Search results for query: *

AxiosXiphos said:

I often wonder where people get their standards for A.I from. Every game forum its "fix your A.i," or "A.I is so dumb". I have yet to see a single game ever which had an impressive A.I (minus that bot that beat a top DOTA team - but that took years to develop and was still very very limited).

My point is A.I is just not very good yet; we as a species have not developed A.I that can compete with humans on any game which has more then 6-10 moving parts.

Now my issue here is yes bannerlord A.I can be dumb. But so it total war A.I. So is civilisation A.I. So is Crusader Kings A.I. so is Skyrim A.I. Literally any game ever in a similar genre to Bannerlord could be accused of having dumb A.I...

So where the hell are people getting their high standards from? Because it ain't other games...

Click to expand...

I'm not asking for 200 iq big brain strategic genius here. There are ways to fix the main issues I (and many others) have raised:
-an agressive expansion system keeps in check kingdoms too war-prone
-actual economic consequences. If an enemy nation keeps having to pay the ransom for its generals that were captured, at some point they shouldn't be able to keep creating expensive doomstacks or there should be the risk of them refusing to pay and the prisonner to be executed, depleting it's nobility. As of right now, winning battles has no other consequence than turning a quick buck and gaining a day of respite.
-end of war rewards calibrated according to the percentage of casualties inflicted/ prisonners taken/ settlements sieged successfully.
-scale the propensity of the king's ai to declare war according to the new total enemy force. AKA, when considering declaring a second or third war, compare the kingdom's strength to all enemy nations. In short: the more soldiers you're already fighting, the less you want to add numbers to the pile.
-add more incentives to remaining at peace: valuable trade deals, extra growth in border settlements, defensive alliances etc.
These are just a few off the top of my head.

Apocal said:

You should be amassing huge amounts of influence. You can use that influence to boost up other people's chances during elections and make friends with literally every other clan in your kingdom. A 100 point vote in their favor is worth at least 30 points of relations, more if you have high Charm, and is enough to take you from neutral to friend in a single-shot. At that point, they'll using their influence to vote for your proposals and for your clan whenever a fief comes up.

The campaign AI being dumb... eh...
?‍

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, I was using influence somewhat wrongly and I'll give that a shot.

Yeah just came back to this post and I'll admit I was VERY salty when I wrote it. Although I regret going a little too agressive in the wording, I stand by the points I was making. To those implying I wanted to be 2kewl4school and dominate the world easily, that's really not the case. I was even going in with the intention of roleplaying a vassal and taking things slow, eventually stopping around the level of a duke and never seizing control of the kingdom. I realise the game is early access and honestly I don't feel cheated out of my money. I already have upwards of 50 hours of mostly fun gameplay and believe the game has huge potential. It's just maddening to get stuck in this endless loop unless you just go for absolute domination and steamroll everything. Think of CK2 or EU4: you can aim to become a superpower through constant wars or you can just take a nation where you want it to go, reacting to the evolutions of the world around you. M&B aims to be an RPG. What it needs right now isn't more work going into the quests (although yes, they will need some in the future) but rebalancing the core mechanics of the game. As things stand, once you leave the merc stage the game isn't much of an RPG anymore, it's a laundry list of battles you have to go through to have some semblance of freedom in the game.