Search results for query: *

Timmortal said:

Well we were speaking mainly in a commander role or as notables. not warriors. through there have been civilizations that had female warriors, religions and their view on women is a major part of of why that went away. Also you seem to think battles casualties are higher than they actually are, just because you loose a battle does not mean all lives are lost and a society is completely ruined, but again my point about all the other unrealistic things that are in the game was side skirted, why is female notables the BIG issue, and not soldiers in large armies dying of diseases, or the one about time periodes being forced together or the language all being the same when back in the middelages you would find so many different languages over short distances that you would have to have a common language to communicate, or how many weapons you can carry and weapon swapping?!?! how many people have you seen backholster a spear? theres so many more, but for some women is the the place they get upset and cry about, using terms like "waman" "PC culture" ect... clearly shows that their issue is more to do with women in general than with historical acuracy.

Click to expand...

Again I was more replying to your religion comment, religion is just meaningless in the real world when it comes to women in the military you're probably refering to something like norse religions (no actual hard evidence of female warrior class here, contrary to popular belief), catharism or some obscure pagan religions , the very fact that these religions lost against others isnt just because they sucked at preaching.

Also to clarify, no not every battle or war takes up loads of casualties but that doesnt mean the possibility of a disaster isnt there, and in a pre-industrial world no one is gonna take those chances considering the consequences are so heavy, as an example take a look at Sweden after they lost their northern empire, their male population was hugely reduced just on account of military loses.

Also you seem to hold everything at a gameplay standard, most people realize its a game and that gameplay may not make sense in a complete concrete manner, but what I'm arguing is lore immersion how the world being described feels real or not, simply put if were were to suddenly see skinny women on every battlefield charging it'd add to the fact that its a completely silly game and not something trying to illude itself as plausible.

Also I stand against mysoginy or mindless hating but you seem keen on antagonizing everyone on the other side of the argument as a woman hater anyway because its the way you can get to intimidate people from writting responses i'd guess.

Timmortal said:

Bannerlord is not historical fantasy, historical fantasy is taking a historical setting like Rome and then putting magic into it, its very much not historic, unless you start claiming that Calradia is this Narnia like universe, where military people from 100s of years apart somehow got a portal into the same world and instead of mixing up, kept their own disstinct armors and weapons. Calradia does not have any link to our world and it does not have magic, neither does it have any of our major religions, that brought forward alot of the attitude towards what women had to be (lesser than man). So at most its a fictional setting, a fantasy, that takes inspiration from some of our cultures when it comes to military, but clearly not religion. So i cant see why some women in battle is so unrealistic, when types you are already putting types of military up against each other who would never have met. Its about pushing the boundries of belief and that you balk at women in battle againt all the other things that are "unrealistic" in this setting, shows more about you than us.

Click to expand...

Women not being on the military frontlines in history isn't about religion, its about biology and simple mathematics, pre-industrial civilizations cannot afford to place lots of women as a warrior class for the bigger reason of the huge risk of losing manpower recovery, its no coincidence that all major civilizations that survived did not even think of allowing this.

Add to that the fact that men by an absolute majority are stronger, faster and more disposable than women without having menstruation periods or risk of pregnancy and you got yourself another answer as to why a world trying to be immersive chooses men to be the majority of warrior classes, you don't even need to be a genius to figure it out.

Even if Bannerlord lore didn't follow reality in men being a more physical sex, as long they still follow basic biological reproduction rules in the same way as humans in our reality do then the answer is simple.

Locklave said:

Based on his post history with me and his immediately attacking my character I do not give him the benefit of the doubt on the matter. He chooses to ignore my qualifying statements, I will not assume his failure to qualify his statements is a good faith mistake.

Check the other threads related to Sturgia. He does the same thing in every single one. This was going to happen no matter what, because he can't let it go for some reason.

Click to expand...

This will be my last post on this, just to clarify to you Locklave.

Trust me I know his post history at least partially as I personally and a lot of others previously argued against him in the "sturgia is more weak after the updates" topic, he is infamous whenever a Sturgia thread comes up for coming up with the most stubborn dismissal of issues you can imagine, he'll ignore more than half your argument and insist on a point he believes he can still convince you of while moving the goalpost when they get successfully challenged, he also has a bad habit of accusing his detractors of throwing ad hominems, which I don't personally believe he even knows exactly how that fallacy works, based on how he threw that accusation around constantly.

I personally believe he doesn't argue in good faith when it comes to the specific topic of Sturgia (even if as of 1.4.1 I do not believe Sturgia to be the worst faction). But what I personally believe doesn't matter I cannot 100% prove him to be a bad faith debater, I can only address his points as fairly as I would to any other person and if I believe I make a mistake, even if he ignores all other points I'll happily concede mistakes on my part.

Locklave said:

Then acknowledging it while denying it wasn't sarcastic and dismissive. So the rest wasn't a lie as Hruza claimed and Hruza lied 2 times now.

Click to expand...

Let me try be fair here in order to move on from this derailment of the topic. Locklave, while I interpreted him saying I lied in his first response to me as you did, I interpreted his second claim of me lying differently, let me explain:

While hruza didn't clarify when he first said I lied, when he later says the rest of of my post is a lie he is likely referring to how I described his previous posting of the screenshot as "a sort of definite evidence against any discussion on Sturgia", while my description of his post isn't too inaccurate it is unfair, as he didn't actually post it as definite evidence, he merely posted it as evidence to add against what was being discussed (albeit being sarcastic and dismissive), he ignored all other points in my second post and stood firm on his objection to my characterization of how he previously posted his screenshot, said characterization wasn't intentional as I was going off what I remembered him posting on the other thread and couldn't quite remember in detail, I could mostly remember the screenshot and him being sarcastic. To this I already apologized to hruza in a previous post and urge everyone to move on to the topic.

Again, my apologies to OP especially for contributing to this thread going too off-topic.

hruza said:

Yes, I have indeed posted it. That's true. Rest of you sentence is a lie.

Click to expand...

Nice hill there, doesn't really matter, I vaguely remembered seeing your post with the screenshot and I quite remember half your posts on the topic were mostly constant dismissal of any issues being brought up and posted that screenshot uttering "as usual" in sarcastic tone. So you didn't post it as "definite" evidence, sure my apologies, but you posted it as evidence nonetheless and you posted it here again.

kopus said:

This has been an issue for over a decade in this franchise lol

Click to expand...

Yup, I truly wish there was a way around this issue, it was a big gripe for me in Warband, annoying as hell. Perhaps not allowing reinforcements and having second and even third battles for the rest of the troops, I honestly can't tell if its a good solution. Even with reinforcement troops coming from the edges there may still be an issue with battle positioning being constantly disrupted.

hruza, you definitely posted the same screenshot last week on another topic and you even described it as "as usual" in sarcastic fashion.

As Usual, so much so you that have to recycle the same screenshot for next week, am I right?
You don't seem to understand that a single screenshot is meaningless, apart from not knowing the context of your save you only gave the one unique screenshot of a single save, that's the point Locklave was making.
It's ridiculous that I have to say this because as of 1.4.1 I don't believe Sturgia to be the weakest faction anymore, but I already fear that this topic is wasted as soon as you start saying OP is "projecting" and accusing Locklave of personal attacks when he was clearly making an argument against your use of "evidence" (atleast this time you are not saying you're a victim of ad homs lol).

Apocal said:

I'm not sure what is supposed to be wrong with a previous game having been a week ago? I have something north of 500 hours in Bannerlord and my games usually last longer than a week. The only exceptions are ones where something breaks the gameworld like the initial release snowballing or the first economic apocalypse.

Click to expand...

I think Locklave's point is alluding to the fact that hruza has already posted the same exact single screenshot before as a sort of "definite evidence" to any discussion on Sturgia.

Back on topic, in my new games Sturgia doesn't seem bad in 1.4.1 as it was clearly before, while I've never seen them dominating, they seem to hold their own better now unless Khuzaits declare war on them, in fact they have lasted longer than northern empire every single time. Khuzait still always strong as hell in my games lol.

hruza said:

Can you and your friends throw less ad hominems at people who challenge your opinions? Scroll up a little and please tell me about "smug dismissals".

Click to expand...

I didn't throw an ad hominem and you do yourself a disservice acting like there is conspiracy against you, I don't have friends in this thread nor do I necessarily agree with all complaints, in fact, the only post I made here was in relation to geography, so either you don't know what an ad hominem is or you're trying to lump me in with others who might have insulted you instead of addressing your arguments.

This isn't the first thread made about Sturgia looking weak in comparison to other factions on the campaign, regardless of what you think are the issues or not. In another thread where neutral simulations were made, Sturgia was the only faction never recorded as dominating once, while improvements have certainly been made and have been having a good impact, most of these improvements sought to simply make steamrolling in general slow down and Sturgia still seems to somehow under perform compared to most other factions, you can argue this seems anecdotal but the sheer number of people reporting this and my own experiences makes me think there is something here worth looking into.

Your last point about ownership of lands is meaningless, the point isn't that kingdoms wont have castles or towns jumbled and disconnected from the rest of their empire as wars and the game progresses, its that Sturgia is the ONLY faction to start with such a castle. Its not even a big factor and neither did I say it was so you can calm down with your contrarian nature, what I meant to highlight was how such geographical anomalies like that and the very horizontal nature of the territories can present challenges to the faction.

hruza said:

...and there goes all the theories about weak units, stupid ruler, too much snow, bad terrain, cavalry disadvantage and armies not able to get to locations because of the spread out towns.

Click to expand...

Can we quit the ugly smug dismissal of issues in this thread?? A lot of people see Sturgia under performing on too many of their saves and they stood here discussing it, but some people can't seem to understand that the very existence of so many of these threads means there really must be some issues to the faction (where there is smoke, there is fire).

The developer clearly just stated that Sturgian geographical disadvantages seemed to translate meant less prosperity for lords and towns, likely due to issues regarding caravans and villager travel, this does at the very least lend credence that bad geography could have something to do with it and in no way did the dev say any other theories are immediately to be dismissed. I even posted a bit far back how Neyvank Castle is too cut off and its villagers have to travel through foreign lands to reach the nearest Sturgian town.

Razdv said:

Yes, Nevyansk and Dnin villagers are going to Varcheg usually.

Click to expand...

I just think its a ridiculous amount of distance for villagers to travel, considering this is a Sturgian starting fief and especially because they have to through Battanian land to get there.

I think the geography really does play a role, some of the Sturgian fiefs are extremely isolated from their core empire and while the looking at the distance itself it might not look like a lot, its very narrow horizontal nature and the huge amount of natural barriers really do turn into a bit of a painful trek.

Examples, I've stepped foot more times in Revyl as a merchant in my neutral merchant saves than in my Sturgian vassal save, while I actually enjoy the relative isolated wilderness and think its mostly fitting, I think sometimes it does translate in a very slow response by vassals in forming armies, I can't count how many times armies have been started up in Revyl or Sibir, being extremely far away from the frontlines AND from the lords forming up the armies, this along with the very difficult to traverse terrain has made my two Sturgian saves a survival game lol.

Another issue I noted was Nevask or whatever it is, the fief is completely cut off from Sturgia proper, thus being very prone to be taken by Vlandia. It would make sense if naval travel was a thing but, since it isn't and it's a castle, this means its villagers have to travel a HUGE distance to reach Varcheg to trade their goods(though I cant quite confirm how big of a problem this is, do villagers trade in neutrals towns or just in their own faction? do they go trade in Battania if they are neutral? still think its an issue because if Sturgia goes to war with Battania it could be a problem).

Some of these issues I feel also happen in Aserai but I feel to a bit of lesser extent, I've had a save with Khuzaits and traveling and meeting up with armies wasn't anywhere near the same problem.

hruza said:

Well core of the Sturgian armies is infantry, but they also employ cavalry and archers. So Sturgian roster is perfectly fine from the lore point.

All they need is some minor stat and equipment fixing/swapping around.

Click to expand...

I agree mostly, most Sturgian tiers need stat and equipment changes, I'm not even convinced the noble line needs to change to infantry that much, but I still think that the Shock Troop and the Ulfhednar (I approve of your suggestion for better armor in your previous post) are a bit underwhelming and need to match the Veteran Warrior a bit more just to keep the whole Infantry as core part of Sturgia truer.

hruza said:

As I said, I don't think that's intentional and I would say their top tier archers should be fixed. See my reply above.

Click to expand...

It's quite possible that's intentional, here's a quote from the Sturgian Dev Blog:

"The Rus employed both cavalry and archers, but the core of their forces in the early period was most likely formed infantry - also a Norse speciality. We've been working on the close-up foot-slogging side of Mount and Blade. Look out for high-tier AI opponents bashing you with their shield in the teeth, following it up with a blade going into your ribs"

hruza said:

And non of that makes Sturgia Nords. Sturgians are not Nords and should not be Nords. Especially since Nords will likely come with the DLC. Sturgian infantry is perfectly fine and have fitting equipment from the lore perspective, save for some misplaced stats and equipment, which I don't believe was intentional on the devs part and I expect it to be fixed.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean that it made them Nords, but obviously it points to a trend in Heavy Infantry being more elite than other factions, a point needs to be made that you said they are the ancestors of the Vaegirs, but if that had any bearing on what made Sturgian troops, then we would be seeing them using elite archer units.

The reason I pointed out their lore in my previous post was precisely to suggest that it doesn't matter if they ended up being Vaegirs or Nords in the future, what the current lore implies both from the main quest and from character bios is that Sturgia does indeed seem to have a strong focus on powerful infantry.

hruza said:

You are mistaking Strugia for Nords. They are not. They are predecessor to Vaegirs instead. It's clearly mentioned in the lore.

Click to expand...

Its clearly mentioned in the lore that while they are ancestors to the Vaegirs, they are still quite influenced by Nord raids and the Sturgian king himself has a familiar connection with the Skolderbrotva (don't remember exactly which now) and in the main quest itself they clearly state that the Sturgian infantry was famed enough to rival and push the Imperial infantry.

Did someone actually vote Sturgia? o.o
They died pretty quick in both my games and the chart from another thread seemed to indicate they never steamrolled in any tests.

Danate said:

You just gonna copy and paste how original.

It is not the true experience to the game If you play infantry in bannerlord you definitly need to block if you don't have a shield anyone says otherwise is lying or not playing realistic. Autoblock is a handicap..that's my opinion it always has been. Game isn't designed like that they made this game knowing how complex it is.

Click to expand...

What are you on about? The combat is still extremely similar to Warband, do people here need a constant reminder that the franchise always had autoblock??

Maybe we could make the AI feast again after every siege to celebrate like they seem to have done back in Warband, only stopping if any fief is under attack.

Another solution could be what I've seen on a TW:Warhammer mod - every faction has a list or fiefs they consider rightfully theirs and will mostly only wage war if they are missing any of those those, couple this with the AI asking for peace more when their casualties reach a certain threshold and I'm thinking it could work to give players a campaign that lasts with empires structurally surviving for a long time and still wage war.

DEM1L1CH said:

It's literally just having the game select the direction you block automatically, you still have to time your block correctly. That's literally all it is. What does balancing of stats have to do with that.

Click to expand...

It doesn't have anything to do with anything, Warband didn't have balancing issues due to auto-blocking lol.
Really at this point it really seems a lot of people are actually making up reasons just to stick to being contrarian in their opposition against an auto-block.