AI redeployment rate is way too high

[Phwoar]

If they were to decrease recruitment slots/add manpower requirements, they would then also need to address all the soldiers that just dissapear when they flee from battle/are captured but dismissed. These parties should either wander back to friendly fiefs or be returned to the manpower pool for that faction.

 

[Ferisko]

This would cause snowballing so badly.

Y'all need to look at this differently.

^
This

 

[Aeddes]

At least, increase the ransom for lords...
Increase a lot!

Hit where it hurts. $$$$

 

[Yertyl]

Can I just +1?
I am currently in a fight with Vlandia, and despite personally imprisoning at least 15 lords, some of them several times, I am unable to take the next city, because in the time it takes me to kill one group, a lord will have already escaped and immediately recruited the next group of units.
It makes battles feel pointless, never ending, and more like clean-up duty than war. Just the fact that you pretty often have to defeat the same lord twice in the same war is just insane to me.

EDIT: Btw, I feel it's the same problem with companions on your side. In the beginning, I took care to give them a good mix of units, and was angry when they lost that group. By now, I have grown completely indifferent. When they get captured, I know they will be back within the next minutes anyways, I can just start that group again, and they will almost instantly refill their ranks with recruiting. It just overall makes battles feel meaningless when soldiers just constantly die and respawn.

 

[8uzzard]

Because it feels gamey to conquer lords only to have them show right back up again on the world stage like nothing happened. Sadly for AI -the game is not made for them so they have to do a bit more play acting than its human counterpart. The same way you can press the Restart button after you die in a game and they cant....cest la vie

Ye good point haha

 

[Yertyl]

Accurate representation of current MB2 warfare:

I would rather see snowballing (i.e. the ability to actually win a war by winning battles) than killing the same T1-2 armies led by the same lords again, and again, and again, and again. But I still think that, combined with a lower recruit spawn rate, snowballing would not be that bad, since attackers will lose lords and troops as well, especially in siege simulations. Wars would just have an actual end.

A second advantage would be that freeing a lord or companion by taking the fief they're in (or via peace treaty) would be an objective to work towards. As long as captured lords and companions are freed within 0-3 days no matter what, and just instantly refill their ranks, both battles and capture feel meaningless. For me it breaks both immersion and gameplay.
Would you not want large 1000 vs 1000 battles to have an actual impact on how a war goes? Does it currently feel like they do?
Imagine considerations like "OK, we destroyed 2/3 of their forces, we can risk sieging that city now" or "We already lost our king and two of my companions, we really need to sue for peace" or "that last war was devastating, we will need a few seasons to rebuild our forces".
But that does not happen, because no matter what, everyone just instantly respawns. Without looking at cities and stats, can you currently even tell which side is losing a war? As in: actually losing the ability to continue fighting? Both money and men seem effectively unlimited for the AI. And to some degree for the player: There are almost always way more recuits available than you need, when (normal) troops should IMO be at least a bit precious.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

If they were to decrease recruitment slots/add manpower requirements, they would then also need to address all the soldiers that just dissapear when they flee from battle/are captured but dismissed. These parties should either wander back to friendly fiefs or be returned to the manpower pool for that faction.

Nope, they should become deserters!

 

[LuciusDomitiusAurelianus]

I think this will get slightly better once they add lord death chances into auto-calc, so if they come back spamming with T1-T2 fodder they should have a higher chance of getting killed. There doesn't seem to be a rhyme or reason for battles - I just charge the lines and chuck a javelin into the lord's face and most of the time I am doing 300+ damage and they just fall unconscious.

Hopefully the AI's threat management will get better if they know they will likely die rushing a party of 50 cataphracts when they have 40 sturgian recruits

 

[Midnitewolf]

Honestly, this is the my biggest gripe with the game. It makes the game pretty much unplayable. I have to destroy army after army to win a single siege. Destroying enemy parties has no tactical advantage, because they'll be back with high tier troops, in less than a day. I can't keep them adequately under wraps by capturing them, and it doesn't matter how many thousands of their troops die without me taking any significant casualties, because the same lord with another 30 cavalry he pulled out of his ass is going to be back inside 2 game days to attack me again.

The game is fun, but this kills the flow. Honestly, unacceptable if this is what they are intending. If a nation is getting stomped by a larger neighbor, they shouldn't be able to just bull**** a 500 man, 6 lord army out of their ass daily to fight back, the game needs rebalancing but letting the AI straight up cheat to do it isn't a valid means of doing that. Even with other nations at war with your targets, there's just no way to get anything done without winning overwhelming victory after overwhelming victory.

What I find odd is that for example. My faction lists itself as having 12,000 troops and the faction we are fighting lists itself as having 6000 troops yet some reason of another my faction only has 3 armies of about 1000 troops each and there are no lords available for me to create another army. How does 12,000 troops equal only 3000 troops actively fighting? Also despite the fact that the enemy faction having only 6000 troops, half our number, they still have 3 active armies of 1000 troops each.

Now I know everyone complains about snowballing but it seems people forget that the entire game is about uniting Calradia so one faction SHOULD actually start snowballing at some point as long as it isn't always the same faction each play through that is (<cough> Khuzait <cough>). However, it seems that despite the fact that my faction should have a two to one advantage, we are always fighting at parity, with the same amount of active troops, no matter what faction we are fighting or their strength rating.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

What I find odd is that for example. My faction lists itself as having 12,000 troops and the faction we are fighting lists itself as having 6000 troops yet some reason of another my faction only has 3 armies of about 1000 troops each and there are no lords available for me to create another army. How does 12,000 troops equal only 3000 troops actively fighting? Also despite the fact that the enemy faction having only 6000 troops, half our number, they still have 3 active armies of 1000 troops each.

Now I know everyone complains about snowballing but it seems people forget that the entire game is about uniting Calradia so one faction SHOULD actually start snowballing at some point as long as it isn't always the same faction each play through that is (<cough> Khuzait <cough>). However, it seems that despite the fact that my faction should have a two to one advantage, we are always fighting at parity, with the same amount of active troops, no matter what faction we are fighting or their strength rating.

Your factions power count garrison units too, can't remember if it shows field parties separately.

As far as uniting Claradia, nope, empire and batania die out, vlandia becomes Swadia and Rhodocks, Musei takes over the Khanate, strugia I guess evolves into Veigers and Idunno what happens with the sultanate, but they live on to warband days.

I hate armies. Khuziats will send a army to try to siege you every 2-4 days forever. It needs to cost more influence and be more rare. Also if they lose they should remember and only attack with even bigger power, that would be a good change as it would at least give time inbetween attacks. Should also effect willing ness to make peace more directly, rather then just a number crunch, if they know they can't beat you they should want peace.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

This would cause snowballing so badly.

Y'all need to look at this differently. If a enemy lord you just defeated is showing up with 50 troops relatively fast, it means they pulled troops from their garrison which in turn makes it that much easier to take their fief. AI lords only spawn with 10 troops to ensure that they aren't captured by looters immediately (there was a time when kings would be constantly captured by looters and it would be impossible to join the faction then).

I beg to differ. You don't address snowballing by breaking the prison system.

You address snowballing by making it very difficult to take a fief. They need to increase the effectiveness of castle and town defenses by alot. First, the food runs out too quickly. Secondly, if they can't figure out how to ensure a 3-1 advantage, then they need to beef up the effectiveness of militia. Currently, I can capture a castle with equal number of troops as the defender. That should not happen unless I managed to bribe the guard (Hint TW: Companion with high rogue skills could be "left" in town to facilitate sneak attacks, like organise the town gangs to distract the guards or open the gate etc - honestly, the ability to leave companions in towns has been sorely under developed but that's another topic).

The current solution as you say, draws down on the garrison (is there evidence of this? I'd assumed they spawned with some base troops) which actually exacerbates snowballing.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

Your factions power count garrison units too, can't remember if it shows field parties separately.

As far as uniting Claradia, nope, empire and batania die out, vlandia becomes Swadia and Rhodocks, Musei takes over the Khanate, strugia I guess evolves into Veigers and Idunno what happens with the sultanate, but they live on to warband days.

I hate armies. Khuziats will send a army to try to siege you every 2-4 days forever. It needs to cost more influence and be more rare. Also if they lose they should remember and only attack with even bigger power, that would be a good change as it would at least give time inbetween attacks. Should also effect willing ness to make peace more directly, rather then just a number crunch, if they know they can't beat you they should want peace.

You should lose alot of influence if your army gets destroyed. Also, it should cost more influence the next time.

Here's an idea, tie it with the renown system. You lose renown every time you lose a battle and the lower your renown, the higher influence you'll need to raise an army.

 

[ratschbumm]

You should lose alot of influence if your army gets destroyed.

excellent idea!

 

[WarTorn87]

Your factions power count garrison units too, can't remember if it shows field parties separately.

As far as uniting Claradia, nope, empire and batania die out, vlandia becomes Swadia and Rhodocks, Musei takes over the Khanate, strugia I guess evolves into Veigers and Idunno what happens with the sultanate, but they live on to warband days.

I hate armies. Khuziats will send a army to try to siege you every 2-4 days forever. It needs to cost more influence and be more rare. Also if they lose they should remember and only attack with even bigger power, that would be a good change as it would at least give time inbetween attacks. Should also effect willing ness to make peace more directly, rather then just a number crunch, if they know they can't beat you they should want peace.

Agree with hating armies. It's my number one gripe with Bannerlord. Much prefer the marshall system even though it had problems/quirks. I actually enjoy those quirks so that wasn't an issue for me. If you want to keep the Army system, make it so only the king or marshall can raise one (designated marshall by election perhaps, depending on kingdom culture) .

 

[Yertyl]

You should lose alot of influence if your army gets destroyed. Also, it should cost more influence the next time.

Here's an idea, tie it with the renown system. You lose renown every time you lose a battle and the lower your renown, the higher influence you'll need to raise an army.

The problem I see with this: It is already barely worth it for a vassal to form an army. The influence you get from the act is already often less than what it took to form the army in the first place, and being an army leader does not impact keep ownership enough (and has no other significant advantages).

 

[Death2Tyrants]

The problem I see with this: It is already barely worth it for a vassal to form an army. The influence you get from the act is already often less than what it took to form the army in the first place, and being an army leader does not impact keep owner choice enough (and has no other significant advantages).

Adjust it so the Army Leader gets the lion share of influence from victories?

I don't think being an army leader should automatically lead to being the owner. I do think however, that it should be reworked so that it's not limited to 3 but rather, like in Warband, every vassal can vote using influence (and let's not have artificial cap of 100) so if you really want the fief, you can go all in and bid say 1000 or 10000 (or whatever you have) influence points.

In fact, if I were designing the game, I'd not have fiefs allocated during the campaign, but after the war. Then, it'd become necessary for all lords to return to the capital to vote.

While we're at the capital "feasting", we can trade influence. I can talk to each lord and say please vote for me and I'll give you x influence points. Or if you want me to vote for you, give me x influence points.

Once all the bargaining is done, the player initiates the vote and it happens.

 

[Stromming]

Currently, I can capture a castle with equal number of troops as the defender.

As long as you break down walls and have higher quality troops, you can win with even less.
Just ride in through a cracked wall, make sure you don't have a battering ram and no enemy troops will defend the gate which is now available for you to ninja-open.

 

[Death2Tyrants]

As long as you break down walls and have higher quality troops, you can win with even less.
Just ride in through a cracked wall, make sure you don't have a battering ram and no enemy troops will defend the gate which is now available for you to ninja-open.

Well now, I was trying to be modest about it

But even if you don't take the walls down it's still relatively easy to win. It really needs to be harder.

 

[Abyssos]

ya but at some point they only recruit the basic units...peasants militias etc etc...so if you take your time focus on get hight tear units u will easly kill them all... over and over..

 

[Death2Tyrants]

ya but at some point they only recruit the basic units...peasants militias etc etc...so if you take your time focus on get hight tear units u will easly kill them all... over and over..

But it's tedious...