Search results for query: *

  1. Recruiting clans is way too expensive, Warband had a better system

    Isnt that pretty much what they say?
    Its a bit poorly worded I think. It sounds more like they’re simply not willing to join you, regardless of relationship or cash, not that you don’t have enough to barter.
  2. Recruiting clans is way too expensive, Warband had a better system

    @beanywalrus you've got to focus trying to recruit clans that have no fiefs and have a poor wealth status, they will only cost you a few hundred thousand to recruit. If you go after clans that have fiefs then they will want you to pay for them to leave their fiefs, you are essentially convincing them to leave everything behind.

    My biggest gripe with recruitment is that we can't offer fiefs to trade instead of cash. I should be able to give one of my fiefs up to lower the cost of recruitment.
    I was able to recruit a lord with a town not too long ago, the price wasn't too bad, and I think his wealth was poor. I'm trying to do the same with other clans now and they don't even give me the option - I'm friends with both clans in question. The priority just seems busted and unreliable right now, which is why I prefer Warband's recruitment. Honorable lords would stick with a king despite having no fiefs until the very end, bad natured lords were never happy unless you were feasting with them 24/7 to where you can give someone else attention without them running away. Friendships mattered a lot. But now having it based on how much money the player can spend on recruitment just seems like the priority is off, like I'm not RP'ing, just min-maxing my income.
  3. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    I haven't made this assumption yet because armies also cooperate in defending sieges as well now. This is why you don't see much happen in the first 5 years.

    The biggest anomaly so far in 1.8.0 compared to other versions is the high defection rate. The weirdest part is clans in kingdoms that are winning are defecting as well, which makes me think there is a bug with it. Also I can tell you that defections are the fastest way to snowballing, one of the big reasons snowballing came down in the past is that defections essentially stopped.
    Could very well be. The only time I ever witnessed a defection in 500 hours of playing was when the game first released, and everyone, including ruler clans, would join other kingdoms once it was looking bad. And that playthrough was only a few years long.
  4. Information about developments at snowballing problem

    Ok so here are the results for two 20 year snowball tests for patch 1.8.0. This patch has definitely shook things up and the map is much more spicy now.

    Here are the results of Test 1.

    5xpUM.jpg
    RXM4k.jpg
    tXAE0.jpg
    Z9l3g.jpg
    LSDPS.png
    _aJAT.png
    HlT8v.png

    Here are the results of Test 2.

    -kcEj.jpg
    2lsQM.jpg
    ek4BG.jpg
    6oi4u.png
    TflGK.png
    IUmfO.png

    Here are observations I've made while throwing all the data together for both tests @SadShogun .
    • 20 year snowball scores have jumped up to 80 and 71, numbers we haven't seen since 1.5.6 (generally have averaged about 30-40 the past several patches). The map is definitely not stable anymore after 20 years, but we do see a relatively calm early game with 5 year snowball scores only being 13 and 12. We saw different mid games with test one having a snowball score of 41 after 10 years and test two having a score of 19. So even though test two hadn't escalated as fast as test one in 10 years they both end up relatively high by 20 years.
    • My guess on why snowballing is much higher now is something to do with defection. If you look at the recruited clans column in the clan status table you'll see we have 19 and 22 clans that have flip kingdoms, in previous patches defections would only happen if the kingdom was losing territory and going broke, but ive noticed even the strong kingdoms are having clans defect. If you compare starting clans with original clans(@20 years) you'll notice every kingdom has had at least 1 clan defect.
    -RwsZ.jpg
    EkLzN.jpg
    • Wealth is still a mirror of the state of the world, with more clear winners there are a lot of rich clans, but with more losers there are also lots of poor clans. Good to see there are barely any very poor clans as that's normally an indication that clans are too poor to build full armies.
    • I noticed there seems to be about a 50% chance that a rebel group that becomes an official clan will get recruited by a kingdom. Most of them join the kingdom that is the same as their culture which is a good sign. The ones who dont get recruited seem to get themselves into wars with everyone in the world leaving them with no one to join.
    RlwbY.jpg
    DfVQJ.jpg
    SD1cA.jpg
    V5IGe.jpg
    D3Mvr.jpg
    • There seems to be an issue with marriage, i wasnt seeing many if any at all and there didnt seem to be any young children left by 20 years.
    KU731.jpg
    Htltv.jpg
    KZ5iN.jpg
    QMhOg.jpg
    9Td6m.jpg
    2AjVr.jpg
    cTUfv.jpg
    bpsTh.jpg
    66Th5.jpg
    2v6tp.jpg

    Only two tests so take everything with a grain of salt.
    I imagine the higher snowballing score is due to armies cooperating in sieges. In 1.7.2, besiegers don't have enough to take towns most of the time, and will get torn apart by reinforcing armies at a certain threshold.
  5. Recruiting clans is way too expensive, Warband had a better system

    Currently recruiting other clans into your kingdom is ridiculously expensive and I can't imagine how this is supposed to be fun. It's not like money is hard to make, but I'm sitting with 2 million denars in the bank yet nobody I speak to is willing to join my kingdom, saying I don't have enough...
  6. Statement regarding Singleplayer IV

    Been awhile since I've checked here, there's been quite a few good changes to the game I think. Notably I love how I'm not seeing entire armies of recruits and battles regularly have elites. I like alot of these changes coming too and armor effectiveness has been a gripe since day 1. But there's still some improvements not mentioned here and would suggest some things -
    1. Perks. Most are very underwhelming. Some are good ideas but with very small effects, they should be much more meaningful. Compared to Warband's skills, they don't have a huge impact aside from a notable few, such as the ones that allow you to discard gear for XP and trading perks. The RPG elements of this game are not as rewarding as say Warband's, where every skill has a notable impact. It's also odd why some skills have perks that should belong to entirely different skills. Currently it seems like the game is less of an RPG than Warband, with only a few skills worth investing in until abandoning at a certain point. I'd also like to see some troops have perks if possible.
    2. Battle AI. A battle larger than your battle size tends to turn into a moshpit, with both sides not using tactics and just carelessly charging. We also need better and more reactive siege defense, with communication between defenders and strategic retreats. I'm not talking about street fights or your good implementation of keep fights, but moving to choke points and other layers of defense. As for communication, having something like notifications for when ladders are docked and certain walls are taken would help alot. I've also noticed that sometimes an idiot will run towards the gate and try to open it, or a defender will rush the ladders to push them off, ignoring enemies around them.
    3. Culture. Should not be static and should change over long periods of time, encouraging generational gameplay. The AI also struggles to maintain towns of a different culture. I like the rebellion system, but it seems like the player is the only one capable of preventing a rebellion. And given the current problem of children inheriting the mother's race without any possibility of choosing the culture to adopt, generational gameplay is doomed to chaos. Allow us to choose what culture our children adopt and have the AI make intelligent, lore-friendly decisions based on their culture. Battanians generally should not be marrying Imperials. Adding to that, culture should have more of an impact on the world, with certain factions being ruthless towards others, like Battanians beheading any Imperial they capture if they're merciless, and vice versa.
    4. Companions. Frankly I don't like how they're done at all. I don't mind having some random companions, but everyone randomized with no real character to them is just not fun. They don't refund gear when they die and are mostly a bad investment unless you give them a caravan or have them govern. Given everyone is randomized and new companions are not generated as a campaign goes on, you may never see certain types, like "spice vendors." Bring back Warband companions and their personalities, allow us to make them lords, get married to them, etc.
    5. Lords recover too quickly from defeat and ransoms should be 10x more, ideally scaling off their wealth and power. Taking them prisoner still doesn't seem worthwhile as they'll either escape quickly or be ransomed for a day's wages.
    6. Speaking of days wages, they should be less frequent if at all possible. I've never been a fan of daily wages. I get that the time is accelerated but it should be every 2 days. Nobody in their right mind would pay soldiers a daily wage. Every two days, however, would be a better simulation of the 120 day years (60) payments and scale better with a weekly wage, which would be 52 payments across 365 days.
    7. Might be a bit much to suggest but using the appropriate town siege scene for battles between reinforcing armies, besiegers, and defenders. Having the besiegers stuck between two armies with the defenders coming from the walls the reinforcing army coming from behind them would add a ton of risk and immersion to every siege. It'd also be really fun.
  7. Steppe bandits cripple Khuzait villages

    Khuzait villagers are easy targets and steppe bandits are too fast for anyone to catch. This is an issue, as khuzait villagers never get their goods to market - never getting a prosperity boost, and the khuzait kingdom starts the game with a policy that slowly drains a villages hearths...
  8. Reduce Prosperity Loss for Serfdom!!!

    I agree, this should really be in a future patch. Right now every castle will eventually lose their worth.
  9. POLL: Are you happy with the current state of mass combat in BL?

    Every time I get into a battle I can't help but be annoyed that the reinforcements spawn in seemingly the middle of the battlefield. The maps are simply too small, attackers will always have the issue of reinforcements coming right behind them from thin air. Not just in field battles - sieges have this issue too. An entire wave of defenders can spawn literally right at the gates, on top of you, while your men have just defeated the initial defenders. How is this acceptable gameplay? Reinforcements should spawn in with large waves, in formation, outside the borders, and come into the map. In sieges, defenders must come from the keep/barracks.
  10. Persuading lords to join your kingdom is absolutely broken and needs to be fixed

    First, it costs literal millions of denars to recruit a lord to your kingdom, if you can pass the speech checks (which aren't too bad, provided you're friends). This is absolutely absurd, how am I supposed to recruit anyone without bankrupting myself? Not to mention, how am I supposed to make...
  11. Smithing and selling javelins

    I will respond to this how I always do to these kind of responses.

    This is a single player experience. At the end of the day the only person the game has to please is you. Play however you want. If exploiting the system makes the game more fun for you do it, simple as that.

    However, that doesn't change the fact that your exploiting the game to have that mighty elite garrison. Saying that the base game should remain broken just to accommodate your playstyle doesn't improve the overall game because most people would like the base game to work as intended without any exploitable mechanics. That is just the place we should start from.

    Also, I will let you in on a little secret. If you want to exploit the game to make money, don't waste your time with Javelins, just use alt + ~ and open the console command menu to give yourself any amount of money you want. Takes like 20 seconds. Did it last night and gave myself 100 million Denar so I could afford to recruit a lord with 3 cities who hated me to my faction. You can also use to to spawn in items and any number of things. Also mods will work wonders for exploiting and cheating. I got my game set to gain skill like 3 times faster than normal and I get 1 focus and 1 attribute per level. I even got tweaks that make it so it is easier to manage town. On and I use a mod that allows me to edit the skills of all my companions and myself and I use it to mod out some sweet, actually qualified, governors for my towns and castles. Also I do various other things with mods to make the game more enjoyable for myself.

    Seriously though, it is ok to cheat, exploit or whatever if that makes the game more fun for you, but campaigning to have a broken mechanic to be purposely left in the game to cater to the playstyle you want, isn't the way to go about it. At the end of the day, the base game should be as exploit free as possible, in case in the future you or someone else wants a hardmode experience.
    You're ignoring that I said I want the exploit to be fixed.
  12. does it feel like this game lacks a soul?

    Voice acting would go a long way in making the characters alive. And no, not generic garbage either - we have enough generic companions. Every family head should be voice acted with a unique voice, and unique personality. I barely recall any lords names in all my time playing this. They're all bland and generic NPCs with expensive armor that take longer to die than the other NPCs.
  13. Smithing and selling javelins

    Here is the thing. You shouldn't have a garrison of 200 Elite Cataphracts, 400 Legionaries and 300 Palatine guards. Those units are elite and should only make up a small part of your forces because their cost is so high. Instead your forces should be mostly made up of lower tiered units JUST LIKE THE AI LORDS which is why the income is what it is.

    Also you have just pointed out why Javelins are an exploit. They are an exploit BECAUSE they allow you to have that kind of crazy elite force.

    Seriously, this game is supposed to be be a simulation of the medieval world with at least a limited basis in historical accuracy. Armies, even from the most wealthy countries were probably 70% levy, basically untrained or lowly trained troops with limited equipment. 20% professional soldier and 10% elite. You get plenty of money in game to support that sort of army and garrisons.
    Counterpoint: This is not real life, its a single player RPG game. It's supposed to be fun. Who wants to play a slugfest where you lose 3/4 of your army in a single battle and have to go to every single village and play town hero until you can recruit peasants with shields? It's not like the AI even plays by this imaginary rule you've come with anyhow - you will never see say Rhagea with an elite retinue of palatine guards and cataphracts - just whatever troops she happened to recruit nearby. The AI never has to buy their own equipment which can currently cost the player millions - that is if you can find it. I agree javelins need to have a reasonable price, but so does literally everything else in the game. As it stands I can buy a cataphract 2 million denars of gear without ever coming close to getting that myself. The best way to make money it seems is buying a wife, taking her stuff, getting her killed, rinse and repeat.
  14. Death in Battle hurts Lategame

    Armor should decrease the chance of dying in battle by its average coverage on top of the base chance. It's great to see lords dying, but it does indeed happen way too frequently - heroes too. Even if you're testing it, how am I supposed to reasonably keep playing when every hero I grab dies the minute they're KO'd. Off topic I gotta say there have been some good changes to the game since I played last in June, knocking riders off horses, better impact, AI snowball is much more reasonable, and factions will strive to make peace. But performance has absolutely tanked and the menu lag is borderline unplayable, good armor and weapons are still way too expensive. Either make them reasonable or reverse caravan/workshop nerfs. Better yet, both.
  15. Horse Archers are........balanced?

    Yes, you do realize you're fighting trash armies in control of the AI, right? Of course horse archers seem unbalanced when you fight the worst units in the game with them.
  16. Rebalancing and suggestions.

    AI lords clearly need a buff, but giving them free troops goes against the grain and back to warband doesn't it? Instead, make the policies do more than just free party size which the AI will either fill with chaff or not use at all. Noble Retinues should give the tier 3+ noble clans an elite...
  17. Rapid strength growth of kingdoms in 1.3 beta?

    Yes this is an important problem. In simulations defenders have 1.5x-5x advantage (average is 3x) changing according to wall level and built siege engines / rams / siege towers. However we could not get same or closer advantage at mission side it is like 1-1.25x in mission side. There is nothing I can do at this area, different people are working on mission side and I reported this problem several times for last 1 year. Even I offer them to start attacker agents with 70% health or do another cheat (I know these are not good solutions) if they cannot get close this 3x ratio anyhow. One another problem death/wounded men ratio is changing so much in different scenes currently. I think some scenes have much better advantage while others have not. Defender AI should be very clever and especially archers should use advantage of merlons to succeed this 3x death ratio in missions and it should be not so easy to do (so thats why I adviced some cheats to mission team). In Warband there was only one ledder / siege tower and number of attackers going inside fortification per minute was less compared to Bannerlord thats why sieges were harder for attackers not because of better defender AI.

    Fortifications should be hard to capture and player should lose more troops while doing this, in opposite player should be able to defend a fortification with less men. I know game is hard currently (at 1.3.0 at least) and this will make game harder but it is not realistic / challanging to take a castle / town with losing same men even less men (because player effect) with defenders.
    Avoid the cheating AI at all costs, the problem is the militia units are very poor quality and can't compete with elite armies. At the same time though, in 1.3, garrisons are way too big and nobody in their right mind would garrison a town to the point of which the taxes do not cover the costs. Either buff taxes to 50% of prosperity or increase the quality of militia, maybe both. Another thing I've noticed is the map design. Some are just plain bad for defenders, mangonels can't hit siege equipment, and the AI is very wonky when aiming them. I've noticed in the few times when defending, the AI would swing it back and forth then miss by a mile at whatever they were aiming at. I think we need a proper engineer unit that can man these for both attackers and defenders.
    Players, when defending a castle, should also be notified of how the battle is going, where the defensive points are, and when something important happens. I'd really like a tactical overhead camera. You also NEED to allow players to enter a siege defense while it is ongoing without the massive penalty to losing troops. Why go defend a castle when i lose half my army to get inside? Introduce a new mission type where you need to go from outside the walls to inside the walls with your entire army as quickly as possible. Until then, make it like warband, where a party has to physically stop you from entering. Another thing - make the AI target more than just siege weapons, but the rams and towers too in the minigame. This will help greatly.
  18. Main questline restricts gameplay and is plain boring.

    Main questline is 100% unfinished and should not be in the game until it is. Even then it should be optional and not nearly as restrictive, not a fan of the VC like story where I had to chase my mother i just met across brittania, but now its my siblings. Just let me sandbox in the native warband fashion. Your siblings don't even exist in the files yet, chaikand is just a placeholder for your brother since he's not actually set to go anywhere.
    We shouldn't even be able to pretend we're nobles in the main questline, its just dumb, let us work up to it.
  19. Sturigans is more weak after update?

    Sturgia needs several things to be a competitive faction that isn't free real estate for calradia to eat up when ragnavad inevitably declares war on everyone.
    1. Better party templates. 0 Nobles is frankly absurd, EVERY faction should get at least 5 nobles. I'd prefer there to be no party templates as that is sort of what was intended for Bannerlord, but the AI probably needs it (unless taleworlds adds a training skill tied to leadership, that'd be nice instead of making the AI cheat). The fact is, if 1 sturgian lord gets into a fight with 1 khuzait lord, based on their template alone, the sturgian will lose every single time. Sturgia simply cannot compete in any battle of equal size. I like the fact that they have druzhinniks as their nobles, since they're supposed to be a slavic faction with nord/steppe influence, but you will NEVER see a sturgian with noble troops. Yet another disadvantage. Even if they manage to recruit some nobles from a village, the noble will most likely die before being trained up into a druzhinnik since they do not get horses until tier 5 - another disadvantage. Compare this to every other noble unit and you will see sturgia at a clear disadvantage. Even Fian are better and easier to train than druzhinniks for the AI due to the fact they are the best archers around - they don't need horses.
    2. Better village economy and production. Sturgia's tier 6 nobles are cavalry. Sturgia also has 0 villages that produce horses. This is a huge problem. I did not even know Tyal horses were in the game until marrying Svana and saw she had a very good horse. Villages not only lack horse breeding in Sturgia, they also greatly lack the furs, iron, and silver that were said to have made Sturgia one of the wealthiest lands in lore. In game, they are always the poorest, producing usually flax or fish.
    3. Map redesign specifically for Sturgia. I like the shape of Sturgia, actually, in the far north with some very strategic locations. The problem is, only Revyl and Warcheg benefit from this isolation. Every other town is way too far apart for any faction to reliably defend with the standard 5000 manpower. It takes about 6 days to travel from Ustokol Castle to Tyal. Neyvansk Castle requires you to run through Battania to defend it. Any time Sturgia goes to war, they are at the greatest disadvantage of any faction simply because of how far spread out they are and how long it takes to go from one end to the other. Aserai is comparable, but there are no forests in the desert, and thus its easier to travel across. But other than the Aserai, every other faction has a better geographic and strategic layout than Sturgia. All of Battanian land is in a condense highland with only a few entry points. Vlandia is the dominant faction in the West that only needs to look East for enemies. They have several towns and are all decently close together - easy to defend for one army. Khuzaits are similar and only have to look West. The imperial factions, despite being surrounded on all fronts, still have very good town positioning, and it is easy for them to defend all towns with only one army. What needs to be down for Sturgia is simple - cut them off entirely from the Khuzaits. There needs to be a massive, impassable strait between Tyal and Dinar Castle. This way, Sturgia can focus on a single front, rather than being forced to march across the entire map if they go to war with more than one faction.
  20. Rapid strength growth of kingdoms in 1.3 beta?

    thats ridiculous. glad i havent updated since 1.1. mods have fixed virtually every issue now. 1000 defenders is just obscene - not to mention fiscally impossible to manage considering that taxes are 20% prosperity, half of those lords are losing money on a daily basis I bet. Hopefully this is unintentional, I can't imagine sieges with an average of 1000 men. It'd just make the siege grind even worse and FORCE you to spam trebuchets, unless they nerf those too. Not to mention, this isn't warband where you fight a fraction of units - you are fighting all 1000. Insane. That should be a last stand defender count.
Back
Top Bottom