Yes it started on 1.4.2. The changes don't effect me because I don't trade or make workshops or caravans.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Beta Patch Notes e1.4.2
- 主题发起人 Callum
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
- 状态
Sidhwen_Khorest
Sergeant
I've got as far as holding 1 castle on a new save this beta. I followed my normal leveling path : kill looters for skills, win tournaments and do quests while waiting for more tournaments to appear in my culture (I only fight in battania tourneys), then buy some workshops. Once I got the workshops I could relax a bit and start working on the castle.
Tournaments are a great way to make money and get some XP, but the diminishing returns from bets does kind of suck. Also a great way to save some cash by equipping rewards if they suit you.
Quests seemed to be a lot more important this time around, where before they were an afterthought. I would just do kidnapped daughter and the exploited by deserters quests, which would net me around 1000 gold and could usually be done in less than a day.
Pizi_G
Sergeant
the question for me is should you be able to run around in the first year with elite troos ?
i myself do not go higher than tier 3 until i get my first caravan running
Sidhwen_Khorest
Sergeant
I think you definitely should be able to, especially since he only has 12 elites, but if you want to field an army without the backbone of workshops/caravans/settlements then you should expect to have to proactively run around to pay for them, you shouldn't be able to just sit on the laurels you don't have.
The current rate for work shops is alright. The main point is that you have to actively trade instead of trading a bit here and there to sustain your wealth. Sure, fighting against Lords will get you enough money but what about peace time or even a game where you are currently not a vassal and not at war with anyone?
Pizi_G
Sergeant
Haha , that would be silly
is it not the fun in all these games the resource management ?
DF, Rimworld Kenshi HOI4 EU4 CK2 you name em you have limited resources and you make the best out of em
thats why i play these games
Mowglia
Recruit
Regarding beta 1.4.2:
I managed to get to mid/late game (about 8 cities) and am now sure to take the rest of the map if I keep pushing. The only mod I use is KeepYourOwnFiefs since early on I urgently needed settlements for the income/garrisons, yet there appeared to be no native way to keep them after joining/forming a kingdom. My army now ranges from about 800 to 1,500 men, and typically faces AI forces ranging from 400 to 2,000 men, which should give an idea of where things are at.
So here are my impressions at this stage:
1) Lords Constantly Leaving My Faction, And Switching Between Other Factions.
I can't keep clans without serious save-scumming. Sometimes things run fine for a while, but then the game arbitrarily decides someone's leaving, and it could be anyone. Doesn't seem to matter if I've got 2 clans or 7 clans, although this behaviour is tempered somewhat if they all have fiefs (which is initially impossible, and rulers can't give fiefs away later). Reloading a save, a different clan will leave. Reload the save, a different clan will leave. Reload the save, a different clan will leave, etc. The game basically just decided there's a high probability that someone's leaving, and like I said, it takes a lot of save-scumming to ride it out.
It's not just me either; the AI is doing it to itself. Which is the most disturbing aspect. I might encounter the Battanian faction (for example), and with the exception of the ruling clan just about all their other clans are from every faction but Battania. This is not ok. Save-scummming aside, the result is that all other factions end up with a mix of troops from wherever. Long-term, factions lose their identities, become homogeneous, and the excitement of facing different factions is lost.
A similar issue applies to party members recruiting troops; they could come back with anyone.
Clans leaving factions ought to be extremely rare. So rare that if we ever see it we stop and think think "Ooh, I wonder what happened there..." (and know that something actually did happen there other than rng clan-quit spam).
[There's a guy in my campaign I really dislike (long arena-related story), but after I saw the treacherous fiend in no less than 5 different factions within the space of just a couple of years, I had to stop counting to preserve my sanity.]
2) Every Time I Attempt A Siege The Game Arbitrarily Decides There's A Very High Probability That A Faction Is Declaring War On Me.
Reload the save, it's a different faction declaring war. Reload the save, it's a different faction declaring war, etc. Could be anyone, but it will be someone, and it's always on me; similar to the first issue in this respect.
On the upside, this is not as immersion-breaking as the first issue, and similarly it can be ridden out eventually with some severe save-scumming.
Instead of rng declare-war spam I would like to see wars happen for a reason. Perhaps a faction wants your city. Perhaps you annoyed them so much they want to burn you to the ground. Their behaviour should reflect their objectives. Variety is good. Obviously this might all be planned, but meanwhile the rng declare-war spam needs to go.
Another related issue is when I start a siege, rather than protect the besieged target in question, the AI will randomly go siege another settlement. Now I get this from a strategic perspective, and it's actually rather effective, but the issue is I often end up playing whack-a-mole, which is just tedious. Better for the AI to focus on the immediate issue at hand, and deal with other issues later (within reason; again, variety is good).
3) Perks.
These all need implementing yesterday. Having so many perks not working really sucks the juice out of progression.
4) Smithing Bugs.
Vendors filling up with crafted-weapon spam needs to go. I wouldn't say this is necessarily a bad concept in principle, although certainly to a lesser extent than is the case now - but given the crafted-weapon vendor issue as it stands, this mechanic needs to be deactivated until it's fixed properly.
I have to wonder, given we can make these items so easily, why we would ever want/need to buy them? And consequently, why have vendors sell these items at all?
Also the prices of some polearms (looking at you war-razor head with pine shaft, lol) and javelins needs fixing. Obviously the player can choose not to exploit this, but the will is weak when we're strapped for cash, and knocking out 8 polearms to sell for a million denars is not ok.
5) Diplomacy.
I addressed some aspects of this above, but wars need to be rarer, more gratuitous, and generally more profound. War should mean great opportunity (for expansion) but also involve great risk if things go wrong. The current "Gonna take your city and buy peace with 60k denars before you can even assemble an army" doesn't work very well. The only time I'm involved in a protracted war is when I'm feeling too greedy to stop at one city/castle (bearing in mind if we didn't save-scum we'd be at war with every kingdom all the time).
Alliances are just...necessary, and ought to be a priority. Smaller factions ought to put their differences aside and form alliances to protect themselves against stronger factions. In my campaign I was appalled to see the three Empire factions start hacking away at each other and weaken themselves to the point where they were all obliterated by the other factions before I had a chance to start my own Imperial kingdom, or even get my first settlement. Was kinda looking forward to working with these guys. I didn't have to do the "Unify The Empire" quest because my "Eastern Empire", with but a single castle, was the only Empire left...the others all suicided. The AI needs to prioritise self-preservation.
Another observation; something needs to be done about "dead factions". I've got several dead factions where a single "ruling" clan that has no territory/settlements, and that can't actually do anything, but just won't die (no matter how many times they get captured by looters, lol). They should get off the map, or have a way to rebuild. In future perhaps the player/AI could give them a settlement and have them as very grateful allies.
Personally, the ebb and flow of the initial factions doesn't quite cut it for me. I'd like to see factions rise and fall. Some might disappear permanently, and other new factions would emerge; but not specifically to replace them one-for-one. I'd like to see campaigns where three huge factions ended up duking it out (for example), but other campaigns where all the original factions somehow survived along with the addition of several new factions. In short, when it comes to factions and the balance of power, I'd like to see myriad possible permutations and plenty of variety. Variety is good.
6) Reinforcements & Battle Size.
I routinely have encounters which involve over 2,000 units, excluding horses. Except the maximum battle size is 1,000 men? This is confusing. I assume a proportion of each army is selected to start the battle, but I don't understand how said units are selected, or whether remaining units are being fed in later via reinforcements, simply discarded, or in some way auto-resolved. Things usually get too hectic for me to keep track of this once the fighting starts.
Some in-game clarity regarding this would be much appreciated. Such things should be made obvious to the player.
7) Imperial Cavalry Are Probably Impossible To Obtain.
I almost never see the relevant recruits. And now I'm fairly close to global domination I find it somewhat bemusing that I've never actually been able to field a unit of my own cavalry. Because I never had my own cavalry. Because there aren't any Imperial recruits for cavalry.
8 ) Prisoners.
When I capture an enemy in battle, it bothers me when they inevitably escape and raise another party and attack me again before I even had a chance to sell their loot. Strategically, this is a cheap and obtuse mechanic to have to contend with.
Conclusion:
Re-reading this post, much of it now seems rather critical. This was not intended to be the case; far from it. Bannerlord is a great platform with massive potential. I've done nothing but hammer this game since the day I bought it, which speaks for itself. It's compelling, and overall I feel it's coming along well. Obviously Bannerlord is Early Access and there's still a long way to go.
The issues I raised above are merely the main issues I experienced that either irritated, annoyed, or confounded me. Bugs/crashes aside, these issues are the ones that I personally would like to see addressed in order that Campaign #2 is even more spectacular/engrossing than the first one has been thus far.
Incidentally, when I refer to save-scumming I think I'm at about 1,500 saves and guessing 5,000+ loads? Save-scumming on an industrial scale is unfortunately necessary for a non-modded game at this point to address not only crashes (fewer now though, it has to be said), but mostly for desertions/wars. I cannot fight all other factions simultaneously with no vassals :p
Finally, thank you for providing by far my best gaming experience in 2020! Taking my first castle was so difficult I thought it was probably never going to happen, and then, after the carnage (and there was so much carnage; mostly due to incompetent and panicked leadership, lol), to stand on the battlements knowing the place was MINE...hell yeah, that gave me the epic feeling that these games are supposed to be all about. Haven't felt that in a long time
I managed to get to mid/late game (about 8 cities) and am now sure to take the rest of the map if I keep pushing. The only mod I use is KeepYourOwnFiefs since early on I urgently needed settlements for the income/garrisons, yet there appeared to be no native way to keep them after joining/forming a kingdom. My army now ranges from about 800 to 1,500 men, and typically faces AI forces ranging from 400 to 2,000 men, which should give an idea of where things are at.
So here are my impressions at this stage:
1) Lords Constantly Leaving My Faction, And Switching Between Other Factions.
I can't keep clans without serious save-scumming. Sometimes things run fine for a while, but then the game arbitrarily decides someone's leaving, and it could be anyone. Doesn't seem to matter if I've got 2 clans or 7 clans, although this behaviour is tempered somewhat if they all have fiefs (which is initially impossible, and rulers can't give fiefs away later). Reloading a save, a different clan will leave. Reload the save, a different clan will leave. Reload the save, a different clan will leave, etc. The game basically just decided there's a high probability that someone's leaving, and like I said, it takes a lot of save-scumming to ride it out.
It's not just me either; the AI is doing it to itself. Which is the most disturbing aspect. I might encounter the Battanian faction (for example), and with the exception of the ruling clan just about all their other clans are from every faction but Battania. This is not ok. Save-scummming aside, the result is that all other factions end up with a mix of troops from wherever. Long-term, factions lose their identities, become homogeneous, and the excitement of facing different factions is lost.
A similar issue applies to party members recruiting troops; they could come back with anyone.
Clans leaving factions ought to be extremely rare. So rare that if we ever see it we stop and think think "Ooh, I wonder what happened there..." (and know that something actually did happen there other than rng clan-quit spam).
[There's a guy in my campaign I really dislike (long arena-related story), but after I saw the treacherous fiend in no less than 5 different factions within the space of just a couple of years, I had to stop counting to preserve my sanity.]
2) Every Time I Attempt A Siege The Game Arbitrarily Decides There's A Very High Probability That A Faction Is Declaring War On Me.
Reload the save, it's a different faction declaring war. Reload the save, it's a different faction declaring war, etc. Could be anyone, but it will be someone, and it's always on me; similar to the first issue in this respect.
On the upside, this is not as immersion-breaking as the first issue, and similarly it can be ridden out eventually with some severe save-scumming.
Instead of rng declare-war spam I would like to see wars happen for a reason. Perhaps a faction wants your city. Perhaps you annoyed them so much they want to burn you to the ground. Their behaviour should reflect their objectives. Variety is good. Obviously this might all be planned, but meanwhile the rng declare-war spam needs to go.
Another related issue is when I start a siege, rather than protect the besieged target in question, the AI will randomly go siege another settlement. Now I get this from a strategic perspective, and it's actually rather effective, but the issue is I often end up playing whack-a-mole, which is just tedious. Better for the AI to focus on the immediate issue at hand, and deal with other issues later (within reason; again, variety is good).
3) Perks.
These all need implementing yesterday. Having so many perks not working really sucks the juice out of progression.
4) Smithing Bugs.
Vendors filling up with crafted-weapon spam needs to go. I wouldn't say this is necessarily a bad concept in principle, although certainly to a lesser extent than is the case now - but given the crafted-weapon vendor issue as it stands, this mechanic needs to be deactivated until it's fixed properly.
I have to wonder, given we can make these items so easily, why we would ever want/need to buy them? And consequently, why have vendors sell these items at all?
Also the prices of some polearms (looking at you war-razor head with pine shaft, lol) and javelins needs fixing. Obviously the player can choose not to exploit this, but the will is weak when we're strapped for cash, and knocking out 8 polearms to sell for a million denars is not ok.
5) Diplomacy.
I addressed some aspects of this above, but wars need to be rarer, more gratuitous, and generally more profound. War should mean great opportunity (for expansion) but also involve great risk if things go wrong. The current "Gonna take your city and buy peace with 60k denars before you can even assemble an army" doesn't work very well. The only time I'm involved in a protracted war is when I'm feeling too greedy to stop at one city/castle (bearing in mind if we didn't save-scum we'd be at war with every kingdom all the time).
Alliances are just...necessary, and ought to be a priority. Smaller factions ought to put their differences aside and form alliances to protect themselves against stronger factions. In my campaign I was appalled to see the three Empire factions start hacking away at each other and weaken themselves to the point where they were all obliterated by the other factions before I had a chance to start my own Imperial kingdom, or even get my first settlement. Was kinda looking forward to working with these guys. I didn't have to do the "Unify The Empire" quest because my "Eastern Empire", with but a single castle, was the only Empire left...the others all suicided. The AI needs to prioritise self-preservation.
Another observation; something needs to be done about "dead factions". I've got several dead factions where a single "ruling" clan that has no territory/settlements, and that can't actually do anything, but just won't die (no matter how many times they get captured by looters, lol). They should get off the map, or have a way to rebuild. In future perhaps the player/AI could give them a settlement and have them as very grateful allies.
Personally, the ebb and flow of the initial factions doesn't quite cut it for me. I'd like to see factions rise and fall. Some might disappear permanently, and other new factions would emerge; but not specifically to replace them one-for-one. I'd like to see campaigns where three huge factions ended up duking it out (for example), but other campaigns where all the original factions somehow survived along with the addition of several new factions. In short, when it comes to factions and the balance of power, I'd like to see myriad possible permutations and plenty of variety. Variety is good.
6) Reinforcements & Battle Size.
I routinely have encounters which involve over 2,000 units, excluding horses. Except the maximum battle size is 1,000 men? This is confusing. I assume a proportion of each army is selected to start the battle, but I don't understand how said units are selected, or whether remaining units are being fed in later via reinforcements, simply discarded, or in some way auto-resolved. Things usually get too hectic for me to keep track of this once the fighting starts.
Some in-game clarity regarding this would be much appreciated. Such things should be made obvious to the player.
7) Imperial Cavalry Are Probably Impossible To Obtain.
I almost never see the relevant recruits. And now I'm fairly close to global domination I find it somewhat bemusing that I've never actually been able to field a unit of my own cavalry. Because I never had my own cavalry. Because there aren't any Imperial recruits for cavalry.
8 ) Prisoners.
When I capture an enemy in battle, it bothers me when they inevitably escape and raise another party and attack me again before I even had a chance to sell their loot. Strategically, this is a cheap and obtuse mechanic to have to contend with.
Conclusion:
Re-reading this post, much of it now seems rather critical. This was not intended to be the case; far from it. Bannerlord is a great platform with massive potential. I've done nothing but hammer this game since the day I bought it, which speaks for itself. It's compelling, and overall I feel it's coming along well. Obviously Bannerlord is Early Access and there's still a long way to go.
The issues I raised above are merely the main issues I experienced that either irritated, annoyed, or confounded me. Bugs/crashes aside, these issues are the ones that I personally would like to see addressed in order that Campaign #2 is even more spectacular/engrossing than the first one has been thus far.
Incidentally, when I refer to save-scumming I think I'm at about 1,500 saves and guessing 5,000+ loads? Save-scumming on an industrial scale is unfortunately necessary for a non-modded game at this point to address not only crashes (fewer now though, it has to be said), but mostly for desertions/wars. I cannot fight all other factions simultaneously with no vassals :p
Finally, thank you for providing by far my best gaming experience in 2020! Taking my first castle was so difficult I thought it was probably never going to happen, and then, after the carnage (and there was so much carnage; mostly due to incompetent and panicked leadership, lol), to stand on the battlements knowing the place was MINE...hell yeah, that gave me the epic feeling that these games are supposed to be all about. Haven't felt that in a long time
最后编辑:
Yeah it should be both viable and rewarding to play as a trader! There should be even more benefits to choosing this style. Perhaps being peaceful and buying fiefs could attract lords with good traits to join you or send aid to you if you are attacked later. I also would like to see many more types of trade goods too.
As a vassal I have never seen peace. I know it happens, but for me they only declare after a new second war has started. As an independent clan there is only a a brief peace when I've taken what I want from a faction and don't want to wipe them out. Then I can inspect all the garrisons and projects, maybe raise a few troops. Then I need to figure out what's next. Who's getting too big for their saddles and go help contain them! It's nice to find an equilibrium where your income covers your troops, but it does seem harder lately, not sure why. I could be maybe prosperity was higher in older games so everything gave more. I've amassed a lot of denars though in my current game... hwo could I not with the enemy buying it's way out of my prisons without my consent?
LOL yes i have a guy like that in my game 15 times he changed side in 1 year. then came to a part when i ended up in battle against him. I won. well i dont cut the heads of lords,, but with this turn coat of it came. could not stop myself..his not changing sides again.Regarding beta 1.4.2:
I managed to get to mid/late game (about 8 cities) and am now sure to take the rest of the map if I keep pushing. The only mod I use is KeepYourOwnFiefs since early on I urgently needed settlements for the income/garrisons, yet there appeared to be no native way to keep them after joining/forming a kingdom. My army now ranges from about 800 to 1,500 men, and typically faces AI forces ranging from 400 to 2,000 men, which should give an idea of where things are at.
So here are my impressions at this stage:
1) Lords Constantly Leaving My Faction, And Switching Between Other Factions.
I can't keep clans without serious save-scumming. Sometimes things run fine for a while, but then the game arbitrarily decides someone's leaving, and it could be anyone. Doesn't seem to matter if I've got 2 clans or 7 clans, although this behaviour is tempered somewhat if they all have fiefs (which is initially impossible, and rulers can't give fiefs away later). Reloading a save, a different clan will leave. Reload the save, a different clan will leave. Reload the save, a different clan will leave, etc. The game basically just decided there's a high probability that someone's leaving, and like I said, it takes a lot of save-scumming to ride it out.
It's not just me either; the AI is doing it to itself. Which is the most disturbing aspect. I might encounter the Battanian faction (for example), and with the exception of the ruling clan just about all their other clans are from every faction but Battania. This is not ok. Save-scummming aside, the result is that all other factions end up with a mix of troops from wherever. Long-term, factions lose their identities, become homogeneous, and the excitement of facing different factions is lost.
A similar issue applies to party members recruiting troops; they could come back with anyone.
Clans leaving factions ought to be extremely rare. So rare that if we ever see it we stop and think think "Ooh, I wonder what happened there..." (and know that something actually did happen there other than rng clan-quit spam).
[There's a guy in my campaign I really dislike (long arena-related story), but after I saw the treacherous fiend in no less than 5 different factions within the space of just a couple of years, I had to stop counting to preserve my sanity.]
2) Every Time I Attempt A Siege The Game Arbitrarily Decides There's A Very High Probability That A Faction Is Declaring War On Me.
Reload the save, it's a different faction declaring war. Reload the save, it's a different faction declaring war, etc. Could be anyone, but it will be someone, and it's always on me; similar to the first issue in this respect.
On the upside, this is not as immersion-breaking as the first issue, and similarly it can be ridden out eventually with some severe save-scumming.
Instead of rng declare-war spam I would like to see wars happen for a reason. Perhaps a faction wants your city. Perhaps you annoyed them so much they want to burn you to the ground. Their behaviour should reflect their objectives. Variety is good. Obviously this might all be planned, but meanwhile the rng declare-war spam needs to go.
Another related issue is when I start a siege, rather than protect the besieged target in question, the AI will randomly go siege another settlement. Now I get this from a strategic perspective, and it's actually rather effective, but the issue is I often end up playing whack-a-mole, which is just tedious. Better for the AI to focus on the immediate issue at hand, and deal with other issues later (within reason; again, variety is good).
3) Perks.
These all need implementing yesterday. Having so many perks not working really sucks the juice out of progression.
4) Smithing Bugs.
Vendors filling up with crafted-weapon spam needs to go. I wouldn't say this is necessarily a bad concept in principle, although certainly to a lesser extent than is the case now - but given the crafted-weapon vendor issue as it stands, this mechanic needs to be deactivated until it's fixed properly.
I have to wonder, given we can make these items so easily, why we would ever want/need to buy them? And consequently, why have vendors sell these items at all?
Also the prices of some polearms (looking at you war-razor head with pine shaft, lol) and javelins needs fixing. Obviously the player can choose not to exploit this, but the will is weak when we're strapped for cash, and knocking out 8 polearms to sell for a million denars is not ok.
5) Diplomacy.
I addressed some aspects of this above, but wars need to be rarer, more gratuitous, and generally more profound. War should mean great opportunity (for expansion) but also involve great risk if things go wrong. The current "Gonna take your city and buy peace with 60k denars before you can even assemble an army" doesn't work very well. The only time I'm involved in a protracted war is when I'm feeling too greedy to stop at one city/castle (bearing in mind if we didn't save-scum we'd be at war with every kingdom all the time).
Alliances are just...necessary, and ought to be a priority. Smaller factions ought to put their differences aside and form alliances to protect themselves against stronger factions. In my campaign I was appalled to see the three Empire factions start hacking away at each other and weaken themselves to the point where they were all obliterated by the other factions before I had a chance to start my own Imperial kingdom, or even get my first settlement. Was kinda looking forward to working with these guys. I didn't have to do the "Unify The Empire" quest because my "Eastern Empire", with but a single castle, was the only Empire left...the others all suicided. The AI needs to prioritise self-preservation.
Another observation; something needs to be done about "dead factions". I've got several dead factions where a single "ruling" clan that has no territory/settlements, and that can't actually do anything, but just won't die (no matter how many times they get captured by looters, lol). They should get off the map, or have a way to rebuild. In future perhaps the player/AI could give them a settlement and have them as very grateful allies.
Personally, the ebb and flow of the initial factions doesn't quite cut it for me. I'd like to see factions rise and fall. Some might disappear permanently, and other new factions would emerge; but not specifically to replace them one-for-one. I'd like to see campaigns where three huge factions ended up duking it out (for example), but other campaigns where all the original factions somehow survived along with the addition of several new factions. In short, when it comes to factions and the balance of power, I'd like to see myriad possible permutations and plenty of variety. Variety is good.
6) Reinforcements & Battle Size.
I routinely have encounters which involve over 2,000 units, excluding horses. Except the maximum battle size is 1,000 men? This is confusing. I assume a proportion of each army is selected to start the battle, but I don't understand how said units are selected, or whether remaining units are being fed in later via reinforcements, simply discarded, or in some way auto-resolved. Things usually get too hectic for me to keep track of this once the fighting starts.
Some in-game clarity regarding this would be much appreciated. Such things should be made obvious to the player.
7) Imperial Cavalry Are Probably Impossible To Obtain.
I almost never see the relevant recruits. And now I'm fairly close to global domination I find it somewhat bemusing that I've never actually been able to field a unit of my own cavalry. Because I never had my own cavalry. Because there aren't any Imperial recruits for cavalry.
8 ) Prisoners.
When I capture an enemy in battle, it bothers me when they inevitably escape and raise another party and attack me again before I even had a chance to sell their loot. Strategically, this is a cheap and obtuse mechanic to have to contend with.
Conclusion:
Re-reading this post, much of it now seems rather critical. This was not intended to be the case; far from it. Bannerlord is a great platform with massive potential. I've done nothing but hammer this game since the day I bought it, which speaks for itself. It's compelling, and overall I feel it's coming along well. Obviously Bannerlord is Early Access and there's still a long way to go.
The issues I raised above are merely the main issues I experienced that either irritated, annoyed, or confounded me. Bugs/crashes aside, these issues are the ones that I personally would like to see addressed in order that Campaign #2 is even more spectacular/engrossing than the first one has been thus far.
Incidentally, when I refer to save-scumming I think I'm at about 1,500 saves and guessing 5,000+ loads? Save-scumming on an industrial scale is unfortunately necessary for a non-modded game at this point to address not only crashes (fewer now though, it has to be said), but mostly for desertions/wars. I cannot fight all other factions simultaneously with no vassals :p
Finally, thank you for providing by far my best gaming experience in 2020! Taking my first castle was so difficult I thought it was probably never going to happen, and then, after the carnage (and there was so much carnage; mostly due to incompetent and panicked leadership, lol), to stand on the battlements knowing the place was MINE...hell yeah, that gave me the epic feeling that these games are supposed to be all about. Haven't felt that in a long time
Dipping into a fresh playthrough with 1.4.2, and... I hate to say it, but the economy in Bannerlord is turning into a complete farce.
I'm not sure why workshop and caravan income had to be nerfed this heavily. I have no doubt the lategame will be fine - from my earlier playthroughs, once you have enough money ticking in from 'safe' fiefs + caravan spam, you're fine. But the fiefless Merc early game is now a painstaking grind. My main beef with this constant nerf of 'easy' sources of income is: How wide a gap do the devs want there to be, between the player's rules and the AI rules? AI merc clans get wiped repeatedly, but charge back into action with made-up money and made-up heavy horses. Enemy vassals, ditto. Meanwhile the player is a complete Rambo, having to kill hundreds every week to earn just enough for army upkeep and upgrading. I accept that the AI will get Civ-like advantages to compensate for its ineptitude, but the further you widen the rule gap, the more you kill any realism the simulation might've had.
Everyone - everyone - in these forums is already playing the savescum game and never losing their full army. Not trying to call people out for doing so, but definitely calling attention to the absurdity of it. It shouldn't be difficult to build up your fortune quickly with savescum. I question why devs are even trying to balance around it, rather than focusing their time on implementing the game's core features (e.g. perks, diplomacy), and maybe balancing once that's all done. More generally, I'd orientate the game in a direction where the simulation feels fair enough that an ironman playthrough (no save/reload option, single savefile that overwrites on autosave constantly) would eventually* become the proper way to have an exciting, challenging playthrough.
All of my fondest memories of Warband involved ironman playthroughs, with real but recoverable setbacks contributing to the emergent narrative. All these nerfs do is reduce the scope for setbacks, and tip Bannerlord further towards 'minmax by default' (which I understand to be Smithing javelins atm - itself an artifact of farcical loot prices).
* I know the game would need to reach a point where there are no bugs that could brick a save (e.g. endless conversation loops after buying peace), but we have to assume we'll get there. As for the softer roadblocks to an ironman playthrough: put all Charm attempts on a 10-day cooldown (so you can still retry after failure), reduce the RNG of war declarations (maybe a simple casus belli system, "Lord X is harassing the villagers of Y in your kingdom. Do you wish to declare war? Yes/No"). There are ways.
I'm not sure why workshop and caravan income had to be nerfed this heavily. I have no doubt the lategame will be fine - from my earlier playthroughs, once you have enough money ticking in from 'safe' fiefs + caravan spam, you're fine. But the fiefless Merc early game is now a painstaking grind. My main beef with this constant nerf of 'easy' sources of income is: How wide a gap do the devs want there to be, between the player's rules and the AI rules? AI merc clans get wiped repeatedly, but charge back into action with made-up money and made-up heavy horses. Enemy vassals, ditto. Meanwhile the player is a complete Rambo, having to kill hundreds every week to earn just enough for army upkeep and upgrading. I accept that the AI will get Civ-like advantages to compensate for its ineptitude, but the further you widen the rule gap, the more you kill any realism the simulation might've had.
Everyone - everyone - in these forums is already playing the savescum game and never losing their full army. Not trying to call people out for doing so, but definitely calling attention to the absurdity of it. It shouldn't be difficult to build up your fortune quickly with savescum. I question why devs are even trying to balance around it, rather than focusing their time on implementing the game's core features (e.g. perks, diplomacy), and maybe balancing once that's all done. More generally, I'd orientate the game in a direction where the simulation feels fair enough that an ironman playthrough (no save/reload option, single savefile that overwrites on autosave constantly) would eventually* become the proper way to have an exciting, challenging playthrough.
All of my fondest memories of Warband involved ironman playthroughs, with real but recoverable setbacks contributing to the emergent narrative. All these nerfs do is reduce the scope for setbacks, and tip Bannerlord further towards 'minmax by default' (which I understand to be Smithing javelins atm - itself an artifact of farcical loot prices).
* I know the game would need to reach a point where there are no bugs that could brick a save (e.g. endless conversation loops after buying peace), but we have to assume we'll get there. As for the softer roadblocks to an ironman playthrough: put all Charm attempts on a 10-day cooldown (so you can still retry after failure), reduce the RNG of war declarations (maybe a simple casus belli system, "Lord X is harassing the villagers of Y in your kingdom. Do you wish to declare war? Yes/No"). There are ways.
最后编辑:
Did they ever say anything about the workshops level? It seems like they should be upgradable, of course this is just a placeholder right now.
But did they say they will make them upgradable or just remove the placeholder? Because this could change things too when it comes down to income.
But did they say they will make them upgradable or just remove the placeholder? Because this could change things too when it comes down to income.
that is a good point, but the bad economy also effects traders, and caravans so that needs to be fixed first, but I did totally forget about workshop levels
That's rough buddy, on the other side, remember the kfc guy began when he was on his sixties, and that Julius caesar biggest feat at 40 was the equivalent of smack talking wallet thiefs and criying in a bathtub on his birthday, yelling at how he had not done anything out of his life, next time you know he's genociding gauls . Hit up some self home workout routines, get more hobies, dedicate to them , introduce your family to them if they like em fine, if they dont , fine as well, dont light yourself up to keep others warm either, your family comes first, but you can't simply forget about yourself, life is hard man, just like bannerlord battles against profesional armies, but the satisfaction, the sensation of acomplishment that comes out of defeating the enemy , by whoever slightest margin and insignificant real value, is increidble.
Your fate is in your hands man , we all have shackles and down times, but never forget to pursue that wich you really think interests you.
OpenMindedPl
Regular
1. Install Allegiance overhaul and you can set how often NPC”s would leave/join kingdoms.
2 & 5. Install Diplomacy Fixes and make war/peace sensible again by adjusting all aformentioned factors and duration of war/peace/alliance
3. Install Community Patch, they have updated it yesterday and it has already implemented almost all of perks
Mods are awesome
最后编辑:
Concomitant
Recruit
Regarding beta 1.4.2:
I managed to get to mid/late game (about 8 cities) and am now sure to take the rest of the map if I keep pushing. The only mod I use is KeepYourOwnFiefs since early on I urgently needed settlements for the income/garrisons, yet there appeared to be no native way to keep them after joining/forming a kingdom. My army now ranges from about 800 to 1,500 men, and typically faces AI forces ranging from 400 to 2,000 men, which should give an idea of where things are at.
So here are my impressions at this stage:
1) Lords Constantly Leaving My Faction, And Switching Between Other Factions.
I can't keep clans without serious save-scumming. Sometimes things run fine for a while, but then the game arbitrarily decides someone's leaving, and it could be anyone. Doesn't seem to matter if I've got 2 clans or 7 clans, although this behaviour is tempered somewhat if they all have fiefs (which is initially impossible, and rulers can't give fiefs away later). Reloading a save, a different clan will leave. Reload the save, a different clan will leave. Reload the save, a different clan will leave, etc. The game basically just decided there's a high probability that someone's leaving, and like I said, it takes a lot of save-scumming to ride it out.
It's not just me either; the AI is doing it to itself. Which is the most disturbing aspect. I might encounter the Battanian faction (for example), and with the exception of the ruling clan just about all their other clans are from every faction but Battania. This is not ok. Save-scummming aside, the result is that all other factions end up with a mix of troops from wherever. Long-term, factions lose their identities, become homogeneous, and the excitement of facing different factions is lost.
A similar issue applies to party members recruiting troops; they could come back with anyone.
Clans leaving factions ought to be extremely rare. So rare that if we ever see it we stop and think think "Ooh, I wonder what happened there..." (and know that something actually did happen there other than rng clan-quit spam).
[There's a guy in my campaign I really dislike (long arena-related story), but after I saw the treacherous fiend in no less than 5 different factions within the space of just a couple of years, I had to stop counting to preserve my sanity.]
2) Every Time I Attempt A Siege The Game Arbitrarily Decides There's A Very High Probability That A Faction Is Declaring War On Me.
Reload the save, it's a different faction declaring war. Reload the save, it's a different faction declaring war, etc. Could be anyone, but it will be someone, and it's always on me; similar to the first issue in this respect.
On the upside, this is not as immersion-breaking as the first issue, and similarly it can be ridden out eventually with some severe save-scumming.
Instead of rng declare-war spam I would like to see wars happen for a reason. Perhaps a faction wants your city. Perhaps you annoyed them so much they want to burn you to the ground. Their behaviour should reflect their objectives. Variety is good. Obviously this might all be planned, but meanwhile the rng declare-war spam needs to go.
Another related issue is when I start a siege, rather than protect the besieged target in question, the AI will randomly go siege another settlement. Now I get this from a strategic perspective, and it's actually rather effective, but the issue is I often end up playing whack-a-mole, which is just tedious. Better for the AI to focus on the immediate issue at hand, and deal with other issues later (within reason; again, variety is good).
3) Perks.
These all need implementing yesterday. Having so many perks not working really sucks the juice out of progression.
4) Smithing Bugs.
Vendors filling up with crafted-weapon spam needs to go. I wouldn't say this is necessarily a bad concept in principle, although certainly to a lesser extent than is the case now - but given the crafted-weapon vendor issue as it stands, this mechanic needs to be deactivated until it's fixed properly.
I have to wonder, given we can make these items so easily, why we would ever want/need to buy them? And consequently, why have vendors sell these items at all?
Also the prices of some polearms (looking at you war-razor head with pine shaft, lol) and javelins needs fixing. Obviously the player can choose not to exploit this, but the will is weak when we're strapped for cash, and knocking out 8 polearms to sell for a million denars is not ok.
5) Diplomacy.
I addressed some aspects of this above, but wars need to be rarer, more gratuitous, and generally more profound. War should mean great opportunity (for expansion) but also involve great risk if things go wrong. The current "Gonna take your city and buy peace with 60k denars before you can even assemble an army" doesn't work very well. The only time I'm involved in a protracted war is when I'm feeling too greedy to stop at one city/castle (bearing in mind if we didn't save-scum we'd be at war with every kingdom all the time).
Alliances are just...necessary, and ought to be a priority. Smaller factions ought to put their differences aside and form alliances to protect themselves against stronger factions. In my campaign I was appalled to see the three Empire factions start hacking away at each other and weaken themselves to the point where they were all obliterated by the other factions before I had a chance to start my own Imperial kingdom, or even get my first settlement. Was kinda looking forward to working with these guys. I didn't have to do the "Unify The Empire" quest because my "Eastern Empire", with but a single castle, was the only Empire left...the others all suicided. The AI needs to prioritise self-preservation.
Another observation; something needs to be done about "dead factions". I've got several dead factions where a single "ruling" clan that has no territory/settlements, and that can't actually do anything, but just won't die (no matter how many times they get captured by looters, lol). They should get off the map, or have a way to rebuild. In future perhaps the player/AI could give them a settlement and have them as very grateful allies.
Personally, the ebb and flow of the initial factions doesn't quite cut it for me. I'd like to see factions rise and fall. Some might disappear permanently, and other new factions would emerge; but not specifically to replace them one-for-one. I'd like to see campaigns where three huge factions ended up duking it out (for example), but other campaigns where all the original factions somehow survived along with the addition of several new factions. In short, when it comes to factions and the balance of power, I'd like to see myriad possible permutations and plenty of variety. Variety is good.
6) Reinforcements & Battle Size.
I routinely have encounters which involve over 2,000 units, excluding horses. Except the maximum battle size is 1,000 men? This is confusing. I assume a proportion of each army is selected to start the battle, but I don't understand how said units are selected, or whether remaining units are being fed in later via reinforcements, simply discarded, or in some way auto-resolved. Things usually get too hectic for me to keep track of this once the fighting starts.
Some in-game clarity regarding this would be much appreciated. Such things should be made obvious to the player.
7) Imperial Cavalry Are Probably Impossible To Obtain.
I almost never see the relevant recruits. And now I'm fairly close to global domination I find it somewhat bemusing that I've never actually been able to field a unit of my own cavalry. Because I never had my own cavalry. Because there aren't any Imperial recruits for cavalry.
8 ) Prisoners.
When I capture an enemy in battle, it bothers me when they inevitably escape and raise another party and attack me again before I even had a chance to sell their loot. Strategically, this is a cheap and obtuse mechanic to have to contend with.
Conclusion:
Re-reading this post, much of it now seems rather critical. This was not intended to be the case; far from it. Bannerlord is a great platform with massive potential. I've done nothing but hammer this game since the day I bought it, which speaks for itself. It's compelling, and overall I feel it's coming along well. Obviously Bannerlord is Early Access and there's still a long way to go.
The issues I raised above are merely the main issues I experienced that either irritated, annoyed, or confounded me. Bugs/crashes aside, these issues are the ones that I personally would like to see addressed in order that Campaign #2 is even more spectacular/engrossing than the first one has been thus far.
Incidentally, when I refer to save-scumming I think I'm at about 1,500 saves and guessing 5,000+ loads? Save-scumming on an industrial scale is unfortunately necessary for a non-modded game at this point to address not only crashes (fewer now though, it has to be said), but mostly for desertions/wars. I cannot fight all other factions simultaneously with no vassals :p
Finally, thank you for providing by far my best gaming experience in 2020! Taking my first castle was so difficult I thought it was probably never going to happen, and then, after the carnage (and there was so much carnage; mostly due to incompetent and panicked leadership, lol), to stand on the battlements knowing the place was MINE...hell yeah, that gave me the epic feeling that these games are supposed to be all about. Haven't felt that in a long time
This is an exceptional post, and you isolate some of the game's core issues. It really does blow my mind that so far the devs have made it so difficult to have multiple playthroughs start to finish. How are we supposed to test the fullness of the game when it feels like the game will never end due to obtuse and flawed mechanics?
Don't get me wrong, this is quickly becoming a favorite game of mine. Each point of yours is a crucial thing for the devs to address. It's been a position of mine for some time now that rather than having the lord/prisoner/faction turnover rate at absurdly high rates, they should be rare events to add twists to the campaign. I like how you put it. It's homogenized the armies of different factions and has essentially spoiled the uniqueness of each culture in battle. Right now the rate which lords come and go makes it impossible--truly impossible--to build a kingdom that is lasting without save scumming. Personally, I use a single mod, and it helps factions hang onto their constituents based on honor, which I think should play a role in that decision.
Again, great post. I hope the devs read it carefully and several times over.
- 状态
