Beta Patch Notes e1.5.6

Users who are viewing this thread

TimIZ

Veteran
M&BWB
It`s 15 days since the map stuttering and menue lag has been mentioned by quite a few players. 1.5.6 is totally unplayable for me because of this. Can we at least agree finally that there is a problem?
 

stevehoos

Banned
It`s 15 days since the map stuttering and menue lag has been mentioned by quite a few players. 1.5.6 is totally unplayable for me because of this. Can we at least agree finally that there is a problem?

Soon :smile: . Quite frustrating.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
The campaign AI has issues that go beyond this, you could also siege a settlement on the other side of the territory and the AI would gather and send armies your way while armies gathered by your faction go around taking other settlements. When they come in to defend they also track you longer, so you could even kite them away from their territory, maybe getting them to starve.

Oh, believe me, I'm aware. But this suggestion, specifically, would have even more harmful effects because without garrisons being somewhat potent the AI is wholly capable of rolling over settlements very quickly. In comparison, defeating field armies does not hurt factions nearly as much.

In my opinion TW shouldn't be constricted into implementing things only if they feel they can make it exploit-proof, there is only so much they can do, and people tend to find a way to cheat if they really want, either by using the built in cheat mode or downloading a mod for that.

I don't disagree. But I don't think that means they should deliberately introduce unbalanced mechanics either. Especially not when those mechanics can invalidate other parts of the game.

Maybe instead of sallying out for field battles, garrisons could be constricted to supporting armies that attack besiegers, and even this could be exploited, if you won the field battle with minimal casualties it would make the siege easier, but I think this is better than watching a 700 strong army sitting outside while a 800 strong army takes their settlement, even though there are about another 200 troops right next to them inside the settlement.

Yeah, that's a better idea.

Not related to the argument, but, did you have fun running around with 200 archers? Would you put a cap on troop type so it couldn't be exploited? I would add this to the Swadian Knights "issue" we had in Warband. Should TW had made it so mixed armies in terms of types and quality could've stopped a full army of heavy armored knights? Wouldn't it have made the knights useless in AI armies that can only field a few? If a full force can be stopped by lesser troops, what chance would only a few have of being useful?

My point is, even if TW decided to nerf archers, the nerf would hit the AI the hardest, as soon the players realized which unit is overpowered now, we would field full armies of that unit.

Yes, I had fun with 200 archers. No, I wouldn't put a party troop type cap in Bannerlord; at risk of igniting a months' old debate for nth time, my opinion is that ranged power should be heavily nerfed and largely restricted to morale damage, with only melee being decisive. I don't want Swadian Knights to make a return in Bannerlord. I think battles should hinge more upon managing morale, positioning and smart use of terrain rather than unit-by-unit killing power contests. Yes, a mixed force should be able to stop a full army of heavy cavalry. The utility would come from the morale shock sending large numbers of units fleeing, rather than slaughtering so many dudes the enemy army physically stops existing.
 

Pejot

Sergeant Knight
WBVC
.
Yes, I had fun with 200 archers. No, I wouldn't put a party troop type cap in Bannerlord; at risk of igniting a months' old debate for nth time, my opinion is that ranged power should be heavily nerfed and largely restricted to morale damage, with only melee being decisive. I don't want Swadian Knights to make a return in Bannerlord. I think battles should hinge more upon managing morale, positioning and smart use of terrain rather than unit-by-unit killing power contests. Yes, a mixed force should be able to stop a full army of heavy cavalry. The utility would come from the morale shock sending large numbers of units fleeing, rather than slaughtering so many dudes the enemy army physically stops existing.

The easiest way to balance armies better is adding equipment and horse requirements for upgrading troops both by the player and AI.

Edit: or even easier rising upgrade cost to reflect equipment cost.
 
It`s 15 days since the map stuttering and menue lag has been mentioned by quite a few players. 1.5.6 is totally unplayable for me because of this. Can we at least agree finally that there is a problem?

Yes, there is a problem, yes they know about it, there have been plenty of reports in the bugfix section.

Oh, believe me, I'm aware. But this suggestion, specifically, would have even more harmful effects because without garrisons being somewhat potent the AI is wholly capable of rolling over settlements very quickly. In comparison, defeating field armies does not hurt factions nearly as much.

AI parties replenish understrength garrisons, if they see a settlement with few troops they leave some of their own. It would make them spend more time recruiting and possibly reduce the overall strength on the other hand. Castles don't have much of a purpose for the AI now, sure they provide some source of income, but I don't think it is nearly enough to maintain multiple parties, unless the AI cheats. It does provide a troop storage for the player, but I don't see a point of leaving it as is if only the player makes use of it.

If the AI has to use cheats, maybe making them trade recruits for higher tier troops at castles would make castles more valuable. It would mean more recruits and lower tier troops at castles, but it would also make the fresh spawns more capable.

I don't disagree. But I don't think that means they should deliberately introduce unbalanced mechanics either. Especially not when those mechanics can invalidate other parts of the game.

To be honest I think we are way past the point of TW looking at suggestions for things that have a risk of not working out, unlike UI suggestions like settlement icons for quests and tournaments.

If they, for some reason, decided to pick up a more complex suggestion, it would still require plenty of time validating the possible implications and what system it could affect before even going into the programming part. At least this is the way things tend to happen in my case, some things that look good as far as the suggestion provided don't really work out when you take a deeper look and the suggestion gets dropped.


Yes, I had fun with 200 archers. No, I wouldn't put a party troop type cap in Bannerlord; at risk of igniting a months' old debate for nth time, my opinion is that ranged power should be heavily nerfed and largely restricted to morale damage, with only melee being decisive. I don't want Swadian Knights to make a return in Bannerlord. I think battles should hinge more upon managing morale, positioning and smart use of terrain rather than unit-by-unit killing power contests. Yes, a mixed force should be able to stop a full army of heavy cavalry. The utility would come from the morale shock sending large numbers of units fleeing, rather than slaughtering so many dudes the enemy army physically stops existing.

Yes, I agree that battles shouldn't end with one side completely decimated, there should be an increased number of routed units but this should also be accompanied by post battle mechanics like forming parties from the remainder of the troops, like some being deserters/bandits and others running away towards a settlement and joining the garrison or looking for heroes and bolstering their party if capacity allows, maybe even base the disposition on tier, so lower tier troops are more likely to end as deserters/bandits or just run away back to their homes (not existing as a unit anymore). The idea of forming multiple smaller parties is to avoid allowing them to be caught right after the battle.

The AI would have to be redone if TW wanted to change the kill count focus to morale management, heroes would have to be much more careful, cavalry would have to avoid charging through whatever is in front of them, AI troops in general would have to be much more defensive than they currently are. More complex AI also mean higher CPU usage, so it is not just a matter of programming skills.

I also don't have a problem with them nerfing ranged, reduce accuracy, speed of nock-draw-release, aiming time and so on. I enjoy the infantry fights a lot more than everything else.

The easiest way to balance armies better is adding equipment and horse requirements for upgrading troops both by the player and AI.

Edit: or even easier rising upgrade cost to reflect equipment cost.

This hits the AI a lot harder than it does the player. We can make money much easier/faster than the AI, we fight more battles, sell more loot, trade, buy workshops. The AI would have to cheat more than it currently does to keep up.
 
The easiest way to balance armies better is adding equipment and horse requirements for upgrading troops both by the player and AI.

Edit: or even easier rising upgrade cost to reflect equipment cost.
Wouldn't it make player too powerful? It is just the same thing, over again.
 

Pejot

Sergeant Knight
WBVC
Wouldn't it make player too powerful? It is just the same thing, over again.

That's because the whole income and economy system is not balanced. Fighting gives tons of money without downsides. Fiefs and trade gives scraps while having serious downsides.
 
That's because the whole income and economy system is not balanced. Fighting gives tons of money without downsides. Fiefs and trade gives scraps while having serious downsides.
Yeah, noticed it too, had little to no money, then fought one or two bigger battles and I had 60k. I have only one fief, Syronea, which has 4k prosperity, and upkeep of the garrison (150 troops of various levels) is 1k, with no guarantee that it will hold during siege. Income is lower than those wages, and I have to worry about enemy movements constantly. I am thinking of dropping vasallage to loose it to be free again. Merc for lief
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
I do! But I also want Housecarls too return too! Infantry needs to hold shield up, have cheat shield (per tier) and move a bit faster with shield up.
It's fine for low tier Inf to be slaughtered by archers, but not okay at all for t4+ to be getting killed like that, unless by t4+ archers at the least. I would give them extra cheats too like +speed going up ladders in siege, -arrow damage during siege and + survial chance per tier (enhanced medicine) to counter their high risk of being infantry. I would also give +survival to t4+ Cav (not HA) to counter their extreme vulnerability when they attack, do to speed damage calculations and bad AI. It'd be nice to fix their behavior too, but just not loosing rare and expensive troops would be a start.
I think in 1.5.6 they did an okay job on reducing damage of low tier archers, HOWEVER the speed and distance(accuracy?) needs some work. I feel little pip squeak archers can still shoot me just as fast and accurately at medium-long distance and I think that's wrong. "Accuracy" doesn't exist for AI the way it does the player. AI knows where to aim it's shots so accuracy needs to be represented in how far away they will try to shoot. High tier archers should shoot first and kill lower tier ones at a further distance. And they need to be slower shooting too. I got max bow skill and all the speed and the little :poop: can still pop me at the same time, yes I'm mad.
 

Pejot

Sergeant Knight
WBVC
I played some sieges in 1.5.6 and patching is a little better but I found out that ordering Your men to charge when siege towers are in place fixes most problems. They start to use all available ladders and when the gate is breached they start to charge through the gate instead. The problem is that with current UI and disabled markers above your/ally troops heads it's impossible to tell which group of infantry You chose. And choosing everyone is not an option cause if You had people attacking the gate they will switch to climb ladders instead. Also You don't want your ranged to start assaulting the walls. I think there should be done some change to make it easier to distinguish groups of infantry in sieges without the markers enabled.
 

menuisier100

It`s 15 days since the map stuttering and menue lag has been mentioned by quite a few players. 1.5.6 is totally unplayable for me because of this. Can we at least agree finally that there is a problem?
While not unplayable on my part. My game simply can't be opened for too long it's rather inconvenient.
 

Jason L.

Master Knight
I had some crashes in big battles. I already had some in the past but it seems more often now. I also confirm that after a couple of hours the game begins to slow down too much until it becomes unplayable. We desperately need a hot fix..
 

jany747

Regular
I had some crashes in big battles. I already had some in the past but it seems more often now. I also confirm that after a couple of hours the game begins to slow down too much until it becomes unplayable. We desperately need a hot fix..

I had same problem when i was in big battles and game at some point just crashed ..for me helped when i lower amount of corpses on field
 
Top Bottom