Big sheet about problems of the game!!!

Currently viewing this thread:

iRkshz

Recruit
Hi guys.
First of all, I am a big fan of this game and am not a beginner. 1300+ hours only in sigle player.
I am a hardcore player, I only play the hardest level of the game and always without save-scumming.
One life and one mistake it makes me play maximally seriously and attentively.

s82T7PD.jpg


1. Wife cost.​

Item huntings is one of the very important elements of this game, but if you "buy" a wife, it costs 5-20k gold. As a result, you get better weapons and armor early in the game, with a total value of more than 1kk+ gold. It's terrible, it breaks the fun of the game.
I believe that "wives" should be of two types - "simple" and "combat". "Simple" wives should not have any weapons and armor and the price for them should be 5-20k. But "combat" wives should have the good (not best) weapons and armor, but at the same time they should cost "combat" wives of accordingly, that is, 1kk+ gold. It will be fair.

2. Loot, troops, prisoners.

When yow fight alone everything is right, but when you fight an army or with other nobles, you are often faced with the fact that the received loot, troops and prisoners there is nowhere to take. Why is there no option to GIVE loot or troops or prisoners to other nobles (and receive influence or relation in gratitude)?
Just add an option to the loot menu - donate to other nobles!

3. Donate (pick up) troops to towns and castles.

I stopped creating partys because they constantly break the balance of my towns and castles. They constantly take my troops and add new ones. But I don't need that.
Also my allied clans, they systematically add troops to my garrisons. But I don't need that. Why?
Firstly: 40 t5 troops for castles and 140 t5 troops for towns make your security and loyalty 100%
Secondly: the troops cost a lot of gold, while consuming food, which leads to the fall of the prosperity. But you can take a few correct policies and get 100% security and 100% loyalty. And the correct policies will make more militia and it will become stronger.
Why is it impossible to add an option that prohibits donating troops and picking up troops?

4. Smithy is lying.​

First, why when you want to make a weapon, the menu doesn't show you how much weapon length you will get?
You just can't imagine how much effort and nerves it costs me to create a convenient weapon for me every time!!!
What is the problem with adding information about the length of the weapon in the forge, so that by changing the fragments you can adjust the length of the weapon?

Secondly, the blacksmith skill is deceiving. When your blacksmithing level is 330, you should have a 35% chance of getting a "legendary" weapon. "Legendary" is +6 points to the parameter of the weapon. I have forged THOUSANDS of weapons, and I have never been able to get weapons with all parameters +6. Usually only one parameter is +6, and if you're lucky, the rest of the parameters are up to +1 or +2, sometimes +3 or +4, and that is very rare!


5. No need melee infantry for winning hard BATTLES.​

When I started playing in MB2, I, like everything else, did balanced troops, equally cavalry and infantry, melee and archers. My troops were killed, like everyone else, and tactics or terrain did not always help, because the AI always has better quality of troops and more troops. This made me experiment, first to survive, then to dominate.
As you can see in the video, everything is simple, the main thing is to command correctly.
P.S. And please don't tell me that I use cheating battanians archers - you can do the same with any archer and crossbowmen (with the support of cavalry), and your losses will be a little more troops.


You can tell me that this enemy had weak troops (and I agree with you), but even if the enemy has t5 troops, then you will have a little more losses, but not critical.

6. No need melee infantry for winning hard SIEGES.​

The melee infantry is not needed, not needed at all. Combat vehicles are also not needed, they are not needed at all. Why?
Because the AI is dumb. AI will send melee infantry to the walls, even if you are not storming the wall (AI infantry either just climbs the wall or reacts to the set ladders).
AI archers are dumb too - they just stand still, although they should do this: move, shot, walked away to the barricade (repeat in a circle).


This tactic works ON ALL siege maps. In this case, I chose a place where catapults and ballistae are missing from my soldiers.

7. Problematic maps.​

Firstly:
I really love to play with mount archers and harpoons, especially with the Khuzaite and Aserai. But range cavalry need space. So I believe that the Village and Canyon maps should be removed from the game. Why? Because, firstly, they are small and narrow, and secondly, there are many obstacles on these maps, in which the cavalry gets stuck, after which it easily dies.
Secondly:
All maps in map pool must be large (so that the initial distance between troops is 500 meters). Why? Because you need time to determine the situation and choose a position, place your troops correctly, have time to respond to enemy horse archers or to massive push of the enemy.

UPD: another reason why you need to remove the Canyon map from the map pool


as you can see in the video, the cavalry appears on the rocks, very often the cavalry suicides when it jumps off the rocks, at this moment the FPS dies (I have a good PC), the AI of the mounted archery on this map is very bad, does not want to shoot (probably because the landscape is very crooked)

developers won't be able to fix it because the map is very narrow and crooked

8. Imbalance between declarations of war and peace.​

In order for you to have a strong kingdom, you need strong troops and a lot of money. In order for you to have troops and money, you need towns and castles of your nation, then you can make a good economy and get troops of the fourth level at once. So how do you get this when creating your kingdom?
It's simple!
You approach a town or castle, declare war, capture a town or castle, and declare peace. Repeat in a circle as many times as necessary.
But you will tell me that by capturing new towns and castles and making peace, you will pay more tribute - and you will be right, only the level of your economy will exceed the size of the tribute. And the reserve of money will allow you to invite clans, with the help of which you will then defeat those to whom you pay tribute.

Another situation:
Enemy kingdom declared war on me, but my clans decided to immediately make peace. As a result, the adversary's kingdom lost influence over the declaration of war and to build armies. And also lost time, and as a result, loses opportunities.

I believe that after the declaration of war, a mandatory time must pass (for example 10 days) before it will be possible to make peace with the enemy.
10 days is enough to capture a city or castle - thus, the one who declares war knows that he will gain the advantage (and the player will not have a backdoor to capture towns with impunity).
If this is not done, there will always be a backdoor for imbalance.

9. Invited clans disbalance and endgame content problems.

When you beginning of the game - you will survive.
When you get the 3rd level of the clan, you can join the kingdom - you will survive.
When you get the 4th level of the clan, you can found your kingdom - you will survive.
But... when you invited 20+ good clans to your kingdom - you don't need to do anything. I usually have 22 clans, and I don't need to fight, I don't need to trade, my clans are conquering the whole map by themselves. I feel bored, I feel irritated. Why?
Because the whole game I had to survive, I had to try, and now I don't have to do anything. But the map has not yet been conquered, all the nations have not yet been conquered - but this does not require my participation. And so every time, every game, every attempt, for every nation. Every time I feel tired and empty, annoyed, because the game deceived me. Because you don't have to survive anymore!


So, I was thinking how to solve this problem, there is only one solution, to limit the number of clans that a player and other kingdoms can invite.
Base 10 clans and add to charisma (+3 clans) and leadership (+3 clans) skills bonus to invite additionally +6 clans. Then it will be important to choose the right clans, and there will be a need to kick the weak clans.
Also make a limitation on the invitation of mercenary clans - base 1 and +1 from the skills of charisma +1 from the skills of leadership.

UPD: about the number on invited clans for ez game!
When I counted everything, I came to the conclusion that 16 clans are enough for "doing nothing to win" - but I was wrong...
I deleted all clans and began to collect only T5 clans in which there are three "combat" members (T5 clans it is important for "Noble Retinues" policies, because this will increase each noble troops by +40)... so when I collected ten such clans, the game stopped requiring my participation - my clans constantly created at least three armies with at least 1000+ people and each war ended for the enemy with a very quick loss of 1\3 territory.
10 T5 clans with THREE "combat" members are OP
Therefore, I believe that the allowed number of clans for an invitation should be tied to the difficulty level of the game - that is, "realism" should allow no more than 10 clans for player... in any other case, the game turns into a mockery of the weak and infirm and loses passion interest

And about endgame content problems.

Each kingdom has a supply of strong troops, this is usually 2-3 calls. If you were able to defeat the enemy 2-3 in a row in big battles, then the enemy almost does not resist further, and you capture his kingdom very quickly (usually the global map is dominated by THREE nations: Vlandia, Khuzaits, Aserai) - when you have conquered two strong nations, the game turns into a routine, because you want to conquer everything, but your clans do not want this, they need tribute, and the influence ends quickly if you argue with your clans. And you have to be a passive observer. And the capture of weak kingdoms is no longer fun, because they can not offer much resistance.

So, the idea is as follows:
If the player dominates the map (captured 30% of the all towns and castles), then the attack should start from the other side from sea. Attack of a nation that cannot be played. Strong nation with strong army and units. A massive attack, and the player needs to survive, for example, the player should not allow the enemy to capture 30% of towns and castles (goal - the player must get a difficulty, the solution of which brings him pleasure and an absolute victory in the game).

This is not my idea, I read this idea somewhere and I think it is correct.
I don’t need to tell you that it’s difficult to realize a new nation. This is not true.
But this great game needs good endgame content. Memorable. Such an ending, which is remembered, to which you want to return and about which you want to tell others.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
With love for this game and with great respect for the developers.
P.S. Sorry for my bad English, this is not my native language :sad:
 
Last edited:

Bloc

Archduke
WB
I really love to play with mount archers and harpoons, especially with the Khuzaite and Aserai. But range cavalry need space. So I believe that the Village and Canyon maps should be removed from the game. Why? Because, firstly, they are small and narrow, and secondly, there are many obstacles on these maps, in which the cavalry gets stuck, after which it easily dies.
Secondly:
All maps in map pool must be large (so that the initial distance between troops is 500 meters). Why? Because you need time to determine the situation and choose a position, place your troops correctly, have time to respond to enemy horse archers or to massive push of the enemy.
I didn't read all of the content but they are planning to change the maps anyway. (In next Century, I hope )
So that you can pick your battlefield more carefully rather than suggesting to remove content just because it's not for your playstyle

Distance is also determined based on the units. If you are making a 20v20 battle, you are starting at a really closer distance compared to 200v200 or 500v500. Does this make sense? Yes and no. It makes sense if you are facing 10 looters and you have 10 guy - since you wouldn't like to spend 1 minute to simply run to them - especially if killing them takes less than 1 minute.
But it doesn't make sense in some cases where you need space and or if you are too away from the strategic point because "game" decided in that way.
 

iRkshz

Recruit
I didn't read all of the content but they are planning to change the maps anyway. (In next Century, I hope )
So that you can pick your battlefield more carefully rather than suggesting to remove content just because it's not for your playstyle

Distance is also determined based on the units. If you are making a 20v20 battle, you are starting at a really closer distance compared to 200v200 or 500v500. Does this make sense? Yes and no. It makes sense if you are facing 10 looters and you have 10 guy - since you wouldn't like to spend 1 minute to simply run to them - especially if killing them takes less than 1 minute.
But it doesn't make sense in some cases where you need space and or if you are too away from the strategic point because "game" decided in that way.
the reason is not in me and not of my desires (I described on my own behalf, which is logical)
yes you are right, the distance between armies should depend on the number of troops - but this not cancels the fact that all maps should be BIG without many obstacles, because the cavalry has poor pathfinding and it gets stuck everywhere

P.S. I recommend you take your time and read the whole post, it's worth it :smile:
 
After seeing your siege gameplay I would like to know the version of you game when you had done that video. It can't be 1.5.9 or 1.5.10 since they had downgrade athletics. It's funny that some of your troops just decide to pick up the ladders when you just ride along the wall. 2. to this a reinforcement archery group just place themself before the ladders, also without any command. At least it never happens to me that my ai thinks so smart.

If you like to play khuzaits, you can dismount them and they behave like the battanian champions in these small maps. Furthermore the game NEEDS this small maps so the ai has at least a chance against a doomstack of cav.

The Archer issue was already known.


If you like it I would refer you to a mod: Realistic Battle Mod. As other players stated, the ai will be smarter and, in you case, arrows will do much less dmg if you have the right armour
 

Bjorn The Hound

Grandmaster Knight
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
Is it a ballista? Is it a catapult? Is it a trebuchet?
No, it is fian archers with their MG42.

This is one more reason that Realistic Battle Mod should be in the base game. Great feedback for the most parts.
There should be like mechanic cohesion in armies or some version of it about how many clan a kingdom can handle. Because if you want to expand your kingdom with ease of mind, only you have to do increase clan number in your kingdom.
 
Last edited:

iRkshz

Recruit
After seeing your siege gameplay I would like to know the version of you game when you had done that video. It can't be 1.5.9 or 1.5.10 since they had downgrade athletics. It's funny that some of your troops just decide to pick up the ladders when you just ride along the wall. 2. to this a reinforcement archery group just place themself before the ladders, also without any command. At least it never happens to me that my ai thinks so smart.

If you like to play khuzaits, you can dismount them and they behave like the battanian champions in these small maps. Furthermore the game NEEDS this small maps so the ai has at least a chance against a doomstack of cav.

The Archer issue was already known.


If you like it I would refer you to a mod: Realistic Battle Mod. As other players stated, the ai will be smarter and, in you case, arrows will do much less dmg if you have the right armour
new clear game 1.5.9 without mods

Is it a ballista? Is it a catapult? Is it a trebuchet?
No, it is fian archers with their MG42.

This is one more reason that Realistic Battle Mod should be in the base game. Great feedback for the most parts.
There should be like mechanic cohesion in armies or some version of it about how many clan a kingdom can handle. Because if you want to expand your kingdom with ease of mind, only you have to do increase clan number in your kingdom.
this tactic work with crossbowmans too
I have not played the "Realistic Battle Mod" yet, I'm waiting for the game to be released
 

Bjorn The Hound

Grandmaster Knight
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
Don't worry, man. I have read almost all of your post and I know that this tactic would work with any kind of archers and crossbowmans since the armor system in the game is a joke.
 

1. Wife cost.​

Item huntings is one of the very important elements of this game, but if you "buy" a wife, it costs 5-20k gold. As a result, you get better weapons and armor early in the game, with a total value of more than 1kk+ gold. It's terrible, it breaks the fun of the game.
I believe that "wives" should be of two types - "simple" and "combat". "Simple" wives should not have any weapons and armor and the price for them should be 5-20k. But "combat" wives should have the good (not best) weapons and armor, but at the same time they should cost "combat" wives of accordingly, that is, 1kk+ gold. It will be fair.

There are two types of female NPC, shield maiden and courtiers, the encyclopedia show different type of outfits for them (military and non military), stats are different and some dialogs are also different... but when you marry them both types wear expensive armors, weapons... and the 'price' is similar. For me it would make sense the the second ones have just civilian outfits in both clothes slots and maybe a dagger for the fighting once.

The problem seems to be that when there are no free males in a clan, courtiers are used to lead parties so if you remove the expensive stuff they will die like flies.

7. Problematic maps.​

Firstly:
I really love to play with mount archers and harpoons, especially with the Khuzaite and Aserai. But range cavalry need space. So I believe that the Village and Canyon maps should be removed from the game. Why? Because, firstly, they are small and narrow, and secondly, there are many obstacles on these maps, in which the cavalry gets stuck, after which it easily dies.

Sorry but it doesn't make sense... what you want is that all maps suit with your tactical deploy and remove everything else. It is fine having to fight in a different way depending the terrain and being forced to have a flexible party composition.
 
The entire spouse mechanic needs more work. Not just the gear. Besides, in 1.5.10 you get free gear when you join a kingdom as well so there's that.
I feel like it needs to be more of a chase. Duels, poems...that kinda thing. Not some interview.

Loot, troops and prisoners. Sure. I prefer to fight alone for the opposite reason though. I dislike it when my companions take prisoners. Ruins relationships.

Donate troops - yes, but a mod has already fixed this...

Smithy sucks in general. I would certainly trade it for more diplomacy, intrigue or politicking.

Yes, you don't need melee. I keep melee to guard my archers and for immersion. ha!


Maps are problematic, but not for the reasons you specified. Small maps are fine. Confined spaces are fine. Horses falling to their deaths immediately on spawn is not fine.


Yes, war and peace currently sucks. Diplomacy as a whole sucks. Funny enough, a mod has more or less fixed this. It could be better of course but so far, modders > developers.


I'm not a fan of limiting clans you can recruit by a simple rule. It makes the game bland. A better solution imo, is to create a proper feudal system of loyalties. Then crank up relations to be more dynamic. Stay true to the adage that you can't please everyone.

After awhile, watch your kingdom fall apart due to internecine feuds. That is more thrilling that hard coding arbitrary caps.
 

iRkshz

Recruit
Sorry but it doesn't make sense... what you want is that all maps suit with your tactical deploy and remove everything else. It is fine having to fight in a different way depending the terrain and being forced to have a flexible party composition.
are you sure this is my whim?
when you have 400+ troops, half of them are cavalry (200), and the same opponent is against you (for example, Khuzaits), then a battle in a village or a canyon is a circus of clowns who get stuck in every fence, and there are many, very many fences - it looks stupid

or when there is a battle of 2000 against 2000 on the map "between the rivers" which has a scale of 300 square meters (that is, between you 250 meters at the start) and you have NO time to even place your troops correctly, because the enemy cavalry comes running to you after 15 seconds

so are you sure this is MY problem?
if my commander chose such places for battle, I would personally kill him, slowly, very slowly
 
are you sure this is my whim?
when you have 400+ troops, half of them are cavalry (200), and the same opponent is against you (for example, Khuzaits), then a battle in a village or a canyon is a circus of clowns who get stuck in every fence, and there are many, very many fences - it looks stupid

or when there is a battle of 2000 against 2000 on the map "between the rivers" which has a scale of 300 square meters (that is, between you 250 meters at the start) and you have NO time to even place your troops correctly, because the enemy cavalry comes running to you after 15 seconds

so are you sure this is MY problem?
if my commander chose such places for battle, I would personally kill him, slowly, very slowly

Uhm ... trying to fight in a narrow space with fences using lots of cavalry doesn't seems a good idea, nor in real live neither in the game, same thing for deep forest, wetlands... of course, technical problems are there I am not to discuss it, but even without them those kind of battles should be hard to use a cavalry army properly and in my opinion is something good.
 

iRkshz

Recruit
Uhm ... trying to fight in a narrow space with fences using lots of cavalry doesn't seems a good idea, nor in real live neither in the game, same thing for deep forest, wetlands... of course, technical problems are there I am not to discuss it, but even without them those kind of battles should be hard to use a cavalry army properly and in my opinion is something good.
give me a historical example when one army fought another army in a village using cavalry - maybe the Romans? or the Greeks? or Mongols?
I think the Alexander the Great would tell you "cool idea bro, I will throw my cavalry into the fences"
or maybe it is for this reason that armies usually chose large open spaces, and used heavy cavalry for a massive direct attack head-on, and archery cavalry for flank attacks - but how do you do it if FENCES EVERYWHERE

in the game I am a commander, and it is I who must choose the place of the battle if I attack - it is MY privilege as a commander
I would not write about this if the village or canyon zone was not so large, I always try to bypass villages and canyons, but the developers gave them a large radius on the global map - they deprived me of the choice
 

madnessario

Sergeant at Arms
What you are suggesting is not the solution though. You need to have village maps where you can not fight with cavalry.

Either way, in the next 6 months (I hope I covered all bases) we will probably get the new battle system and you will be able to pick the place as an attacker. Your problem is not with the map, if I understood your point, but with the randomly picked battle scenes.
 
give me a historical example when one army fought another army in a village using cavalry - maybe the Romans? or the Greeks? or Mongols?
Well, I am far from an expert but I guess none or very few... because they were smart enough to choose other kind troops when they had to fight in those situations.

In game it should mean that if you are helping a village that are being raided by a lord or you start a battle close to a village those maps will be used and cavalry should be in trouble.

in the game I am a commander, and it is I who must choose the place of the battle if I attack - it is MY privilege as a commander

Maybe I misunderstood you, if you are telling me that your party was at a plain and a village map has loaded then I will agree with you that it shouldn't happen but honestly, I never faced this issue when playing.

BTW commanders sometimes can not freely choose the terrain where the battle will be fought.

Anyway the discussion is dumb due all the terrain feature is being reworked.
 
give me a historical example when one army fought another army in a village using cavalry - maybe the Romans? or the Greeks? or Mongols?
I think the Alexander the Great would tell you "cool idea bro, I will throw my cavalry into the fences"
or maybe it is for this reason that armies usually chose large open spaces, and used heavy cavalry for a massive direct attack head-on, and archery cavalry for flank attacks - but how do you do it if FENCES EVERYWHERE

in the game I am a commander, and it is I who must choose the place of the battle if I attack - it is MY privilege as a commander
I would not write about this if the village or canyon zone was not so large, I always try to bypass villages and canyons, but the developers gave them a large radius on the global map - they deprived me of the choice

Yea but what if they're holding a village and you need to root them out?

You can't just say hey would you guys mind coming out and fighting me on the plains? You can always choose to dismount.
 

Apocal

Master Knight

9. Invited clans disbalance and endgame content problems.

When you beginning of the game - you will survive.
When you get the 3rd level of the clan, you can join the kingdom - you will survive.
When you get the 4th level of the clan, you can found your kingdom - you will survive.
But... when you invited 20+ good clans to your kingdom - you don't need to do anything. I usually have 22 clans, and I don't need to fight, I don't need to trade, my clans are conquering the whole map by themselves. I feel bored, I feel irritated. Why?
Because the whole game I had to survive, I had to try, and now I don't have to do anything. But the map has not yet been conquered, all the nations have not yet been conquered - but this does not require my participation. And so every time, every game, every attempt, for every nation. Every time I feel tired and empty, annoyed, because the game deceived m
This is the best part of endgame Bannerlord, just having enough clans with enough fiefs to their name that they are a unstoppable juggernaut and you can cool your heels while the map changes to your color.
 
Just quick feedback: 1) I agree, infantry is not needed. 2) Agree with you about the wife situation. 3) I disagree about the narrow maps. Village maps and narrow maps are ok, cavalry should have terrains where they are disadvantaged, it's both realistic and good for gameplay. The terrain system will get reworked in such a way that you will consistently get certain maps depending on where you are fighting on the main map. So you can pretty much choose where the battles will be taking place, to be more strategic, so it's all good.
 
Outside of the battle terrain (which as others have said is a work in progress for 1.6.0 or 1.6.1 I guess) I agree with your points / suggestions.

Courtship needs another pass, I get paying a dowry and whatever but it is way to easy to cheese, especially when who you want to marry and their overlord / parent are in the same Army or town. Too cheesy - I'd be down for the eloping, duels and poems to make a comeback. I also would like to see inheritance, if I marry Ira and her mom catches a spear to the dome I should become an inheritor to the kingdom and Ira's consort.

Infantry will likely be more important if other troop profiles (namely skirmishers) are filled out and spear bracing / spear combat in general works better. Right now, you can just buzzsaw enemy armies with HA and archers, which is not fun.
 

WhyAmIHere

Veteran
This is the best part of endgame Bannerlord, just having enough clans with enough fiefs to their name that they are a unstoppable juggernaut and you can cool your heels while the map changes to your color.
Yeah I agree generally with the post but that part was kinda silly. I mean no **** you're gonna steamroll when you get that big!
 
Top Bottom