Search results for query: *

Lords should also not be released when peace is declared. Ransom should always be paid.

I am surprised people feel the game is grindingly slow. Yes, the aging is quite slow but the number of events per year is very fast. I would definitely speed up aging and slow down wars. Just too much is happening, but I suppose you need more peacetime activities in the game.

It goes without saying that workshops need to be balanced vs loot vs troop upkeep vs taxes.

Assuming above is balanced, if you make 100 denars, paid 15k then it takes 150 days to breakeven. The question is, is that too long?

+1 great idea, exactly what I've been saying.

I feel the escape option should be very rare. Ransom / end of war should be the general rule and the latter only if you are a vassal. If you don't have the cash either a ruler should pay for you or you go into debt.

Wow ok I did not expect all three replies to be indefinite.

Just from the votes thus far the next questions are:
- Average time to conquer the map?
- If you restart a new character are you happy to do this as a child character?

@Stratigo

That all you got? I'm a Nazi?

History is not a conspiracy theory mate. And you can't revise it. It is what it was.

You guys are like lab mice that have been trained to press a buzzer. Anyone disagrees with your dogma and *wham* you scream "Nazi!" because that unpersons me. It makes me so horrible that I am not worthy of being heard. I can be physically assaulted and its ok because I am already guilty of the most heinous of crimes. It is exactly like the medieval church. If you threatened the dogma the people cried "Heretic", "Burn them at the stake" because they must worship the Devil. They are not worthy of life or, in our modern world, of speech. Times change but human psychology and the tools with which to manipulate people stay the same. The only purpose for using those terms is to silence debate. And it has been oh so effective for the last decade, but people are slowing starting to cotton onto it now.

Why don't we put aside the childish name-calling and you tell me what it is that you disagree with specifically, ideally politely and calmly.

Earth Dragon said:

I would have bought into this comment, but then you go and insert your own politics, which is the entire point: It has nothing to do with "keeping people in their place" but just appreciating a more realistic simulation on the period. It was very rewarding to play a woman and win in Warband. Bannerlord, is virtually the same experience.

And your second statement cements your political tilt and is just another plug for how YOU think everything should be done, and why, according to your politics, anything else is vile. So congratulations for enforcing that politics is the driving force behind the change while trying to dismiss it. Simulating how things were more accurately in a video game only actually enhances modern arguments of equality, versus the PC authoritarian approach you seem to be married to.

Click to expand...

Thank you, I could not have said it better. It has nothing to do with keeping people in their place. It is all about the RPG for me. For them... ooh... for them it is all about the political statement. Their replies hinge on accusations of sexism because there is no rational defense for politically motivated game design decisions.

artemis_entreri said:

- Factions are at peace for too long. There are hardly any wars in my current game. I'm belligerent and need war to survive. Unfortunately, I join a kingdom as a mercenary and they immediately make peace.

Recommendation: Can we get some of the quests to make war?

Click to expand...

I have never seen this. My decidedly anecdotal experience is that there is constant war, not enough peace! Although given the fact so many peace time mechanics seem to be missing that is probably for the best. Once the game is more fleshed out they should reduce the frequency of war.

Important note though, I am perfectly fine with quests to instigate war. Good suggestion.

@xavire94

I don't know if either of you read my post properly. Taleworlds obviously shortened the day-year ratio for gameplay reasons. I see that, you see that. Gameplay is the reason that it was done and rightly so. The fact that "Calradia is fictional" is utterly irrelevant. If there was no gameplay reason Taleworlds would not arbitrarily have done so.

@kalarhan

It is irrelevant what the OP said. He could say that the game needs Elves and that the Sturgians should ride space-monkeys into battle. That does not give any weight to the argument that "Calradia is fiction" and therefore x or y design decision should be made. Otherwise it can be used as a blanket position for anything. Which is clearly a nonsensical approach to a discussion and game design in general.

The opposite is also true, "this is based on history" is subject to gameplay / RPG considerations.

To both of you, what if Bannerlord had been set in actual medieval Europe? Would it then be unacceptable to shorten the year because "Europe is not fictional" even though there are obvious gameplay benefits to doing so? I don't know why you are guys are arguing.

abc123456 said:

King support +300 gold/daily is like a cheat. I left it on for a few days and could afford a 25k caravan doing nothing but waiting.
Please nerf it like King will only support it for a limited time.
Or please provide an option to turn it off in campaign options, similar to easy->difficult

Click to expand...

Did you wait with a 0 party size? Not sure they need to remove a feature because you cheesed the game. If that is not what you did, could you please explain in more detail how the 300g was not being spent on troop maintenance?

@kalarhan

I just want to politely ask never use the "Calradia is fictional" reason as a support for any design element. The only valid support for a design choice is gameplay or RPG experience.

Stick to the second point regarding travel distance, ageing etc - those support gameplay and RPG.

With respect.

Stratigo said:

I wish games like this didn't attract people like you.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't bring it up if people don't post comments that "women are oppressed". Keep politics out of our games and I won't mention it.

Anecdotally, the sieges actually seems worse to me now.

Midnitewolf said:

That being said, I really wish enemy lords (maybe even players) were forced to take at least 80% of their troops from their faction list. I really hate it when I am fighting a lord and his troops are a hoge poge mix of 80% foreign troops. I also wish captured settlements, actually changed their recruitment to fit the conquers culture. I mean if I am an Imperial lord, I am not going to all of a sudden change my military doctrine to the enemies troop types just because I got awarded a castle of theirs. Instead I am going to induct local troops into my military doctrine and train those slant eyed Khurzait's into proper Imperial Cataphracts and Legionaries.

Click to expand...

+1

It is really annoying that the recruit types do not change according to who owns it. Even if there was a time delay before it changes. I end up wishing my faction will lose a cultural city at the beginning so that I can get that as a fief instead of a newly conquered one.

I do however like that in the heat of a campaign in enemy territory you are sometimes forced to take on any swinging dicc you can find, and then they remain as a reminder once the campaign is done. But that should be the exception.

Affliction said:

Cultures are a good place to start. Every base faction has a culture and some cultures like "Nord" don't even have a kingdom.
The split empire could have it's own subcultures and that could be revealed in subtle changes to aesthetics.

Click to expand...

This is what I would like to see. More depth to the current ones, rather than new shallow ones.

@Targyr Darksun

I can see what you are getting at. I used the term "comparative" differently then than its technical meaning. His statements were unsubstantiated opinion. Mine were facts or opinions based on empirical data. To me that means they are not comparable. Certainly his opinions exist in opposition to mine, but his have nothing to support them. And what a hodgepodge of opinions! Ranging from "woman are oppressed", "we were better off in the past" and "IR is a disaster". Those are unrelated or contradictory to each other. Typical of today's identitarian far-left which is probably what has influenced him (and the real reason we have 50/50 female/male warlords riding around Calradia) even if he doesn't identify as such himself. Maybe he has read some things but there doesn't seem to be a coherent world view holding it all together.

I was going to write a whole lot more on his IR claim, but I'll message you instead, if you care, you probably don't but I feel bad letting the text go to waste!

Anyway, I don't disagree with what you said. Since he has stopped making wild, unsubstantiated claims about history, oppression etc I will let it lie.

Yakubog said:

Or perhaps I realised that talking to capitalist apologists is a pointless, but amusing way to spend time.

Click to expand...

Or you realised that you have no idea what you are talking about considering how your only specific attempt at factual contribution, the 20% tax, was thoroughly rebutted immediately.

There is no need to apologise for capitalism or the IR. The benefits are self evident and the empirical evidence of improving life outcomes throughout the world since the 18th century is a testament to that fact. No one claims there aren't any problems, but they will be overcome. Harking back to discredited ideologies from yesteryear or some utopian "return to nature" is not a viable alternative.

Targyr Darksun said:

What part of what I said, exactly, are you disagreeing with? I said technology could be used for destructive purposes too. From this you formed a strawman and attributed to me the non sequitur conclusion that because technology can be used for destructive purposes, it is therefore bad or undesirable or something along those lines. But I didn't make that leap. To the contrary I said good or bad, in this case, depends on what normative criteria you subscribe to.

Click to expand...

I apologise if you feel I created a strawman. I genuinely thought that is what you meant.

To my mind you were proposing that it could be good; for health, wealth etc. Or it could be bad; destructive powers. I disagree that there is comparative normative criteria in this instance. I was trying to explain why, i.e. because the destructive is only a potential, not actual. Therefore we are only left with the good.

Could you restate what the other criteria is then that would result in IR being bad? Other than the environment. I am genuinely not understanding.

Yakubog said:

I can, but I don't care enough to sperg out on an internet khuzait basket weaving forum.

Click to expand...

I doubt that is true otherwise you would not have posted your half-baked 20% tax rebuttal in the first place.