Search results for query: *

NoRegretz00 said:

I still can't believe taleworlds are only now adding kingdom destruction they make such good games with amazing unique concepts but neglect the game upon release

Click to expand...

It wasnt a neglect. It was a concept that just didnt gain popularity.

Ananda_The_Destroyer said:

Even if they did you could easily beat them in field battle because no matter how many units they bring they must use the predictable and bad AI maneuvers.

Click to expand...

And thank god for that!

I did some experimentation at some point on combined arms (short story - terrible).I did, however, learn that no-one would ever want the AI to be able to use ranged units effectively (frustration level = off the charts).

NoRegretz00 said:

This issue is proof that warband>bannerlord,
A game which is so many years older has a far better late game

Click to expand...

Well, it is shorter at least.

saittam said:

Battles are the core yes. But marriages should be second. At the time it was huge. It was how peace was often made and alliances. It was a core of politics. Many times more of hostage situation.

One can let the ai fight. I think many do. And the player walks around feif managing. High in charm and one got both 5 in loyality and 5 in security.
Relations with marriages should be the focus after battles. And battles are great in the game.
Rougery and smithing are for me useless features. My game is so modded right now that when i even press smithing the game crash. And i am perfectly fine with it.

Click to expand...

At its core it is a battlesimulator with some strategic and RP elements sprinkled on. Its not a dynastic game, its not a grand strategy game and it is (most certainly not) a medival merchant simulator. Their are simply much better alternatives to all these genres out there.

Its primary claim to relevance is that you can fight some relatively large battles (Total War) with the twist that you can personally participate in the action. There is simply no point playing this game, over other and better alternatives, if it is something else that you really want out of the game.

My personal view, is that Bannerlord, at least on the forums, get way too much flak for things that are largely immatrial (that includes, the dynastic aspect; its there, people can play with it if they want but it is not fundamental to the game). People simply have unreasonable expectations as to what the game really is.

Anyway, its just an opinion.

saittam said:

Here is a thing that feels strange to me.
Marry off daughters is a quick way to gain relation to other clans.
Battles and such is usually slow or atleast i think it should be. My post where i gain 300 in relations feels like a bug.
So in other words. Game design went astray if it´s ment to become king when the daughters come to age. Usually one is king or has the option to be king at the first childs second year. Game can be finished before the first child is even of age.

Feels like i am missing something on the path to kingdom.

Click to expand...

The whole family thing should really be viewed as an optional approach to the game rather than the core of the game. It might bring something to some players.

Frankly, other than straight up fastforwarding, I struggle to see how anyone could possibly bring themselves to play a 20+ year campaign. It would require an absurd amount of both repetitive and wasted actions, on the players part, to stretch it out that long. Seriously, with a 20+ campaign we are talking thousands of battles....

Ananda_The_Destroyer said:

The player is also deprived of using their skills/strategy in the middle game and forward as you have no means of controlling other parties and armies or setting goals or any meaningful diplomacy. The game is 100% you bulldozing the AI with you own party/army and the fact this works still just further shows the weakness of the AI both in battle and in campaign AI.

Click to expand...

Not really sure how, or if, that is really an issue. At least in terms of the fact that it works.

Concentration of force is an entirely sensible strategy. You have garrisons around to limit the damage that your enemies can potentially do to you. So, there are no particularly good strategic reasons why you would not, or should not, choose to concentrate your forces.

Though, I am not saying that it would be a bad thing to introduce more options to control your factions armies.

thomas13 said:

Besides they "fixed" the ability of factions to stay alive and late game still sucks. Late game sucks because the players power level surpasses the AI way too soon.

Click to expand...

I am going to have to disagree with this too

The problem is not that you surpass the AI too soon. The game is simply too big for the concept.

There is not a damn thing that they can possibly do to make the endgame appealing to anyone but the tiniest minority. It is simply too big, and by extention, too long and repetitive to be digestible to most. What they should really do is just ignore endgame entirely and focus on making the journey there as good as it can get.

thomas13 said:

Maybe, but I think it's more of a structural issue that needed more time in development to be balanced. It has a lot of features that don't flow together in a cohesive way. Instead of taking that time it was decided it's playable enough and rushed into beta then full release.

Click to expand...

I am sorry. But I just dont buy into the whole "rushed through the door" argument that always pop up whenever there is something people dont like.

I honestly think they probably though the whole "factions staying alive" thing was an ingenious organic solution to the basic lategame problem; that a campaign becomes largely pointless once you reach a certain powerlevel relative to the AI.

I would not be surprised if they were simply taken aback by the fact that people just did not like it.

thomas13 said:

You're describing symptoms of a bigger problem. Wack a mole isn't the issue. The issue is that once a player advances beyond a beginner the game offers zero chance of actually losing. The player no longer has to rely on his skill he just games the AI. After a certain point it kills playability for intermediate and advanced players. No challenge = no reason to continue playing. Yes, the AI doesn't run out of money but who cares because all they are capable of fielding is endless recruits that can easily be killed. The AI lacks any kind of meaningful challenge and has been reduced to nothing but a nuisance.

Click to expand...

This is fundamentally just a genre issue. Once you outpace the AI, well...

saittam said:

Like sending a captain will mercy will give you enough and keep relation. Sending a captain with cruel will allow much more as war tax. But then again. There can be 100 implements to village, town and castle integration added in the game.
I hope to see it one day. Sending a captain to build village fortifaction and just houses to level them in engineering. Just help them for charm and medicin. Not as quests, but stadges. Village has reach 200 hearts and need new buildings to grow. There is actually no end on what to add.

Click to expand...

It might sound like a good idea to some. But to others this is just going to be annoying irrelevant busy work (like every other quest). Its something for Mods.

SomeWeirdSins said:

Forest bandits are the most OP troop in the game by far.
Why bother with nobles when fights are so easy? Just stomp them with forest bandits, get insanely rich from roguery, and win the game in 5-6 years

Click to expand...

They are absolutely worth including. However, there is a tradeoff. whatever experience goes into roguery comes at the expense of leadership. So, a mix of both is a better choice.

saittam said:

Thats why too late. You need to pass tier 2 for that. The longer one wait the higher the level and for me thats bad.

Click to expand...

Nahh, you can pass tier 2 in no time.

Generally, hunting lords just provide a much much higher overall return than basically any other activity you can undertake. So, the "efficient" path is to aim to be able to do so as quickly as possible. Ultimately, quests just dont do much to help you to get to that point and beyond that point they are fundamentally obsolete.

saittam said:

You can if she is the one being offered 90% of cases it´s not. If she is not then it´s the mini game to pass.

Click to expand...

I have seen this happen a total of one time through all the campaigns I have played.. so, a bit more random than that.


Anyway, while the OP is wrong about relationship-recruitment he is not really wrong about quests, as such, being largely pointless. But, they might still serve a RP function.

saittam said:

A big part of the early game for me is finding the wife i want. Win the minigame so the kids come at low level (sadly the wife is at high level 1 And for that charm at minimum 75 is needed. Also help that clan with quests to boost relation.

Click to expand...

Just boost the relationship with your wife´s clan by defeating them in battle. Tough love and all.

Speaking of which, has there been a change in the marriage system? Cant you just buy your wife from the clanleader anymore?

mujadaddy said:

Yes, really, it really boosts Charm XP before you're able to release lords after battles. You're talking about midgame.

Click to expand...

Charm does very little, initially, to make you stronger and there is really no reason not to transition into the midgame as soon as you are able. Just get your brother and build a party, and you will be hunting lords in no time.

mujadaddy said:

DO NOT FORGET that this is a great way to boost Charm skill before you're able to free lords in battle.

Click to expand...

Not really, you are considerably better off just focusing on getting strong enough to fight lords instead.

kyle_usmc said:

The more troops thing just isn't true, I never do quests and I recruit tier 3 and 4 everywhere, it seems like the recruitment level is more tied to level than anything. And as far as improving fiefs, it's a waste of time, quest generate way to fast for it to be worth doing and literally killing looters is of higher financial benefits than the few hundred gold you get from a high tier village. And not to mention one raid ruins huge chuncks of progress.

Click to expand...

You do get access to more troops with higher relationships.

Each notable have 5 slots, the first of which you can access provided your are not at war with the faction and you do not have a negative relationship with the notable. Every successive slot require a higher relationship with the notable to access, and those tend to provide higher tier units.

However, if you are in the faction you get access to an additional slot and there are several perks that will allow you to access a couple more. Provided you have all the relevant perks, the notable is in your faction and of your culture you can get access to 4 out of the 5 slots, without improving relationships.

This is obviously assuming you dont have access to more slots from the difficulty setting.

anoddhermit said:

When taking fiefs as independent you don't have to worry about multiple front wars. I agree there's a point where it makes sense to make a kingdom, but in my experience the easiest/lowest risk method of starting a kingdom is to take over the entirely of a faction's land and recruit all of their clans before starting a kingdom. You can take all of the towns of your character's culture and get huge daily income without dealing with being voted against or not being on the vote at all, and you can just gift every clan a single castle or whatever since they tend to drain money anyway.

Basically I just think the AI should be able to declare war on independent clans, at least under certain conditions. Maybe if you have more than 2 fiefs of their culture, or something. That lets players use the independent stage to prep for kingdom expansion before dealing with too much war a bit, but not exploit it.

Click to expand...

Nahh, takes too long. Its just faster and more effecient to just join a neighboring faction and then, with that factions assistance, steamroll the faction you intend to make your starting kingdom.

Sreaction said:

I ran across a notable that I had a -15 relation score and she still was willing to sell me her business and caravan.

Click to expand...

That is quite possible. It is just quests that they dont appear to be willing to give you, when below -10.

five bucks said:

Kindly show us the relevant section of code or developer quote?

Click to expand...

Just personal experience. At some point someone noted that a friendly relationship was supposed to reduce the chance a lord would raid you, but that it actually removed the chance entirely. That fit my own observation, at the time I also tried, as a vassal of the western empire, to just let time pass through an entire war with Battania. Even despite owning part of Battania, and being the closest possible target, I was totally ignored.

I have however tried being raided in the period between declaring independence and getting a vassal, from someone I believe was a friend, hence he possible caveat.

It may have changed, but my own personal fiefs just never get raided so.. wouldnt know.