Beta Patch Notes e1.5.8

Currently viewing this thread:

Gricken

Regular
There must be some misscommunication happening here, because what I'm talking about is abandoning mechanical ownership of a town/castle; not simply leaving the town/castle with yourself and your party. Inhabiting a settlement after destroying it is madness, the settlement would be much more of a liability than an asset. This also happens to be the case sometimes even without actually pillaging a settlement, because the town is simply too far away from any other settlements your faction owns or whatever. It is for that purpose the game sorely needs an option to pillage towns without actually conquering them.

There are multiple benefits to a system like this: It removes the necessity to do some AI calculation by there not being a change in ownership of a settlement, both for the attacking and defending factions. It would increase internal faction stability for the defending faction by not giving further incentive to a clan to switch allegience due to losing their settlements. It would also really simplify my job for the reasons previously stated in regards to more smoothly ignoring a settlement which would've been a nuisance/liability to occupy.

It also wouldn't be too hard to implement. Some very simple calculations can be done for when only AI are deciding whether to take over a settlement or not: 1) "Is this settlement too far away from most of our other settlements?" 2) "If I were to accept this settlement, would I be able to tackle the increased garrison costs I'd have to pay to properly defend it?" And some other obvious parameters.

Essentially, when an AI party successfully besieges a settlement, first the people the settlement is offered to have to decide: "Do I even want it?", if not, then more and more vassals are asked the same question, until if everyone else in the faction has said no, the decision is left to the faction leader whether the faction should pillage & abandon, or just take over the town anyways.
I wholeheartedly agree with all of this. Bumping to give it attention
 
Excited to see how the new deployment system works tonight, this will be a huge help hopefully. Thanks for the work on siege mechanics too! Might try to complete a play through now on 1.5.8 for my first time.
 

vonbalt

Knight at Arms
WBNWVCM&B
It would be great if some thinsg get further tweeked/fixed.

The battle is as usual Warband style a huge clusterf**k of brainless AI where we can see heads,half of the npcs body,hands going throu npcs heads,body,shields,soldiers morfing/combining with one another DBZ style/siamesse twin style all due to the clustering stuff.

Devs deffinetly should also create some line mechanics where AI/NPC form lines and then instead of all of the lines attacking instead we get the 1st contact line then 2nd and maybe if needed 3rd lines being engaged in the fight while the remaning lines stay put/alert/ready to engage BUT they not engage and just wait for a comrade from front to fall to fill its spot.

That way in battle the computer/system wont need to constantly calculate NPCs/AIs animation/movements who arent even engaged at all in combat BUT instead would save system/relive system from calculating all of that mess and focus on first 2-3 lines of combat (depending on the space of contact closed in door fighting or filed fight).That way it will free alot of memory space bcs the non engaged NPCs/AI will stay in one combat motion and would wait without activating any animation or moving until its needed to fill the gap in lines that lost a soldier.

I think i mentioned somewhere this type of aproach alongisde for devs to make AI/NPC pathing inside gates better by SIMPLY after the first gate is breached by ram then all it need is that soldiers mounted/operate on ram MOVE the ram atleast/minimum 10 steps back from the breached gate or after the breaching of the gate move the ram to the side and that way they would clear the path for the soldiers to easly without ram obstruction clearly go to breach the second gate without morfing/merging with each other and causing pathfinding problems just bcs ram is messing with the pathfinding due to being right in front of the gate.

If i remmember correctly sugested somewhere both of the things from army AI aproacing battles/tight corner battles to the atleast temporary fix moving the ram away post breaching the first gate BUT my sugestions were comleatly ignored.

I hope these things get looked over/glanced over and not ignored.
Nor only would this suggestion for battle AI look much better than the cluster**** of everyone trying to get a swing vanilla is now i think it could also improve performance because less calculations would be made with only the first two or so ranks actually fighting while others keep alert for flank/rear attacks and to step forward if one of their comrades fall, finally formations would make sense then.
 
I don't understand how is this not a priority, I will not play this game again until they fix it. Last time I played it I worked up to finally play a siege and it was boring and frustrating
They had been improved, usage of ladders of siege towers are better, they usually use 2 ladders, sometimes 3, defenders of the gate now charge into the attackers when the gate is breached. About AI ignoring enemies and prioritizing going to a position in the wall idk, not tested enough
 

Shillslayer

Banned
I wholeheartedly agree with all of this. Bumping to give it attention
Thanks.
Some more things that need addressing when I think more about my suggestion:
- What if the player is a faction leader and led the siege against a settlement?
The player should be notified if there are any candidates that would've qualified to receive the settlement, that AI calculation has decided would want to be offered this fief. The player can "overrule" this, with relationship penalties, and choose to pillage & abandon the town anyways.
- The AI calculation for whether clans want/don't want a settlement occurs before the voting process begins. In short: Only clans that both qualify & want the settlement are shown in the voting screen. If nobody wants it, the faction leader can decide if they want to take the settlement for himself or to just pillage & abandon it.

I realize there'd be some work that would be needed to implement this, but I recall strongly many people asking for this feature, myself included.
 
There must be some misscommunication happening here, because what I'm talking about is abandoning mechanical ownership of a town/castle; not simply leaving the town/castle with yourself and your party. Inhabiting a settlement after destroying it is madness, the settlement would be much more of a liability than an asset. This also happens to be the case sometimes even without actually pillaging a settlement, because the town is simply too far away from any other settlements your faction owns or whatever. It is for that purpose the game sorely needs an option to pillage towns without actually conquering them.

There are multiple benefits to a system like this: It removes the necessity to do some AI calculation by there not being a change in ownership of a settlement, both for the attacking and defending factions. It would increase internal faction stability for the defending faction by not giving further incentive to a clan to switch allegience due to losing their settlements. It would also really simplify my job for the reasons previously stated in regards to more smoothly ignoring a settlement which would've been a nuisance/liability to occupy.

It also wouldn't be too hard to implement. Some very simple calculations can be done for when only AI are deciding whether to take over a settlement or not: 1) "Is this settlement too far away from most of our other settlements?" 2) "If I were to accept this settlement, would I be able to tackle the increased garrison costs I'd have to pay to properly defend it?" And some other obvious parameters.

Essentially, when an AI party successfully besieges a settlement, first the people the settlement is offered to have to decide: "Do I even want it?", if not, then more and more vassals are asked the same question, until if everyone else in the faction has said no, the decision is left to the faction leader whether the faction should pillage & abandon, or just take over the town anyways.
When part of a kingdom, the player does not actually own the settlement after a conquest - it is distributed in a kingdom decision (that takes into account who conquered it, but also evaluates the distribution of fiefs in the kingdom as well as relationships between lords). Once you are given a fief in a kingdom, you do have the option to relinquish it to be distributed to someone else or to grant it to one of your vassals if you are a king.

Having said that, I am happy to bring up the suggestion to not take control of a settlement after a siege. It would only really make sense as a player (roleplay/4d chess) option imo, though. Devastated or not, settlements are the best value in the game. Not to mention that the investment to siege it will often hardly be worth it, if it isn't kept.
 
I am not sure, but for those raging about lack of siege AI fixes - I think that big part of delay of development of these is that there is something lacking in the code, that they have to do, and that will have some impact on the overall structure of them. That is just my guess, this is still game in development after all.
 

Nalgasucia507

Sergeant at Arms
I am not sure, but for those raging about lack of siege AI fixes - I think that big part of delay of development of these is that there is something lacking in the code, that they have to do, and that will have some impact on the overall structure of them. That is just my guess, this is still game in development after all.
Yes, its still in development and according to their information, pretty close to release.
 

Gricken

Regular
When part of a kingdom, the player does not actually own the settlement after a conquest - it is distributed in a kingdom decision (that takes into account who conquered it, but also evaluates the distribution of fiefs in the kingdom as well as relationships between lords). Once you are given a fief in a kingdom, you do have the option to relinquish it to be distributed to someone else or to grant it to one of your vassals if you are a king.

Having said that, I am happy to bring up the suggestion to not take control of a settlement after a siege. It would only really make sense as a player (roleplay/4d chess) option imo, though. Devastated or not, settlements are the best value in the game. Not to mention that the investment to siege it will often hardly be worth it, if it isn't kept.
Glad to hear you'll be passing on the suggestion! However I'm gonna have to slightly disagree on it only making sense as a player. I think there are certainly situations in which an army may find that a settlement is not worth keeping. Say because it is too far from their own lands, or because they expended too many men in taking it, or because the kingdom or clan is bankrupt or close to and they need an infusion of cash NOW and not a steady trickle later. I think it would make sense that an army leader may decide to simply pillage the town for its vast riches and leave. Perhaps this could cause tension if there were other nobles or heroes in the army that badly wanted the town (they or their clan owned it once, they lack any fiefs of their own and are eager to claim one) or even gain some benefits with other nobles (say the town belongs to someone that has defeated another noble in the army, sacking it gives them a relationship bonus because they got revenge)

Of course these are just off the cuff ideas, but I think there is a lot of potential to work with here.
 

Nalgasucia507

Sergeant at Arms
That would be very reassuring. Do you have a link to a dev quote on that?

Approximately how long will this game be in Early Access?​

“While we do not have a set date for a full release at this moment in time, we expect that the game will be in early access for around a year. Our focus is on ensuring that the game is fun and enjoyable rather than imposing a deadline that might have a negative impact on the final product.”

Source: https://store.steampowered.com/app/261550/Mount__Blade_II_Bannerlord/

By current pace of development, they should change that to around two to three years.
 

Lesbosisles

Squire
Ehm... What happened to textures?
5258C675F5C63FC61D963CBCB97FA525EFBBBADF
8439361379FA2686902D0FCD4CC5F12EC69CCBB4
F781CBEC03D3FE876DF7394E781F5B4C64CAF7B2
 

Shillslayer

Banned
When part of a kingdom, the player does not actually own the settlement after a conquest - it is distributed in a kingdom decision (that takes into account who conquered it, but also evaluates the distribution of fiefs in the kingdom as well as relationships between lords). Once you are given a fief in a kingdom, you do have the option to relinquish it to be distributed to someone else or to grant it to one of your vassals if you are a king.

Having said that, I am happy to bring up the suggestion to not take control of a settlement after a siege. It would only really make sense as a player (roleplay/4d chess) option imo, though. Devastated or not, settlements are the best value in the game. Not to mention that the investment to siege it will often hardly be worth it, if it isn't kept.
I'll admit that it would be a mechanic a bit skewed in benefit to the player as opposed to the AI, because I think ultimately the average player is going to make more intelligent decisions for when to actually occupy and when not to occupy a settlement. But I think even with slightly worse decision-making on the AI's part, it would give some benefits to AI factions aswell (I think & hope), especially with fully fleshed out civil wars/revolutions. In a bid to avoid overextension, factions could avoid conquering towns.

I mean, I personally see obvious benefits to the inclusion of a system like this. I can imagine numerous scenarios: You lead your own faction, let's say all of Sturgia. Western Empire taken over most of the lands of Southern Empire. If Sturgia were to start owning more settlements next to/closer to Western Empire, the odds of Western Empire declaring war on Sturgia increases (right?). Sturgia could find itself in a situation where Western Empire (stronger than Sturgia) declares war on Sturgia. This could, potentially, lead to Western Empire starting to take over core Sturgian towns.

Now, with an option to avoid conquering towns. Sturgia could instead avoid taking over settlements right next to/close to Western Empire settlements. Sturgia could take over settlements right next to/close to weaker factions, in order to build up strength. And so be more prepared to face Western Empre in a war in the future.

Obvious reply to the above is of course: "Well, just avoid besieging towns close to Western Empire then?", sure, but the player is not always in control of where the AI decides to attack. And besides that; the player could simply decide that the loot and experience from besieging and pillaging a town and then leaving it on the way to somewhere else perhaps is worth the time investment.

Thanks for the reply, I hope you'll bring this up with the dev team. I honestly expected this to naturally be included as an option in a new feature such as this one and was very surprised to see it not being part of it.

Regarding not taking over a town being a waste of siege, this can easily be addressed by increasing the negative effects on the town if you decide to devastate/pillage it. And increasing the amount of loot and experience (Roguery? Also don't forget Leadership & Engineering experience gained throughuot the siege process) rewarded to the devastating/pillaging faction.

If I personally could design this system, I'd do this:
Choose one of the following:
- Devastate: Most negative effects on town, 2nd most loot & experience.
- Pillage: 2nd most negative effects on town, most increased loot & experience.
- Show mercy: Least negative effects on town, standard negative effects and loot & experience. (Perhaps increased relationship with notables, out of gratitude for showing mercy? Could be an idea.)
Choose between:
- Conquer town? Yes - No.

There's multiple ways to approach how AI clans would interact with a system like this, ultimately I think solutions are easily worked forward.
 
Last edited:

PaTi6op

Recruit
I'll admit that it would be a mechanic a bit skewed in benefit to the player as opposed to the AI, because I think ultimately the average player is going to make more intelligent decisions for when to actually occupy and when not to occupy a settlement. But I think even with slightly worse decision-making on the AI's part, it would give some benefits to AI factions aswell (I think & hope), especially with fully fleshed out civil wars/revolutions. In a bid to avoid overextension, factions could avoid conquering towns.

I mean, I personally see obvious benefits to the inclusion of a system like this. I can imagine numerous scenarios: You lead your own faction, let's say all of Sturgia. Western Empire taken over most of the lands of Southern Empire. If Sturgia were to start owning more settlements next to/closer to Western Empire, the odds of Western Empire declaring war on Sturgia increases (right?). Sturgia could find itself in a situation where Western Empire (stronger than Sturgia) declares war on Sturgia. This could, potentially, lead to Western Empire starting to take over core Sturgian towns.

Now, with an option to avoid conquering towns. Sturgia could instead avoid taking over settlements right next to/close to Western Empire settlements. Sturgia could take over settlements right next to/close to weaker factions, in order to build up strength. And so be more prepared to face Western Empre in a war in the future.

Thanks for the reply, I hope you'll bring this up with the dev team. I honestly expected this to naturally be included as an option in a new feature such as this one and was very surprised to see it not being part of it.
This person knows what he is talking about! I fully support it. As a lover of playing certain roles, I'm not particularly chasing after capturing the entire map and the ability to plunder cities, but not capture them, would be to my liking.
 
Top Bottom