How can I keep my Companions out of harms way?

[Trenchnut]

1.52
On my last playthrough, spanning almost 20 game years, I lost more than two dozen companions. House rules are: one companion as leader for slot one to four each - all others on slot eight, my close retinue. Those on slot eight are my family members and the surgeon, the scout and the quartermaster, the most valuable clan members as I see it. Works pretty well in open field battles, as you usualy don´t find me in the first wave of attackers.

It´s during sieges and the final assault, when the sh.. hits the fan. The game engine divides attackers in eight big blocks of troops, but gives no further control over my companions. Finaly all troops rush to finish off the last defenders and it is during this tummult that some of them are KIA.

I can let them stay at home during the sieges, this is good for the family, of course. But the surgeon, the quartermaster and the scout has to be with the army,
at least I may assume.

As the title said, any advise how to keep them out of harms way?

 

[Lord Irontoe]

You could put them at the bottom of the party list. They should be less likely to spawn in if its a big battle like a siege.

 

[Theofilos]

Give them bows and arrows so they wont rush to melee in unwanted scenarios,still they can be killed but way less %

 

[Azirok]

I give mine a horse, bow and arrows in first slots and 1H and shield in the bottom slots. I then put them with my horse archers. Only lost a couple on my last playthrough.

 

[Benjamin Bones]

You bring up a great point:

It´s during sieges and the final assault, when the sh.. hits the fan. The game engine divides attackers in eight big blocks of troops, but gives no further control over my companions. Finaly all troops rush to finish off the last defenders and it is during this tummult that some of them are KIA.

I'm not sure if this is viable but I'd like to have my captains (I use grouping 7 for this personally) to be by my side during sieges.

It would be nice to have them in ear shot instead of spreading them out all over the place, potentially in harms way. In fact, it would be more than nice - with death now implemented - it's pretty much an essential feature that's just not instituted.

 

[black_bulldog]

You can give them bows and keep them back in field battles but sieges are the big problem when trying to keep them alive. The other issue that I have that goes hand in hand with this is if I put someone in group V-VIII I don't want them to spawn next to the enemy when fighting in hideouts or villages. I lost 1 companion and my sister when I attacked a lord looting a village and forgot to reassign them.
As @Benjamin Bones said it would be nice to have them be able to keep them by your side in sieges but I have no idea of how to do that. The best I can think is make sure they have a bow or crossbow during a siege, hopefully that drastically raises their survival rate.

 

[Benjamin Bones]

You can give them bows and keep them back in field battles but sieges are the big problem when trying to keep them alive. The other issue that I have that goes hand in hand with this is if I put someone in group V-VIII I don't want them to spawn next to the enemy when fighting in hideouts or villages. I lost 1 companion and my sister when I attacked a lord looting a village and forgot to reassign them.
As @Benjamin Bones said it would be nice to have them be able to keep them by your side in sieges but I have no idea of how to do that. The best I can think is make sure they have a bow or crossbow during a siege, hopefully that drastically raises their survival rate.

Yea, but this is anything but ideal. If anything, it's a very poor workaround to a rather glaring problem that is... Unfortunately apparent in many aspects of the game. That problem being: a lack of control and agency.

In this game you're not just a vassal or even a ruler... You're the frickin' Bannerlord, yet you can't even (truly) create your own banner; you can't tell your companions, who lead forces in your name, what to do with those forces (i.e. garrison in this castle, patrol this area... etc.), you can't strategize (as a ruler) with your vassals... AND... I can go on ad nauseam about the things you can't do ... But I won't.

 

[black_bulldog]

Yea, but this is anything but ideal. If anything, it's a very poor workaround to a rather glaring problem that is... Unfortunately apparent in many aspects of the game. That problem being: a lack of control and agency.

In this game you're not just a vassal or even a ruler... You're the frickin' Bannerlord, yet you can't even (truly) create your own banner; you can't tell your companions, who lead forces in your name, what to do with those forces (i.e. garrison in this castle, patrol this area... etc.), you can't strategize (as a ruler) with your vassals... AND... I can go on ad nauseam about the things you can't do ... But I won't.

Yeah the more you play the game the more glaring the issues with the core mechanics become. If this game were garbage I wouldn't really care but it's not. There plenty of things to like and to love about it. I just want the game to be a better experience, but right now it's 1 part fun 2 parts aggravation.

 

[Benjamin Bones]

Yeah the more you play the game the more glaring the issues with the core mechanics become. If this game were garbage I wouldn't really care but it's not. There plenty of things to like and to love about it. I just want the game to be a better experience, but right now it's 1 part fun 2 parts aggravation.

Hah! Yessir! I'm here because I love the game (issues and imperfections included). Nowhere (that I know of) in the world can you get a game like this. I frickin' love it, heck - I've written poetry about this game for crying out loud.

I can't get aggravated with games, especially a game that advertises itself as "incomplete" - life can be aggravating enough - games are a respite from all that jive.

That doesn't mean that Bannerlord can't get better. There are things I don't like about it for sure, and there are things that I'm down right disappointed by, but it's still Mount and Blade. Vanilla Warband kept me playing for over a hundred hours and some of the mods were so enjoyable that I literally lost days in them - putting the hours I had in vanilla Warband to shame.

AND that's what I don't get about the flamers - no matter how disappointed you are in the base game (when it's finished) - the saving grace of this franchise is its love for the modders and the amazing modding community.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, THIS GAME IS GOING TO BE WHAT YOU WANT... WHATEVER THAT IS.

And if it isn't... Learn a little C# and make what you want.

 

[Lord Irontoe]

There really ought to be a preset "Bodyguard" formation which automatically lines up behind you and follows you around. Of course, the way I play, that would probably get them all killed that much sooner, but still, it should be an option.

 

[Benjamin Bones]

There really ought to be a preset "Bodyguard" formation which automatically lines up behind you and follows you around. Of course, the way I play, that would probably get them all killed that much sooner, but still, it should be an option.

Spoiler: Exactly

 

[hruza]

I said it before and I say it now. MB is not structured for main NPCs to be mortal. It simply does not work and won't work. Things like lack of control in sieges make things even worst. However even if they will be fixed, if you have to keep your companions away from fighting, then there is a problem.

Main NPC immortality worked well in previous MBs, I don't get the reason for introducing mortality in third. 10% or what ewer chance to die when struck is as, or nearly as unrealistic as 0% one. So there is no gain here. Just problems with balancing and damage to what makes this game fun: combat, when you have to assign your companions to separate group and then keep them away from fighting instead of enjoying the battle.

 

[AJAJP_Juan]

I said it before and I say it now. MB is not structured for main NPCs to be mortal. It simply does not work and won't work. Things like lack of control in sieges make things even worst. However even if they will be fixed, if you have to keep your companions away from fighting, then there is a problem.

Main NPC immortality worked well in previous MBs, I don't get the reason for introducing mortality in third. 10% or what ewer chance to die when struck is as, or nearly as unrealistic as 0% one. So there is no gain here. Just problems with balancing and damage to what makes this game fun: combat, when you have to assign your companions to separate group and then keep them away from fighting instead of enjoying the battle.

Right now its an option, you can disable it if you don't like it.

 

[artemis_entreri]

1.52
On my last playthrough, spanning almost 20 game years, I lost more than two dozen companions. House rules are: one companion as leader for slot one to four each - all others on slot eight, my close retinue. Those on slot eight are my family members and the surgeon, the scout and the quartermaster, the most valuable clan members as I see it. Works pretty well in open field battles, as you usualy don´t find me in the first wave of attackers.

It´s during sieges and the final assault, when the sh.. hits the fan. The game engine divides attackers in eight big blocks of troops, but gives no further control over my companions. Finaly all troops rush to finish off the last defenders and it is during this tummult that some of them are KIA.

I can let them stay at home during the sieges, this is good for the family, of course. But the surgeon, the quartermaster and the scout has to be with the army,
at least I may assume.

As the title said, any advise how to keep them out of harms way?

Give them the best armor possible. Give them all Sword and Board or Mace and Board. For Sieges, do not attack until you break down the walls. It takes longer but makes it easier and less dangerous.

Remove their horses for field battles or give them bows.

 

[Benjamin Bones]

I said it before and I say it now. MB is not structured for main NPCs to be mortal. It simply does not work and won't work. Things like lack of control in sieges make things even worst. However even if they will be fixed, if you have to keep your companions away from fighting, then there is a problem.

Main NPC immortality worked well in previous MBs, I don't get the reason for introducing mortality in third. 10% or what ewer chance to die when struck is as, or nearly as unrealistic as 0% one. So there is no gain here. Just problems with balancing and damage to what makes this game fun: combat, when you have to assign your companions to separate group and then keep them away from fighting instead of enjoying the battle.

Ehhh.... I disagree. I like the fact that it's possible for my companions to die in battle. Having them assigned to a small group - like my personal guard - would be perfect. I'd be able to have (relatively) high tier NPCs who are also fitted with top gear and weapons by my side in a siege...
But I can't control that.

The same reason that I'm not the first person up those awful siege ladders is the same reason I don't want my companions there: who ever that person is, is gunna die!

I want my "unique" companions with me during a siege - not with the other sacrificial lambs hat make body bridges with their corpses.

It's not that this feature exists, it's the fact that there is an enormous lack of player control all throughout this game - force partitioning and troop positioning among the tops.

 

[hruza]

Right now its an option, you can disable it if you don't like it.

I didn't dispute that. I was simply pointing out why there likely will always be problems with permadeath in this game.

Ehhh.... I disagree. I like the fact that it's possible for my companions to die in battle. Having them assigned to a small group - like my personal guard - would be perfect. I'd be able to have (relatively) high tier NPCs who are also fitted with top gear and weapons by my side in a siege...
But I can't control that.

And again, what's the point of having companions in battle if you have to keep them away from a fight?

Not to mention that if you want to level their skills, you need to let them fight, thus risking their lives.

It's not that this feature exists, it's the fact that there is an enormous lack of player control all throughout this game - force partitioning and troop positioning among the tops.

I am not against more control, and I am also sure that devs will add more control as game development progress. I am simply pointing out problem with permadeath in this game in general. Characters does not level easily in this game. In fact they level extremely slowly. That means that they are not easily replaceable. Which leads to player trying to keep them out of combat. Which is against not just some core mechanics of the game, like leveling, but also against whole point of the game ...having fun fighting one battle after another.

And I am not going to mention problems with mortal lords, that leads to all sorts of faction balancing problems and eventually to generic lords without character.

Which is exactly why first two installments in the MB series got immortal main NPCs to begin with.

 

[thefirst1nvad3r]

I always give the best weapons and armours (almost tier 4) to my companions: this seems to help them a lot to survive in every situation. Also, if you take characters with 120+ skill in combat they seems to be tougher in every fight.
Sometimes I change every NPC formation to "VIII" or "VII" so I can control them and say to hold back if they're too weak.

 

[Lord Irontoe]

I didn't dispute that. I was simply pointing out why there likely will always be problems with permadeath in this game.



And again, what's the point of having companions in battle if you have to keep them away from a fight?

Not to mention that if you want to level their skills, you need to let them fight, thus risking their lives.



I am not against more control, and I am also sure that devs will add more control as game development progress. I am simply pointing out problem with permadeath in this game in general. Characters does not level easily in this game. In fact they level extremely slowly. That means that they are not easily replaceable. Which leads to player trying to keep them out of combat. Which is against not just some core mechanics of the game, like leveling, but also against whole point of the game ...having fun fighting one battle after another.

And I am not going to mention problems with mortal lords, that leads to all sorts of faction balancing problems and eventually to generic lords without character.

Which is exactly why first two installments in the MB series got immortal main NPCs to begin with.

I agree with you on that. Hero death creates a lot of tough problems in balancing the game, and I'm not really sure that the payoff is worth it. I know a lot of people have a dream of being able to play the same playthrough forever across generations of characters, but I don't really see that as a realistic goal. I don't think you can keep the game interesting for that long since one lifetime is plenty long enough to conquer the world, or close to it. What are you supposed to do as your child or grandchild? RP as Good King Wenceslas touring your peaceful kingdom all day long doing village quests?

They'll probably add rebellions and civil wars to mix things up in the late game, and that's cool, but its not going to be enough to make a single playthrough exciting forever. And if it becomes a matter of every time your kingdom starts getting too big it just breaks apart, that's going to be extremely frustrating for the types of players who like to win the game by conquering the whole map.

I like the idea of the legacy system and characters that can live and die. I just don't see how its supposed to translate into fun gameplay.

 

[Benjamin Bones]

And again, what's the point of having companions in battle if you have to keep them away from a fight?

Not to mention that if you want to level their skills, you need to let them fight, thus risking their lives.

And again, I'm not sure if you're willfully ignoring parts of what I said, or maybe I wasn't clear enough...

It's not about keeping them out of the fight - it's about controlling where they are during a siege and what they're doing.

I want my companions to fight and possibly die during a siege...

What I don't want is them dying alone on the wall because not enough troops were able to efficiently scale the siege ladders to help them.

I don't want them dying because they were among the first through the breach, or through the smashed gate.

I don't stay out of a fight during a siege - I press forward (like any sane commander would) once the grunts have made some headway through the first wave of defenders... My companions aren't grunts - they're my captains, lieutenants... My specialists.

Companions should be able to be commanded during a siege independent of other soldiers.

If my companions die during a siege, it should be because I was a negligent commander and put them in a situation to die... Not because the computer assigned them to a specific spot in the siege to do a specific task during the siege irrespective of my wishes...

The fact that you're arguing about whether an optional feature should even be in the game is.... I guess your opinion on the option... But that's why it's an option friend.

I always give the best weapons and armours (almost tier 4) to my companions: this seems to help them a lot to survive in every situation. Also, if you take characters with 120+ skill in combat they seems to be tougher in every fight.
Sometimes I change every NPC formation to "VIII" or "VII" so I can control them and say to hold back if they're too weak.

Yes but wouldn't it be nice, logical... Even, dare I say - imperative - to control the most valued members of your party during a deadly siege?

I like the idea of the legacy system and characters that can live and die. I just don't see how its supposed to translate into fun gameplay.

If the player had more agency and control in this game it could work, but too much is decided by the computer and RNG.

 

[hruza]

And again, I'm not sure if you're willfully ignoring parts of what I said, or maybe I wasn't clear enough...

It's not about keeping them out of the fight - it's about controlling where they are during a siege and what they're doing.

I want my companions to fight and possibly die during a siege...

What I don't want is them dying alone on the wall because not enough troops were able to efficiently scale the siege ladders to help them.

I don't want them dying because they were among the first through the breach, or through the smashed gate.

I don't stay out of a fight during a siege - I press forward (like any sane commander would) once the grunts have made some headway through the first wave of defenders... My companions aren't grunts - they're my captains, lieutenants... My specialists.

Companions should be able to be commanded during a siege independent of other soldiers.

If my companions die during a siege, it should be because I was a negligent commander and put them in a situation to die... Not because the computer assigned them to a specific spot in the siege to do a specific task during the siege irrespective of my wishes...

The fact that you're arguing about whether an optional feature should even be in the game is.... I guess your opinion on the option... But that's why it's an option friend.


Yes but wouldn't it be nice, logical... Even, dare I say - imperative - to control the most valued members of your party during a deadly siege?


If the player had more agency and control in this game it could work, but too much is decided by the computer and RNG.

I am loosing you here, sorry. Yes, it's my opinion ...and so is yours.

And I have already said that that I am not arguing against more control over your followers in sieges. I am simply pointing out the problems of having them mortal no matter of amount of control over them.

I agree with you on that. Hero death creates a lot of tough problems in balancing the game, and I'm not really sure that the payoff is worth it.

Exactly. I am not even sure that there is any payoff. Having main NPCs die adds what exactly? At 10% death chance it does not add realism, so what else?

99.99% of the players will reload on companion death anyway. Who want's to go through XXXX looter bands to train a new companion day 500+ in to the game? There is a reason why common mortal soldiers can be raised from recruit in to a knight in couple of battles in completely separate leveling system. Nature of the game requires it.

...stalling release of the game is the only thing it have added so far in my opinion.

I know a lot of people have a dream of being able to play the same playthrough forever across generations of characters, but I don't really see that as a realistic goal. I don't think you can keep the game interesting for that long since one lifetime is plenty long enough to conquer the world, or close to it. What are you supposed to do as your child or grandchild? RP as Good King Wenceslas touring your peaceful kingdom all day long doing village quests?

They'll probably add rebellions and civil wars to mix things up in the late game, and that's cool, but its not going to be enough to make a single playthrough exciting forever. And if it becomes a matter of every time your kingdom starts getting too big it just breaks apart, that's going to be extremely frustrating for the types of players who like to win the game by conquering the whole map.

I like the idea of the legacy system and characters that can live and die. I just don't see how its supposed to translate into fun gameplay.

Again agree with you here. However for those persistent enough, death of old age and children can be implemented without mortality in battle. I don't see reason why those can't be separated.