Wow that sounds great. Thanks.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Beta Patch Notes e1.4.1
- Thread starter Callum
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Sounds good! Thanks!
kappawt
Recruit
Yo mexxico! How do I donate a bottle of wine? Keep up the great work.
Lord of Banners
Sergeant at Arms
Can confirm this small percent loves that.
Having payed truce brings interesting possibilities.
If A wins war with B, and then wins war with C, forcing both to pay tribute. Now B and C have reason to ally and take revenge on their warmongering oppresor.
Same if A and B go to war and then A forces B to pay for truce, then A go to evenly matched war with C, now again B can take on the opportunity and join C, instead of paying. So having factions that are forced to pay you for peace is actually a danger as they have the reason to turn against on you when they find an opportunity once you get into another war.
Seems like a good mechanic to stop snowballing.
If A wins war with B, and then wins war with C, forcing both to pay tribute. Now B and C have reason to ally and take revenge on their warmongering oppresor.
Same if A and B go to war and then A forces B to pay for truce, then A go to evenly matched war with C, now again B can take on the opportunity and join C, instead of paying. So having factions that are forced to pay you for peace is actually a danger as they have the reason to turn against on you when they find an opportunity once you get into another war.
Seems like a good mechanic to stop snowballing.
There should be a lot of terms of surrender
Maggot Toes
Sergeant
I'm not sure I trust the tribute system, right now war consists of me destroying 20 armies twice my size, capturing 4 castles and 2 towns and then paying 1 million for peace (as the victor), so the AI can then re-declare war 2 days later against a kingdom 10 times their size. Does this mean I now have to almost destroy a kingdom and pay them tribute forever so I can play other parts of the game. Then if I stop paying tribute the AI then suicide declares war on me forcing me to take their last two fiefs and eliminate them?
Maximum997
Squire
250 weapon perk is stupidly OP.
It's not that it's OP by intention, it's bugged. They added a decimal in the wrong place or something and it ends up increasing attack speed by 2% per point rather than .2% or something like that.
Hence the lords in tournaments who have anime-level attack speeds
I more or less agree, the game becomes like dynasty warrior but keep in mind that reaching level 250 or 300 without mods or console takes a long time, that some of the enemies are stronger and faster I do not dislike, reminds me that there is always someone stronger to shoot down, of course if you are unlucky and you find them in the tournament at first or if you have not uploaded the combat you have a problem
what they would have to modify is level up, if you don't have attribute and skill points it turns red and you can't earn more points, so how can I level up if I can't get points?
I think they would not have to cut the acquisition of points to 0,
It is one thing that it costs more to learn and another that you can't learn anything else
Maximum997
Squire
Won't that make a lot of smaller kingdoms weaker, and larger ones even stronger?
The idea of war tribute / reparations for peace sounds good on paper, but I really don't see how it helps address the simulation's current issues. If anything, the winner will be the recipient of (perhaps juicy) daily payments, with which to further upgrade their army and stomp someone else - until the payments end. From the perspective of simulation health, this seems to me a strictly inferior approach to the simple solution from 1.3: forcing a 25-day truce without any monetary exchange, so the loser can lick their wounds and maybe come back stronger next time.
The problem is game-ending snowballs. Winning as a snowball is dull. Even losing to a snowball is dull: sure, you might turn the tide, but they've probably crushed most other factions already into dust, so your playthrough's scope for an exciting emergent narrative is pretty much over. So, you restart.
What should be some of the priorities for keeping the simulation engaging?
The problem is game-ending snowballs. Winning as a snowball is dull. Even losing to a snowball is dull: sure, you might turn the tide, but they've probably crushed most other factions already into dust, so your playthrough's scope for an exciting emergent narrative is pretty much over. So, you restart.
What should be some of the priorities for keeping the simulation engaging?
- Internal factors within a faction, to dent snowballing: think "Corruption" mechanic from something like Total War: Three Kingdoms, or indeed earlier iterations of Civ (e.g. Civ3). In its simplest form, the more fiefs a kingdom owns, the greater the percentage of tax that goes to waste in corruption or logistical overhead. Assuming every AI faction obeys proper economic rules (I am led to believe they do, from developer posts in these forums), that corruption percentage (adequately tuned) should significantly dent the power creep of larger factions. I never much liked Corruption in TW:3K, but judged purely on the gameplay impact, it did exactly what it needed to do: it put the brakes on a faction's ability to spiral upwards. Bannerlord needs band aids to fix simulation health, this is one of the simplest ones I can think of.
I can imagine other internal factors worth pursuing: claimants to the throne like in Warband, or internal revolts spawning new factions when one grows too large. These are more complex to tune correctly, and done wrong will also lead to farcical simulations. Definitely would love to see these features eventually, but development time dictates that this should be looked at later.
- Diplomatic factors between factions, to dent snowballing: basic diplomacy AI capable of recognising rising threats and acting out of self-preservation. Think "Great Power Aversion" from Total War games or "Coalition" mechanic from EU4: a system so factions simultaneously recognise the need to contain an out-of-control neighbour, by ceasing their own hostilities indefinitely and banding together to ensure containment. In particular, EU4 modelled "Aggressive Expansion" as a metric of a faction's belligerence - a metric that degraded slowly, over many years. A faction might lock in territorial gains over time, but it would be years before their past aggression was water under the bridge. If they expanded too fast, took too many fiefs too quickly, the coalition mechanic would kick in and cut them down to size. The political borders of Calradia would change slowly over years, even decades. This 'slow drift' has to be baked into the simulation, otherwise the entire legacy/inheritance system is pointless and misleading.
- "Events" or externalities to dent snowballing: this could be any of a list of events designed to draw the attention and resources of the snowballer. Perhaps their kingdom has become too affluent: bandit lords from all over Calradia converge on their kingdom, forming great bandit armies (with maybe unique T6 loot, as a further incentive to explore this lategame experience) to ravage their villages and siege their fiefs. Perhaps a great Crusade is called, by a faction opposed to the snowballer: well-supplied, high-tier armies of the snowballer's nemesis converge on their lands.
Last edited:
The whole point is right now without peace the weaker kingdoms just get rolled over continuously.
That's pretty neat. I would love to see various seasons in Bannerlord MP over time. "Faranox, #1 NA Winter 2020"
Kegeyn
Regular
Is it just me or by "weaker kingdoms" we mean non-khuzait non-vlandian ones? Strangely those that does not use that much Cav.
Don't get me wrong guys i think truce is a good idea but maybe we are looking a fix in a wrong place?
I did tests where Cav in autocalc was doing 50% better (more kills) than same level infantry on 1.4.1 - this plus huge movement buff creates the problem.
Or rather not the Cav movement buff alone - The fact that footmen on horse bonus is so much lower than pure cav bonus
This does not seem like an improvement at all, horrible to say the least. How will army composition look in AI armies after a while? Mixed up armies indistinguishable from faction to faction. If they wanted to help AI recruitment, just give them a recruit bonus in home territory. Alternatively, let the AI recruit own faction troops from anywhere.
It doesnt have sense while the winner will not want to end the war unless he gets something back from it.
Is taleworlds also planning on implementing Casus Belli of some kind - as it was in Warband? I really think the game needs this... and I know many others here would agree.
