Companion system is built for Warband, not Bannerlord style companions.

[anoddhermit]

Warband style: A set of pre-built undying companions with non-RNG starting stats

Bannerlord style: A set of RNG companions that can die with RNG starting stats.

Why is using the system for the former bad for the latter? Well ...

If the RNG Gods don't favor you, you have a bunch of companions you don't want. It encourages save scumming or restarting the beginning of the game because the game is long and having a dud companion list is a real nuisance. Then, if a companion dies, this can repeat itself with long stages where the lack of a specific type of companion until another is generated leaves you without, say, a proper engineer or whatever. On top of that, the companion pool has a limit, and can be polluted by finding daughters. This encourages doing gamy things like avoiding that quest specifically, and actively trying to get companions to die, which with the low percentage of death situation is a real pain.

What is a possible solution? Simple!

Wanderers don't enter a static, capped pool until you recruit them. We get two pools instead: an RNG pool that regenerates randomly every week(or maybe month)(daughters rescued end up here until recruited!), the static pool is ONLY companions you've recruited at some point. This allows the player to also keep some companions from the RNG pool around by recruiting them and kicking them. Wanderers, true to their description, just wander away at some point if we don't like them enough to recruit them within a certain time frame. This ensures the player will never be indefinitely stuck with bad options (unless they intentionally recruit tons of bad companions). This also makes checking taverns a bit more interesting, because you can keep an eye out for good companions.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

We need a materia system to to just equip the 120 medicine skill materia on whatever wanderer has a slot open. Man now I want this, I want to borth out magicyt skill crystals to equip on clan members so they don't suck.

 

[Sir Frederic]

The companions need a complete remodel. Now with the captain system many types of companions have become more useful than before.

The first thing is they must start with level 1, therefore in a short time they will gain several levels, which will allow you to mold the companion to your liking or need.

The second thing is that they must have fixed attribute points and talents. I always hire Kusait engineers because they start with 4 intelligence at level 10, which makes them perfect party leaders quickly, but in a recent game it happened to me that one I hired had 3 intelligence and the fourth point was in another attribute . that little detail made a good sidekick obsolete.

The third thing is that perhaps they should have more skill points and talents, it is not the same to level up your character, with which you can kill 100 enemies in a battle and you are careful, than a companion who fails to win a duel in the arena against a recruit, even if you equip him with the best armor in the game. It would be nice if the ability to share experience between companions would also tell you maybe. I find it a bit ridiculous to be at almost level 40 and not be able to get a companion to level 20 in 30 years of play.

Lastly, also have each partner class spawm. It happened to me to have only thief-type companions in a game to recruit, engineers, doctors, caravaneers did not appear. In many of my games, the spicevendor or the swift, good companions to be your steward, have appeared after 20 years of playing.

there is much that can be added and fixed, they have been improved, but it feels like it is still not much.

 

[Danny5]

They should have both companions systems from warband and bannerlord. You'll see the companions all the time, they feel more alive with specific skills, their higher level but more expensive. Whereas the other system should just be extra, customising to your liking, lower level but cheaper

 

[kweassa]

Er, I think they're mostly fine if just two things are addressed:

(1) ...receive a bit more bonus to increase skills that require active engagement. Upping stuff that passively increases if certainly conditions are met (like Stewardship, Medicine, Athletics, Riding..) aren't too much of a problem, but they tend to lag behind in stuff that needs active engagement, like combat skills.

(2) ...have an additional archetype that starts off from level 1, without skills. Like... remember Ymira and Marnid? I used to like those two the best, because they started out at the lowest level, so it was a lot more easier to customize them. So I'd like some of the companion types to be that way, so I can select and customize most of the skills and perks I want them to be.

 

[anoddhermit]

Er, I think they're mostly fine if just two things are addressed:

(1) ...receive a bit more bonus to increase skills that require active engagement. Upping stuff that passively increases if certainly conditions are met (like Stewardship, Medicine, Athletics, Riding..) aren't too much of a problem, but they tend to lag behind in stuff that needs active engagement, like combat skills.

(2) ...have an additional archetype that starts off from level 1, without skills. Like... remember Ymira and Marnid? I used to like those two the best, because they started out at the lowest level, so it was a lot more easier to customize them. So I'd like some of the companion types to be that way, so I can select and customize most of the skills and perks I want them to be.

Well, they could get two birds stoned at once if they just had customizable companions - a point spending system. Which I'm not against but for some reason I expect the devs don't want to do this.

I do think it would be fun to have all my companions with face paint on my Battanian save...

My suggestion is mostly a minimalist change to prevent people from being stuck with bad RNG with the current templates. But at the same time, it would allow you to use more low level or high level companions depending on your preference, since faster generation and a non-static pool would allow you to more quickly and organically acquire the companion template/perk combos that suit your needs rather than being stuck with a growing list of companions you don't want that eventually prevent others from spawning.

 

[kweassa]

I get the intent, but I don't necessarily think the "band RNG" is a problem. I don't think a game that fine-tunes everything in the player's favor is a good game. Not to mention, it's pretty unlikely that the game's random chances are so bad that you can't have the certain archetype you need.

For example, sure, when on bad luck, sometimes you don't see the 120 Scouting or 120 Medicine or 120 Engineering wanderers around, but still there are alternatives with 60~80 skill versions of them. I don't seem to recall any instances where none of such archetypes are available. Either the 'superior' version or the 'inferior' version, at least a version (I think) is coded to be always present.

 

[anoddhermit]

I get the intent, but I don't necessarily think the "band RNG" is a problem. I don't think a game that fine-tunes everything in the player's favor is a good game. Not to mention, it's pretty unlikely that the game's random chances are so bad that you can't have the certain archetype you need.

For example, sure, when on bad luck, sometimes you don't see the 120 Scouting or 120 Medicine or 120 Engineering wanderers around, but still there are alternatives with 60~80 skill versions of them. I don't seem to recall any instances where none of such archetypes are available. Either the 'superior' version or the 'inferior' version, at least a version (I think) is coded to be always present.

This isn't true, you can get stuck with absolutely none of an archetype early on. Having no Engineer is most likely, then no Medic, then Scout and Quartermaster are more common so it's more rare not to have them.

I also don't think having wanderers be randomized more frequently with fresh options is really fine tuning things in the player's favor all that much - it just reduces the impact RNG bad luck has a little bit, on top of being more immersive - different wanderers coming and going just makes more sense to me than having a static group of them cycle through the taverns indefinitely.

Perks also matter, and you can get duds that make the companion not worth using over just assigning your character the role.

For example, I'm never going to want Triage Tent and Good Lodging over Walk it Off and Best Medicine.

In scouting, the first four perks are close to the same situation, where I will simply never want a scout that isn't taking Day Traveler, and Forced March especially, and Water Diviner becomes relatively obsolete over time compared to Pathfinder, and Forest Kin effectively does nothing at all for most party/army compositions.

In Engineering, an Engineer without Military Planner is kind of a dud and Scaffolds is pretty important if you're going for speedy sieges rather than drawn out bombardment which is typically the case. Granted, because Engineering takes forever to level you're often still better with any companion handling it over yourself unless you really commit to an Int build.

Lastly, different playstyles require different companions more than others. If I'm playing Aserai, having fairly specific companion archetypes is actually pretty important to making caravans worth bothering with at all.

 

[kweassa]

But the deal is "not having what you want" can understandably a disadvantage of varying degrees, but never to the extent of something that is either impossible, or game-breakingly difficult.

Sometimes all the pieces fit to make things a bit more comfortable, other times it does not. That's part of what makes a sandbox game, and overcoming given difficult conditions to either find a work-around, or alternatives, changing plans and etc.. all part of the game as well.

Again, it comes back to "why should the game pander to everyone's every need exactly, instead of the player oneself coming up with different solutions to solve the problem."

Also, the things you suggest also don't seem to support any kind of "different playstyle" at all. Rather, its more indicative a pre-set playstyle in which a player will always select the exact same set of choices that make initial gameplay easier, and therefore, go so far as to just drop the game completely if they don't get to have one or two wanderer type.

 

[anoddhermit]

But the deal is "not having what you want" can understandably a disadvantage of varying degrees, but never to the extent of something that is either impossible, or game-breakingly difficult.

Sometimes all the pieces fit to make things a bit more comfortable, other times it does not. That's part of what makes a sandbox game, and overcoming given difficult conditions to either find a work-around, or alternatives, changing plans and etc.. all part of the game as well.

Again, it comes back to "why should the game pander to everyone's every need exactly, instead of the player oneself coming up with different solutions to solve the problem."

Also, the things you suggest also don't seem to support any kind of "different playstyle" at all. Rather, its more indicative a pre-set playstyle in which a player will always select the exact same set of choices that make initial gameplay easier, and therefore, go so far as to just drop the game completely if they don't get to have one or two wanderer type.

There's good RNG and bad RNG.

Good RNG does what you say - provides a less predictable experience for more challenge.

Bad RNG makes the game pointlessly frustrating for no such benefit.

The companion system as is, is in the latter category.

Not having good companion RNG is significantly more annoying than it is challenging. Nothing about a bad companion list really makes the game much more difficult, but it does reduce your strategic options and enjoyment.

My suggestion also doesn't guarantee specific wanderer types. It just prevents you from being indefinitely stuck with a list of companions that you don't want to use at all.

Plus, making the companions overly RNG results in promoting an even more boring optimal solution: Using your PC in every role since it's not worth using companions with garbage perks, and you can't assume you'll ever get good enough ones to use. So it actually makes more sense to build your character a highly specific way because of companion RNG.

 

[rion4581]

There is only one thing I want for companions. A completely separate option to enable or disable death for recruited companions only!!!.

This is the only reason I dont play with birth and death on. Dont care if lords and family get killed. I will avenge. Bannerlord setup really can require some investment for your companions to reach thier potential. Sucks having them die. Please I want this option

 

[lcmiracle]

The death and birth cycle is simply poorly thought-out. Soldier die and can be replaced relatively painlessly, precisely because how reliable their stats and growth progressions are. It was the play's skills (as in, character's skills that provide benefits to the party) and their companions' that makes the party reliable. When a companion dies, you don't just lose a body to feed the meat grinder, but also a vital part of party building.

With expandable units, they must also be easily replaceable. Either have ready-to-go professionals in a field (leader, trader, medic, whatnot) that you can find once in a short while, who can competently do the job without further levelling, or have levelling up so easy it's trivial. The first defeats the training side of things, the latter takes from the RPG side of things.

 

[rion4581]

The death and birth cycle is simply poorly thought-out. Soldier die and can be replaced relatively painlessly, precisely because how reliable their stats and growth progressions are. It was the play's skills (as in, character's skills that provide benefits to the party) and their companions' that makes the party reliable. When a companion dies, you don't just lose a body to feed the meat grinder, but also a vital part of party building.

With expandable units, they must also be easily replaceable. Either have ready-to-go professionals in a field (leader, trader, medic, whatnot) that you can find once in a short while, who can competently do the job without further levelling, or have levelling up so easy it's trivial. The first defeats the training side of things, the latter takes from the RPG side of things.

This is exactly what I am talking about. Death birth could actually be good for an RPGs aspect. I just dont like it for recruited companions given the leveling system.

It's cool to further tailor your companions into the specializations u want. It's also a lot of effort. Disable death for your companions is a much better option. Rotating companions when they die feels shallow and you have no connection to them

This kills the immersive RPGs aspect which is really what I think bannerlord needs. Would bring it closer to warband