Search results for query: *

BigFat said:

Are cav actually capable of a swinging/thrusting their weapons before passing the targets now?

Click to expand...

I am seeing a big improvement. before my ~60 banner knights would kill zero targets when charging looters. I just tried it again and they killed almost all of them in one pass.

Sweynforkbeard said:

Honestly, dont take any policy that adds passive influence. No matter how much it is in your favor its basically always going to be more costly to vote everyone else out of influence.

You should have a huge advantage relative to everyone else in actively farming influence.

Click to expand...

There is an argument that enacting policies that benefits everyone is good because your lords will be able to form armies more, but I see what you are saying.

My issue is that this policy always seems to already exist in any faction I join, so there is no avoiding it if you want to be a vassal.

I think the only thing I have an issue with influence on is the "lawspeakers" policy. The one where you get negative influence for not having enough charm, or positive influence if you have enough.

I feel like it really locks me out from playing as a noble until I hit that charm threshold, which is rather high. I think its something around 100 or so.

Obviously the rest of the nobles are in favor of it because they spawn in with enough charm, so voting it out is difficult too.

I think the policy is an interesting concept, but as it is right now it sort of railroads me into grinding out charm when I otherwise wouldn't care to.

Bloc said:

What is really sad about this fact-check is that almost all of these are extremely easy to implement and can very much be a really nice touch to a game that can also balance a lot of existing problematic things such as "snowballing".

Click to expand...

I always thought that snowballing was more of a feature problem rather than a balancing one. There was so much time spent tweaking lord's income, troops, etc. to prevent snowballing. Keyword being prevent, because on a long enough timeline every game develops into a snowball even after all of the changes.

I thought something like a proper rebellion system where cultures could rise from the grave and push back in an organized fashion against their conquerors. Instead we have what is a system that makes you babysit recently conquered castles and towns, nothing that could substantially stop a powerful faction.

Haihefa Pauna said:

i thought it would count for everyone. but it only seems to count for me and my troops.

Click to expand...

Just a note on this point, my understanding is that "Realistic" is always turned on for enemy troops, so going up or down in difficulty doesn't effect how much damage they take. If you are playing underneath realistic then you are essentially cheating, while the enemy still takes full damage.

Callum said:

Unfortunately, I can't test the kick for team damage right now

Click to expand...

Wait, are you saying the community manager can't go on MP and start team killing everyone? I don't see why not.

They had something like this in viking conquest, "refuge", basically a little base that you could build up and store troops at. I would love to see something like that implemented in bannerlord.

Oakenlix said:

No, but wouldn't it be great if a player could just stay in a city and do their job as a governor, what an exciting gameplay would that be!

Click to expand...

Sarcasm aside, it would at least give you a reason to have the governer perks, and there are a few reasons to be waiting in towns anyway. Like healing or smithing.

black_bulldog said:

While I get the frustration that the perk trees still aren't done, I think you're being disingenuous like 98% of the perks are done and of the ones that aren't done they're partially done except 1. Don't get me wrong I think TW should have them finished them but honestly since we're still in ea I feel like there are going to be changes so at this time it's fine. Personally I think getting sieges and battlefield ai working better is a bigger priority.

Click to expand...

This.

I feel like it was valid criticism when almost none of the perks were complete, but right now its pretty much all set. I dont even check bannerlord perks when choosing them because chances are, they're implemented.

Apocal said:

There isn't a big reason to give a damn about your villages unless they are also your only source of manpower. Just let them get burned and do whatever else.

Click to expand...

They give you income and they help your city as far as food goes. This seems like bad advice lol.

Get a governer who is in the same culture as the city, gives +1 loyalty, you can buy food and sell it to the city and it will register in their food stocks. Build fairgrounds. You can stabilize a city fairly quickly doing these three things.

Reporting back after trying out ironman mode.

I haven't done the "quit application and re-load", this seems like most other ironman modes where it is just the player opting into having the game restrict saves for them. Yes, it's still on the honor system.

I am enjoying it, it makes me more cautious and the early game is a lot more involved. I've actually used the "try to get away" a few times, whereas before I would only do that if I didn't have a save nearby.

It's a little feature to the game, I dont think that "ironman" mode is supposed to be a total rework of systems. It isn't that way in any other game that uses it.

AnandaShanti said:

They still haven't added your character getting killed in battle. I'm not sure if they're going to either. Yeah this is one more point to the "Ironbaby" complaint.

Click to expand...

Wow I had no idea that death didn't apply to the player. There's no point in turning it on then... it gave me a healthy fear of lances, I guess I'll go back to fearlessly eating them in the face.

I will probably use ironman mode once I can play this game and not have to do a reload when things happen that are BS. Granted, the fact that you can force-exit the application and go back does alleviate that issue, as it does for pretty much every ironman game mode ever, depending on how aggressive they are with autosaves.

I do like the thought that every choice is final, I think it will make things like kingdom decisions a little more interesting because you can't just try it, reload if it didn't work. Courting will definitely become more of a chore though.

One thing that worries me about the mode is how long it takes for children to come of age, if your character dies in battle from a stray arrow and the game just suddenly ends because your spawn is only 3 years old, it would be pretty anti-climactic. Maybe I'll do one with death disabled.

There are a few specific villages that seem to have noble recruits on a regular basis, once I found them I am having a lot easier of a time raising a significant amount of Fians in my armies. You still need to protect your deathball though. Since they are archers its luckily pretty easy to do so.

The villages I am finding them in are the ones close to the west empire and sturgia on the lowlands. Sorry don't have specific names, but its been consistently true in 3 games over 1.5.10 and 1.6

mexxico said:

Even now sometimes we talk about a basic feature in forum (fe. war reasons) then there become big expectations. Then I have to write "please do not expect something big - it is not game changer" to slow down expectations.

Click to expand...

I have been struggling with this at my development job as well. Managing the expectations of the customer is always difficult, because time is finite and sometimes they just ask for too much, or expect it too quickly. I always try to remind them that while I agree with a feature or bug fix that they want, it may be a long while before it is implemented, or it may be ultimately determined that it would take too much time for something that isn't worth it.

It's not easy to balance, and at a certain point is sometimes better to not let the customer know what it is you are working on, because in their mind their issue is more important. Of course, you also want to continue to hear their opinions and thoughts about existing bugs and new features so you have to make them feel heard.

I think you have struck this balance well, Mexxico, and it is why you are extremely popular here.

Warbandit Bannerlordie said:

We need a better system than the current respawn of reinforcements, this is the one reason for me using the damage reduction.

I save before greater battles and often have to replay the battle because Allies walk into a death trap, that exist due to the enemy respawn often being behind them or some exposed flank and sometimes even on top of them. I have battles I gave up on and just simulated the battle.

Do you guys have any idea how bad the AI open field battles are with the respawns? Not only do I lose all my Allies but from an immersion point of view for a fanatic terrain and tactics reader, its heart breaking.

Click to expand...

How do you generally deal with reinforcements in the battles? I find that if I am in command of all of the troops I can usually anticipate it, withdrawing and reorganizing to meet the next wave rather than over extend into their spawn. But the AI doesn't seem to understand this at all, and will just continue chasing forever.

Perhaps a solution, for those who can't run battles with 1000+ troops, is an option to make large scale battles more like multiple skirmishes, where you spawn in with the troop limit, there are no reinforcements, afterward you go back out to the campaign map and you can choose to continue the battle or not. This keeps on going until one side runs out of troops. I seem to remember something similar in warband but maybe my memory is failing me here.

This is essentially what people are doing anyway, it seems, by pulling their troops back to their spawn and reforming their lines for another engagement.

vonbalt said:

If you read the reviews about TW in glassdoor from ex employees it seems the biggest problem with the company is the upper management indeed, a shame since the original M&B made by Armagan and his wife alone was such a passionated and revolutionary work in it's time.

Click to expand...

To be fair I feel like management is always blamed in glassdoor reviews.. I don't think people normally go to that site with great things to say about their boss!

But it is pretty much an unspoken truth in development that if a project is failing then it is due to poor project management. Unfortunately many of the decisions that would be made to mitigate risk in a project would have been made a long time ago. At this point, even though the company had an influx of cash from EA release, they cannot simply add more coders to make things go faster. That is a common trap for projects that ultimately slows down development due to the senior employees needing to take their time to train the new blood.

I knew when I saw that there was a refactor after early access that things must have been not going according to plan. Still, I am glad that they have been putting out updates over time and I am glad to see the devs are passionate about the game. I have high hopes for bannerlord and the resulting mods, I just don't hold out hope that we will have our perfect game anytime soon!

Julio-Claudian said:

I get worried that everything will become so 'balanced' that no faction will ever feel threatening.

Click to expand...

This is why there needs to be a gameplay system that balances the game. Because even if they reach their goal of everyone is totally balanced and nothing happens, the player will tip the scale and their chosen kingdom will start steamrolling. Tons of people have suggested stuff like civil war to break apart bigger players, but I haven't heard any word that something like that is going in.


Some other potential solutions :

-Alliances
-Rebellions spanning entire cultures
-Gavelkind succession law

If taleworlds is keen on not adding additional kingdoms to the mix, perhaps there should always be a king's title floating around, like instead of the kingdom of battania dying, whoever controls the most of their kingdom when they are destroyed gains the "king of battania" title. Upon the death of a ruler with more than one kingdom, the gavelkind succession would split the two kingdoms between his sons. Since they are now both "kings" they are not beholden to each other and the faction would split. Only with the "emperor" title can multiple kingdoms be under one rule after succession, essentially granting that power to whoever holds the dragon banner.

Yes, I think civil war is needed to make the game more dynamic. I was really hoping that was going to be part of the rebellions update. There is a mod called 'separatism' which does this to an extent.

I think civil war would pretty much end snowballing too, especially if culture played into it, since it would make having an empire over all of calradia pretty impossible. I feel like the only major superpower should be if all of the different "empires" west, south etc. unite into one empire. But still if they roll over battania or something then later on battania might rise up against them. Or perhaps the empire gets split apart after the death of a king.