Search results for query: *

Bannerlord is an ambitious genreblender, made by a medium size developer, that does some things AMAZINGLY well, and other things not-so-well.

It's a beautiful mess that is leaps and bounds ahead of anything else remotely like it. In a world where the triple A outfits are all producing unambitious pablum, we could use ten more studios like Taleworlds.

There was this one tournament where I got knocked out before my partner, and he and the other guy both had crossbows. They took turns firing at each other and missing.

Over and over and over again.

I honestly don't remember if it eventually resolved when they ran out of ammo, or if they did occasionally hit enough times to finish it, but it was comically bad.

This was in the current retail build, not 1.2
So I'm not sure it's a new thing. It's probably by design. I think the AI ranged mechanics are intended to "work" in blob vs. blob... if every AI could shoot like the player does, battles would probably go dramatically differently.

Companions just need a drop-down menu in their character sheet where you can select where/what you want them to be, and if they should be promoted to squad leader by default.

Yup, something needs to be done.

Whichever clan is given the fief should prioritize (to the point of leaving whatever army they're in) traveling to and bolstering that fief.
Otherwise, yes, the attacking army should have some easy way of bolstering the garrison. The army leader asking everyone for troops is totally logical. Another option would be paying an expensive sum to conscript locals to form a quick militia to get that ball rolling.

The fief 'ping-pong', like you say, is totally ridiculous.

The bandit quests definitely need work.

1. The late game versions of the quest are laughably bad - "chase down 23 bandit parties!" or some nonsense, "with your giant, slow army!" It's always a skipper unless you can find a huge bandit camp that has enough parties in it to count.
2. Ideally, TW should program it so that the game knows once the "area" you're trying to 'make safe' is actually bandit-free. Once it's clear, you get credit, whether you personally wiped them out or not.
3. If not that, then simplify it to "kill or capture X number of bandits/brigands/looters." This could be done by attacking parties, or attacking a bandit camp, and the area-restrictions should be greatly loosened. If the local village CAN'T TELL that there are no more bandits in an area, then I shouldn't be restricted to only hunting bandits in that area.
4. "Rescue my friend" and "clear the bandit camp" could still be separate quests, as those work just fine.
5. You should be able to stack the bandit-kill quests. It's logical, and it's fun to get 'double-duty' for your quest effort.
6. On a somewhat separate note, it'd be nice to be able to designate a clan party as bandit police. They'd stay small, fast, lethal, wouldn't join armies, and patrol around your territory keeping it clear.

Tryvenyal said:

But when 0% of single-player achievements can be solved in MP, why should MP achievements be solveable in SP?

Its a mixed game. To get your 100%, do both or live with it

Click to expand...

If a SP achievement is unattainable in MP, it's because it's LITERALLY unattainable - you don't have children or execute lords in MP. That makes sense.

On the other hand, there are all sorts of activities that you DO in SP, and the achievements just don't work for these. It just doesn't make sense. Especially when it's clear that the overwhelming majority of people who play the game are SP. There's actually a fair amount of confusion on the steam message boards because of this - "why isn't this achievement tracking??" and literally half the responses are people saying it's broken, because NO ONE does MP and they haven't realized that's where you can get it.

"but to expect a game to exclude achievements from some of their game functions is obnoxious," and yet that's exactly what they're currently doing, and I'm asking them to change it. Currently there's a bunch of combat-related achievements that you HAVE to do multiplayer to achieve, and it is kinda obnoxious.

People could still get the listed achievements in multiplayer, I'm just asking that they're not exclusively multiplayer. You ignored the "-only" part of my post and subject line.

I agree that renown needs work. I think the avenues of renown gain should change depending on clan level. Things that get you renown early on shouldn't necessarily work as well or at all as your clan gets more famous.

For example, having a perk that gets me renown for operating caravans is fine, but that renown-gain should taper off and peak out well before I hit clan level 5 or 6.

Achieving the higher clan ranks should probably have some special requirements in addition to the steady accumulation of renown. Some sort of special accomplishment that sets you apart from the average nobles.

Regarding decay, I don't necessarily think I should be able to lose clan rank 6 once I have it, but perhaps there should be an additional layer on top of that that is more like a leaderboard - only the most fearsome commanders, or the most wealthy nobles, would maintain the highest ranking among the top clans. This leaderboard is in constant flux. There would be perks to being the best, but it would also paint a bit of a target on you - other nobles would want to defeat you in battle, or sack your ridiculously wealthy city in order to take its spoils.

Otherwise, criticism like this, "I find everything too easy in this game, and this does not only apply to renown. It is also too easy to keep 100 relationship with everyone," are valid, depending on the philosophy of the game:
Is the end-game supposed to be a more discrete experience that we prepare for and beat, and then we start over with a new game? This is at least somewhat how the campaign feels like it's intended to be. If so, then things like reputations and renown are basically fine, and the real problem is in other aspects of late game that make it too much of a cat-herding, siege-exploiting, slog.
Or is end-game supposed to be a much longer, almost indefinite process that feels like a real kingdom simulator, with more vague goals like "successfully manage as powerful/wealthy/large of a kingdom as possible," with the game designed to become increasingly challenging as you grow in power, with real checks and balances and risks. This is probably what I would prefer. If Taleworlds is going for the kingdom-simulator-sandbox experience, then lots of work needs to be done to keep it interesting, challenging, and immersive (like the early game is).

(It is worth noting that there is a reset currently in game for all those notables you have 100 relations with - they eventually die. Like many late-game features, though, the dynasty system needs tuning - the timing is just too slow to really impact a typical game right now)

Was just thinking this the other day - each character should have a toggle that can be checked, instead of the all-or-nothing one in the campaign options. Even better would be a few choices for pre-generated templates (squad leader, party leader, governor, gladiator, etc), as well as any saved templates the player comes up with.