I don't see anything in the patch notes (I can't test, away on vacation).Does this patch include NPC leaders killing NPC leaders or is that still something being worked out?
The task is in the backlog and will be worked on once more urgent issues have been resolved. If you are looking for a guesstimate I would mark it for 1.6.3.
I find it baffling that something so essential to the balance, simulation & health of campaigns has been deemed this unimportant. We've been dealing with death in player battles only for so long now, to the complete detriment of every medium-long campaign.The task is in the backlog and will be worked on once more urgent issues have been resolved. If you are looking for a guesstimate I would mark it for 1.6.3.
Can you try deleting the contents of "C:\ProgramData\Mount and Blade II Bannerlord\Shaders" and "C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Mount & Blade II Bannerlord\Modules\Native\TileSets\pages" folders and verifying your game files?
+1As an outside observer, I have stated several times that I do not see the challenges at TW as primarily a dev team problem; it looks mainly like a leadership and planning problem. If I had a criticism of the dev team, it might be that sometimes bugs get in that would not pass a quick desk check if it underwent some ad hoc testing before being pushed.
This is a massively complex system you guys are trying to create and a quite large team is working on it. This requires detailed, well-organized planning and a disciplined execution to a vision. Again, from the outside, it has a number of hallmarks that look like poor, undisciplined, obstinate leadership:
- Recurring bugs.
- "You didn't ask for it, so here it is" features.
- Shoddy implementation of features.
- Obvious severe bugs languishing for extended periods.
- Painfully slow development process.
- No detailed roadmap released.
- Core features missing or broken, including quite a number of features that were implied to be present leading up to EA.
- Weird priorities.
I mostly do not see these as criticisms of the development team so much as top-down problems. It is clear that the dev team has a lot of talent and passion behind it. But you can't just throw a large, talented, and passionate dev team at the problem and expect things to go well.
I have noticed the same thing.I have noticed in sieges troops wait to charge a breach instead they either wait for the gate to be broken by the battering ram then ignore the breaches or they wait for the ram to break the gate and some troops go through the breaches and others go through the broken gate simultaneously. Is this intended? When I have taken command and transferred all units to one division with a breached castle its best to rush the breaches and ignore using the battering ram. Most of the time I do this I defeat the enemy. Wouldn't it make more sense for attackers to prioritize a castle wall's breaches rather than using the ram at all? Pushing the ram seems to lead to more casualties rather than rushing after the weakened least guarded breach. IIRC the same has happened with other siege machines on the attacker side the AI prioritizes the use of equipment rather the vunerabilities of the defenders.
Project management at this scale is a completely different animal from a few people creating their first indie game.
It happens to me since 1.5.9, I tried the 1.6.0 and happened the same, that's why I'm rolled back for 1.5.8, for me is something related with the HD use, maybe the early versions loaded the inventory from ram, but now it loads from the HD. Some people with ssds don't have this problem. I don't understand nothing about programming, but they may want less ram occupied due people with low ram computers.Anyone still get frame drops/lags when open menus/inventory/troops etc? Never happened on earlier versions and now its so frustrating with 5-10 second load times when ever opening any in game menu.