-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Even battles are not ready for release
- Thread starter Dabos37
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
1. That's not that bad. It simulates to at least a slight degree that often cavalry stopped in front of unwavering blocks of infantry (at least in later centuries when we have more detailed reports about cavalry warfare, it can be transferred to earlier periods), and then probed out possible gaps or fell back. If the cavalry would be unstoppable or the mount killed all the time, it would be even worse. I would tone down the timespan in which the rider is helpless after getting stopped.
2. That's true. Maybe it gets better when the extreme combat hugging of 1.8.0 is removed, allegedly planned for release.
Shields are a problem. They have an invisible rim, and seemingly small shields have almost the same area of invisible protection than big shields. However if you make the area of protection the visible area only, like in RBM mod combat module, you get huge imbalance problems of AI against archers (which are more op in RBM than in vanilla). Reason is that the AI soldiers are too dumb to protect their heads against arrows.
3. Absolutely. Formations are such a sad chapter of BL, it's difficult where to start. Luckily we know that in reality formations did not play any role in warfare, so we should be not too demanding (Inet disclaimer: that was sarcasm).
That is not totally unrealistic because cavalry seemingly partly fought this way at some stages of some battles, from time to time we get glimpses reported of such situations. For example at Bevevent 1266 AD there was a lengthy melee combat between mounted "knights". And while the mace was not much in use in the 11th c. AD of our world, later in the 14th, 15th and 16th century it was often attributed to fully armored men-at-arms on horse, so seemingly there was a use for it in close distance cavalry melees.
Charges are much more difficult to get right in games (look at the suboptimal mechanics of Total Wars series) than melee, I wonder wether the current horse melee hugging in BL is by design or just a bug. Surely it benefits heavily armored cavalry too much and is overdone.
Last edited:
Brano
Sergeant at Arms
Yep. People generally don't care who rules over them unless there is food on the table, beer in tavern, taxes are fair a no religion/culture propaganda is shoved down their throats. This cultural -3 penalty in game is a joke
Cultural stuff may be irrelevant in modern times, but certainly not at the time the game is portrayed. And religion was a big BIG factor. You could get stoned, crucified, set alight, burnt alive, drowned, ect. all in the name of religious differences in the early middle ages. Spanish Inquisition ring a bell? The French slaughtered thousands of Huguenots, and those were their OWN people. The English exercised prima nocte with Scottish commoners to "get rid of the Scottish taint".
No, I think cultural differences were very real in the time BL and -3 might have been the least of your concerns when attempting to rule a foreign settlement.
Looking purely at the crusades, it is true that many Muslim inhabitants of the "Holy Land" did not have any issues with the Christian conquerers, as long as they did not interfere in the practice of the religion.
And many Christian lords allowed their knights to fight for, or be employed by Muslim lords, as long as it did not involve their holdings, or interfere with their duty to the Church.
No, I think cultural differences were very real in the time BL and -3 might have been the least of your concerns when attempting to rule a foreign settlement.
Looking purely at the crusades, it is true that many Muslim inhabitants of the "Holy Land" did not have any issues with the Christian conquerers, as long as they did not interfere in the practice of the religion.
And many Christian lords allowed their knights to fight for, or be employed by Muslim lords, as long as it did not involve their holdings, or interfere with their duty to the Church.
They didn't.
I think this feature made much more sense during the beta when cavalry bump damage was higher, and you could easily destroy unprepared infantry or archers with cavalry. The combat back then had a lot of issues, but at least cavalry charges didn't just wash uselessly over entire blocks of infantry. At the moment they do about as much damage on the charge as a gust of wind.
The inter-religious violence of the time had little to do with what religion the ruler was compared to the populace. In fact medieval European rulers would often intentionally spark civil violence against Jews or even fellow Catholics as a way of consolidating political power. Religious strife is insider baseball within the clergy that spills out into the public.
I've never seen a video game depict this properly. It's always just a permanent penalty for the ruler having a different religion to the population, when in history this was actually the norm in a lot of places, and very very rarely caused civil unrest. It was actually preferable for some Christians to be ruled by Muslims, because unlike the Byzantines or Catholics, they weren't going to tell you which doctrine to believe or which Bible to use.
Prima Nocte is made up. Permanently humiliating and pissing off every single free peasant and serf just so the Lord can get his rocks off a few times a year would be unimaginably stupid. Some of the *King's* officials during the Hundred Year's War went around harassing women (not even having sex with them), and they were stoned or beaten. It was one of the contributing factors in the Peasant's Revolt.
Cultural stuff is not at all irrelevant in modern times. To a certain degree is is much more prevalent than in medieval or early modern times. Especially nationalistic feelings were not that present in the medieval times. There was of course the faith to divide the people and make them cruel and dump fanatics.
What you wrote about the fate of heretics is however more a development of the high and late medieval period. The retribution became stronger after the "crusades" against the cathars, and new logic systems (partly connected to the thoughts of Thomas of Aquin) and the struggle between state and church influenced it. There are very seldomly reports about prosecution of witches before the 12th c. AD, for example, as the connection between magic (the early church denied the existence of magic) and the devil was a later invention. The Spanish Inquisition f.e. came into full existence only in the late 15th c. AD. It's interesting that it did not care much about witches (the focus of many othe inquisitions) but prosecuted more heretical people (or what they took for), homosexuals and moriscos.
We don't know about anything similar in Calradia, and it seems that such cultural differences don't play a role for mercenaries at least (or better: for nobody in daily military life). I think not-so-mixed armies are just more interesting from a gameplay perspective, lore or not.
randomuser
Recruit
The cataphracts still should make impact on the enemies instead of getting stopped from full speed instantly by some wooden polearms. It is funny to see that the mount did not take much damage, the riders did not fall off their mounts, and the wooden polearms did not break, and the enemy formation did not get scattered at all.
I assume most of these issues come from the broken collision. There are way too many enemies sticking in a small area. They got much higher mass than the cataphracts so nothing will be able to shake them.
By the way, my mount also got stopped from full speed when it got hit on the side. I did not charge at the enemies face to face. Nothing was in front of me but I got stopped.
Known issue, they won't fix it because it was put in there intentionally.
Prima nocte is not made up. Also known as "Droit du seigneur", and abolished by Ferdinand II of Aragon in Article 9 of the Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe in 1486. It was mainly symbolic, yet did exist according to several scholars studying the early middlle ages. [In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State in 1884, socialist Friedrich Engels argued it was real and had an anthropological origin. In 1930, Scottish legal scholar Hector McKechnie concluded, based on historical evidence, that the practice had existed in Scotland in early times. Italian scholar Paolo Mantegazza, in his 1935 book The Sexual Relations of Mankind, said that while not a law, it was most likely a binding custom].
>> But it is not relevant to the discussion.
Don't just copy paragraphs from Wikipedia if you don't know the context. Engels was a brilliant economist but he wasn't a historian or an anthropologist. In this essay he is trying to create a vast narrative about the material basis of gender relations, and in that paragraph he applies "prima noctis" to a dozen widely different polygamist tendencies all over the world, mostly without citation. I'm not qualified to talk about the sexual mores of the navajos or whatever it is, but his use of that Spanish document as evidence for widespread wedding night rape across all of Europe is pretty weak. 19th century philosophers and economists weren't particularly rigorous, and this kind of obscure source cherrypicking is common all the way from Marx to Foucault.
My assumption is that something like prima noctis was a common rumour about the upper class that emerged alongside political unrest. For example there were consistent rumours throughout the middle ages that Jews were drinking child blood, and the church even enacted official laws to "prevent" this. But to then assume that blood libel was real is just ludicrous.
@Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James - your assumption is just that, an assumption. And please do not make statements about my knowledge of the situation, boet, you don't know me at all.
If prima nocte is indeed fiction, why did Ferdinand II of Aragon have to abolish it in 1486 (Article 9 of the Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe ), which were laws intended to free Catalan catalan peasanst from the so-called "evil customs".
If prima nocte is indeed fiction, why did Ferdinand II of Aragon have to abolish it in 1486 (Article 9 of the Sentencia Arbitral de Guadalupe ), which were laws intended to free Catalan catalan peasanst from the so-called "evil customs".
There are medieval laws banning the use of demonic magic, contacting evil spirits, and turning into a werewolf. You can even find laws banning Jews from drinking the blood of children. Are these all real too, because the authorities had to ban them?
I'm making an assumption because you type like a 14 year old and copy whole paragraphs from wikipedia without context.
We know people would pay to be entertained by watching wild animals eat slaves/Christians/convicts in the Coliseum. Historical accurate fact.
We know people paid to be entertained by watching gladiators fight each other to the death. Historical fact.
We know slavery was real. Historical fact.
People burned at the stake. real. Historical fact.
Yet you apply your post-modern optics when considering a situation like prima nocte, in spite of evidence that it had to be abolished.
The early days of civilization was brutal, and we have no concept of what serfs and peasants (and slaves) had to endure. We like to gloss over things we think are 'unlikely', but we do so with our current world view. Not the truth, but our convenient reflection of what we want to believe.
Who is the 14-year old naïve here?
We know people paid to be entertained by watching gladiators fight each other to the death. Historical fact.
We know slavery was real. Historical fact.
People burned at the stake. real. Historical fact.
Yet you apply your post-modern optics when considering a situation like prima nocte, in spite of evidence that it had to be abolished.
The early days of civilization was brutal, and we have no concept of what serfs and peasants (and slaves) had to endure. We like to gloss over things we think are 'unlikely', but we do so with our current world view. Not the truth, but our convenient reflection of what we want to believe.
Who is the 14-year old naïve here?
Last edited:
Wanking over how brutal and violent the past was is probably the most 14 year old thing in the world. Just because prima noctis sounds horrible enough to be real, doesn't mean it is.
Do you think Buck Breaking is real too?
even with RBM's ai modifications, the entirety of the combat AI is bonkers dumb... Srsly 
This new face-huging, the whole cavalry car wash, units rushing into architecture holes during sieges and getting stuck, AI almost never using pikes due to insane combat speed resolution (the first to zerg rush wins basically) - and having absolutely no way to manually make them, etc.
We need formations mod in this game, NEED. There we could order bracing manually, pavise deployment, AI would adapt to range and formation type (you could literally mix archers and infantry and they'd work in harmony in a loose formation under advance) - we could select specific formations and tell them to attack said formation... All formations had optimal AI and would work pretty close to RL historical uses of said formations. - there were so many possibilities with Formations Mod, and than we get this abomination which's arguably inferior to vanilla WB AI...
I mean, I came to think of it, the only core gameplay loop they are providing us is an endless stream of combat (can get boring and/or burnout really fast) yet the combat itself is incomplete and broken.... Htf do they have the balls to be releasing the game already!??!?!
This new face-huging, the whole cavalry car wash, units rushing into architecture holes during sieges and getting stuck, AI almost never using pikes due to insane combat speed resolution (the first to zerg rush wins basically) - and having absolutely no way to manually make them, etc.
We need formations mod in this game, NEED. There we could order bracing manually, pavise deployment, AI would adapt to range and formation type (you could literally mix archers and infantry and they'd work in harmony in a loose formation under advance) - we could select specific formations and tell them to attack said formation... All formations had optimal AI and would work pretty close to RL historical uses of said formations. - there were so many possibilities with Formations Mod, and than we get this abomination which's arguably inferior to vanilla WB AI...
I mean, I came to think of it, the only core gameplay loop they are providing us is an endless stream of combat (can get boring and/or burnout really fast) yet the combat itself is incomplete and broken.... Htf do they have the balls to be releasing the game already!??!?!
HalfMetalJacket
Knight
I was too afraid to ask what buck breaking is and... well.OMG please no, ruinbut please let Buck Breaking be real!
Similar threads
