Search results for query: *

Nice job! Question, will these spawn in their appropiate regions? Or anywhere?

Tryvenyal said:

But thats not how unstable mediveal kingdoms worked.

Click to expand...

That may be so. But it is very much how late antiquity Empires worked, even splinters of them. How centralised or decentralised decision-making is within a Kingdom should rather be decided by the laws enacted. If you have a senate, then yes, the nobles will have a say. If you have Sacred Majesty, then perhaps less so.

However, the really big problem, come to think of it, is not the actual voting, it's more how the real aim of the lords is to provide the player with "challenge". It is utterly unbelievable that the lords would work to ruin the kingdom by starting war after war after war, even before concluding the ongoing ones. The noble houses of a kingdom should have goals to guide their decisions and their votes. With an AI so guided, the lords would not all agree all the time. They would have conflicting goals, with the Sovereign being able to support one group or another at different times. And that was very much how an unstable medieval Kingdom worked. Rarely if ever were the nobles all united against the will of the King.

The same goes for AI Kingdoms - in my current game Battania has lost half its country to the Vlandians, but they keep attacking my unified Empire, even though I do not occupy a single Battanian culture settlement. When I fight Vlandia, they do not take advantage of the opportunity to get their own back. Exactly the same with Sturgia, half of which is lost to the Khuzaits.

The AI should have a list of priorities (First, our people should be free or foreign ocupation, then we will conquer new lands or for an Imperial faction First we will reunite the Empire, the barbarians outside our borders can only be a nuisance or an ally). And they should be able to realise when an opportunity arises to acheive those goals.

EDIT: In fact, this is killing the late game, it's that bad. I'm already at war with Vlandia (very powerful), Battania and the Aserai (also very powerful). The Aserai just took Onira while I was busy fighting Vlandia - and my retarded nobles now want to attack the Khuzait, (a third powerful faction) - and there is zero support for ending any of the ongoing wars, even receiving a hefty tribute. And I'm not going to have the influence to block them this time. If the wars were all started by my enemies, I would not mind that much, it makes sense to gang up on the top dog. But this is idiocy.

Csatádi said:

In regards of armor, gambesons were made of cloth, but they are still armors. So I think both leather and gambesons should be acceptable or neither of them.

Click to expand...

Fully agree, that's why I wrote soft leather should be considered cloth/fabric for this purpose - jackets, gambesons, all good. I was thinking more along the lines of items of cuir bouilli or leather scale should be considered military garb.

SadShogun said:

Another thing we do not want to do is to separate the valuation for looted, legitimately bought, bartered, and crafted items. Also, we like to one-to-one correspondence of item and troop tiers (which makes judging value everything in the game easier for players as well.)

Click to expand...

That is a good point - but take it all the way. Value also the gear used to equip and promote troops the same way as the gear you can trade with. Equipping the player character or a companion with a certain set of equipment should cost the same as equipping (promoting) a troop with the same set of equipment. And that cost should be a couple of hundred denarii at most for a full panoply. Only luxury gear (gilded/bejewelled/decorated) should reach anywhere near the thousands of Denarii.

With that one tweak, you'd take a great stride towards fixing the entire economy of the game. Battle loot and smithing would become hugely less profitable, and trading and taxes comparatively more profitable.

I agree and have posted in the same vein of thought - the money sink should be your army, not your personal gear. But I'd like to add, for those who want to own that exorbitantly expensive piece of gear more than they want to conquer an Empire - prices for weapons and armour were historically much less linked to function than to style. Consider this - even a cheap sword will kill an unprotected man as surely as Excalibur. An ultra-high quality sword might more easily penetrate low grade armour (gambesons and the such) and might hold up a little better against nicks, breaking or bending - but it won't actually deal any more damage. Yet it would probably have been vastly more expensive, even unadorned. If we then add in a gilted and bejeweled hilt and scabbard, a silk-wrapped handle and cunningly inlaid gold filigrane on the blade... then we might have to pay a kings ransom to own it. And it still won't kill any deader than a cheap sword for a peasant for 2 shilling.

It's a little less style over substance for armour, but basicly, you wouldn't have been vastly better protected by top grade armour than by decent mass-produced gear - just more comfy and above all, stylish!

The differences in prices can and should be dictated by quality of function, yes, up to 10 or 20 on a 1000 grade scale. Thereafter, it's all about the style and bling!

Does anyone remember the Realistic Combat Model (RCM) for the original M&B and Warband? There was more to it than that, but at its core it modeled the fact that weapons are deadly and one good hit with almost any weapon of war will bring you down, if not kill you - unless you wear armour. What RCM did was increase weapon damage and armour ratings, but not HP. Metal armour was really effective against most kinds of edged or pointed weapons - I'm thinking that with an RCM-version for Bannerlord, troops with decent armour could be bashing away at each other for quite some time, thus prolonging battles.

+1 here to. Because it makes sense. I would also like to see a rework for smithing though, probably by making access to different part a lot easier. For example, tiers could be tied to skill level - once you reach a certain skill level, you can use all parts up to a certain tier, while smelting things can teach you parts your skill level does not yet permit.

I see what you mean, but I tend to think of peasants as that first stage, before even a minimum of training. Recruits have been issued some equipment, it makes no sense that that would not include a simple shield and weapon, like a spear. You would not send troops into battle without at least that. Also, I did not propose that recruits should have a full panoply, because from them we branch out into different troop classes. But with the current system, you can’t have elite light infantry/skirmishers, or elite light cavalry. Therefore I’d prefer it that each branch get most of their gear from the start.

EDIT: I think part of the disagreement comes from the point of view - you're looking at this from a middle ages europan perspective, where indeed a lord would levy a mob of peasants armed with whatever they could get their hands on, whereas I'm considering a late Roman setting where recruits would join a professional army and be equipped at the expense of the state with their basic gear.

Agree strongly with the OP, and have written similar suggestions myself. The price of gear for troops and for player/companions should be the same. The cost for outfitting one soldier with a certain set of equipment should be the same as equipping yourself in the same way. The main income sources should be taxes and trade, not battlefield loot.

IF the mechanic of upgrading troops was changed so that you could only upgrade troops if you owned the equipment for them (like war horses for cavalry), then loot could be useful for arming troops, but not something to make you rich. I would fully support such a change, but would settle for consistency between prices for gear and prices for equipping troops.

One thing I'm noticing with big battles is that, if odds are fairly even, the AI will hang back near it's own reinforcement zone. This is smart, but it makes for bad battles, because the flow of the battle will be sort of

1) Player Army advances, beats the socks out of the AI
2) AI reinforcements arrive, overwhelm the player army
3) Victorious AI troops advance, and run into
4) Player Army reinforcements, which overwhelm the AI army
5) Victorious Player Army advances, and run into
6) AI reinforcements arrive, overwhelm the player army

and so on and so forth...

While it is not "smart", like in maximizing their chances to win, I think it would make for better, less gamey battles if the AI generally advanced to the middle of the field, even when feeling defensive. Size good ground and stay put, sure, but not at the map edge.

I'd say you'd move no faster than mule speed, which I'd say is not much faster (if at all) than footman marching speed.

And if food for animals is also included in the army food requirements (as it should, an army on the move can not stop for grazing, which would take most of the day any way), then I'd say you will need your mules to carry provisions for both men and animals. Of course, they should not be able to carry more than a few days worth, any more than that, and you should have to bring wagons.

Another thing that really should affect movement is of course supplies/food. Sure, you can have a quadrillion horses carrying your munchies, but of course, horses eat too… a ton of grain. In reality, you'd need supply wagons, which were slow - so a large army with food for a couple of weeks for the men and animals would be slowed down by it.

I would like to add that if I then chose the option of paying influence to give the fief to someone else, I do get the option to give it to myself, but the game then thinks the fief has just been conquered and starts a new election round (again without the King as candidate).