Constant Warfare : Did Taleworld adress that ?

[black_bulldog]

Biggest problem with the game that TW for some reason thinks is absolutely fine. Maybe they think their action is so riveting that the "fans" can't get enough of it.

There's a delicate balance between action and down time. The player needs time to do things such such as town/castle building, doing quests, or even rp but unfortunately there is so little to do outside of combat that's why people complain constantly that the game is so shallow. TW really shows their inexperience when they don't address something as fundamental as this. Any activity you have to do over and over and over, even something intially fun, just becomes another form of grinding.

 

[ShakenSpeare]

There's a delicate balance between action and down time. The player needs time to do things such such as town/castle building, doing quests, or even rp but unfortunately there is so little to do outside of combat that's why people complain constantly that the game is so shallow. TW really shows their inexperience when they don't address something as fundamental as this. Any activity you have to do over and over and over, even something intially fun, just becomes another form of grinding.

If the whole core of this issue was fixed honestly I would probably like this game twice as much as I do now. It really does make the game feel so shallow and lifeless. Life is as cheap as mosquitoes and there's an endless supply of life and equipment to throw into the meat grinder, something that you wouldn't think a Medieval society would be capable of. The lords need to get burned out from war too and be able to do other useful things.

 

[Figulus]

The biggest problem i have with Bannerlord SP at the moment, and one i've seen mentioned in multiple threads, is the fact that, compared to Warband, there is just way too much warfare going on in Bannerlord. Sieges are happening left and right, its constantly war throughout the realm and basicly if you dont want some faction to snowball, you need to be part of that 24/7 warfare yourself and as soon as possible.

It didnt feel like that in Warband. Being at War with another faction was not an event as recurring as it is in Bannerlord, there were long moments of peaceful times (feasts, tournaments, questing, working our relations, etc.). Bannerlord is just war war war war constantly. You just cant get any moment of peace, because while you are at war with faction A, faction B declares war on you right before you declare peace with faction A.

Castles are getting sieged constantly they change color like its a christmas light cord, which is goofy as heck.

This, right here, is one of the many reasons why Bannerlord, when compared to Warband, feels like it has no "soul".

What is Taleworlds opinion on this matter ? Does Taleworld feel "fine" with the constant warfare meta of their game ? If so, it is a big bummer for me, because im patiently waiting for the game to finally have a soul.

Agree with most of this , no feasts makes a big difference to me.

 

[black_bulldog]

If the whole core of this issue was fixed honestly I would probably like this game twice as much as I do now. It really does make the game feel so shallow and lifeless. Life is as cheap as mosquitoes and there's an endless supply of life and equipment to throw into the meat grinder, something that you wouldn't think a Medieval society would be capable of. The lords need to get burned out from war too and be able to do other useful things.

I've been saying for months losing big battles should really sting and losing a couple of large battles should have an impact on a faction. It should make them become much more defensive and sue for peace. Factions should try not to be in 2 wars at once and should try to sue for immediate peace if they have 3 or more wars. But constantly throwing endless armies in the meat grinder makes any individual battle completely pointless. I know many people complain that it would make snowballing worse but there's an easy solution, and one TW refuses to do, alliances.

So what we have now is that it takes factions a while to start snowballing but the wars never end and it ultimately makes the whole game become a giant grind feast. Factions shouldn't just go to war for no reason in many cases there should be some kind of border skirmishes beforehand and at that point one faction should try to appease the other. Declaring war against another faction should put all other neighboring factions on alert against the aggressor which may make them raid that faction more or even go to war against them if they have a bad history. The issue of constant warfare isn't going to change until some modder comes along and changes the underlying reasons for war and peace because TW has decided that this is the way they want the game to go.

 

[td00361969]

The whole map is at war with me & i have only 3vassel with 4cities & few castles. The problem is all my vassal disagree to vote any peace to any faction. i need to use 600-900 influence to make peace with 1 faction, & it won't keep long until auto declare war again. & no other clan seem to interested to join my faction now, I asked almost all the clan leaders & all saying the same thing "im happy with my current king" something like that.

 

[ShakenSpeare]

I've been saying for months losing big battles should really sting and losing a couple of large battles should have an impact on a faction. It should make them become much more defensive and sue for peace. Factions should try not to be in 2 wars at once and should try to sue for immediate peace if they have 3 or more wars. But constantly throwing endless armies in the meat grinder makes any individual battle completely pointless. I know many people complain that it would make snowballing worse but there's an easy solution, and one TW refuses to do, alliances.

So what we have now is that it takes factions a while to start snowballing but the wars never end and it ultimately makes the whole game become a giant grind feast. Factions shouldn't just go to war for no reason in many cases there should be some kind of border skirmishes beforehand and at that point one faction should try to appease the other. Declaring war against another faction should put all other neighboring factions on alert against the aggressor which may make them raid that faction more or even go to war against them if they have a bad history. The issue of constant warfare isn't going to change until some modder comes along and changes the underlying reasons for war and peace because TW has decided that this is the way they want the game to go.

Agreed. The whole grand strategic AI is nonexistent it seems, everything is literally decided by rolling a dice. There need to be reasons for things happening. Reasons for going to war or not going to war. Examples: Battania goes to war against Vlandia because they want a specific town with profitable trade resources. Southern Empire goes to war against Aserai because of old fiefs that Aserai conquered. Sturgia does NOT go to war against Northern Empire because of a defense pact they have with the Khuzaits. Maybe if the aggressor faction achieves its goals, they feel less inclined to continue the war further, rather than these constant wars of total annihilation going on. Is stuff like basic diplomacy and reasoning off of it just all that too complex? Brutal war shouldn't be completely discouraged, but if the Khuzaits start steamrolling everyone, why wouldn't the entire map unite against this common menace?

The whole map is at war with me & i have only 3vassel with 4cities & few castles. The problem is all my vassal disagree to vote any peace to any faction.

Lol, sounds like classic Bannerlord logic.

 

[black_bulldog]

The whole map is at war with me & i have only 3vassel with 4cities & few castles. The problem is all my vassal disagree to vote any peace to any faction. i need to use 600-900 influence to make peace with 1 faction, & it won't keep long until auto declare war again. & no other clan seem to interested to join my faction now, I asked almost all the clan leaders & all saying the same thing "im happy with my current king" something like that.

Yeah this is the first game I've played where being a ruler feels like you have less power than as a vassal.

 

[mujadaddy]

losing big battles should really sting and losing a couple of large battles should have an impact on a faction

Healing injured troops should take longer, especially on the march; the AI is always ready except for right after the previous battle. Another "time is too fast" problem.

 

[Lord Doom]

You're midway through a major war and you're clans all vote to start a fresh war with another faction. Then, when your enemy is on the ropes and down to their last couple of strongholds, your clans vote for peace. Some logic would be nice.

 

[Apocal]

I know many people complain that it would make snowballing worse but there's an easy solution, and one TW refuses to do, alliances.

Alliances cause snowballing too. There are only six factions and combining them really quickly creates a situation where there are two stable coalitions.

 

[froggyluv]

Agreed. The whole grand strategic AI is nonexistent it seems, everything is literally decided by rolling a dice. There need to be reasons for things happening. Reasons for going to war or not going to war. Examples: Battania goes to war against Vlandia because they want a specific town with profitable trade resources. Southern Empire goes to war against Aserai because of old fiefs that Aserai conquered. Sturgia does NOT go to war against Northern Empire because of a defense pact they have with the Khuzaits. Maybe if the aggressor faction achieves its goals, they feel less inclined to continue the war further, rather than these constant wars of total annihilation going on. Is stuff like basic diplomacy and reasoning off of it just all that too complex? Brutal war shouldn't be completely discouraged, but if the Khuzaits start steamrolling everyone, why wouldn't the entire map unite against this common menace?

Lol, sounds like classic Bannerlord logic.

Wasnt this the case in Warband already?? I remember when asking "How the Wars Going" or "What are you and your men doing" -getting these sorts of responses

 

[ShakenSpeare]

Wasnt this the case in Warband already?? I remember when asking "How the Wars Going" or "What are you and your men doing" -getting these sorts of responses

Pretty much, although Warband was pretty simplistic with it and I'd rather have it more polished and slightly more complicated. Even then the basic idea was there and far better than Bannerlord's mess. It's not an overly ambitious idea since we've had the same rudimentary thing before.

Alliances cause snowballing too. There are only six factions and combining them really quickly creates a situation where there are two stable coalitions.

Perhaps a solution could be to have alliances not be particularly close or long-term, or to make them relatively rare for factions to acquire, or cap alliances at two factions only.

 

[WeiKaiXuan]

Say for all you guys that are saying that Taleworlds refuses to fix this issue, did they officially say that somewhere? If they really feel this way, that is going to be a serious issue. I can only speak for myself, but it may cause me to stop playing. I like the game but man that excessive warfare declaration mechanic literally kills the game for me. I usually just re-roll once it gets to be too much because it sucks the fun out of the game. The war declaration cooldown at a minimum needs to be more than just a few days or whatever it is.

Waiting for modders to fix a core issue of the game is not a good precedence to make. Bethesda still to this day gets roasted about their similar issues.

I am happy companies like Taleworlds exist, because they are still willing to make a singleplayer game in the first place. This game is still amazing, but there are a few major things that really needs to be fixed before everyone else (especially whiny games journalists) tries it at official release, and then proceed to trash Talewords and also trash singleplayer games in general. When the only games any company makes is a battle royale or a MMO, we all lose.

 

[black_bulldog]

Alliances cause snowballing too. There are only six factions and combining them really quickly creates a situation where there are two stable coalitions.

They can cause snowballing if not done right, but that's just an excuse.

 

[TheShermanator]

While on the one hand, I agree with everyone wishing for a better AI, I think that's not super likely. I mean, when was the last time you played a dedicated strategy game (and remember, Bannerlord is fundementally an RPG with some strategey elements on the side) and encountered a non-terrible AI? There must be some hidden law of the universe that limits video game AI strategy . Whatever the cause, I think it's probably a high dev time / low result ratio way to go. Not likely to happen.

However, they might have an easier time fixing the structural input/ouput system that keeps the war "meatgrinder" engine going. For example, they could slow the villager-recruit replacement cycle down. (Or they could reduce the number of recruits that AI party leaders pick up per village - lots of options to slow down party recruitment.) Simultaneously, they could make upgrading troops more expensive (I would only support this if the whole war cycle actually slowed - otherwise you would end up with even blander recruit stacks than you have now in AI parties.). At the same time, they could increase influence costs for army formation. Etc. Any combination of these things, applied to all factions, would slow down the meatgrinder.

That way, even if the AI makes incredibly dumb strategic choices, they could at least code an AI to seek peace (demand good terms for the faction if winning, accept bad terms if losing) when its relative strength bleeds down - an outcome that would be assured if the AIs couldn't reform armies so quickly. (Lots of reasonably simple ways to do this. Off the top of my head, you could have 2 conditions: 1) The losing faction has 50% [play with this #] or less of the military strength it had at the beginning of a war and 2) The ratio of the losing faction's strength to the wining faction's strength had changed from X at the beginning of the war to 0.5X [play with the factor] at the end of the war.

(Then, other factors could work to limit how eager factions were to start wars. E.g. Terms of peace might include long war cooldowns between specific factions. And the # of (troops + recruits) relative to the size of the faction (say, measured in fiefs controlled) might need to hit a certain floor before a faction sought after a war.)

 

[froggyluv]

. I mean, when was the last time you played a dedicated strategy game (and remember, Bannerlord is fundementally an RPG with some strategey elements on the side) and encountered a non-terrible AI? There must be some hidden law of the universe that limits video game AI strategy . Whatever the cause, I think it's probably a high dev time / low result ratio way to go. Not likely to happen.

Ha! This made me laugh cause its pretty much true. Speaking as a 40+ years pc gamer who spends a psychotic almost spectrum level of time looking at, deciphering, analyzing and yes modding AI (for Arma games) - what you say is basically true. AI development is really a lost or maybe abandoned is a better word -art form. You see back in the glory boomer days, when most PC games were considered niche and developers didnt really have timelines, deadlines and publisher pressure -alot of games really tried to create interesting and innovative AI -a very tough task because as soon as you add one feature - game balance calibrating and all sorts of other issues spring forth leading to an almost endless design quest for some semblance of perfection -or what we call "Good AI"

The problem really was impatient gamers or gamers who just didnt appreciate it - there wasnt a forum alive in which hordes of mindless gamers would call a really decent level AI "Trash", "Horrible AI!", "Stupid AI!" etc etc.. I literally remember when Devs started openly admitting 'they minds well just make basic AI as its very costly timewise and if its just gonna get trashed anyways....what's the point!!'

A real shame. Next came Multiplayer Gaming -this was far more lucrative and brought in a whole new horde of cash paying fans and the Game Developers learned they could now literally abandon AI (im talking First Person Shooters) in favor of PvP -now we can just focus on cool outfits, Level Design and God Rays -Wooo Hoo No more AI worries.

Of course this is an abstraction and yes there are exceptions but this is basically what has happened and why AI isnt at God Tier level by now after all these years

 

[Count_Morfetico]

A real shame. Next came Multiplayer Gaming -this was far more lucrative and brought in a whole new horde of cash paying fans and the Game Developers learned they could now literally abandon AI (im talking First Person Shooters) in favor of PvP -now we can just focus on cool outfits, Level Design and God Rays -Wooo Hoo No more AI worries.

Of course this is an abstraction and yes there are exceptions but this is basically what has happened and why AI isnt at God Tier level by now after all these years

I've been wondering about these things lately, and I totally agree. There is always a "mambo jambo" kind of talk about 'AI improvements and innovations',but games in general doesn't deliver anything remotely sufficient...
Last game I've remember that showed interesting Ai was Alien Isolation.. a game from 2014.

 

[Apocal]

Perhaps a solution could be to have alliances not be particularly close or long-term, or to make them relatively rare for factions to acquire, or cap alliances at two factions only.

I'm away from home right now but even a temporary alliance at the wrong (or right) time is already plenty impactful. Sieges generally succeed unless they starve en route or a relieving army arrives and drives them off or jumps into the assault to help the defenders. So with every faction averaging one army, doubling the army count is a good way to start taking clay, even if they're technically at a manpower disadvantage. They can take a town, have one army (or an army's worth of parties) nearby to guard it for awhile, while the other army in their coalition goes to another settlement.

I mean, when was the last time you played a dedicated strategy game (and remember, Bannerlord is fundementally an RPG with some strategey elements on the side) and encountered a non-terrible AI? There must be some hidden law of the universe that limits video game AI strategy . Whatever the cause, I think it's probably a high dev time / low result ratio way to go. Not likely to happen.

I can't speak for anyone's else experience but Afghanistan '11 had a perfectly competent AI that hit the right combination of enjoyable and challenging. It isn't alone but I fired it up recently and found the AI wasn't doing anything ridiculous, while occasionally surprising me.

Anyway, it isn't hard to make Bannerlord's campaign perform better but that comes with the caveat that the campaign AI's smarter moves don't necessarily mean more fun for a player. It is just incredibly frustrating to have the AI burning twelve villages (for example) at once, knowing you can't save most of them no matter how skillfully you play. Definitely a smart move, though.

 

[Apocal]

Sorry, I'm away from home so I can't run or test this for myself but @SadShogun can you try two things?

1) a war exhaustion multiplier for days without an offensive siege for the aggressor. Something like 3x for 15 days and 10x for 30 days without a siege obviously just throwing numbers out there.

2) changes to the Defensive stance to make armies a lot more more likely to stay home and kingdoms to swap over to Defensive if their garrisons drop below 80% of their ideal size? The second as a way of measuring losses without needing to create a new variable that would affect save games.

It would help end a lot of the indecisive wars that drag on and on and on if the aggressors had to push early and often but only had a limited "wind" from the start. Unsuccessful grindfests would end pretty quick if war exhaustion hit harder, earlier.

 

[Dabos37]

If war exhaustion hit harder, would wars’ length get reduced as secondary effect too?

For me, the main issue because we have endless wars is related to a pretty high chance for new wars trigger. This is also bad for war length duration because every time a new war is declared, if the involved kingdoms were already fighting another war, they are going to try to make peace.

Reducing war declarations chance is the way to go IMO. The only problem with this when I have tried it, is that for some reason, some kingdoms are too passive while other kingdoms are ok.