Base Bannerlord is better than base Warband

Is vanilla Bannerlord better than vanilla Warband?


  • Total voters
    165

Users who are viewing this thread

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
It's upsetting that you had better control on warband then bannerlord, but I am aware most warband players just rammed em up the ladders.
We probably have no way of knowing for sure but I am not sure that the last part is accurate. I enjoy playing similarly to you myself (in fact I don't think I ever ordered a straight up charge up that ladder in all my hours in Warband), and some mods had special features designed to prevent archers abuse (e.g. PoP), indicating that at least a decent number of people did play that way.
 
and some mods had special features designed to prevent archers abuse (e.g. PoP), indicating that at least a decent number of people did play that way.

PoP was made by humourless condescending modders who were obsessed with removing every crumb of cheese from the base game. They had no evidence that large numbers of people were using that tactic, nor could they possibly have known, when they included the anti-cheese. They just did it because the aesthetic basis of the PoP was "it's hard".

I doubt most people played the base game enough to reach the point where they were cheesing sieges.
 
PoP was made by humourless condescending modders who were obsessed with removing every crumb of cheese from the base game. They had no evidence that large numbers of people were using that tactic, nor could they possibly have known, when they included the anti-cheese. They just did it because the aesthetic basis of the PoP was "it's hard".
You are completely off with your wild guess here. The anti-cheese siege measures were added by Treebeard because he listened to fans who were complaining about exploits, and he's no anal-retentive punisher.
Humorless condescending modders were all pre-Treebeard.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I mean to be fair you can still cheese in PoP. All you gotta do is accept the honor hit, which is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Changing the argument. Carrying enough food at all times for an army to starve out a siege in case you need to =/= just "buying (any) food for your army".
What gives you the impression that I carry that much food at all times? Why would anyone do that?
Not how that went. I didn't say you can't do it, I said it's not a common option, and I also said in that first post that it's just "sitting and waiting to skip siege gameplay", so I was implying since the very start that it's not something most people would find desirable.
And I said from the start it was an option. Nobody has to do it. It is just available (unlike Warband) to support the whole 'doing damage to the enemy without having to assault their settlements' concept. And yes, it is completely viable under the right circumstances.Only one of those quoted posts could be construed as saying your stance- that they would skip a battle if it merely didn't directly support a strategic goal.
Only one of those quoted posts could be construed as saying your stance- that they would skip a battle if it merely didn't directly support a strategic goal.
What the rest are all saying is that (A) the pace of battles makes it too hard to also pursue their strategic goals, or (B) battles need more roleplaying factors around them (keywords: "build-up,", "intrigue", "context as part of greater events",) to make them feel more meaningful, or (C) it hurts their roleplaying (the guy talking about permadeath). A doesn't preclude my argument because it doesn't mean they don't enjoy battles to the point they would skip them if they served no strategic purpose, and B/C supports my argument that most players value RP.
That was me showing that no one likes fighting pointless battles just because they can. In my example, sieging Charas is the "build-up" or "context as part of a bigger event" if I have to fight a battle.
Snowballing was fixed, but that's partly thanks to factions being very willing to end a war they're actually winning so they can receive sweet tribute, or even pay tribute to the loser to make the war go away. Sturgia itself is still a weak faction, and the AI doesn't exploit that, but when the player gets involved--
Sturgia isn't a weak faction. If you want to claim so, fine: how about you back it up with something?
and your original complaint about Khergits was that it was easy pickings for the player-
My original complaint was two-fold, because using Khergit troops was also awful for the player.
Ultimately, both Bannerlord and Warband have faction balance issues, you're downplaying Sturgia's weakness and exaggerating Khergits' but they are pretty much similar in the level of challenge for the player.
I disagree.
 
I just want to add to the buying food discussion, I've gone years and years in some Bannerlord games without ever actually buying food! Once you start taking down parties the food piles up tp the ceiling! It's not just grain either I was often astonished to look at see 100+ plus stacks of near every food type just from being a big jerk and beating everyone up. This isn't trying to argue either side of the food/siege discussion, just felt like sharing.
 

five bucks

Squire
What gives you the impression that I carry that much food at all times? Why would anyone do that?
Well make up your mind. Are you carrying enough food to make it a commonly viable option or not?
And I said from the start it was an option. Nobody has to do it. It is just available (unlike Warband) to support the whole 'doing damage to the enemy without having to assault their settlements' concept. And yes, it is completely viable under the right circumstances.
Sure, it's optional. The fact most players won't use it often at all makes it a very minor positive though. I don't get what's hard to admit about that.
Almost anything can be completely viable "under the right circumstances" lol. That doesn't make something commonly viable.
That was me showing that no one likes fighting pointless battles just because they can. In my example, sieging Charas is the "build-up" or "context as part of a bigger event" if I have to fight a battle.
Pretty bold claim from a handful of quotes that no one likes battles that don't serve a strategic purpose. In fact only one of those quotes said that they didn't care for battles on their own. The rest did not say that.
You can see plenty of videos on Youtube that are just self contained set piece battles of impressive sieges or field battles. From people who enjoy battles for their own sake.
Sturgia isn't a weak faction. If you want to claim so, fine: how about you back it up with something?
Well I'm willing to try and get results on time for the player to delete Sturgia vs. time to kill some other factions. But to be remotely accurate that will take some time for me, and I don't have heaps at the moment.
But considering you were the first one to claim Khergits are a total pushover for the player relative to other factions and totally useless in the player's hands, how about you back it up with something first? Pretty sure burden of proof is on the person first to make a claim.
My original complaint was two-fold, because using Khergit troops was also awful for the player.
I have already done and told you about tests showing that Khergit Lancers are actually quite good value for T4 troops and excel on uneven terrain. Plus pointed out that they have the earliest access to cavalry of any faction, and the easiest time making an all-cavalry army for the mobility bonus both on the world map and in field battles. And, if we're talking about the player and not the AI, you can micro to mitigate the ranged cav stupidity. It's not as awful as you claim.
 
Khergits are a total pushover for the player relative to other factions and totally useless in the player's hands,
To be fair, most of my native Warband games were played using Khergits. Any combat disadvantage was offset by party mobility, controlling battles chosen, and the rapid rate of cavalry replenishment from recruitment. Siege attacks were tougher, but doable. I don't believe a dedicated player had any real trouble conquering Calradia in Warband with any chosen faction. It's ai was too weak. IMO the problems that dropped Khergits from MP aren't significant factors in SP.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Well make up your mind. Are you carrying enough food to make it a commonly viable option or not?
If I plan on besieging a place, I go get food. I don't travel around with 2500 units of food all the time, because why would anyone do that?

Wait, hold up a second. Are you saying that you decide to go besiege places on a whim, without planning ahead for it?
I have already done and told you about tests showing that Khergit Lancers are actually quite good value for T4 troops and excel on uneven terrain. Plus pointed out that they have the earliest access to cavalry of any faction, and the easiest time making an all-cavalry army for the mobility bonus both on the world map and in field battles. And, if we're talking about the player and not the AI, you can micro to mitigate the ranged cav stupidity. It's not as awful as you claim.
Who cares how easy they are to train or early they are in the troop tree? Training troops is easy in Warband. The limit on how fast you raise new ones is village relations and cooldown on recruiting, not really how early or late they are in the tree. Secondly, the issue is sieges (although I don't think they are that great in field battles either due to some hafted blades vs. full lance in terms of killing power) because lancers' armor is decent (and skills as well, I suppose) but not nearly as good as the other faction's options. Unfortunately, WB's campaign required you to besiege settlements constantly so any faction that does poorly there is going to perform pretty poorly in player hands.

At the same time, Sturgia doesn't have those flaws. They don't perform spectacularly under the battle AI but no faction does.
To be fair, most of my native Warband games were played using Khergits. Any combat disadvantage was offset by party mobility, controlling battles chosen, and the rapid rate of cavalry replenishment from recruitment. Siege attacks were tougher, but doable. I don't believe a dedicated player had any real trouble conquering Calradia in Warband with any chosen faction. It's ai was too weak. IMO the problems that dropped Khergits from MP aren't significant factors in SP.
I gave up after about the fourth or fifth failed siege, when I realized that my flipped prisoners had done better than all my native troops put together. That and realizing that half the time the horse archers didn't even try to use their bows in field battles.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Squire
Are you saying that you decide to go besiege places on a whim, without planning ahead for it?
Are you saying that most players plan ahead to the point of considering whether starving out a fortress is the best strategic option based on every single factor in the game's simulation, and then running around getting enough food to feed an army for the entire duration of sitting around doing nothing and having no fun? Every single time they besiege anything?
Secondly, the issue is sieges. Lancers' armor is decent (and skills as well, I suppose) but not nearly as good as the other faction's options.
Lancers' body and head armor is actually the best in their tier (as far as I've spent time to look).
* T4 Khergit Lancers have a max of 40 head armor, 48 body armor and 13+18 leg armor.
* T4 Swadian Men-At-Arms have 33, 42 and 14+24.
* T4 Rhodok Vet Spearmen have 35, 42 and 14+21.
* T4 Nord Warriors have 30, 37 and 12+16.
* T4 Sarranid Horsemen have 25, 40 and 14+20.
* T4 Vaegir Infantry have 38, 40 and 13+16.
Their armor is obviously worse than T5 Swadian Knights, but the weapons they get are better for sieges.
Lancer's axe swings for 38c, 98 speed, 76 reach, and bonus against shields; and their shield has 250 durability, 22 resist, and 100 speed.
Knight's sword swings for 33c with 96 speed and reach of 105, no shield bonus; and their shield has 220 durability, 23 resist, and 100 speed.

With very basic player micro (f1+f1 then f1+f3, so they don't trickle in gradually), AI set to Good and all damage on Normal:
* 25 Lancers siege assaulting 25 Swadian T3/4 Footmen/Infantry = Lancers win with 5 casualties.
* 25 Lancers siege assaulting 25 Rhodok T4/5 Vet. Spearmen/Sergeants = Lancers win with 14 casualties.
* 25 Lancers siege assaulting 25 Vaegir T4/5 Horsemen/Knights = Horsemen/Knights win with 19 casualties. (for comparison, sending other Horsemen/Knights to do the same thing results in the defenders still winning, with 11 casualties).
* 25 Lancers siege assaulting 19 Swadian T4 Men-at-arms+6 Knights = Lancers win with 14 casualties!
Just to be sure, I swapped it around, did it the same and Lancers won again on defense, with 8 casualties.
I don't think they are that great in field battles either due to some hafted blades vs. full lance in terms of killing power
Like I said, hafted blades beat lances in situations like uneven terrain and village battles. Not every Warband field battle is a flat plain, a lot of them have crazy hills and mountainsides, rivers, etc, and the player can use that to their advantage. Sit your Lancers on a hill so the lance charge is slowed down, and they will beat MAA+Knights. I just did it ingame.
Unfortunately, WB's campaign required you to besiege settlements constantly so any faction that does poorly there is going to perform pretty poorly in player hands.
Then it's a good thing that Lancers are actually not that bad in sieges at all.
At the same time, Sturgia doesn't have those flaws.
Sturgia is just as bad as the Khergits: Minorly weak against the player and in the hands of the player. Its horrible geography which slows army reinforcement time when the player is attacking it (a flaw Khergits don't have as their borders are protected by mountains and cities are clustered together in a triangle), its low potential troop tree when being used by the player or AI, its much weaker cultural bonus compared to the Battanian one the player can pick instead, etc. make it underpowered to the same degree the Khergits are.
 
Are you saying that most players plan ahead to the point of considering whether starving out a fortress is the best strategic option based on every single factor in the game's simulation, and then running around getting enough food to feed an army for the entire duration of sitting around doing nothing and having no fun? Every single time they besiege anything?

I’m late to the party but do people actually starve out garrisons? How? The attacked faction almost always musters up an army to defend it, right? And if you have such a big army that they still wouldn’t attack you with said mustered up army, why would you not just do the siege proper?
And how badly do you **** up your sieges for starving them out being a viable option? I mean, the food stock discussion is important, but I think there are bigger questions to be answered.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
Are you saying that most players plan ahead to the point of considering whether starving out a fortress is the best strategic option based on every single factor in the game's simulation, and then running around getting enough food to feed an army for the entire duration of sitting around doing nothing and having no fun? Every single time they besiege anything?
No, I'm saying that when (if) they decide to do that, they'll bring food because it is common sense. It might fail for any number of reasons but running out of food shouldn't be one of them.
Lancers' body and head armor is actually the best in their tier (as far as I've spent time to look).
Why do you think a tier-for-tier comparison matters? Training troops up is easy in Warband. That the Khergits don't get T5 armored troops on-par with Huscarls, Knights or Mamluks is (part of) the problem.
Its horrible geography which slows army reinforcement time when the player is attacking it (a flaw Khergits don't have as their borders are protected by mountains and cities are clustered together in a triangle), its low potential troop tree when being used by the player or AI, its much weaker cultural bonus compared to the Battanian one the player can pick instead, etc. make it underpowered to the same degree the Khergits are.
Bro, you read the snowballing thread same as I did. You know (or should know, given what was posted) well enough Sturgia's geography helps as much as it hurts. mexxico didn't change anything about their geography but they started doing well -- and not only because the wars started ending sooner.

And mountains don't protect territory in (native) WB, they just channel parties.
I’m late to the party but do people actually starve out garrisons? How? The attacked faction almost always musters up an army to defend it, right?
1. Yes.
2. By just raiding the surrounding villages, besieging the settlement and waiting ~21 days. It isn't complicated or difficult like five bucks is suggesting.
3. Nope, not always. If you pick the right target, at the right time they might not even bother showing up,. Even if they do attack you, it is far more likely that you'll be able to (being the player and all) clown on them. And the next army. And the one after that.
 

eddiemccandless

Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
No, I'm saying that when (if) they decide to do that, they'll bring food because it is common sense. It might fail for any number of reasons but running out of food shouldn't be one of them.

Why do you think a tier-for-tier comparison matters? Training troops up is easy in Warband. That the Khergits don't get T5 armored troops on-par with Huscarls, Knights or Mamluks is (part of) the problem.

Bro, you read the snowballing thread same as I did. You know (or should know, given what was posted) well enough Sturgia's geography helps as much as it hurts. mexxico didn't change anything about their geography but they started doing well -- and not only because the wars started ending sooner.

And mountains don't protect territory in (native) WB, they just channel parties.

1. Yes.
2. By just raiding the surrounding villages, besieging the settlement and waiting ~21 days. It isn't complicated or difficult like five bucks is suggesting.
3. Nope, not always. If you pick the right target, at the right time they might not even bother showing up,. Even if they do attack you, it is far more likely that you'll be able to (being the player and all) clown on them. And the next army. And the one after that.
What is the advantage of waiting 21 days for the slow starvation when you could just conquer the town and probably keep going after that in those 21 days? Genuinely curious.
 
What is the advantage of waiting 21 days for the slow starvation when you could just conquer the town and probably keep going after that in those 21 days? Genuinely curious.
For one, you don't lose a single soldier. Secondly, starving out a garrison can be very useful against those with very strong fortifications and garrisons.
 
1. Yes.
2. By just raiding the surrounding villages, besieging the settlement and waiting ~21 days. It isn't complicated or difficult like five bucks is suggesting.
3. Nope, not always. If you pick the right target, at the right time they might not even bother showing up,. Even if they do attack you, it is far more likely that you'll be able to (being the player and all) clown on them. And the next army. And the one after that.
Interesting! I’ve never went down that road before but I’ll try it out.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
What is the advantage of waiting 21 days for the slow starvation when you could just conquer the town and probably keep going after that in those 21 days? Genuinely curious.
It hard-counters the huge defender numbers that high prosperity have at late game (800+ in a town) even if you use a somewhat modest army. All you need is enough troops to keep them from sallying out and you can kill something around 40+ defenders a day from starvation once their food stocks run out. And their food stocks run out really fast. And since you don't lose troops doing it, you can (potentially) go right to another settlement and repeat the process.

Even if you don't carry it all the way through it is really useful to subtract some of the the defenders before you launching the actual assault.

If things go sideways and you have to bail, your party/army will still be intact and the enemy will be left with lingering economic damage, which has more effect now that AI clans have a lot less money and the number of notables is based upon town prosperity.

Obviously, that's conditional in some ways, but so is swinging a sword -- there are times you should do it and other times you shouldn't.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Starving them out is now definitely more viable an option than just committing to the siege right away. I used to just swing right into a siege, now there's actually times where I feel it's necessary or better to starve them out. It's a very useful feature in the game for sure.
 

five bucks

Squire
No, I'm saying that when (if) they decide to do that, they'll bring food because it is common sense. It might fail for any number of reasons but running out of food shouldn't be one of them.
Not every player- when they're not exploiting smithing or particular quests- carries enough money at all times to buy a season's worth of food for an army, either.
Not having or being able to afford lots of food is just one of multiple things that can go wrong to make starving out a siege not viable all the time. Sure it doesn't happen all the time itself, but it happens. What you're doing is isolating it as a single example when it was presented from the start as one of multiple.
Why do you think a tier-for-tier comparison matters? Training troops up is easy in Warband. That the Khergits don't get T5 armored troops on-par with Huscarls, Knights or Mamluks is (part of) the problem.
And yet you don't reply to the entire part of my post that compared T4 Lancers' performance to mixed forces of T4/T5 units of other factions. You are exaggerating "the problem" and ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Lancers are not that far behind the T5 units, and better than most T4 units. They're effectively T4.6.
Since it's rare to encounter an enemy party that's all T5 troops, their slight weakness by comparison is not going to lose you a lot of battles. In fact, I showed that Lancers can beat a mixed force of T4/T5 Knights and Men-At-Arms, both in a siege battle and a battle on a hill. And since mixed-tier parties are the most common, that means Lancers are actually okay.

And Khergit horse archers might not be great, but they're one of the only ranged cavalry in the game (apart from Sword Sisters who take much longer to get), so if you micro them, they have the nearly unique ability to attack infantry with very low risk of being attacked in return, especially the Rhodok, Swadian and Vaegir infantry trees.
Bro, you read the snowballing thread same as I did. You know (or should know, given what was posted) well enough Sturgia's geography helps as much as it hurts. mexxico didn't change anything about their geography but they started doing well -- and not only because the wars started ending sooner.
In AI vs. AI Sturgia is fine. In AI vs. AI Khergits are fine. So that's not what's under discussion. And so the snowballing thread isn't relevant.
Sturgia's geography helps... the player cut it up piecemeal, while reinforcements take ages to arrive.
And mountains don't protect territory in (native) WB, they just channel parties.
The mountains, and the edge of the map, create about 3 chokepoints into Khergit heartland territory which are constantly trafficked by Khergit war parties, and go past castles or cities that can contain lords too. 3/4 of Khergit towns are closer together than any other faction. They also get 4 cities to Rhodoks and Nords' 3. They have plenty of advantages on the strategic level.
It isn't complicated or difficult like five bucks is suggesting.
I said it isn't always viable. If one of your other cities doesn't get besieged at the same time, you're good enough at the game to either always pick a target that won't be reinforced or beat the doomstacks the AI can throw at you, you have enough money to buy food for the whole army for a whole season and have done so, and the town/castle isn't so weak that just storming it wouldn't be the more effective option then sure, it's not complicated or difficult in that case. It is boring as hell, though, and you miss out on one of the core features of the game.
 
Last edited:

KSHMR

Sergeant at Arms
At the moment my steam review is still a negative one because the developers need to do much more to get potential out of this game. A lot of work needs to be done in general but the outlook for a few years is certainly good, especially once mods are released.
 
Top Bottom