Search results for query: *

  1. SP - General [QoL Suggestion] How about a resume travel button or hotkey paired with locking on to a destination?

    Yeah.. i like this.

    This would work for me.

  2. Is this meant to be a sandbox game? (Realistic difficulty, forced starting strats)

    kweassa said:
    Then it's simply as I suspected.

    Your entire concept of "balance" is just skewed and warped to player-convenientism.

    I'm not trying to denounce you our anything. I just want you to think about this.

    Let's say a game gives you a choice in the beginning, to:

    (a) Play as a powerful lord or king
    (b) Play as a middle-sized noble with limited resources
    (c) Play as a commoner, bound by duties
    (d) Play as a beggar, no possessions, in debt, impoverished and weak

    Naturally, anybody would expect the relatively difficulty of the game would be the easiest with (a), and it would get gradually more difficult with other choices, and (d) would feel extremely difficult. The game gives you a life to choose between (a) ~ (d) and that is sandbox. In this instance, you are saying you want to play in the way of (c) or (d), but then you are also complaining that the difficulty is much higher and punitive than when you play (a) or (b).

    So, your concept of "balance" is that you want (c) or (d) to be as easy as (a) and (b), and so long as (a) and (b) is easier, you criticize that the game is limiting your choice and failure in balancing.

    That's just plain wrong, man.

    A good example is Crusader Kings II, THE medieval sandbox game. The most common and easy choice would be start the game off as aking, or at least a Duke. But you want something different, so you go for an Earl, stuck in a backward quadrant of Europe, low tech, low developments, realm bordering with Muslims that constantly invade and conquer, and your lord hates you and keeps conspiring to take your land. You seriously can't expect the game to be just average in difficulty when you've on purpose, picked a much more difficult spot to begin the game.

    Stuff like bows, mounted archery, and hiring recruits is the same. It's the most standard and easiest way to do it. It's probably also the default standard when the devs determine the game difficulty. But if you throw all that away on purpose, and just want to solo, then you're willing taking in the greatly increased difficulty of the game as part of your journey. Why are you complaining about it?


    (ps) For the record, I play solo for around the first 5 years of the game, because I want to strengthen my character before he/she really jumps into politics and war. I don't use mods, cheats, trainers. Yes, the game's difficulty is quite increased, but it's not insanely impossible at all. It's not unreasonably difficult, but fighting solo will bring its penalties in stuff like limited cargo load, limited volume of trade, and always choosing carefully the battles you can fight and win.

    It's doable.
    Click to expand...


    Literally all i wanted was to begiven a toggle which enables the AI bandit's behaviour into Player party mechanics.

    Looters see you, they turn and run because autoresolve says they should.

    Nothing that you've conjured up in your rant was asked for in the initial post.

    I provided the desired solution.
    After 470 hours of Bannerlord, i am frustrated that there is ONLY one right way to start the game.

    Buy troops, use them for protection, and give every ounce of your attention to the game because nothing else is allowed to exist.

    I haven't asked for nerfs to combat, i have suggested scaling after everyone decided implementing ai pathfinding for the player which exists for ai was worth ignoring.

    I have 2200 hours in CK2.. so yeah, my expectations of the sandbox potential is great.

    A) Single county independent ruler (Semien in 769AD start eg) where you're the wrong religion surrounded by hostile enemies.
    B) Existing vassal of the 1066 HRE, where you have protections of the Empire but need to bust out to independence to reach significant power.
    C) Merchant republic, spending gold hand over fist to maintain your role
    D) Pagans... 9 or so of them, with the chance to rule and reform your religion in a new direction
    E) Islamic head of state
    F) Zoroastrian reformers
    G) And so on through the caste structure of Hindu India, the Jains
    H) Just sit on Ireland and learn to play the game safely.

    Or... OR .. just lemme have a toggle which pauses the game when hostiles come into vision so i can manually avoid them without having to listen to your elitist bull.

  3. Too many armies

    EternalHeathen said:
    Ooooooooh, warbands! Armies can be lead by king/martial, using influence to call lords, but only those lords with positive relation. Clan leaders can create warband, but only with clan parties that have positive relation. Seems like a nice compromise.
    Click to expand...

    Yeah.. seconding this style of thing.

    Could even tie in the Banner quest, allowing the player to create armies rallied behind the banner once you hit the completed banner and start conspiracies ticking.

    Other solutions might involve the ability to form an army being dependent on being in conflict with a major faction.

    Unless you are.. can't form an army.. gp band together to beat up those minor factions and their warbands.

  4. Is this meant to be a sandbox game? (Realistic difficulty, forced starting strats)

    Apocal said:
    You should be moving 7.0 or faster if you're solo on the campaign map and mounted, even accounting for herd and encumbrance penalties. That's faster than any group of looters, period, and almost any bandits. The only exceptions are Steppe Bandits and all-cav Desert Bandits.



    You start the game with enough money to just buy a bow and some arrows. And it isn't the only viable weapon for dealing with starter groups of loots. You can -- with some skill and little luck -- solo them with a lengthy spear. Or a couched lance of any kind, if you really want things to be easy.
    Click to expand...

    And sir, I am indeed moving super speedy.. but when they spawn right in front of your pathing, it's not much help if you've moved up a map layer.

    And yes, i can either sacrifice half my starting gold or a background choice to receive a bow and arrows to deal with groups of 8-9 Looters.

    It is still frustrating and i am hoping there will be more choices and options than ones which make the start always so samey.

    Maybe more impact from background options? Being from trader families or investing could grant trade goods and a pack animal? Maybe options which grant Leadership/Stewardship might grant you some recruits or a tier 2 troop or two?

    And yes.. I've read the game start.. but we all know we haven't seen our brother and the two other children aren't even in our family tree.

  5. Is this meant to be a sandbox game? (Realistic difficulty, forced starting strats)

    Thanks matey.. bought a bunch of troops.. riding around disatisfied that yet again.. forced to start the same way every play, over and over.

    My whole post was built around lack of choice for a game purporting to be sandbox, and everyoneseems to be keen on either saying spend your cash on a bow and arrows or.. buy troops and be safe.

    I just figured, it being early access, now was a good time to explore dynamic starts, or ways to add value to the travel system/Scouting if you want to embed more value in that perk

  6. Please give the AI an intelligence boost

    Yeah matey, not sure what happened.. thinking they broke the War/Peace functionality they brought in around 1.4 when they stuck in 1.4.1

    Kingdoms seem to be happy to be stuck in 4 separate wars at the same time like Raganvad used to be, and winning none of them, but setting themselves up to a death by a thousand cuts.

    Was playing with the Southern Empire last game, and they were so influence starved (literally zero policies were active) they couldn't hold any armies for long enough to go on the offence, but kept other attackers at bay until they got bored and peaced out.

    There's still a bunch of polish that needs to happen, factions having personalities and pushing Policies so they can build influence without player action required, more items and spread out tiers with experience for Shops so you can invest and affect the quality of gear they produce, sensible war declarations (which is coming.. they've said they're going to have reasons for declaration so they'll declare to possess X castle or Y city or something like that) and other stuff.

  7. Is this meant to be a sandbox game? (Realistic difficulty, forced starting strats)

    Bronk the Raven said:
    How is not having an auto-pause feature immersion breaking, but "checking on a higher map level to see how wars are going" while you trudge along in bandit-infested (i.e. dangerous) territory isn't?

    Hotkey for FFWD is 3, and for normal speed is 1. You are supposed to pay attention to your surroundings while on the move. Especially as an easy-pickings solo merchant. People rarely travelled alone in medieval times, so not sure what you expect.
    Click to expand...

    And again.. back in "Medieval times" Elite Cataphracts weren't killed outright by peasants with rocks and pitchforks.. and yet, that was happening.. a LOT. Despite the underarmed peasants being outnumbered 10:1...

    So please.. don't try to bring up historic realism.. it's completely lacking in effect other than to be infuriating and fly in the face of other systems and their shortcomings.

  8. Is this meant to be a sandbox game? (Realistic difficulty, forced starting strats)

    Bronze Beast in the Dark said:
    You don't pause the game manually when you zoom out?
    Click to expand...

    We've only just gotten back to a patch where Autoresolve against looters doesn't kill your Tier 5/6 troops outright.. so .. no, I don't like to spend more time doing busywork like pausing while travelling.

    Lord Irontoe.. I mean, if it's a gameplay toggle.. rather than a forced option (are we getting the idea I'm against a lack of choice in a sandbox game yet??).. it's only a problem to those who choose it to be.

  9. Is this meant to be a sandbox game? (Realistic difficulty, forced starting strats)

    It would be nice to be issued with that "bare minimum" party then, instead of having the illusion of choice in the form of coin, that I should be able to spend on ... anything at all.

    And no, Blovis.. I'd like systems which allow me to autopause so I can manually avoid them with my SUPER SPEED while I keep checking at a higher map level to see how wars are going and what castles/cities are changing hands.

    Either of those would be less immersion breaking than me seeing a large pack of looters and just dawdling my way straight into groups that have in-built auto-run.. and kite players ALLLLLLLL across the map when the tables are turned.. things which enable choice? At least in the early game.

  10. Is this meant to be a sandbox game? (Realistic difficulty, forced starting strats)

    Just wondering if Bannerlord is meant to be a sandbox game, where as a player I can choose how I'm going to approach and build up my Clan.. or if I'm going to be shoehorned into "You must buy a party of 5-10 so that looters will bugger off and leave you to trading like you'd like to do" ?? I...

  11. Why is the Northern Empire so gobsmackingly STUPID??

    paladinx333 said:
    Once the Khuzait get rolling there is almost no stopping them. Not without player intervention.

    The lords do not currently possess any great smarts. Their choice of siege targets leaves much to be desired. Their lack of desire to engage enemy armies is even more problematic. The OP experience both in their game.
    Click to expand...

    Several games.

    Including the most recent startover where I've thrown my lot in with the Southern Empire.. North once again losing cities and castles to the Khuzait (Amprela, Espinosa and Sestadiem(?) Castles and Myzea), and only being able to retake cities because the Khuzait declared on the Southern Empire or were declared on.

    It's just frustrating that Western and Southern Empires both have good enough stability to be viable to vassal to, and the North is too busy licking their barding to defend their own lands with any success

  12. Why is the Northern Empire so gobsmackingly STUPID??

    Last few games I've been trying to commit myself as a vassal to the Northern Empire and support Lucon. Not an impossible goal.. or so I would think. Playing on either version 1.4 (Beta) or 1.3 (Main Release), they CONTINUALLY get stomped by the Khuzait and seem unwilling to engage with inferior...

  13. The cavalry has insufficient impact.

    KnifeAg said:
    I have played the "Total War" series, watched many movies of ancient cavalry fighting infantry and consulted historical books. As far as I know, cavalry suppression of infantry was not invented by games or movies. In ancient times, infantry could only effectively suppress large-scale cavalry assaults by using a pike phalanx. I hope that I can experience the thrill of massive cavalry hitting infantry in the game, and I also hope to experience the joy of infantry lance phalanx to restrain the cavalry in the game
    Click to expand...


    Matey.. i ran an 80% cavalry Khuzait based party with Imperial Cataphracts mixed in with the heavy lancers of the Khuzait.. 35 of them charging an infantry formation of 70+ while the 35 Horse Archer mix rode around them.. glorious carnage, impact or no.

  14. Companion Recruitment System Suggestion

    I really think there's a place for this kind pf companion overhaul, would be good to see a few things happen with it:

    1) Overhaul of the Traits system and questing to make it a bit more transparent as to what choices lean towards in terms of affecting traits to promote player agency.

    2) Have traits act as conditions or modifiers for the tiers of companions.
    Eg: For say Tiers 1 through 3, having similar/opposing traits affects a companions cost to hire on, being wary or pleased by your reputation.

    Tiers 4 and 5 won't hire on with someone who has an opposing trait to their own, but no strict requirement on needing to match their traits, just don't be someone they'd consider too evil/good.

    Legendary calibre companions.. you have to match their traits, they'd never stand to work for someone whose reputation and character tarnished their own.

  15. Cavalry advantage in simulations is reduced to 20% from 30% - Shouldn't these calculations be more complex?

    Look, it's widely known that the autocalc for combat is unsatisfactory.

    This is a stopgap patch and all we should be looking for is for TaleWorlds to let the community know which current systems they plan to flesh out and work on, and which ones they do not foresee time to make more robust.

    This will letthe modding community focus on fleshing out the game as a whole instead of blazingout half-baked pottery fixes for things TW are currently working on.

  16. Companion reference mismatch in 1.30

    Nakh said:
    There is mod what do exactly that on-demand. Respec Companions as I recall, very handy indeed.
    Click to expand...

    Difference being, Mr Nakh, that the respec should wipe pre-assigned skill points?
    This current bug does not..
    I have a combat companion with the free skill levels of 150 1H, 200 in 2H and 170 Pole Arms.. with no Focus points spent, and a Vigor of 1.
    Very handy for a level 14, but clearly unintended.

  17. Companion reference mismatch in 1.30

    Interestingly, upon hiring any of these companions, they have unallocated stat points, Focus points, but all of the normal skill points already unlocked for their usual suffix.

    So they appear as having 1 in all Ability Scores, Red locked skill levels and unallocated perks, and Focus points ready to custom build into whatever you want.

    Handy bug.

    (Will upload a screenshot from Steam after 24 hours of existing.)
Back
Top Bottom