Search results for query: *

That was a long set of beta branches! Glad you guys finally got out the full release.

SanyaBeli said:

Really? That seems like an unnecessary change. You still need 10 social and a lot of time to get there. And by that time it’s likely that extra influence is useless. Now there is basically no reason to get charm above 275 since the base bonus isn’t amazing anyways.

Click to expand...

You don't need 10 attribute points placed in Social. Three attribute points is equivalent to one focus point, so you either need 5 focus points and 7 attribute points or 4 focus points and 10 attribute points to get above 275 in any given skill.

SanyaBeli said:

Well, it's working as intended. If you want more influence per day, you can get up to 13 by grinding your main character up to 330 charm.

Click to expand...

Not as of Beta 1.2.1. The perk has been reworked to only grant 5 with no increases whatsoever. Whether or not you grind charm up past 275 makes no difference, hence why I attempted to get a clan member to 275 charm, so that I could double the influence bonus.

I've been following Warband since around 2010-2011 or so, I was literally a pre-teen at the time that I fell in love with Warband lol. Throughout all my time there's been a surprisingly constant amount of hate thrown towards Taleworlds by loads of community members. My observations have always been that most of the hate comes from a few different groups, some of which overlap significantly:

1. Europeans: As an American it's hard for me to understand, but what I've gathered from my time on the internet is that Europeans (especially eastern Europeans) tend to be more negative and toxic regarding M&B discussion. Europeans in general represent a large portion of the M&B fanbase, so perhaps I'm misreading here, but NA fans tend to be far more content. I think that's a major reason why the M&B reddit page isn't nearly as bad as the forums: Reddit is primarily used by Americans and Canadians.
2. Multiplayer gamers: I can't speak to the hate here, because I don't personally play M&B multiplayer, but my understanding is that a lot of the hate and criticism is justified in this group. Multiplayer has never been a priority of the developers, and they've even said as much many times.
3. Major community members: People like @Ananda_The_Destroyer have been posting extremely frequently for years, and I think it's pretty clear that anyone who spends so much time in this forums are going to become a little bit negative because it is true that Taleworlds hasn't necessarily delivered on every goal. The release date for Bannerlord is something I waited on for the better part of 10 years, and if I was even half as involved as Ananda is in the forums, I'd probably be worse than the belligerent drunk. And mind you, Ananda is practically a saint compared to some other long-time and active forums users.

I think in general, Taleworlds as a developer has done an excellent job in spite of a lot of the hate and negativity thrown towards them. While we could all agree that Taleworlds should communicate more, it is difficult to justify on the part of developers and community managers when every single time they release an update or a dev blog, a substantial minority or sometimes even a majority of the player feedback is negative, from people complaining about multiplayer to missing features to broken beta branches. Big shout-out to @Dejan and all the other devs and community managers that deal with the negativity in stride

If you're on PC, I would strongly recommend the mod Character Reload. While the original author is no longer keeping up, someone has taken the mantle. Here's the link: https://www.nexusmods.com/mountandblade2bannerlord/mods/3700

Allows you to rename all characters, change character armor & weapons (including characters not in your clan), change appearances, and even edit skills, attributes, and traits. Pretty much a must-have for me since I like to change the appearance of many generic companions and shift around some poorly distributed attributes & skill points. I also like to edit some of the armor of certain lords and kings to make them more of a force in a fight.

Some really great improvements it seems. I'll be sure to test out some of the AI combat changes and leave feedback, cavalry were particularly awful on prior patches, usually missing very easy lance hits.

I hope that in the future, weather and terrain play a role in AI pathing and targeting; i.e. battanians fleeing into forests or khuzait armies disengaging a chase when the fleeing party enters a forest or a rainstorm.

One suggestion while I'm here: it's great that AI parties no longer need the pre-req mount for upgrading troops, but I hope that this means parties actually carry a significant number of mounts should they have the opportunity so. Even so much as one mount per 10 troops would be nice to see, so that AI can benefit from increased party speed. This would somewhat decrease the disparity between factions regarding campaign speed.

Additionally, severe weather events should potentially penalize heavily mounted party campaign speed. Oxen could potentially be introduced to solve this problem and some factions that experience larger weather events would invest in them at an appropriate ratio.

If you really have 1500 hours in this game and haven't figured out a way to deal with Khan's Guard or HA in general, I'm sorry to say it but ur down bad my guy, maybe video games aren't for you :/

Generally I'm a fan of the system. You get paid based on how much influence you accrue, so battling (and winning) earns you more, while sitting around nets very little. There are some abuses (for example, the final perk in Speech grants you passive influence generation which allows you to siphon off funds from kingdoms while doing nothing), but generally I think the system is sound.

As an update, enable player deaths in battle. So long as you're a crazed SOB willing to go in, your odds of having to choose a successor go up a good bit in the early game. Makes the feature actually worth something.

Now if only they'd make companions earn a reasonable amount of skill points so that you don't have to pick your 24 year old kid who's fought in 50 battles and yet has only 30 polearm skill.

A quick note concerning the Vlandian noble line; new shoulder items were JUST added for the vlandians, and it's rather unsightly that the noble line don't have proper shoulder armor. It might be pertinent to swap that out ASAP if you could please, it's been a withstanding dream of mine that my favorite culture gets some decent shoulder armor

Seems huge, the later it got in the game on previous patches, I'd just buy hundreds of even thousands of mules and sumpter horses, bearing the full speed penalty and hitting all the towns in a big loop because it was the fastest way to earn exp. Hopefully now it'll be a bit more pleasant reaching Spring of Gold One comment I'd like to add is that it might be helpful to diversify food sources. Currently there are no spice producing villages (is this handled by artisans or something?), and there are only a handful of basic food sources. For example you could include rice in the east and potatoes in the west (yes it's from South America which isn't fully in line with a classical/medieval asthetic but it would still track). Milk from cows might incentivize keeping them in your party, and different meats in general might make sense. And uhh, need I say butter ought to be the most delectable of vlandian ingredients?

An infantry focused army can work okay, but your best bet is to split infantry and archers. You can use your archers to force the opponent to engage, because the AI won't be content just taking mass casualties while sitting and doing nothing. Once your archers have baited them into the fight, then you can sweep with your infantry while your archers are still pelting when they have line of sight. Archers are super key if you want to run infantry heavy, and you only need enough to out-archer most opponents so that they don't kill all of yours (a well placed shield wall also helps a lot to soak up archer fire).

Alternatively you can run a split with cav or horse archers. Horse archers have a similar effect with infantry and work very well because they maneuver far more and get line of sight easily during the melee brawl, but I have a hard time figuring out which horse archer to use with Sturgian troops (nothing seems to fit thematically). Cav is a little easier, because I can accept Sturgian infantry + Vlandian cavalry, but using cav to bait your opponents into engaging is usually costly and cav are expensive. Battanian fians are the best fit imo (or sturgian archers but they're kinda bad).

Duh_TaleWorlds said:

To me, the challenge with this is that clans follow a different set of diplomatic rules than kingdoms. So it wouldn't just be a matter of enabling independent player clans to call armies. If that was permitted alongside owning settlements, it would essentially be better than a kingdom as other kingdoms could not target you and you could essentially force peace through barter given enough resources (for the wars that you start). Still, if we allowed kingdoms to declare war on you... we might just as well turn you into a kingdom when you capture a town - which would reduce the grace period of players that wish to prepare the creation of their kingdom.

Click to expand...

I think a timer that forces the player clan to create a kingdom upon fief ownership makes a lot of sense. This would allow the player time to rebuild their party should it suffer casualties in the siege, to get clan parties on the map and recruiting, and to swear allegiance to an existing kingdom. Once that is implemented, however, there is no longer any associated issues with players creating clan-only armies.

Great update on singleplayer, I'm looking very much forward to the next beta branch. A quick suggestion I've made once before that I think would significantly improve the singleplayer experience is to introduce independent / mercenary 'clan party' armies. One persistent issue I have in my singleplayer runs is that I develop a solid clan tier with solid income that can afford to have 2 or 3 total parties on the map, but when I finally want to go siege a city as an independent to start my own kingdom, I'm not allowed to bring my own clan parties with me. Obviously I should be able to do that, and furthermore, I think that I should be able to create armies as a mercenary that only include my clan parties. Essentially just allowing the ability to create armies consistent of your clan parties at anytime in the game would make lots of sense and be nice (and it would help players train leadership before they create a kingdom should they choose not to join a kingdom as a vassal as I often do).

I hate medicine

Click to expand...

Medicine is hard to increase, I agree completely. There need to be more opportunities to increase it, and it should increase faster through normal means (wounded units). But I think in some sense you're way overprioritizing medicine in the early game. The personal effects are nice but certainly not necessary to make a solid character. Maybe you'd be better off putting it off until you have a larger party and can starve them or just naturally gain medicine through regular gameplay. Focusing on it is bound to make you hate it considering how slowly it increases.

Too many bandits in sandbox starting area!

Click to expand...

Sometimes it seems like bandits are everywhere, sometimes it feels like they're nowhere to be seen. In the early game when I have rather low scouting, I tend to have a harder time finding bandits rather than seeing far too many of them.

no recruits anywhere

Click to expand...

? I guess I'm just confused because it doesn't line up with reality. I don't know the average bandit party size precisely, and it likely fluctuates throughout the game, but I'd have to imagine it's around 20 or lower. Despite the fact that some villagers will have a negative predisposition towards you, you'll get at least one or two recruits per village. Make a dozen village trips and you'll have around 20-30 units. So long as you replace them as they die, slowly you'll develop a more experienced, small party.

My personal strategy is to usually recruit some vlandians because they can become horsemen. I prefer trading as early game income because it's satisfying and gives good EXP early on, so a fast party means I can hunt down bandit parties more easily and can get around faster for trading purposes.

I'll admit, there aren't a whole lot of ways to play out the early game. Trade is, as far as my experience goes, the only super viable way of getting through the early game somewhat rapidly. Just hunting bandits to progress takes a lot of time, and you could build up your party to a reasonable size and hunt down neutral minor factions but the money is hit-or-miss and party costs are quite high. There definitely need to be more methods to earning money in the early game and advancing through that stage in general.

Blunt damage can gtfo

Click to expand...

The rocks are a little silly for sure, especially in contrast to your usual starting equipment. The starting bow is so slow and so bad that the rocks are really quite scary. Your best bet though is to use your troops. The first thing I learned switching from Warband to Bannerlord is that you really need to use your troops in the early game as your meatshield to earn EXP in your combat skills. If you're taking on looters by yourself in your slow, rinky-dinky horse and your **** bow, expect to get pummeled by rocks. It seems like you're almost shocked that looters might be actually difficult when you're playing with a very linear, solo-oriented, troops-never-die mindset. Let your troops do the work for you, and supplement them. Don't try it the other way around bcs rocks'll **** u up.

The culture perks are bad, except battania.

Click to expand...

I guess I just have to disagree. The Battania perk is quite useful given the number of forests that exist, and some culture perks are bad, but some of them definitely have their draws.

Vlandia's 15% increased income as a mercenary is great for a player like me who usually avoids joining a kingdom as a vassal. I like to ensure that I have loads of money before I start my own kingdom, that I have the most cracked party that I can want, and that I have the maximum number of parties on the map. That costs a lot of money, and 15% more money for my influence gain is a meaningful difference. And because I quest a lot in the early game and get my learning rate for Charm as high as I can in character select as well as early game, it means that I get access to some incredible perks as a mercenary that significantly improve my influence gain.

The Sturgian perks are pretty weak honestly. 20% more relationship penalty for kingdom decisions isn't all that bad, but 25% less recruitment and upgrade costs don't add up to much. For example, a Vlandian recruit upgrading to a Vlandian Pikeman (tier 5) costs 114 denars. If you're cycling out let's say 400 units per year (not unreasonable at all for infantry units if you fight frequently in wars vs other lords), the maximum costs are around 45,600 denars just to upgrade these troops from tier 1 to tier 5. Obviously not every troop will make it to tier 5, but for more experienced players, most non-noble units will hover near tier 4 or 5 because of high level recruitment and frequent replacement for lost troops. So the costs might more reasonably be 30,000 denars per year. Factoring in the Sturgian bonus, we get a cost of 22,500 denars. That's 7500 denars per year which isn't great. I believe a Bannerlord year consists of 120 days (30 days per season), so 7500 denars over the course of 120 days isn't particularly great. It does add up over the course of a playthrough, potentially to hundreds of thousands of denars, but over that same period of time, such an amount of money might be trivial.

The Aserai perks, for all the hate you have for them, honestly are viable for specific portions of the game. If you're hard focusing on getting Everything Has a Price in Trade, 10% less trade penalty is a big difference-maker. 30% cheaper caravans also menas a more reliable return on investment. If you're going to play in the Aserai area, no speed penalty significantly improves speed which, again, speeds up your trading. Battanian forest speeds won't make much of a difference here. And yeah, daily wages are up 5%, but that's quite the tiny amount of gold to pay for pretty sizeable advantages in trade. I'd probably take 5% more troop wages if it meant that my caravans were far cheaper to get up and running, and I have a sizeable headstart towards getting the most powerful perk in the entire game as well as loads of others.

Here's a good example of how a trade-focused style synergizes with the Aserai perks. With Aserai bonuses, a caravan only costs 10000 denars. This means that if you want to get three caravans up, it'll cost 30000 gold instead of 450000. Big enough that I could get 4 caravans running for less money than it would take to run 3 normally.

Furthermore, because of my improved trade penalty reduction, I'll level trade faster.

I'll get quicker access to perks like Insurance Plans which return 5000 gold per caravan destroyed.

I'll get improved renown from Artisan Community or Great Investor which leads to faster clan tier promotions.

I'll get Spring of Gold which more than makes up for the 5% increase in troop wages if I maximize the profits. In the VERY late game, I have a 400 man party of exclusively noble units, most of whom are tier 5 or 6. I have Talent Magnet so I have 5 parties on the map if you include my own. Including all those parties, my wages are 9409 denars per day. 5% of that is 470 denars. Even in the ultra late game with five parties, one of which is comprised of around 400 high tier noble units, Spring of Gold will pay out that percentage by more than double.

And of course Everything Has a Price.

And sure, you don't need the Aserai perks to get max trade or Spring of Gold, but it makes a big difference to add 10% to your trade penalty reduction (I don't believe it's added but rather multiplicatively factored in, but the difference is still noticeable in my personal experience).

The Empire cultural perks seem like they'd need a pretty complex analysis that I'm not currently up to the task of doing, but suffice to say that 20% less garrison costs can be meaningful, and 20% hearth growth costs aren't very meaningful. Examining my decent city of Galend, it has a prosperity of 6814. Not the highest of my cities, but not bad. Galend gives me 2778 in taxes. Its villages give me 1574 denars, and that's with three villages. It seems pretty evident that cities make more money so long as they're relatively prosperous (oh, and the hearths of these villages are no joke either, as they're all above 1000). The current wage for Galend's garrison is 3154. If we gave the Empire perk bonus of 20% less costs, it would go down to 2523 denars. That's 600 denars difference in the garrison of Galend alone, probably quite a bit more than enough to pay for the 20% lower growth rate of villages. At the very least, it's not definitely awful, but perhaps you have a more sufficient analysis.

The Khuzait perks are just kinda bad, but that's the numbers talking mostly. Their bonuses could be more reasonable with numbers tuning (perhaps 5 or 10% less town income for a 25% bonus in cavalry recruitment and upgrade costs).

So no, I don't think every single cultural perk set is bad except for Battania.

Roguery, like above it really annoys me that it's only purpose is basically +money but it costs a bunch of money and campaign time to raise it up

Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't think Roguery is fully implemented into the game in any meaningful way yet, hopefully that changes.

Steppe bandits are too fast.

Click to expand...

I've never done a Roguery playthrough bcs of how slow and tedious it can be, so who knows. Perhaps a perk should be added that causes bandit parties to not run away from your party. Would be cool perhaps.

Ranged troops suck at shooting horse archers.

Click to expand...

I don't personally have the same experience. With a strong archer line and proper direction-facing management, Vlandian crossbowmen and battanian fians can seriously devastate horse archers. Even vs the Khuzait, the numbers killed vs lost aren't particularly close. I'll have battles where around 200 or my archers have to deal with around 200 mostly tier 3-6 horse archers and I might lose a dozen archers before half of their horse archers have died. I am minmaxing and usually have close to max or max tier archers, but with my experiences, it just seems unlikely that archers really do have such a hard time even at tier 3 or 4.

It's too hard to kill you husband now!

Click to expand...

Um, never considered that, but respect to you and your playstyle lol. Perhaps they should introduce a poisoning method or something.