Do you like the giant 1-2k armies? Or the conga line of other armies? I don't but I kill em all anyways!

Users who are viewing this thread

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
I think it was better in warband where a larger fight was rarer and most of the action was party on party or a 2 v 1 and such. I don't like that in Bannerlord these extra large armies are the norm. I don't think 1k battles actually fit on the map. The map is too small for that many units to maneuver and have any play. I don't think the UI works very well once you go beyond about 200 troops under your control. You just can't visually see where to place the troops and where you're sending them without a overhead or a mini-map, the latter of which existed in warband and I used it a lot. Also, because the AI performance of troops is still very dubious, the more you have, the more chances for things to go wrong. The AI makes too many armies in to short of succession too. You need to actually capture all of the lords so that nobody can make an army or you will always have an army to fight because of the very liberal hiring of mercenaries allowed the AI. The fact they can hire them without spending campaign time finding them and even when the faction ruler is in prison, is a related problem too.

And I know somebody might want to say "Oh but it would be too easy if butt if butt" so I must state plainly, there is nothing challenging about defeating these large, annoying, endless armies. It is only boring, repetitive and unrewarding gameplay, but provides no challenge. It's simply making me be stuck fighting one large party for a long time rather then fighting many smaller battles individually. The what's the difference? As I stated above, the function of the troops in such large battles is just annoying and frustrating and simply not as enjoyable as more moderately sized battles.

Below I will post a video of my recent experience with extra large armies. This is an annoying thing to watch and I just want you to be able to see what it is if you don't know what I'm complaining about. Keep in mind this is just clips, the actual process was over three hours of this stuff. I shamelessly butcher them all with my ultimate cheese master tactics. I will do this to any extra large sized army 100% of the time because I don't agree they should even exist in the game. To me this is just like some busy work side quest you must do to be ALLOWED to play the game.

SO how can this be improved? Well I'm goin to assume TW won't make bigger maps so perhaps a limit to max size of armies so that extra large battles are more rare, though still possible. Also a cool down before a new army can be created to make more time in between armies once you have defeat the first batch of them form an a enemy. Of course improved AI and and overhead view or mini map would help the actual battle be much more enjoyable too!

What do you think?
 
Last edited:

Aksei

Sergeant
well, problem for me is not the size. I liked the first huge battles, its kind of epic. But the whole system is bad, big battles should have an impact.
Soldiers where killed on both sides and then they continue like nothing happend.
Well, no matter how big the batttle is, every lord and their fiefs should get a "recruiting block". Less time for winners ofc.
Maybe also a "moral influence" to the kingdom with effects on declaring war and things like that
 

MostBlunted

Sergeant Knight at Arms
One problem with a big battles between two armies are those small battle maps. There are some maps that are so small that both armies just spawn within archer range directly from the beginning. There is no time for any tactics.

Big battles should never happen on those small maps where both armies spawn like 300m away from each other.

well, problem for me is not the size. I liked the first huge battles, its kind of epic. But the whole system is bad, big battles should have an impact.
Soldiers where killed on both sides and then they continue like nothing happend.
Oh yeah, that´s annoying. After the AI have been beaten their focus should be on rebuilding their party but it seems like they are just going right away to the front so you can fight those 50+ recruit parties again and of course destroy them. A few seconds later they are back...
 

Lord Grindelvald

Sergeant at Arms
WB
The big armies look and feel very impressive for the first time. But the reinforcement system sucks ass.

First of all, the AI just stays in spawn when you've got the higher power level. They put their infantry to the front, archers as well and get flanked by cavalry. Then they just stay there. They will wait for you to engage.
So you have to move your troops all the way up to the field, get your infantry and archers on high ground and antagonize them enough with horse archers so they engage.

The AI gets reinforced immediatly since you're at their spawn. But your reinforcements, all different types of units, have to run through the map before they can connect with your party. At that time you've gotten bored of the battle, formations stopped making sense after the first charge so you either relinqueshed command to the nonsensical AI on your side or you just hit Charge.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
I very much agree. Large armies are very cool and fun. But there's too many of them. When the AI is able to send army after army after army, all sense of accomplishment and satisfaction eventually vanishes when you have already butchered several of them.

I think a system for "manpower" should be added, where eventually after several such defeats the kingdom, be it AI or player-led simply doesn't have any more soldiers to muster to fight. The current recruiting system should theoretically allow this, but volunteers respawn so quickly, and the fact that you can recruit from neutral villages makes this meaningless.
 

Lord Grindelvald

Sergeant at Arms
WB
I very much agree. Large armies are very cool and fun. But there's too many of them. When the AI is able to send army after army after army, all sense of accomplishment and satisfaction eventually vanishes when you have already butchered several of them.

I think a system for "manpower" should be added, where eventually after several such defeats the kingdom, be it AI or player-led simply doesn't have any more soldiers to muster to fight. The current recruiting system should theoretically allow this, but volunteers respawn so quickly, and the fact that you can recruit from neutral villages makes this meaningless.

Yes... I think you are very much correct with this. The big armies aren't the problem, its the sheer frequency of them. To be fair, I am almost indifferent to my army because I know I can easily create a new one. Troops are so easily replacable that I feel like I'm fighting as Russia, just sending soldier after soldier into battle, not caring wether they live or not.

If armiess were rarer and troop party sizes smaller it'd really add some excitement in going to battle with a big force.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
To be fair, I am almost indifferent to my army because I know I can easily create a new one. Troops are so easily replacable that I feel like I'm fighting as Russia, just sending soldier after soldier into battle, not caring wether they live or not.
Exactly. And sad thing is, that TW actually made this worse during the EA, as they increased the number of noble recruits available in villages. So not only do you have no trouble replenishing your armies in general, you can just as easily do so for the most powerful units in the game.
 

MostBlunted

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Giant armies were a need for game, i wouldn't say no to the even bigger parties and battle size
Sure, but giant armies should be "rare" and not standard. It doesn´t matter how much you beat a faction up, they will always have armies roaming around.
 

Bjorn The Upset

Grandmaster Knight
WBVCNWWF&SM&B
Just add marshals back in the game, give more autonomy to the lords whether they decide to join the army or not. Rework influence system or just get rid of these ridiculous thing all together.

Reducing party sizes a bit could also work. Adding some kind of worn out mechanic or a kind of stamina to the kingdoms for war activities. This also could lead more frequency kingdoms seeking peace rather than their berserk behaviour.
 

Spulor

Sergeant
Big battles should never happen on those small maps where both armies spawn like 300m away from each other.
Would be cool if this could be tied to the Battle Terrain System, so in smaller Maps only limited parts of your Army can spawn there roundwise like in Warband. Would also give more depth to the system since you could influence if you want to fight a huge battle in a big open field or smaller battles in a mountain pass.

Still the recovery rate of the Armies has to be fixed, as you all stated above.
 
Just add marshals back in the game, give more autonomy to the lords whether they decide to join the army or not. Rework influence system or just get rid of these ridiculous thing all together.
Even though we know why, it really is a shame that the marshal system was altogether scrapped. I dont really understand the reason either, since it can very easily fit into the game.

Why not have the most influential clan/ruler adopt the title, and, given much preperation, can assemble a mighty army not meant to just take a castle/town and leave, but go on an extended campaign, maybe even deep into enemy territory? It could be major shift from the regular border wars that happen time after time.
 

ziomek24

Veteran
The big armies look and feel very impressive for the first time. But the reinforcement system sucks ass.

First of all, the AI just stays in spawn when you've got the higher power level. They put their infantry to the front, archers as well and get flanked by cavalry. Then they just stay there. They will wait for you to engage.
So you have to move your troops all the way up to the field, get your infantry and archers on high ground and antagonize them enough with horse archers so they engage.

The AI gets reinforced immediatly since you're at their spawn. But your reinforcements, all different types of units, have to run through the map before they can connect with your party. At that time you've gotten bored of the battle, formations stopped making sense after the first charge so you either relinqueshed command to the nonsensical AI on your side or you just hit Charge.
You are absolutely right. How many such battles have I already played ... I had to withdraw my troops on purpose and wait for the rest to come.
 

Life_Erikson

Master Knight
M&BWBNWVC
What I liked about WB was that even with an army of just 40 to 60 men you could influence the outcome of the war to an extend by choosing your battles wisely. Using your soldiers to win a battle that would otherwise be lost or take out multiple small armies of your enemy one by one.

Bigger battles sound great on paper, but their outcome needs to matter and the player should have some influence on said outcome.
If the commander system worked and if armies would actually be lost and not replenished by day two big battles would be great. But even then they should be a rare occurance so as to not become grindy.
 

JunKeteer

Regular
Would be cool if this could be tied to the Battle Terrain System, so in smaller Maps only limited parts of your Army can spawn there roundwise like in Warband. Would also give more depth to the system since you could influence if you want to fight a huge battle in a big open field or smaller battles in a mountain pass.

Still the recovery rate of the Armies has to be fixed, as you all stated above.
Interesting idea, and could be another more 'unique' perk bonus to specialize too for certain lords/factions.

But in general, yes, the first couple large battles are amazing but then it gets stale quickly as is just repetitive. The outcomes have almost no significance or weight to them given the fact the lords can regenerate an army in an instant to counter; and I assume that is to prevent snowballing but the frequency of large armies should be toned down? Forming an army takes influence but, even with certain policies, it is way too easy to repeatedly create one after the next for both the player and lords.
I personally think that the overworld battle simulations end way too quickly too; it sort of makes sense it you relate it to in-game time/days but in terms of the player POV and RL time, too quick.
 
I love the large battles but like others have said, they feel meaningless because of how quickly the AI bounces back with another army the same size. When the outcome of a big battle has little to no practical impact on the campaign, there's no sense of drama. It doesn't feel important, it's just another meaningless fight with no strategic value. I think it would be better if large battles were less frequent, but more impactful on the overall campaign. This would make them more important and exciting to participate in, as well as increasing strategy.

I think AI armies bouncing back so quickly can be slowed by looking at two areas:-

AI Cheats
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the AI still gets additional recruitment slots from settlements, spawns already with a fair few troops, gets a daily troop XP bonus so they can upgrade faster, don't have to have the horses when they upgrade cavalry troops like the player does, and possibly other cheats/bonuses I'm not remembering off the top of my head. Individually these are small things, but they add up. I think TW should look at reducing or outright removing some of these.

AI behavior
AI lords don't really do anything other than fight/raid, recruit, patrol. I think the AI lords should spend more time doing the same stuff the player does. For example when an area is overrun with bandits, why don't AI lords who own the nearby town/castle go and clear out the hideout? Why is the player the sole janitor of all of Calradia!?! (I know there's a small % chance of the AI solving issues when they enter a settlement, but that doesn't help in regards to making the AI "do more stuff besides fight"). They should also care more about bolstering & defending recently captured settlements, instead of leaving them with a handful of troops just for an enemy army to recapture it 5 minutes later in a silly game of Calradian Ping-Pong.

Other factors the community has been clamoring for could naturally slow things down as well, such as more meaningful lord relations, diplomacy, feasts/gatherings etc, but TW have made clear they're not interested in any of this sadly. Maybe the constant stream of meaningless fights is just how TW's designers want it?
 

HotPie

Regular
I kinda feel that this problem is part of the whole "eco-system" of problems if you like.

So, I kind of agree with you on some levels, I really enjoy the large battles, but you do come to realise that defeating an army of 2000 has absolutely no reward. Ideally wars should consist of many small skirmish battles and village raids along the border, with a handful of large battles, in which the victor of said battles will practically win the war allowing them to go unhindered to siege a settlement or be granted land in a peace agreement. This is where we come across the first problem of the eco system...there is little to no diplomacy options.

Secondly, this may cause wars to be shorter or lack the constant battles that fill up the game. Here the second problem of the eco system crops up, there is very little to keep you occupied outside of battles. So as of now, the large battles are what keeps us occupied with the lack of content elsewhere. If it's fewer, but more impactful, battles that you want, first we must address what the alternative is. We need a full rework of interacting with fiefs, a governing system, political manoeuvring/intrigue, useful political alliances etc. Just something that will keep us occupied during peace time other than trading grain or winning your 600th tournament.
 
Top Bottom