcare sector than most other countries: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/15/nhs-hospital-waiting-lists. Rationing and waiting lists are inevitable when your healthcare has a fixed budget rather than being based off consumer demand.

Going to the Oklahoma surgery centre https://surgerycenterok.com/pricing/, the prices for surgery are around $5000, with only a small minority costing more than $20,000. That is affordable for the majority of people, even without insurance. That shows the general market prices of these surgeries, if they're costing $250K that means something is very wrong. If the regulations hindering the healthcare industry were gotten rid of, and those market prices were nation-wide, the healthcare would be excellent both in terms of price and quality. The problem isn't a failure of the free market, the problem is the cronyist system in America, where special interest groups lobby the government for favourable regulations that benefit themselves to the detriment of everyone else. We've had the separation of  Church and state, time for the separation of economy and state.

BenKenobi said:

In CZE, if you see the doctor on 15 May 2017 and he sends you to have an X-ray, you will be having the x-ray scheduled to 20 April, 2018. Which is, inconviniently, the day on which your Škoda Favorit ordered in 1997 is delivered.

Dude.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're talking about, by all accounts Czech has waiting times comparable to most Western European countries despite having something like half the GDP per capita, and it's in terms of healthcare it's a leader among Eastern Europe.

kurczak said:

Great, next time I roll down the stairs like tumbleweed, I'll just fly from NY to Oklahoma and have it done for ~ $50

Alternatively, I'll fly to the old country and will have it done for "thanks, doctor".

Click to expand...

So you're telling me that you'd rather have your money taken from you via taxes, and then have to wait for whenever it is convenient on the doctors to see you, rather than have control of the healthcare you receive by paying the money upfront yourself? As they say, in socialism, you wait on bread. In Capitalism, bread waits on you. 

kurczak said:

Well, where a corporation is hq-ed doesn't really matter, they are still getting the overinflated revenue from America, but even if (big if) American customers subsidize European, everything is needlessly pricey in American healthcare

Take the humble knee x-ray for which an American doctor wanted to charge me several hundreds dollars when the total cost is 50 dollars tops, amortization and all, and I'm being really generous. For like 60 seconds of work that a semi-retarded chimp can do. When the revolution comes, doctors should be the first against the wall.

Click to expand...

Well, if you get your xray done through the Free Market Medical Association in Oklahoma, it looks like knee x-rays range from $35-$75

https://fmma.org/vendor/healthcheck/

You might say that countries with universal healthcare are better than the US's. And that's true. Though what the smug and condescending people who live in countries with universal healthcare fail to point out, and I live in one of those countries, are the problems. People who live in countries with universal healthcare system are seldom happy with it, it almost always suffers from crowded hospitals, long waiting lists, and there is never enough funding. The flaws of universal healthcare are the same as with pretty much any socialist system: it doesn't create the right incentives; it fails due to the economic calculation problem; it creates rationing.

The problem isn't due to a failure of Capitalism, Capitalism is just free association, and America doesn't have a free-market healthcare system. The failure in America is due to cronyism, the mountain of regulation that strangles the free market. Consider this: healthcare price inflation is a recent phenomenon. In the early and mid 20th century even the working class could afford good quality healthcare, through things like fraternal societies, which were subsequently strangled to death by regulations as special interest groups like doctors and physicians didn't like the competition that drove costs down. Also consider: the cost of elective surgery like laser eye surgery is substantially cheaper than other types of healthcare. This is because there is far less regulation, so competition is free to do its things.

So, ignoring the necro, knights are supposed to be overpowered because they were overpowered in real life. However I don't think they're unbalanced, it's just that the AI can't deal with them very well. If you want to defend against knights you have to use terrain to your advantage to nullify the knights' mobility: park your troops on a hill or in a forest. Get your infantry out in front in a dense formation, and then put Vaegir marksman or Rhodok sharpshooters behind them. The knights will get stopped by your infantry, and then be sitting ducks to your ranged units. Though since AI's only strategies are bumrush, advance in a thin line, and camp on a hill in a thin line, they can't defend against cavalry very well.

If I were to mod the game to balance the game a bit I'd:

-improve AI battle tactics and formations
-increase the cost of knights slightly
-make spears braceable so infantry can actually use them properly
-give ranged units smart targeting, so they shoot at the horses if the cavalry have shields up