Search results for query: *

+1

I would give a hesitant +1 to this. While I agree that the current AI is robotic and boring, I would still like to maintain a sense of reason in their actions. I would like to see more lords be willing to be aggressive, especially where battles are concerned. Seeing a 350 man army run away from a 360 man army because of the numerical disadvantage, and have the battle only come to pass because a small band from the "larger" force breaks off to chase them down is extremely frustrating.

It also leads to a very predictable battle outcome, where if you approach an enemy lord and he runs from you, you are pretty much guaranteed to crush him in a field engagement. If he starts moving towards you, then he's going to win. There isn't really a middle ground or any need for the player to consider what is arrayed against them.

Perhaps include a wider range of "acceptable" power ratios to pursue a fight. Perhaps, say, a 40:60 odds to their disadvantage might still be appealing if they believe they can take a terrain advantage or something.

Question/further suggestion to this:
Would the prosperity/economy/taxes be tied to the population of the town, and would the total population be reduced as men are conscripted away?
Essentially causing a strategic decision as to whether to recruit peasant and farmers and risk their lives in war, or leave them in their homes to generate wealth.

+1 I'm all up for a "revolving door" effect on the campaign. Allow the clans to be killed off in assassinations, executions and war, but have a generation feature for lesser noble clans, mercenaries and notable commoners ready to rise in their place.

+1 if nothing more than to see the term "Bannerlord" used more than once in the game.

I would cast my lot with a non-RNG system, however that may be. My suggestion would be to take what works from games like Crusader Kings II, with the AI having factors that affect their disposition towards your suggestion. If you're asking a lord to defect, he may have a +15 relation to you but a +20 relation with his liege, meaning you're already at a -5 disadvantage to agreement. Maybe you're highly charismatic (+10) but you're of a different culture (-5). He has lost his land and his liege is not doing anything to recapture his settlements (+5) but your forces are too weak to help him (-10).
Etc etc.

With a real push, this sort of thing could be pushed into the Barter system to really flesh out a feature I've almost never used except to cheese the game on broken mechanics.
E.g. Take the above-mentioned defection request, and throw in that if he joins you, you'll give him a castle in lands nearby his old home (+30) and that's what pushes him into accepting the betrayal.

Waybook said:

Would be nice if there was a charge/advance order that would tell my cavalry to only attack enemy cavalry and not charge into enemy infantry.

Click to expand...

I would like to +1 this but with an addendum. Can I please tell my unit, the whole unit, to charge at the troops I'm pointing them at. Whether it be archers, cavalry, the backs of enemy infantry. Too many times I call charge at the opportune target and they just sort of bomb-burst in every direction trying to find the enemy that is closest to them personally. And then one-by-one losing momentum and getting churned up in a 1v5 duel off in the corner of the map somewhere.
Completely negates any form of mass cavalry impact advantage.

andycott said:

In beta AI combat was definitely nerfed.
High tier troops seem to act as before, maybe a little weaker, but most troops are a complete joke (playing on realistic difficulty).
Fights with any AI wasn't too hard even before that, but right now low tier troops almost don't know about blocks. So archers became more powerful because of that.

Click to expand...

I've found even the high tier AI to be garbage. They're maybe a little stronger than the "looter" tier AI, but still garbage. And with the fact that noone will block any more, including my own troops, just means archers are even more devastating now.

andycott said:

I understand that most probably such changes were made because low tier infantry troops were too similar to high tier ones. This change has logic, but at the same time maybe combat was nerfed too much, maybe not. We'll see.
Hard to say about overall balance, because this change makes high tier troops more valuable, which is good, but the game definitely became easier for player as at least 50% or more of all the troops in the game are low/middle tier.

Click to expand...

Nah, as I said, high tier troops are even less valuable now because the archer AI has been buffed (tracking) and melee AI nerfed. I don't want high tier troops any more. I want a band of cheap-to-maintain easy-to-replace archers.

The 75 Skill points in smithing will be for your first interaction with any smithing since the patch. If you checked your character page you will have seen that you'll have the previous amount of XP earned but all the level requirements are reduced. E.g. Being at level 10 with 250,000 / 2,000 for level 11. Suddenly you jump up to level 50. Basically, for the amount of smithing you've done before you should be at level 50 already but the skill grind has been borked before this.

On the cash side, I have no idea.

Are we talking about the Hold Tab to Retreat function? Because right now I agree it's broken. What's the point in having a Retreat order and having the feature of escaping to the map edge, if you can just hold Tab for the same effect.

There should be an auto-resolve penalty for calculating how many men you're going to lose from disengaging from where you are if you just Tab out, but if you legit get your troops off the battlefield then that's perfectly reasonable.

Kaozak said:

1. Amass troops on siege towers before opening the ramp. Currently the first soldier who reaches the top opens the ramp, which just allows the defenders to rush the tower which makes the siege tower just a worse version of ladders, as it creates a choke point.

Click to expand...

On this, I've been the first man on the tower and noticed that the AI would climb up the centre ladder only and form a giant queue where the man atop the ladder would not climb into the tower until I'd dropped the gate. Is there a limitation here that the tower is only taking one man at a time, hence the issue noted?

+1 on this.
This really is a game-changing mechanic between the player making strategic decisions to protect their own life and the threat of losing your own allies, and the potential for removing enemy lords from the campaign without the dishonour of execution.
Was pretty excited for a secondary playthrough until I saw my companions get trampled to death by an enemy cavalry charge then just walk it off over the next few days.

OK yeah, turns out the only reason it seemed to have fixed my problem was because I stopped getting my ass knocked out.
Just got knocked out, was the only casualty other than one Miles, and all my troops are now unconscious.

It still works essentially the same by simply making the lords less likely to follow their marshal, or go to another lord's village's defence.

In essence, you have each lord is one of the elector counts, or whatever they're called.
Same with France.

DrTomas said:

Thanks for letting me know! You saved me a good sleepless night with this.

I had these kind of reports before, but could never reproduce the bug, no matter what I've tried. Your a lifesaver man 

Click to expand...

I actually took a good long while before posting here purely because I didn't want to take up your time if I was the only one with the problem
At least now if someone else comes with the same problem, we have a solution?

It seemd the full reinstall has fixed whatever it was that was causing the problem.
Hurrah!

1.154.
Native warband and other mods work fine.
Creating a new character doesn't solve the problem.
Clean ups and verification haven't helped.  I'm trying a full reinstall of both game and mod now.