Search results for query: *

Hmmm, if it's no different sieging on your own, best bet is uninstall, delete all files steam leaves behind, reinstall, start new game. That's the only surefire way to get things running again when I get hit by game breaking bugs like that.
Frustrating, but part of the EA process. Also, check the size of your save files. Someone was telling me in another thread that that's an easy way to see if a save is still viable. If your crashing saves are abnormally large, they're toast.
You could back up your last known good save and try to load it after the full fresh install, no guarantees it'll help, havent tried that myself.

Rhaghaea riding a unicorn?

Have you validated files? Is it a particular castle/town that maybe has a wierd issue? Are you in an army, if so are you leading or being led?

Alenovic said:

No I did use a few times character export but that mod is disabled now. I'm just curious can u just go and besiege a castle. save during the siege and try reload it.

Click to expand...

Yes, I regularly save scum sieges given the EA nature of the game, especially in 141 when i'm probably gonna have to fight off at least one enemy doomstack before I get a change to lead the assault. I haven't had any problems reloading that save. Depending on what you changed with the character export maybe that could have something to do with it, but seems unlikely.

Are you running mods? I havent had save related issues in 141, yet. Of course, I just started running mods again around day 700 of the playthrough, so it's a matter of time.

If the goal is to create a multi generational dynastic strategy game, why not keep the age but give us stats slightly below that of the average lord at start. Lets our first character get in the action faster to start said dynasty

I swear, the more threads and ideas I read and have for this game the more excited I get.

Lord Bryggan said:

Perhaps a better idea would be to have a standard bearer that all troops spawn from, who basically in his own unit. If he goes down, then another picks it up until that unit runs out of soldiers. Should no one grab it, reinforcements spawn from original spawn point. Oh, and obviously the player himself could carry it.

And yes, bring back the war chest. Too many times I've made inventory mistakes. But add that you can grab horses out of there too. Actually, now that I'm thinking as I type, instead of a war chest, add a baggage train. Maybe just a big, slow moving wagon (destructible) with arrow barrels and a spawn point. Push it too far forward and it could be captured, hold it too far back and its not as effective.

Traditionally, once the baggage train was captured, it was game over for the army, so no more spawns. Of course, currently the battles are too fast to do this. We'd need a little set up time (and so would the AI).



We do need Standard bearers. They were so important in medieval times that carrying one was an honour given to the most deserving, even tho it meant one of the best fighters was rendered incapable. For Fun's sake, give each unit a banner. If the Standard bearer goes down, the standard is picked up immediately by whoever is nearest. If the enemy pushes enough that the standard cannot be picked up for more than, say ten seconds, the unit falls back until a new standard bearer is spawned and they all follow him.

It would be annoying as fork, but definitely add something to the game.

Click to expand...

A moving baggage train might be too much, unless ambushes become a thing, but a static one with arrow barrels and a war chest at the initial point is a great idea. There's even precedent and assets for it already. When you defend caravans their mules and barrels and such are represented on the field. Some of your horses would be there as well, and your dehorsed cavalry would try to make it back for one if they were close enough.

The automatic fallback could would be annoying sometimes, but also useful. It can be hard to keep track of what's going on in the mosh pit, especially when I'm cracking skulls personally, so seeing a bunch of them suddenly falling back would be a large clue that we're being overrun.

Lord Bryggan said:

I hate it when I'm outnumbered and see an excellent defendable spot. This will give me a temporary advantage, but unfortunately it means all my reinforcements will die.

I would like to see reinforcements spawn directly into their units. Perhaps have a Standard bearer in each unit that soldiers spawn on- preferably individually as they die.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't want troops spawning directly on them, that would be just as unimmersive as the current spawns, but functional standards bearers would be awesome. I mean, bannerlord... where are the banners?

I think the starting flag(with the gear chest for when you forget to change gear pre battle) from warband should come back. Reinforcements spawn at the flag, and then head for their standard bearer. If the enemy force(or your force) are pushed back between that starting flag and map edge, then reinforcements come from the map edge.

Standard bearers stand a bit behind whatever unit they belong to, for safety, and perhaps reinforcements could spawn up to halfway between standard bearer and starting flag, based on leader tactics.

Kentucky James VII said:

A system where you group troops into units and equip them that way would be a lot less annoying. People tend not to micromanage their troop types anyway, they just want a bunch of good crossbows or a bunch of horse archers or whatever. I wouldn't even mind if these units shared experience between them (and then slowly lost it if you have to recruit more guys into it), because as the player you never really pay attention to the xp of individuals anyway, you just want them to level up.

Click to expand...

That would be fantastic system as well, and I remember a few warband mods that did just that. I think that would be a huge function change for the dev's, though. I was aiming for something that could still be based on the troop tree setup the game currently has.

The unbalance is heavily linked to the 30 day truce period being removed, and the new voting for peace system. One of the dev's was talking about it in another thread, even had graphs of the difference between 141 and earlier versions. There's supposed to be a new feature coming based on tribute payments instead of forced 30 day truces to maintain peace, but it's not implemented yet.

Kentucky James VII said:

I feel like the entire warband system of levelling troops up individually via XP falls flat on its face when the lowest level guys are so bad and so prevalent. Seeing the king's army meet you in battle where most of his men don't have shields or even a bladed weapon, it's just laugh-inducing.

I think this game sorely needs to separate levels and equipment. There should be some way of changing their weapons and armour without actually having to level them up, with appropriate pricing. Right now it just feels like you're dragging around a bunch of naked guys half the time.

Click to expand...

TechnoSarge said:

Warband had a Trainer function that added passive XP while time passed. I liked that, and it made "training the trainer" important.

While I like the concept of separating gear and troops' level progress, functionally it would put the player in the market half the game, buying equipment and deciding who gets what, instead of chasing Looters half the game, which as stated above, is currently the case. No improvement there.

Click to expand...

This wouldn't necessarily require the player to be in the market. The way I envisioned this when I read it is a separate button for armor upgrade and level upgrade in the party screen. So you have 5 recruits, you can upgrade their armor to tier 6 of whatever class you eventually want them to be. They're still recruits though, so they arent going to be very fast in that heavy armor, or effective with that two handed axe, and if they die that money is gone. So it would be a balancing act for the commander, do I pay for better armor for these yokels and potentially get no return on investment when they die horribly, or do I wait until they've leveled a few times and make sure they're worth it?

I would actually love a system like that, but I'm pretty sure it would be a cluster sometimes.

I like this idea, but, am I proposing marriage naked? With a duck on my head? Why -respect there?

I've seen talk that in most, if not all, versions before 141 that the war declaration announcement was bugged. It would say sturgia declared war even if it was the other way around. Could still be that way in 141 for all I know, it's hard to focus on stuff like that when I'm fighting for sturgia in 4 permanent wars.

Better waiting then having the beta go full nuclear, glad for the info.

Has anyone found any mods that address the beta permawar? I'm using a troop training mod to help deal with attrition.

Well, there's the answer you might already know but dont want to hear, early access. Not everything is done yet. They just now seem to be putting diplomacy stuff in at a slow rate.

The way you describe it though, it's possible you didnt prep enough. Back in warband, I wouldn't start my own kingdom for years and in game years, same for my bannerlord playthroughs.

Necessary prep:
1. lots of friendly lords that you can quickly get into your kingdom
2.lots and lots of money
3.lots and lots of troops, usually at least two garrisons full

1 is way more difficult in bannerlord right now than warband, mostly because you dont gain relations fighting alongside other lords. You have to do lots of quests, or just catch and release constantly. There are mods that help.
2 is just a matter of patience, but can go a lot faster with catch and release
3 is gonna be easiest to do as a vassal. It sounds like you straight up conquered some stuff as an independent. Generally I'll build up fiefs and their garrisons while in a faction, then roleplay revolt when I'm ready. Easy to do with how greedy the rulers are.

The campaign ai is always gonna see you as weak, and a target, and until all the diplomacy features are in, you're best bet for a fun kingdom building experience is mods. There's several that get us close to the level of warband already.

The big choice is, you want to have lots of fun by using mods, or some fun/frustration without mods so you can help test and refine the game. That's where we're at with this EA.
I've had 1 awesome playthrough, was well on my way to ruling calradia with no choppy chop, by using mods to inject diplomacy and balancing and such.

I'm currently having fun/frustration with a 141 playthrough. A single mod to make training troops faster because of perma-war, and even that I held off as long as I could because I want to help test the beta.

Damn I just typed lot.

mfuegemann said:

I do like the Marshal concept to form armies. You still have Your companions to form a larger clan warband.

Click to expand...

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.

+2

If features are going to be locked behind perks(which I dont agree with) then I think its fine where it is. Generally, late game when you would unlock this, you aren't hunting bandits much. Enemy lords whive just magically respawned, still do. So hunt a lord with some bandit prisoners, hire them directly, then convert them on their next level.

GitiUsir said:

The idea is power flows from fiefs. No fief = no power. Recruitment is only possible if the lord owns a fief. Clans without fiefs lose power and become ronin, pretty much gang leaders. Even a ruler clan can lose their city (by war or politics) and become a ronin clan losing the kingdom.

I like the idea of influence-relation being the main currency. Influence means power while relation means invested power. If a clan supports another clan in getting a fief, it gains relation with those so in future decisions they can count on those relations as a kind of power too..

Click to expand...

Working off what the base game already has, a less artificial limiter could be relation. If I remember right from warband, if a particular lord really didnt like you, he wouldn't join your army, marshal, king or otherwise. Of course, we'd need more methods to raise relation then we currently have in game as well.