1.7 - Too many noble troops available

[five bucks]

I had no issues with this, this is make more fun game for me, I don't like gird lot

I don't get what you mean here. How does noble troops being very common make the game more fun? From what I and others here have seen, all it does it make the game less interesting and less fun.

and I love more options, gave more freedom to choice and more way to had fun to play, if one don't like it, then simple choice not to hire those troop, just pick other, it's that easy!

The problem with that theory is that the AI doesn't artificially restrict themselves on what troops they hire.

If you choose not to hire elite troops in order to experience a more varied army composition, you're putting yourself at 2 disadvantages to the AI - you get less recruits per village visit, and you get objectively weaker troops. The game is grindy enough already without handicapping yourself like that.

Also it just isn't fun for players to have to artificially restrict themselves to make a game more interesting.

Far from giving the player more options, flooding the villages with noble troops actually gives them less options, because noble troops have a totally linear upgrade path.

I don't need my game to be ruined by who don't like option or want to ruin game by more limited.

How does it ruin your game to have noble troops in sensible quantities?

So petty much, normal solder should get first free mount upgrade, so it's make sense to use more often vanguard than bannerlord in cheaper way to get. I'm not sure about other, but this is one thing I don't get it, what is different vanguard and bannerlord other than normal and noble class?

The thing that's meant to balance Vanguard and give you a reason to recruit them is that Banner Knight recruits are uncommon, so in order to have a decently sized cavalry contingent, some of them would have to be non-noble cavalry to complement your noble cavalry.

This would work... except for the fact that Banner Knight recruits aren't uncommon.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Fixing armour so that it gives proper protection against ranged damage would automatically fix that problem, so we can reduce the number of noble recruits and not worry about that.

Possibly, but untill/if that day comes, this is better than nothing.

On the contrary, it's a good thing if noble troops are uncommon enough so the player wants to get that perk. Otherwise, if noble troops are super common like they are now, why would you bother getting that perk- and the hassle of leveling up bandits through a long upgrade tree - at all?

Definitely not. The player is going to have a pure elite army; that is only a matter of time. I dont want this process to be based on convoluted shortcuts.

But the AI can just get Tier 3-5 troops. They don't need lots of noble troops for their army to not be all T1-2.

Apart from the initial troops they get the AI recruit the same as we do. If higher quality troops are available to us then they are to the AI too. It is good, I dont want to have to fight low quality junk troops over and over again with the pure T6 army that I will amass regardless.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

That's really dumb :-/
Getting nobles from castle certainly makes much more sense than from villages.

Guess that's another thing I'll have to mod in my game.

I already essentially skip the early game. So... I should also start skipping the early/midrange inorder to go straigth for vassal status.

Hmm, no thanks.

 

[Akka]

I already essentially skip the early game. So... I should also start skipping the early/midrange inorder to go straigth for vassal status.

Hmm, no thanks.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

[five bucks]

Possibly, but untill/if that day comes, this is better than nothing

Well they have said they are going to do it, and as we know nowadays TW are very hesitant to actually confirm anything they aren't likely to do. So I would say it's "within this year" as opposed to "until a decade later/if at all". Therefore it makes no sense to balance the game around the current weakness of armour.

Also, think of it this way. You say it's good to keep noble troops common as it helps balance the dominance of ranged parties. Khan's Guard are the strongest most powerful troop in the game, and they are both noble and ranged, so I don't entirely buy that. Commonness of noble troops just helps buff the most powerful ranged party in the game.

But even leaving aside KG, what is the reason for attempting game balance? To ensure the player feels like they can use a wide variety of content without being put at a disadvantage.

And making noble troops easily accessible is counterproductive to that, because when they are common, they put you at a disadvantage for using a wide variety of troops. Because an army with a variety of T5 Battanian troops is at an objective disadvantage to an army with all T6 Fian Champions.

TL;DR:
* Your argument is balance
* The point of balance is encouraging viable variety
* Making a straight upgrade (noble troops) common KILLS viable variety, thus defeats the whole point of your argument

Definitely not. The player is going to have a pure elite army; that is only a matter of time.

Such a monotroop army being the best strategy is seriously boring, so the game should be balanced to avoid it from occurring.

If you halved the amount of noble troops in castle villages, then I would say pure elite armies would actually be very unlikely, thanks to casualties. (Unless the player chooses not to hire normal troops, and leaves party slots empty, so their army is technically "pure elite").

A pure elite army of all T6, all the same troop doing the same thing with the same tactics, is actually really boring.
50% T6, 40% different types of T5, and 10% recruits being trained up to replace losses is interesting. It gives the player room for different tactical considerations and, if they want, using their brain a little bit more than just F1+F3.

Apart from the initial troops they get the AI recruit the same as we do. If higher quality troops are available to us then they are to the AI too. It is good, I dont want to have to fight low quality junk troops over and over again with the pure T6 army that I will amass regardless.

But you aren't going to be fighting only "low quality junk" if the amount of noble recruits are halved with no other changes made.

It will be the same situation as it is now; AI armies will be a mix of T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and a smaller, more uncommon (and thus more unique), but still present, amount of T6.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

That doesn't make any sense.

If the suggestion is for elites to be available only through ownership of castles, then what is it that does not make sense?

 

[humility925]

I don't get what you mean here. How does noble troops being very common make the game more fun? From what I and others here have seen, all it does it make the game less interesting and less fun.

The problem with that theory is that the AI doesn't artificially restrict themselves on what troops they hire.

If you choose not to hire elite troops in order to experience a more varied army composition, you're putting yourself at 2 disadvantages to the AI - you get less recruits per village visit, and you get objectively weaker troops. The game is grindy enough already without handicapping yourself like that.

Also it just isn't fun for players to have to artificially restrict themselves to make a game more interesting.

Far from giving the player more options, flooding the villages with noble troops actually gives them less options, because noble troops have a totally linear upgrade path.

How does it ruin your game to have noble troops in sensible quantities?

The thing that's meant to balance Vanguard and give you a reason to recruit them is that Banner Knight recruits are uncommon, so in order to have a decently sized cavalry contingent, some of them would have to be non-noble cavalry to complement your noble cavalry.

This would work... except for the fact that Banner Knight recruits aren't uncommon.

Because example I am playing as vlandia, I want full force cavalry 7.0 at least on world map speed to keep going in early of game right off bat, and It's seem only noble offer that right off bat, while normal troop don't offer that in right off bat, and you spent more time seaching mount to get what you want for troop. I rather hunt bandit than search mount to get troop to be cavalry, I'm not interested in foot soldier due it's slow down world map, unless there is perk bouns that help world map speed, but that is take lot of leveling and perk to buff world map speed for footman.

I do not like grindy and handicapping as well, but problem is not noble available but normal troop are handicapping, normal and noble is just same people, expect noble gettting nice equipment at start, but in the end, noble and normal troop are same, once normal troop get good equipment just as noble do, it's just take longer, and show normal troop just as good as noble, but that issues, way game design, normal troop should be buff little more especially in late line or final line of normal troop, they can be elite troop and fighting way better than noble in the end, since they been in battle longer, in real live, often king or higher rank lord promotion warrior who are good at fighting into noble stats from lower class, not always in battlefield, but sometime normal class help or new idea or buff kingdom's economy got promotion, something unique to king or kingdom in good way.

So I think normal troop should be more deadly at end of line while noble is good at start out, basic. it's make sense since normal troop do in battle more than lord, and each time battle normal troop getting wiser, experience, even troop might or might not get rich loot, king or lord would gave best equipment due seeing how good warrior alive and loyal after many battle in case still poor in many battle.

So I think it's would be good design, noble might good at start out, but normal troop at end of tree is little bit more deadly than noble at end of tree, elite don't care normal or noble, but excellent skill in fighting, Just suggest, noble and normal lead to top special elite, whatever normal and noble, just idea, thought. Noble while may be uncommon, but still common enough, even thought normal people is common but better word for it "abundance" while elite is rare, master of craft few, basic good and bad skill is common, so go on.

I think issues is way troop tree design rather, normal troop should be buff, I think in real life veterans normal troop fight better than noble one in the end so it's should be buff on normal troop more than noble at least on end of tree line, more or less.

Noble is good start out, while normal troop should be better at end of tree line than noble.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Well they have said they are going to do it, and as we know nowadays TW are very hesitant to actually confirm anything they aren't likely to do. So I would say it's "within this year" as opposed to "until a decade later/if at all". Therefore it makes no sense to balance the game around the current weakness of armour.

Also, think of it this way. You say it's good to keep noble troops common as it helps balance the dominance of ranged parties. Khan's Guard are the strongest most powerful troop in the game, and they are both noble and ranged, so I don't entirely buy that. Commonness of noble troops just helps buff the most powerful ranged party in the game.

But even leaving aside KG, what is the reason for attempting game balance? To ensure the player feels like they can use a wide variety of content without being put at a disadvantage.

And making noble troops easily accessible is counterproductive to that, because when they are common, they put you at a disadvantage for using a wide variety of troops. Because an army with a variety of T5 Battanian troops is at an objective disadvantage to an army with all T6 Fian Champions.

TL;DR:
* Your argument is balance
* The point of balance is encouraging viable variety
* Making a straight upgrade (noble troops) common KILLS viable variety, thus defeats the whole point of your argument

Such a monotroop army being the best strategy is seriously boring, so the game should be balanced to avoid it from occurring.

If you halved the amount of noble troops in castle villages, then I would say pure elite armies would actually be very unlikely, thanks to casualties. (Unless the player chooses not to hire normal troops, and leaves party slots empty, so their army is technically "pure elite").

A pure elite army of all T6, all the same troop doing the same thing with the same tactics, is actually really boring.
50% T6, 40% different types of T5, and 10% recruits being trained up to replace losses is interesting. It gives the player room for different tactical considerations and, if they want, using their brain a little bit more than just F1+F3.

But you aren't going to be fighting only "low quality junk" if the amount of noble recruits are halved with no other changes made.

It will be the same situation as it is now; AI armies will be a mix of T1, T2, T3, T4, T5 and a smaller, more uncommon (and thus more unique), but still present, amount of T6.

The real solution is to make infantry useful.

Until such a time pure elites are the optimal way; even if pure mono-elite forces are dull.

Three things are going to happen if you revert this change.

1) recruitment of elites will return to being a convoluted mess
2) Archers/horse archers are going to be the absolute top dogs again because they have low attrition rates.
3) Battles will return to being even more cakewalks; when you have finally managed to build your T6 fian/khan army

 

[Strat]

Hello @Strat , pardon me for my request, i don't know it is correct way of searching the truth, but can you pull an examination on this matter whenever possible ?

Like multiple times of controlling which percentage they have in their faction's total troop count.

For example Southern Empire has a total amount of 8000 troops and %25 of it's are noble line troops. (in their economically best and also economically worst moments etc.)

Or Sturgia has 6000 troops and %20 of it is noble line troop etc.

I wondering this because if it's really more than 1/3 of their armies at most, maybe some nerf might needed.

I like them actually, they add more challenge to the player. But if they're consisting like half of their armies then it's not plausible imo. At least realistically.

And quadrupling their wage is definately a must. If it's not brake AI's economy balance. Players should feel that they marching with an really expensive gucci army, if s/he choose this path and marching with full of T6s.

That's a good idea, I'll look into it this weekend if I have time! I'm working on a couple videos for release but I should have them done soon.
I know the data for a freshly spawned noble, but have not really paid attention to the ones that have been recruiting for months or years without being captured.

 

[black_bulldog]

I had no issues with this, this is make more fun game for me, I don't like gird lot, and I love more options, gave more freedom to choice and more way to had fun to play, if one don't like it, then simple choice not to hire those troop, just pick other, it's that easy! I don't need my game to be ruined by who don't like option or want to ruin game by more limited.

How is not being able to spam noble troops grindy? How were noble troops not an option before the change? They were more rare of course but that's the idea that armies shouldn't be full of KG or similar. But they were still available. To me it's sounds like your way of thinking is I want my army full of the premier troops so I can steam roll the game even more, and not so much about grinding.

Rereading your post it's seems pretty clear to me that your a min-maxer and nothing short of getting the best of the best as easily as possible is going to make you happy. Ah well to each his own I guess.

 

[humility925]

Of course I want best of best and of course I don't want grinding, who don't want best of best and who want to grinding all day for little gain or no gain? Only people I know don't want best of best often want to nerfed/ruined the game but they are one who want and choice best of best in first place, It's make no sense that person seek best of best and same time want to nerfed it, isn't that odd? Madness and insanity!

I'm more support of buff and not support of nerfed, like buff normal troop rather than nerfed nobles.

 

[kweassa]

Of course I want best of best and of course I don't want grinding, who don't want best of best and who want to grinding all day for little gain or no gain? Only people I know don't want best of best often want to nerfed/ruined the game but they are one who want and choice best of best in first place, It's make no sense that person seek best of best and same time want to nerfed it, isn't that odd? Madness and insanity!

I'm more support of buff and not support of nerfed, like buff normal troop rather than nerfed nobles.

Believe it or not, some people actually find fun in this thing called "balance and immersion" as opposed to "oh my 50 KG can slaughter 500 enemies" power fantasies.

 

[humility925]

Believe it or not, some people actually find fun in this thing called "balance and immersion" as opposed to "oh my 50 KG can slaughter 500 enemies" power fantasies.

They can, they can choice weaker units, it's there option. You don't even had to upgrade all the way, you can stop upgrade,
I don't had to upgrade all way to bannerlord knight, I can stop middle of noble vlandia knight, not need to buy second mount, and it's do job nicely. Is that amazing and feel nice to choice rather than limited choice! You can choice one level crossbow fighting bandit, you don't had to upgrade all the way to T4 crossbow, nice choice. same thing noble. Amazing, it's cheaper cost and wage even when you self control not to upgrade.
Who said you had to upgrade all the way and feel need to nerfed?

 

[murtega]

Ah, good old days when empire armies had almost no cavalry and kept being spanked by horsie boys all over Calradia.
Unless TW gives Empire an alternative peasant horseman troop tree, noble troops shouldn't be nerfed.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Believe it or not, some people actually find fun in this thing called "balance and immersion" as opposed to "oh my 50 KG can slaughter 500 enemies" power fantasies.

Yeah, but that need to be balanced through making all classes useful for something. All that is going to change from limiting the option to recruit nobles normally is that recruitment will happen through prisoners/freed soldiers. It might be a bit slower but the end result will be the same.

 

[Lucius Confucius]

If the suggestion is for elites to be available only through ownership of castles, then what is it that does not make sense?

No, not through ownership of castles. The suggestion was that there should be a notable in every castle for noble troops only. So if you can access the castle and the owner lets you in, you can recruit. So if you own a castle it only means you bypass the ownership check and can always recruit, thats it.

But as @Ananda_The_Destroyer said, TW have brought it up and it was disapproved, so that's how it is.

 

[Ask]

It eliminates the need for various convoluted recruitment strategies such as that of the conversion of bandits or just letting allies get destroyed so you can swoop in and add the captured men to your ranks.

I too like needing to interact less with the game. Having only one end all be all strategy to everything is good game design.

/s

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

I too like needing to interact less with the game. Having only one end all be all strategy to everything is good game design.

/s

It isnt about that. It is about whether or not the mechanisms feels engaging or immersive.

On the one hand we now have a system where the primary means of recruiting is going around rounding up men.

Before that, your primary means of acquiring nobles were either to capture prisoners and then convert them (the extreme version of which was converting bandits) or some version of luring your allies to initiate battles they could not win/failing to aid them so you could pick up the survivors.

The current system is just more immersive. You might be able to tweek the new system alittle but at some point the old ways will become more effecient and become the norm again.

 

[Akka]

If the suggestion is for elites to be available only through ownership of castles, then what is it that does not make sense?

It's not about "ownership" of castles, it's about recruiting from castle. Just like you don't need to own a village to recruit from it.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

It's not about "ownership" of castles, it's about recruiting from castle. Just like you don't need to own a village to recruit from it.

How would that really change anything? The only real effect would be to remove the option to force recruit.