Resolved [1.5.5] Companions and nobles die in battles.

[Tierre]

Starting from patch 1.5.5, my companions began to die in battles like ordinary soldiers.
How correct is this at all - and what is the point of using companions in battle in this case? And finding a companion with the characteristics of a high-level unit is also not easy. Developing the required skills from a companion - takes years. After all, to equip a companion like a level 4-5 unit, you need to spend 1000 times more money than all the costs for a level 5 unit (which is already strange) - and all this in order for him to simply die in battle?

 

[MArdA TaleWorlds]

We are aware of this issue. Working towards a fix. Thanks for reporting.

 

[Flesson19]

Starting from patch 1.5.5, my companions began to die in battles like ordinary soldiers.
How correct is this at all - and what is the point of using companions in battle in this case? And finding a companion with the characteristics of a high-level unit is also not easy. Developing the required skills from a companion - takes years. After all, to equip a companion like a level 4-5 unit, you need to spend 1000 times more money than all the costs for a level 5 unit (which is already strange) - and all this in order for him to simply die in battle?

This is partially intended, they brought in death without telling anyone in a hotfix and left us not knowing anything for over 3 weeks, real nice huh. But this is intended, the problem is they are dying in player run battles only, not simulations, also the death rate is 10%, which is high they intend to change it to 2% which I still think will be too high but hopefully soon it is all worked out since they werent nice enough to leave old age death only in so we are stuck with no death or a terrible death mechanic for over a month.

 

[Urzahil]

Already down 3 companions due to death in battle. And Sturgia took a HUGE hit when Ragnavad died. And worse yet, they aren't replacing with new companions for hire in taverns. Did they even think their change through at all?

 

[Flesson19]

Already down 3 companions due to death in battle. And Sturgia took a HUGE hit when Ragnavad died. And worse yet, they aren't replacing with new companions for hire in taverns. Did they even think their change through at all?

I think the death rate is still at 10%, atleast we weren't told in patch notes but they do plan to reduce it to 2%

 

[Viperel]

Seems I'm the only one liking the fact they can die in battle, it's realistic just like any other soldier.
I haven't lost any so far, due to keeping them in a separate formation following me so i can keep an eye on them and they can help me. The only problem being how the AI manages it, in fights where you're not included, but the 10% chance is a good compromise.

 

[Tierre]

This is partially intended, they brought in death without telling anyone in a hotfix and left us not knowing anything for over 3 weeks, real nice huh. But this is intended, the problem is they are dying in player run battles only, not simulations, also the death rate is 10%, which is high they intend to change it to 2% which I still think will be too high but hopefully soon it is all worked out since they werent nice enough to leave old age death only in so we are stuck with no death or a terrible death mechanic for over a month.

Yeah. I totally agree with you - the game is completely unplayable now.

 

[Tierre]

Seems I'm the only one liking the fact they can die in battle, it's realistic just like any other soldier.
.... The only problem being how the AI manages it, in fights where you're not included, but the 10% chance is a good compromise.

This is not realistic in any way, for in the universe Mount and Blade are the hero, his companions and nobles are a separate race of people from the soldiers.
Because soldiers do not die of old age, and characters do not die in battles. Because soldiers develop their skills 100 times faster than characters, because equipping a soldier is 1000 times cheaper than equipping a character and 100 times easier.
For some interesting reason - in this universe, you, as king and commander, cannot get yourself the same set of armor as a hundred of your legionnaires or cataphracts.
And there was a strange conditional balance in this.

By making companions and nobles as mortal in battles as ordinary soldiers, they were made in fact much weaker than ordinary soldiers, because they train longer, equip them more problematic, they are more expensive to maintain, and they can die, unlike ordinary soldiers, not only in battle, but also simply from old age.

I haven't lost any so far, due to keeping them in a separate formation following me so i can keep an eye on them and they can help me

This makes no sense with these innovations, because as support companions are now no better than ordinary soldiers and now it is more expedient, depending on the circumstances, to lead horse archers or heavy cavalry - they are no worse dressed (but rather, it is better if these are elite cataphracts or the khan's guard), their skills are not worse (and again - rather - better), it is not so insulting to lose them.

In addition, the second main advantage of the companions was that they could be put at the head of different squads as captains, so that they would give bonuses to their squads.
There is absolutely no point in leading companions in sieges or field battles.

 

[Captain Obvious]

I wiped out like 6 nobles in an enemy faction in 1 battle lol. Was very bizarre.

 

[Tierre]

Already down 3 companions due to death in battle. And Sturgia took a HUGE hit when Ragnavad died. And worse yet, they aren't replacing with new companions for hire in taverns. Did they even think their change through at all?

Plus - you can't even take the weapon, armor and horse of the dead companion - all his equipment worth hundreds of thousands or even millions - just evaporates.

 

[Tierre]

I wiped out like 6 nobles in an enemy faction in 1 battle lol. Was very bizarre.

It's the opposite for me - only my nobles (along with their armies) are dying - despite the victory in the battles - the enemy nobles are simply captured

 

[Urzahil]

10% chance is ridiculous..that means every single noble/companion's potential shelf life on the average of just ten battles, barring a miraculous run of luck. So that means they'll die within 2-3 wars. Or in one very lengthy war like Sturgia-Vlandia. And the fact that it takes heirs YEARS to grow up to be mature enough to rule or lead...that's simply terrible game design. Families better be pumping out kids like crazy if that stays that way because the death rate is exceeding the maturity/birthrate in Calradia..and if a family doesn't have any heirs old enough to take over for a dead noble with lands..who's gonna lead the armies? And Bannerlord better be producing wanderers like crazy for players to find in taverns.

 

[TechnoSarge]

I assume that the 10% (potentially 2% in future) only applies when you get your companion "fully-wounded" - unable to take further part in combat.

Certainly you don't mean a 10% chance in each battle?

BTW - I'm with Tierre on this. It is ridiculous to price the development time and costs of companions so high if the devs' plan is to make them die. (MAKE them die? Yes! A full campaign involves hundreds of combats and even a 2% chance will see off your carefully-chosen-and burnished companions eventually.)

Hey, if you're going to do that, at least give players an option to turn it off

Hey again, I just decided to stop playing until this is sorted out. I don't care to lose my investment in my companions.

 

[Jumunculus]

I assume that the 10% (potentially 2% in future) only applies when you get your companion "fully-wounded" - unable to take further part in combat.

Certainly you don't mean a 10% chance in each battle?

BTW - I'm with Tierre on this. It is ridiculous to price the development time and costs of companions so high if the devs' plan is to make them die. (MAKE them die? Yes! A full campaign involves hundreds of combats and even a 2% chance will see off your carefully-chosen-and burnished companions eventually.)

Hey, if you're going to do that, at least give players an option to turn it off

Hey again, I just decided to stop playing until this is sorted out. I don't care to lose my investment in my companions.

Agreed, Im putting off playing single player until they can sort it out. No problem with the death feature I quite like it in some instances but it certainly should be optional IMO.

 

[Niomedes]

This isn't a bug. it's supposed to function like that. It's just that they somehow don't die in simulations even though they should. You're looking for the bug in the wrong place, so to say.

 

[Tierre]

This isn't a bug. it's supposed to function like that. It's just that they somehow don't die in simulations even though they should. You're looking for the bug in the wrong place, so to say.

This is exactly a bug. This is NOT supposed to work this way, as it destroys the entire Bannerlord system and destroys the very essence of using companions.
I wrote in more detail above.

 

[Niomedes]

This is exactly a bug. This is NOT supposed to work this way, as it destroys the entire Bannerlord system and destroys the very essence of using companions.
I wrote in more detail above.

There is an optional Checkbox that enables/Disables this. It's intentional.

 

[Niomedes]

Plus - you can't even take the weapon, armor and horse of the dead companion - all his equipment worth hundreds of thousands or even millions - just evaporates.

This is a more legitimate issue. If you win the fight, you ought to get their equipment back.

 

[Tierre]

There is an optional Checkbox that enables/Disables this. It's intentional.

Nope.
This option concerns the aging of characters, their ability to die of old age, as well as the birth of characters. And this is how this option worked until patch 1.5.5. So it was in the first part of Mount And Blade (Warband).
Now the characters began to die in battles - this is completely different.
There is no option in the game to remove this innovation of patch 1.5.5 - specifically, the death of characters in battles.

This is, of course, more realistic, but in order for it to be truly realistic and balanced, you need to immediately introduce several other changes:
1. The purchase of equipment in which ordinary soldiers are equipped (such as legionnaires, khan guards, elite cataphracts, etc.) for a character should cost exactly the same price as for an ordinary soldier. And for a lot of money, there should be an opportunity to buy armor and weapons that are BETTER than that of any cataphract or guard. And this will be quite historical - so the nobility has always had better armor than their soldiers. In Bannerlord, on the contrary, the king cannot buy or order armor of such quality that is available to any of his legionaries or khan guards!

2. The speed of character training must be the same as that of ordinary soldiers - that is, the character's skills must develop from 60 to 200 (the difference in skill in one-handed weapons between Vigla recruit and Elite cataphract) or even from 40 to 260 (the difference in skill polearms) for the same time during which you can train an elite cataphract from a Vigla recruit.

3. When a noble dies in battle, his troops should not just evaporate

4. Ordinary soldiers should also die of old age, and not only in battle.

Then it will be balanced, historical, logical, adequate, and correct.

 

[Niomedes]

Nope.
This option concerns the aging of characters, their ability to die of old age, as well as the birth of characters. And this is how this option worked until patch 1.5.5. So it was in the first part of Mount And Blade (Warband).
Now the characters began to die in battles - this is completely different.
There is no option in the game to remove this innovation of patch 1.5.5 - specifically, the death of characters in battles.

This is, of course, more realistic, but in order for it to be truly realistic and balanced, you need to immediately introduce several other changes:
1. The purchase of equipment in which ordinary soldiers are equipped (such as legionnaires, khan guards, elite cataphracts, etc.) for a character should cost exactly the same price as for an ordinary soldier. And for a lot of money, there should be an opportunity to buy armor and weapons that are BETTER than that of any cataphract or guard. And this will be quite historical - so the nobility has always had better armor than their soldiers. In Bannerlord, on the contrary, the king cannot buy or order armor of such quality that is available to any of his legionaries or khan guards!

2. The speed of character training must be the same as that of ordinary soldiers - that is, the character's skills must develop from 60 to 200 (the difference in skill in one-handed weapons between Vigla recruit and Elite cataphract) or even from 40 to 260 (the difference in skill polearms) for the same time during which you can train an elite cataphract from a Vigla recruit.

3. When a noble dies in battle, his troops should not just evaporate

4. Ordinary soldiers should also die of old age, and not only in battle.

Then it will be balanced, historical, logical, adequate, and correct.

The Checkbox concerns all birth and death mechanics, including death in battle. If you don't want companions to die, just disable it.