Beta Patch Notes e1.6.0

Users who are viewing this thread

Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate that. 😅

The old Warband system of lord recruitment was hit or miss, but the current setup seems like a big step down in terms of roleplaying and player utility. Abstracting the complex politics of lord friendship/rivalry and culture and personalities into a straight cash transaction is pretty underwhelming, especially with higher denar amounts. I'm not sure about the current release, but I've absolutely ragequit earlier versions after spending 2M denars recruiting a clan and then watching them flip sides one week of game-time later.

As an RPG nerd, seeing no visible effect of having high charm or lord relation or personality score is pretty frustrating in general.
Yeah charm is somehow not really a skill atm. I would also like to see some effect on notables relation but it seems that all quests are hardcapped with the relation bonus. Have to look into the code if this really is the case.
 

Reiksmarshal

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBWF&SNWVC
Gear that should be changed on 3 troop types troops:

1. Imperial Veteran Infantry (Imperial)
remove - decorated gauntlets
add - mail mittens (mail_mitten)

Decorated gauntlets are overused and are what the lords wear, regular troops shouldn't have these.

2. Imperial Elite Cataphact (Imperial)
remove - decorated gauntlets and decorated boots
add - lamellar_plate_gauntlets and lamellar_plate_boots
add - Cataphact lance and Cataphact mace

To make these units more like Cataphacts since the gear is available like the lamellar boots, gloves, and the unique weapons named after the unit!

3. Valdian Voulgier
remove - broad two hander and throwing axes

These weapons don't fit this unit or the culture period and should be removed.
 
This week I clocked 1000 hours played in Bannerlord and a big birthday irl. I am a happy man and with this is mind lets check 1.6.0.

The last couple days I relax and play test some 1.6.0. which is showing better performance.

Running around and testing Smith & Trade, I noticed King Dethert going to war with a great army and decided to follow him and sure enough there are still starving armies for no reason. The Army soon broke up and unlike earlier there were no wounded instead it seems soldiers desert the army when going hungry.

I reloaded the save from 10 min earlier and now joined King Dethert Army in order to feed them and see what they were up to.

We make it to Varcheg (because that makes sense as Vlandias first target?), We start the Siege but King Dethert leads the attack before destroying enemy siege engines and then we end up with having to climb the ladders but due to superstition the soldiers will only use ONE ladder at the time.

In the back our Vlandian Crossbowmen stand in big chunks on the field and get shot to pieces while very few are shooting back.

On top of all this disaster of a siege the removal of the option of Allied party damage taken, then there is nothing to do in order to save an Army from what is clearly in great part a TaleWorld error and not just King Detrimentals Strategy and Tactics.

I just exited the game, watching a huge field army get picked off one by one by militia men is beyond my patience. We might have won in the end after losing 1000 sitting ducks but 1000 hours played and 1 year has past since sieges were this broken.

So a few questions.
A: Why are the Armies still starving when the Towns and Villages are full of food.
B: I remember there was a time last year when the army could use more than one ladder, what happened?
C: Why are the rest of the Crossbowmen bunched up behind 3 guys using a palisade?
D: Cant you give each soldiers a ticket from the start of the siege, that once he reach the wall he is going to use the ladder that his ticket states?
E: Open field battles have also been ruined by losing control of my army after the enemy flee, any chance this is a bug that is getting fixed?

Sincerly
 
Last edited:

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
Why are the Armies still starving when the Towns and Villages are full of food.
Durthert failed his intelligence check. It happens.

I remember there was a time last year when the army could use more than one ladder, what happened?
New immersive rpg mechanic: sometimes they go up the ladder.... sometimes they don't! Try pushing them around with the horse in front of the ladder they're stuck at. I am not kidding.

Why are the rest of the Crossbowmen bunched up behind 3 guys using a palisade?
Getting troops into good position is siege is a constant struggle! They also get stuck on things, try pushing them with the horse.

Open field battles have also been ruined by losing control of my army after the enemy flee, any chance this is a bug that is getting fixed?
They did this one on purpose :smile: Somebody thought this was a good idea. Nobody likes it. Everyone hates it. Sure, it's not that hard to f3 right before the last guy runs, but I hope it gets revoked.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
bro they need to do like warband was in bannerlord its so hard to be a king and recruit clan just one clan you need 1 million dinars
I actually think that is OK. By time you have you're ready for your own kingdom, 1 million shouldn't be too burdensome. And you have the means to very easily make even more money.
 

AndrewArt

Squire
I know nobody probably shares this opinion but I kinda like troops just doing their own thing at the end of the battle. It marks the end of the battle so I know I won without wondering "is there 1 more random cavalry running around?" for a few seconds.

It also makes sense in the way that after you won a fight your troops would be more disorganized and would do their own thing (don't you also get a disorganized penalty after a battle?). I mean, the least a commander can do for his troops that just sacrificed their lives for him would be to let them do their own thing for a moment. In realistic scenarios this would usually be looting the dead. Nobody would follow a commander that doesn't even give a moment of breather for his troops at the end of a successful battle. Morale would definitely drop.

Gameplay-wise I don't mind it either... I've seen only 2 arguments come forth against it. 1) "I want to align my troops after battle. (so sort of a cosmetic inspect-my-troops argument)" and 2) "I want to chase down enemy parties (some sort of power gaming move)."

I see 3 possible solutions to this... depending on what TW really wants to do with their game.

1) If TW wants to keep the current mechanic for balance reasons (if that is the reason, I don't know), I can understand someone wanting the cosmetic option as well, so personally I would solve this by making the change to give you back control over your troops after all enemies have fled the map at least. That's when the cheering would stop and players can align their troops for a picture if they so wish.

2) I don't agree much with the second argument because it does affect balance... I feel the game is more balanced if some troops can get away. Infantry can't be leveled by chasing down troops, this is something that only benefits cavalry and archers, which are already too strong in comparison. If TW still wants to keep their current mechanic but appease the players that want this then the troops can turn to cheering after all enemy troops have fled the map or have been killed.

3) And I guess the only option to please both parties would be to do what everyone is saying and turn it back to the way it was. Personally I find no reason to control my troops after the end of the battle. I don't want to chase enemies down and I don't really care for cosmetic reason either. For me it pretty much marks the end of the battle and it works for me. So, if possible, I would like a campaign option to keep the current system, so I think to please absolutely everybody, an option for either or would be great, and TW can keep their default option that they really want in the game as a default, and the other would be an option. Everybody is pleased.
 
Last edited:
Durthert failed his intelligence check. It happens.


New immersive rpg mechanic: sometimes they go up the ladder.... sometimes they don't! Try pushing them around with the horse in front of the ladder they're stuck at. I am not kidding.


Getting troops into good position is siege is a constant struggle! They also get stuck on things, try pushing them with the horse.


They did this one on purpose :smile: Somebody thought this was a good idea. Nobody likes it. Everyone hates it. Sure, it's not that hard to f3 right before the last guy runs, but I hope it gets revoked.
In my first encounter, I followed Dethert home to his Town and he waited like one or two days before buying food because he even lost troops while inside, unless he put them in garrison.

I am thinking the trouble might be the other Lords, lets say King Dethert did buy food for a long campaign to Varcheg but when he calls up the other Lords they might just show up with what they were carrying at the time, they don't resupply for a long campaign before joining and often the Army sits in the same spot for days waiting for the Lords, so some Lords might already have used up what food they had sitting there. Then when the Army starts moving in slow motion and with no resupply during the trip the first few Lords brake off before the Army past Pen Cannoc.and the rest of the Army broke up a little after.

I really hope the anti tactic bug from 1.5.10 is not on purpose, they gave our Armies morale and gave us perks to boost or break morale then when we use it, we can no longer chase the enemy and destroy his Army.

This was the tactic used by King Phillip and his son King Alexander of Macedon, who conquered the strongest empire at the time. There was no way he could have done so If he had to let all the enemies army run away and then restart the battle 😅

Edit for Andrew: no it doesn't make sense in a professional disciplined army to run around and do your own thing. Ghenghis Khan kicked out one of the most powerful tribes from his army for such an act, the enemy was fleeing (but who knows are they fleeing or is it a feign retreat). The tribe started to plunder the battle field and the enemy reorganized and came back at them, Ghenghis Khan nearly lost that battle, which in turn was saved when a lucky arrow hit some important enemy prince in the face (eye?) and the enemy broke of the fighting.
 
Last edited:

miqaeli123

Regular
I actually think that is OK. By time you have you're ready for your own kingdom, 1 million shouldn't be too burdensome. And you have the means to very easily make even more money.
😀 teach my how to make millions without smiting and trade okay
 

Flesson19

Not a Cookie
Knight
So a few questions.
A: Why are the Armies still starving when the Towns and Villages are full of food.


Sincerly
this is something I have brought to the devs attention and they don't feel it is a problem, I tried explaining it happens quite a bit especially when armies go into enemy territory they never have enough and need to quit a siege and run back before they all go down. I still needs work and I will tag @mexxico whom I have discussed this with. It is a major problem and I proposed either they can take more food or have them consume food less since the AI IS stupid and never take enough food. It still needs work mexxico
 

mexxico

Sergeant Knight
I didn't see an answer so I apologize if I missed it, but was only being able to recruit clans into your kingdom while at war intended or a bug? @Dejan

I see that video :

@Dejan sent me this video. Here money Archon (which have 2 fiefs) wants from you to change sides reduces when you go into war with his kingdom. Because in case you are not in war with his kingdom he have to leave his fiefs to his old kingdom while joining your kingdom however if you are in war he takes his fiefs to your kingdom (so these fiefs left at Archon's clan) so if there is no war he does not want to change sides because it will cost him losing fiefs (cost player need to pay to Archon become too high and thats why he directly rejects before persuasion) Also know that even he takes his old fiefs when you are in war with Southern Empire location of his fiefs also matters. If they are located inside Southern Empire (surrounded by other Southern Empire fiefs) he will want more money while changing sides because it will be hard for him to defend these fiefs aganist Southern Empire after he joins your kingdom.

We will make directly rejecting conditions a bit harder at 1.6.1. Maybe here Archon wants 1.5M and it is directly rejected we will make it 2.25M in case player has 6M. 1.6.0 formula was opponent directly rejecting if needed money is > 20% of player's money at 1.6.1 it will be 33% + 250K. Also we are changing dialog opponent says while rejecting your offer it was not clear enough why he rejects.

You can wonder why Archon wants about 2M (estimated, we do not see exact amount) even your relation is 98, each castle's value is about 300-500K and leaving 2 of them will cost him 1M also you are a weak kingdom you want from him to leave his strong faction (with 7 towns & 9 castles & 5600 strength) and join your weak kingdom which have only 1 castle and 700 strength and maybe his relation is also good with his king.

About other starving topic, please send me a save file before armies start going a siege. A save during siege is not enough to understand problem. I need a save file where army starts going a siege which that army has not got enough food.
 
Last edited:

Dejan

Community Manager
WBNWVCM&B
Speaking of quests: has anyone tried the new ones: Noble's Revolt and Conquer of a City? When do they trigger and what do we have to do in those quests?
Ditto this question. I've seen Gang Leader Needs Recruits pop up, but has anyone seen Noble's Revolt pop up yet?

Am I crazy or is it just not triggering at all?
@Dejan that is what I'm talking about: we need more info about the new quests in the changelogs. At least you can let us know, who is the quest giver and when did the quest trigger.
Gang Needs Recruits
  • Quest giver: Gang Leader
  • Quest conditions: Relation of the quest giver with the player must be above -10, the quest giver's faction must be at peace with the player's faction, there mustn't be an active quest of the same type.
  • Quick quest summary: The gang leader needs new recruits (bandits).
Conquest of City
  • Quest giver: Faction Leader
  • Quest conditions: Relation of the quest giver with the player must be above -10, quest giver's faction must be at war with at least one faction, quest giver must be a fief owner, player and the quest giver must be in the same faction, there mustn't be an active quest of the same type.
  • Quick quest summary: Your faction leader will ask you to conquer a town/castle within a given time frame.
Noble Revolt
  • Quest giver: A lord that's not a faction leader.
  • Quest conditions: Quest giver must be a fief owner, quest giver's faction must have at least 3 settlements, relation of the quest giver with the player must be above -10, player's party size must be at least 50, there mustn't be an active quest of the same type, the player mustn't be a faction leader, the player must be a member of the quest giver's faction.
  • Quick quest summary: The quest giver will ask you to put a stop to a potential upcoming revolt.
I didn't go into details intentionally about how the quests play out, go and try them out :razz:. But you now know the requirements for them to appear.
This is a step in the right direction for sure! Though if you guys are open to feedback on these, here are some things to consider-

How about some combat bonus?

For example, Battania gets a bonus to combat skills during forest battles? This would apply to both regular and simulated battles. This would be a nice bonus that under the right situation makes them a formidable enemy. Like the Battle of Pendraic and would be a way to simulate and promote an ambush style of game play.

Other examples could be Sturgia could get a bonus to melee skills while in shieldwall formation, Empire could have a bonus to morale, and Vlandia could get a bonus to mounted charge damage.
We have no plans for something like this at the moment.
any plans for E3? @Dejan
We have no plans for E3.
 
Last edited:

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
Conquest of City
  • Quest giver: Faction Leader
  • Quest trigger conditions: Relation of the quest giver with the player must be above -10, quest giver's faction must be at war with at least one faction, quest giver must be a fief owner, player and the quest giver must be in the same faction, there mustn't be an active quest of the same type.
  • Quick quest summary: Your faction leader will ask you to conquer a town/castle within a given time frame.
I wanted this quest for a long time! Is there any other condition or just random chance of leader giving it to you?

Noble Revolt
  • Quest giver: A lord that's not a faction leader.
  • Quest trigger conditions: Quest giver must be a fief owner, quest giver's faction must have at least 3 settlements, relation of the quest giver with the player must be above -10, player's party size must be at least 50, there mustn't be a war between the player's and quest giver's clan, there mustn't be an active quest of the same type, the player mustn't be a faction leader, the player must be a member of the quest giver's clan.
  • Quick quest summary: The quest giver will ask you to put a stop to a potential upcoming revolt.
What does the red part mean? Is it your clan owns the settlement and you clan mate gives you the quest?
 

Flesson19

Not a Cookie
Knight
I see that video :

@Dejan sent me this video. Here money Archon (which have 2 fiefs) wants from you to change sides reduces when you go into war with his kingdom. Because in case you are not in war with his kingdom he have to leave his fiefs to his old kingdom while joining your kingdom however if you are in war he takes his fiefs to your kingdom (so these fiefs left at Archon's clan) so if there is no war he does not want to change sides because it will cost him losing fiefs (cost player need to pay to Archon become too high and thats why he directly rejects before persuasion) Also know that even he takes his old fiefs when you are in war with Southern Empire location of his fiefs also matters. If they are located inside Southern Empire (surrounded by other Southern Empire fiefs) he will want more money while changing sides because it will be hard for him to defend these fiefs aganist Southern Empire after he joins your kingdom.

We will make directly rejecting conditions a bit harder at 1.6.1. Maybe here Archon wants 1.5M and it is directly rejected we will make it 2.25M in case player has 6M. 1.6.0 formula was opponent directly rejecting if needed money is > 20% of player's money at 1.6.1 it will be 33% + 250K. Also we are changing dialog opponent says while rejecting your offer it was not clear enough why he rejects.

You can wonder why Archon wants about 2M (estimated, we do not see exact amount) even your relation is 98, each castle's value is about 300-500K and leaving 2 of them will cost him 1M also you are a weak kingdom you want from him to leave his strong faction (with 7 towns & 9 castles & 5600 strength) and join your weak kingdom which have only 1 castle and 700 strength and maybe his relation is also good with his king.

About other starving topic, please send me a save file before armies start going a siege. A save during siege is not enough to understand problem. I need a save file where army starts going a siege which that army has not got enough food.
So what your saying is he will not charm check if the money he wants is greater than 20% of what I have. So if he values himself at 2 million, I would need 10 million.
 

Calabanar

Sergeant
I see that video :

@Dejan sent me this video. Here money Archon (which have 2 fiefs) wants from you to change sides reduces when you go into war with his kingdom. Because in case you are not in war with his kingdom he have to leave his fiefs to his old kingdom while joining your kingdom however if you are in war he takes his fiefs to your kingdom (so these fiefs left at Archon's clan) so if there is no war he does not want to change sides because it will cost him losing fiefs (cost player need to pay to Archon become too high and thats why he directly rejects before persuasion) Also know that even he takes his old fiefs when you are in war with Southern Empire location of his fiefs also matters. If they are located inside Southern Empire (surrounded by other Southern Empire fiefs) he will want more money while changing sides because it will be hard for him to defend these fiefs aganist Southern Empire after he joins your kingdom.

We will make directly rejecting conditions a bit harder at 1.6.1. Maybe here Archon wants 1.5M and it is directly rejected we will make it 2.25M in case player has 6M. 1.6.0 formula was opponent directly rejecting if needed money is > 20% of player's money at 1.6.1 it will be 33% + 250K. Also we are changing dialog opponent says while rejecting your offer it was not clear enough why he rejects.

You can wonder why Archon wants about 2M (estimated, we do not see exact amount) even your relation is 98, each castle's value is about 300-500K and leaving 2 of them will cost him 1M also you are a weak kingdom you want from him to leave his strong faction (with 7 towns & 9 castles & 5600 strength) and join your weak kingdom which have only 1 castle and 700 strength and maybe his relation is also good with his king.

About other starving topic, please send me a save file before armies start going a siege. A save during siege is not enough to understand problem. I need a save file where army starts going a siege which that army has not got enough food.
It makes sense when explained this way.

In game though, perhaps a new dialogue could be added such as:

" *Player name*, you are a capable leader and a good friend, but joining your kingdom right now would mean losing all my fiefs, which I can't afford... perhaps in the confusion of a war..."

This is poorly written but you get the idea. Just a way to hint what the player must do to secure the lord's loyalty and fiefs.
 
Last edited:

Grank

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WBNWVC
I feel like it's overkill to make a thread for this question, but what will happen if you buy a settlement with that max Trade perk as an independent? Do you automatically form your own kingdom and can get stomped on by other factions as a result?
 

Flesson19

Not a Cookie
Knight
I feel like it's overkill to make a thread for this question, but what will happen if you buy a settlement with that max Trade perk as an independent? Do you automatically form your own kingdom and can get stomped on by other factions as a result?
no you dont
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
I feel like it's overkill to make a thread for this question, but what will happen if you buy a settlement with that max Trade perk as an independent? Do you automatically form your own kingdom and can get stomped on by other factions as a result?
Independent clan with a fief, last time I did it. That was a long time ago though, so they might have changed it.
 
Top Bottom