Search results for query: *

bbaydogdu said:

This has nothing to do with AI's battle performance. That's another subject needs to be fixed. This is about how are armies programmed to behave in the campaign map. They might not wanna fight my army because of strength comparison but this doesn't mean they should ignore it and go for a kamikaze attack. There is literally no reason to justify this nonsense.

Click to expand...

First of all I do not know last situation of code but

1- Enemy army do not attack you because it is slower than you and it has an important aim (siege).
2- Enemy army do not run away from you because it is powerful than you.

Of course seen situation is not nice I accept.

If enemy army chase you, you can easily lock this big army by doing wait and run (when it come close). So you can make them die from hunger at a point and they give up siege and return nearest ally town. So you can prevent a possible town loss. However of course developers can add a small code and if it goes directly over your army / party it can attack you. Also a second solution is if your army is big enough maybe it can chase you (even you are faster) if you are in a radius even the risk of locking this army. But it should not do this for smaller armies. For example you should not be able to lock this big 1500 men army with your 400 men but maybe 1500 vs 800 can be ok. This is waste of time for bigger army vs smaller army.

One notice :
What I remember 2 years ago if you are in radius it was chasing several times but if it see you do this again and again it was giving up chasing at a point. I do not know if this code block still running or broken somehow. Maybe this code only work for parties not armies but there was a code block for avoiding this situation.

As you see everything has an explanation and of course AI can be developed if you provide team save files. There are tons of exceptions different scenarios and you should think all of them and you should not leave a way of exploit. Here army do not follow you and seen situations exploits occur if army follows you there are another cons / exploits.

MostBlunted said:

Greetings to you @mexxico

Please let me know if/when you´re developing your own game. You´re still missed here in my opinion, all the work you did and all the time you´ve invested into "us" in your ****ing spare time, legend!

But would the Bannerlord development has been really different without this crisis in Turkey?

I wish you all and your family all the best for the future.

Click to expand...

Hello @MostBlunted, I hope you are fine. I am happy you are not getting bans anymore for long time.

This is a long term crisis. Not only economical as I explained at previous post. technological / imaginative success is strongly related to how major systems work at that country (justice, education, health, press, etc). Thats why most of people use EU/USA/Japan cars, play games of companies of these countries or watch movies / tv series of again same countries. So quality of products of our all technology companies 100% get effected from this long term problem. First M&B and Warband are developed at 2006-2010 period and things were better thesedays, Turkey was in direction of EU at these years for example different than today. Just an example, maybe if my old boss born 10 years later he would go abroad to work after university so there would not be M&B series. But of course these problems I mentioned are only side effect. I do not say there won’t be any imaginative / technological success at not democratic / semi democratic countries of course. There are still several good Iran movies created for example, at Turkey we can still create good quality games of course. But probability of creating good stuff reduces if systems get broken and companies cannot use their potential fully. For example Turkey try to produce its own electricity car currently but imo odds are not good for creating success.

But again I want to underline these are only side effects. Every company is different and there still can be new success stories even country suffer from these problems I mentioned, but probability reduces. If there is a problem at product of any company we should criticize company first of course.

Grank said:

Pretty sure they said something about this a few months ago. Saying that the economic brouhaha and covid really threw a wrench in their gears. Was it mexxico? I forgot.

Click to expand...

What I tried to say at that topic was not about economy. Problem here is a bit different. Current bad economy is only result of bad decisions taken previously and economy was not that bad until start of 2020s. But what will happen was clear to ones who want to see. This collapse was obvious, only problem was we could not tell situation to supporters of current government here, we warned them but they did not care, so we could not avoid this. Now even supporters of current government now care because buying power of their wage is 50% reduced in last 2 years.

You know Turkey changed into a not democratic country in last 20 years slowly, of course we were not a good sample of a democratic country 20 years before too but things were a bit better at least we had better freedom in media and justice, governments were changing if things go bad. You can see our bad current score in different studies (https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-world/scores).

What I tried to say at that topic 8-9 months ago was these changes in our country effected us badly. Our engineers / doctors which are expert at their areas are moving EU zone and USA every day, because there is better systems there. They care their families and their future. This of course reduces the quality of products we produce. Also second effect is while we are working we always also think about / follow how things go in politics, everyday new bad decisions are taken. This is not normal. We should think about different hobbies books arts music movies etc. Not politics everyday. We follow news read things, think about what we can do to save our country, these also reduces our work efficiency. At least this was true for me, maybe some workers do not effected from this that bad, maybe some do not care much. But I was always concerned about change at my country and their bad results. I tried to avoid this somehow but you know we are all only one person and things a person can do is limited in that kind of big problems. I remember before 2017 election I walked hundreds of kilometers to post some informative stickers to warn people even in work hours, that election is lost 51.5% vs 48.5% unfortunately. If you do something here visible you can end up in a jail also even it is low probability.

Of course these are not excuses for slow development we had, I just try to tell you situation.

About economic results of current situation, our money Turkish Liras lost 50% of its value aganist gold / euro / $ average in last 1-2 years. Turkish people was holding 60% of thier bank investments in Turkish Liras (TRY) 2-3 years ago now this ratio is 37% and this ratio consequently reduces. It is big risk holding any investment in Turkish Liras because in one month it can lose 20% of its value so I do not think company or anyone in company hold money in Turkish Liras because current interest ratio is only 16% / year while inflation is about 40% (according to government inflation is 21% but nobody believes their numbers, free works show this ratio is about 40%). So I do not think this economical collapse effects company badly because they pay workers in Turkish Liras but they earn in Euros / $. Also I think companies like Taleworlds consequently increases wages of developers (as TRYs) when TRY lost value because otherwise they lose their workers to foreign compaines. My brother is also working in another gaming company in Turkey (they develop mobile games) and his wages also increased several times in last 1 year. So these companies try to save buying power of their developers. I do not think workers of Taleworlds effected badly from this collapse but people's morale is not good of course, because you know things are going bad but you cannot avoid it before happen because media always make propaganda (they get very profitable business offers from government so both sides (governement & media) win, also some media is directly owned by governement).

So what will happen? There will be elections in 2023 or early elections in 2022 (50% - 50% imo). If opposition can win aganist Erdogan I think things will be better after that. Turkey can involve into a democratic country again because I believe our potential is enough for that, people are more educated than other similar not democratic countries / also god thank we do not have oil so we need to create technology / business to stay stable.

Opposition's current support is 60% aganist Erdogan's 40% (2-3 years ago it was 50% - 50%) but they are divided into different parties (CHP 25%, IYIP 15%, HDP 12%, DEVA 5% others 3%). I hope they come together and win. You can also see change of Erdogan's acceptance until October/2021 in this graph () orange : support, navy : not support. Of course there is also a risk during elections can happen big freuds if Erdogan understands he will lose (which is not happened in Turkish history before, only small 1-2%s are effected maybe but Erdogan can try this first time in history) but there are too many opposition supporters here and there will be organisations to prevent it so we will do whatever needed to stop freuds. People care voting too much here and average attandance to elections are 85% very high compared to USA/EU elections, maybe because you are in low risk and do not care politics much but results of elections effect us much. So next one year will be so dense and critical here. If we can success there will a change to better and there will be better products produced in Turkish companies included gaming industry in future. Otherwise I cannot advice you to buy Turkish products. I believe we can success this but still risks are too high. I will wait until change of government to create my own business also. I do not want to help current government somehow even it is very small. Next elections are so critical, the most important in our history. If we cannot success Turkey will go worse and hopes will be collapsed and more and more educated people left here.

I hope these explanations helps you understand situation a bit. Have a good day all.

Great work @Bloc. Also your videos will increase chance of TW to discuss / implement these suggestions.

Just a note, this ambush system seems easy to implement and probably will add gameplay fun but only downside is it can make catching and raiding caravans (also weak enemy parties, if player make camp near enemy town’s gates) too easy.

Blood Gryphon said:

Im sad, game crashed my computer when i tried to start the simulation to 40 years (my fault I forgot to take settings off 165 fps). I hadnt saved all the data I recorded or the game at 30 years so i cant show you guys what happened. I only have this screen shot of the world map, you'll have to trust me off what I remember.

Spoiler

@mexxico we went from 1 very poor clan in year 20 to 14 very poor clans in year 30 (majority fiefless, although some had a single castle), went from 14 rich down to 8. So it looked like once some conquering actually started to happen the wealth followed accordingly.

Click to expand...

Ok then. After more samples we can say if final version has money inflation or not but if you say clans marked as “very poor” increased to 14 from 1 at year 30 then things can be good at 1.6.2, but still you need to examine more 30-40 year samples to talk with confidence.

Blood Gryphon said:

I understand, the reverts were but a bandaid to the problem which is likely sitting in initial prosperity of certain clans fiefs. The initial changes were good long term and probably should be kept but with more targeted fixes to address the clans pushed across the edge of poverty. That makes sense and I'm definitely not trying to say your suggestions are incorrect.

Btw can you explain the negative impact of money inflation? I think you've kept us from seeing the problems it creates (good thing btw) so I don't quite understand what the problem is with it, with the exception that it would be more difficult to recruit a lord who isn't poor. Is that the only issue? If everyone is at average wealth and havent lost any territory is that a problem? If it is then maybe we need to refine the definitions of poor and average wealth.

Click to expand...

If there is a money inflation player’s or other lords succesfull hostile actions will not effect owner of these settlements much so they can still continue wandering with huge parties also as you said there will not be very poor clans around so recruiting will be harder.

If player is weak aganist it’s enemies currently he can still harm them by several hit and run actions like raiding or destroying villagers caravans etc. This creates financial problems at owners of these settlements and they lose their troops without a field battle because they cannot support feed pay them. If there is a money inflation player will need to capture nearly all settlements to harm his enemies otherwise they will not have any economical problems. Even a clan lose all settlements they can continue forming huge parties if they still have 100Ks of money so player thinks his successful actions have no impact on game and players start to think AI is cheating. If game do not give enough reactions to player’s successful actions player will be upset and only way to success become always capturing settlements.

I see you say game is not challenging but to make game challenging settlements should be harder to capture firstly, 100 defenders should kill 300-400 attackers in missions (realistic difficulty) this will make game more realistic and challenging and fun to play even player’s need to recruits will be higher. This can seem a boring loop to collect new recruits all time and losing them or upgraded ones at sieges this should be main game loop. We should not create money inflation to make game more challenging we should make settlements to be harder to capture. When you join a kingdom thats why your kingdom easily dominates map because it’s sieges become mostly mission not simulation where attackers lose 3 man to kill 1 man.

Blood Gryphon said:

On a personal note, I want the world to be a little static while the player isn't involved. This could be just me but when i start to get involved in wars and choose a side, we win. It being more challenging to defeat a kingdom is a welcome change. The game for so long has had huge armies of recruits and I have wanted more challenging battles in the late game. The recent changes that have increased the tiers of troops and other economics factors in the 1.6.1 had the negative effect of making parties so small which isn't exactly what I think people wanted. We want big battles of high tier troops so it feels rewarding to win and not just another recruit slaughter.

I understand that we keep seeing new players be confused why, right when they hit clan tier 4 and create a kingdom with no money and a few castles, they cant recruit clans who they have a high relationship with. These players need to be better informed about the mechanics of recruiting clans, like how the amount of fiefs they have play a bigger part than relationship and how being at war also makes a major difference. I don't think the solution is to make the game so they don't have an issue recruiting clans without understanding the mechanics. One of the biggest issues in Bannerlord is the lack of transparency about features, but I understand this will eventually be resolved. Also maybe another solution for this is to have lords come to the player to be recruited like in warband and VC.

I've been holding off on a longer playthrough until Ai vs Ai simulated death (1.6.3 pleeeeaassseeee), but I'll try to get a longer player playthrough this patch to let you know if I think its too tough to create a kingdom and recruit clans.

Click to expand...

I understand these concerns and I also think same as you. For example kings or high tier clan leaders should use their party sizes as much as possible when player see a king or high tier clan leader party on map player should see big troop numbers and should fear and all lord parties should travel at map mostly close to their limits game should be challenging lords should not consist of mostly recruits. We worked for that in past for lots of time you know, we have same target for game.

However what I try to say is latest povetry problem was not related to all lords it was related to povetry of some specific clans especially kings of some kingdoms imo. Reason behind this need to be found instead of giving every one in Calradia more money. Otherwise you cannot find very poor clans in game and player cannot use some features (for example player should be able to recruit very poor clans even he has low positive relation with them and even he created his kingdom new, this is a variety of game) of game and clans do not differentiate by time.

Anyway latest changes (tax and loot gains were reduced a bit) at 1.6.1 were already small, x0.36 or x0.3, these are not so different numbers. I am only trying to show correct path. Changes at 1.6.1 were small and they are reverted at 1.6.2. There will not be big difference at game still I think 1.6.2 will have small money inflation and I think it is a problem. By time with new additions this inflation can grow and can be more visible and bigger problem. Just shared my thoughts.

Blood Gryphon said:

I can't prove this, but the lack of action in my 1.6.2 test seemed to contribute as well to my results. With very little territory traded I think only a few clans were in positions to drastically lose their wealth. I would like to see more tests just incase the seemingly increase of peace in my game didn't skew the results of wealth.

Also here is some more specific data on kingdom wealth status

Spoiler: Year 5

Spoiler: Year 10

Spoiler: Year 15

Spoiler: Year 20

Click to expand...

For example in your tests Northern Empire time to time lost half of initial lands but even this they do not have very poor lords. Only 1.

Yes more and longer (if possible 30 or 40 years) tests are always better.