I have concerns over the Mid and Late Game in v1.1.0 Beta and feel the gameplay has been degraded from previous versions.

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

I've been plodding on happily on v1.0.3, so, I'm concerned with this now that v1.1.0 is live. I'd hate to believe that:

• Several performance improvements were made for both battles and the campaign map.

have lobotomised AI to reduce the processing load for consoles and potato pcs. @Ananda_The_Destroyer what level of campaign AI are you playing with?

PS just backed up my saved game files in case I need to revert to v1.0.3 after an auto-update.

Performance has not improved on PS4 despite the lobotomies--load times still take average from 30-90 seconds and the rendering is still sloppy at the start. Therefore, if the downgraded A.I. was really meant to make the game run better on consoles, it failed to do that while alienating people who actually like to be challenged by the A.I. (and dislike vassals being too useless to defend their own territory).

At least women in women's clothing doesn't result in disembodied feet popping out. That's pretty much the only thing fixed in having checked the latest update via a save where I united all Calradia. Now, not only is every lord a stranger to me (despite the fact I've met most of them over the decades), not only are the banners in Bannerlord tarnished, but the A.I. is broken as well. They really shouldn't have officially released the game prior to actually being finished making it.

 

[NPC99]

despite the lobotomies

From my v1.1.0 play through it seems more of an unfortunate ai rebalance than lobotomy, so my concerns were unfounded. It feels as though non-player factions army behaviour has been enhanced and player vassal behaviour weakened. I don’t believe the change is purely the benefit of interior lines as enemy enclaves shrink. Hopefully, higher campaign ai settings only improve enemy ai behaviour, rather than also handicapping vassal ai, but I’m not certain.

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

From my v1.1.0 play through it seems more of an unfortunate ai rebalance than lobotomy, so my concerns were unfounded. It feels as though non-player factions army behaviour has been enhanced and player vassal behaviour weakened. I don’t believe the change is purely the benefit of interior lines as enemy enclaves shrink. Hopefully, higher campaign ai settings only improve enemy ai behaviour, rather than also handicapping vassal ai, but I’m not certain.

That's how it is? That's good-ish to know--but I'm concerned about battle A.I. being nerfed like another thread says. I really enjoyed my time with Bannerlord so I'm bummed to read about the latest patch more or less breaking things left and right while fixing/adding relatively minor/surface level things. I'd like to return and play more, but I think I'm best off waiting at least 6 months or a year for when the game is "properly done" because I'd hate to have to put up with many of the issues I'm reading about on top of preexisting issues. I can tolerate jankiness and long loading times when the game is good; I can't tolerate it when it's falling to pieces over an update.

I'm keeping an eye on updates to see how things change and appreciate the players who are going out and getting very necessary info about these changes. It's good to know the non-player A.I. has been improved but deeply unfortunate to read about allied A.I. being harmed. Hopefully these and other issues improve--until then, I think the smart thing to do for most people is to wait a year and see what happens.

 

[NPC99]

I can't tolerate it when it's falling to pieces over an update.

v1.1.0 is definitely not falling to pieces in the pc version. I can't speak for consoles. I'm on the 32nd year of a sandbox campaign that I started in v1.0.3. My main character is still alive and kicking at 62 and has two grandchildren.

Spoiler

I don't do speed run throughs like @Ananda_The_Destroyer . As a loyal vassal, I waited until the king died before being voted next ruler of Sturgia. I currently have 8 million cash without ever cheating, buying any workshops or caravans and never having smithed anything. Influence also piles up late-game, I currently have 52.6K.

 

[Totalgarbage]

I can't currently play the game due to my GPU going bust, but here are 2 changes to battlefield AI behaviour in 1.1 I've read about, tell me what I've got right and what I've got wrong:

-The AI are much more defensive now and they camp on top of a hill. While I think this can be a good thing (the defender's advantage is very noticeable in Bannerlord due to ranged units being so powerful), I'm assuming that the AI doesn't react accordingly to the player closing in and surrounding them, making the battles much easier. The player also has to be the one to go on the offence, otherwise it becomes 2 warbands staring each other menacingly. A decent fix could be making the enemy AI use their infantry with throwing weapons do skirmishes with advance and fallback commands.

-The AI constantly retreats in siege offence only to rebuild their siege engines and to assault and then retreat again until they run out of troops or you run out of food. I think the AI retreating and rebuilding siege engines is a really good and needed change, it just apparently seems to happen so much in 1 siege that it becomes tedious, unfun, and very easy to defend, though it can easily be fixed by making the AI slightly less prone to retreating.

 

[NPC99]

The AI are much more defensive now and they camp on top of a hill.

If they're outnumbered that's normal. Occasionally, an overly aggressive Lord charges despite the odds, but that's rare. As far as I'm concerned camping on hills is sensible.

the defender's advantage is very noticeable in Bannerlord due to ranged units being so powerful

Never found that a problem. My Sturgian infantry shield wall just soaks up arrows and my cavalry flanks and over-runs archers/crossbowmen once my infantry line hits their centre. Even charging is slow in shield wall formation, be patient, and only charge at close range so your infantry line piles in together, rather than chasing different targets.
Vlandian cavalry or Khuzait horse archers are more of a challenge IMO.
The main problem in big battles, are enemy wave reinforcements (especially archers) spawning in your rear on ground your forces have already swept clean. They should spawn outside soft borders (red barriers to maps) and enter through them (reverse of routing behaviour).

 

[Totalgarbage]

If they're outnumbered that's normal. Occasionally, an overly aggressive Lord charges despite the odds, but that's rare. As far as I'm concerned that's just sensible.

I agree, I think this is what actually happened in high medieval warfare from my limited historical knowledge on the era. Most "battles" were more about seeking advantageous positions and defending them. The actual problem is the AI not reacting to player movement (at least this is what happened in the previous patches) or sending any units to harass save for 5 or so horse archers that suicide at the start of battle (if I'm right in my assumptions).

Never found that a problem. My Sturgian infantry shield wall just soaks up arrows and my cavalry flanks and over-runs archers/crossbowmen once my infantry line hits their centre.
Vlandian cavalry or Khuzait horse archers are more of a challenge IMO.

Defender's advantage is definitely more pronounced for the player due to the players' much higher retention of units and having more high tier units in their party (and having the budget to keep having them) and of course having a brain in the first place. But it's an advantage for the AI nevertheless (which I approve of, I just think that the AI needs to be more proactive) .

The main issue in big battles, are wave reinforcements spawning in your rear on ground your forces have already swept clean. They should spawn outside soft borders and enter through them (reverse of routing behaviour).

Yeah, this is also a big problem, and it's even worse when you lose units to this because it's just bull****, it's not getting outplayed or anything. I definitely agree with your suggestion, and would even extend it to siege defenders spawning near the keep doors (but this is more for having a sense of immersion and progression in siege assaults and also having street battles).

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

v1.1.0 is definitely not falling to pieces in the pc version. I can't speak for consoles. I'm on the 32nd year of a sandbox campaign that I started in v1.0.3. My main character is still alive and kicking at 62 and has two grandchildren.

I don't do speed run throughs like @Ananda_The_Destroyer . As a loyal vassal, I waited until the king died before being voted next ruler of Sturgia. I currently have 8 million cash without ever cheating, buying any workshops or caravans and never having smithed anything. Influence also piles up late-game, I currently have 52.6K.

It sounds like things aren't as bad as what I've been reading implied (I only poked in for a few minutes (plus loading screens lol) to see what's up with fog of war, etc.) then. My main concerns from what I've read are battlefield A.I. becoming passive and easily destroyed with minimal effort on my part; overworld A.I. becoming gimped to the point where fighting wars becomes a mole-whacking game due to allies/vassals being docile as Ananda described; and workshop viability according to Flesson due to prices to set up doubling while general profitability remains modest (and the bothersome tarnished banners and shields). If the only "real" issues are the last things I described, with A.I. more or less being the same as 1.0.3, then it really isn't as bad as I feared.

And congratulations on your lifespan lol--my main character of my first playthrough died at 48! I did have grandkids almost reach 18 by the time of unification though lol.

 

[NPC99]

save for 5 or so horse archers that suicide at the start of battle

They're just to get your cavalry to charge and lose focus.

allies/vassals being docile

I generally have between one and three vassal armies in the field (in addition to my own one), but in multi-faction wars they are often operating on the wrong front or to the wrong priorities. Smaller factions seem to field larger numbers of armies, which act in concert to a specific siege chain despite similar numbers of clans. I've only created two new companion clans, so far, I'll see if that changes when I create more clans to supplement natural Sturgian clans.
Enemy factions have similar problems when fighting multiple major factions.

And congratulations on your lifespan lol--my main character of my first playthrough died at 48!

Major in medicine

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

They're just to get your cavalry to charge and lose focus.

I generally have between one and three vassal armies in the field (in addition to my own one), but in multi-faction wars they are often operating on the wrong front or to the wrong priorities. Smaller factions seem to field larger numbers of armies, which act in concert to a specific siege chain despite similar numbers of clans. I've only created two new companion clans, so far, I'll see if that changes when I create more clans to supplement natural Sturgian clans.
Enemy factions have similar problems when fighting multiple major factions.

Hmm... so far, that sounds pretty much like how 1.0.3 played for me lol.

Major in medicine

I won't make the mistake of being a high INT with only Steward character again! (I thought having a doctor with high Medicine would have counted, but "no" lol, at least I put my daughter through med school so she'll probably live forever).

 

[NPC99]

I thought having a doctor with high Medicine would have counted, but "no" lol, at least I put my daughter through med school so she'll probably live forever

Spoiler

IDK if I've had that extra life or if it's still available to save me.

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

Spoiler

IDK if I've had that extra life or if it's still available to save me.

Oh I'm familiar with that perk, but I misunderstood how it worked when I first played and assumed it'd apply to everybody besides the Surgeon as well lol.

I'm not sure if you'd be prompted on it or not--it could have saved you "secretly" or you'll know it when it saves you.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

@Ananda_The_Destroyer what level of campaign AI are you playing with?

I put it on Bannerlord but IIRC there's not a campaign AI setting, I think it's always the same.

I don't do speed run throughs like @Ananda_The_Destroyer . As a loyal vassal, I waited until the king died before being voted next ruler of Sturgia. I currently have 8 million cash without ever cheating, buying any workshops or caravans and never having smithed anything. Influence also piles up late-game, I currently have 52.6K.

I don't do speed runs I'm curious how to you spend the game time to pass so many years if you're not expanding? Or, how does the game go on so long for you if you are? Really, I just don't see there being anything to do at all other then move to the next siege target so I don't know ow you get to be 60+, unless you sit there and do it on purpose.... which is frustrating too because of how slow time passes and all the notifications.

v1.1.0 is definitely not falling to pieces in the pc version. I can't speak for consoles. I'm on the 32nd year of a sandbox campaign that I started in v1.0.3. My main character is still alive and kicking at 62 and has two grandchildren.

I don't think anyone (on PC) is saying the game actually bricks up and can't be played, just that there are noticeable issues with how AI parties behave that makes the game annoying and other various issues. I don't know what you did for 32 years though.

 

[LuciusDomitiusAurelianus]

Yet another reason to be able to cap the amount of Armies as well as a directive. The Aggressive/Defensive bias does not do much. I'd much rather say "Only X Armies Max, Including Player Army = True/False, Army 1 Defend around this City, Army 2 Attack these Fiefs" via menus or interaction if we want to make it more "immersive"

If you could at least micromanage the Army behaviors and set caps to the amount of Armies and manpower you lose in total that'd somewhat make up for the lousy lack of diplomacy and giving any meaning to Traits and Relations.

There are so many sub-systems in this game that are not fleshed out or do not Work As Intended. Cautious Lords shouldn't be joining Armies or Sieges and only want to outnumber people, Dishonorable Lords should mostly want to focus on Raids, and so on - at least that would keep these death stacks from spawning.

It's like the decision making tree for the AI is incredibly binary so you get a doom stack rolling over a piece of **** castle while you can run around razing their countryside completely unbothered.

The snowballing work really led to all of this. I'd rather go back to 1.5.0 snowballing versus this stalemate tedious bull**** now.

 

[NPC99]

I just don't see there being anything to do at all other then move to the next siege target

I like to defeat enemy armies in field battles and let vassal armies do at least half the sieges. While I'm slowly painting the map, it's not my objective.

I put it on Bannerlord but IIRC there's not a campaign AI setting, I think it's always the same.

True. I was mis-thinking about the combat AI setting in Campaign Options.

 

[nyarlathotep1975]

I like to defeat enemy armies in field battles and let vassal armies do at least half the sieges. While I'm slowly painting the map, it's not my objective.

True. I was mis-thinking about the combat AI setting in Campaign Options.

Funny, cause there actually is an AI setting with 3 options.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Funny, cause there actually is an AI setting with 3 options.

There is but it's not campaign AI, it's combat AI and I don't even think it does anything. Like does the AI fight even worse if you turn it down? I don't know but I can't imagine what they would do to be worse.

 

[Rush09]

-The AI are much more defensive now and they camp on top of a hill.

Strangely, I notice the exact opposite... the AI rarely tries to defend sieged towns or castles, preferring to attack any low garrisoned castle or town. In my current playthrough I've seen Lycaron switch multiple times in 1 year between West Empire and Aserai because neither tries to defend the town when sieged. This also affects towns like Poros, Amprela, Saneopa, Argoron... always switching constantly due to non existent defense. I do agree with Ananda, this patch seems like a big step in the wrong direction in terms of AI campaign

 

[Totalgarbage]

Strangely, I notice the exact opposite... the AI rarely tries to defend sieged towns or castles, preferring to attack any low garrisoned castle or town. In my current playthrough I've seen Lycaron switch multiple times in 1 year between West Empire and Aserai because neither tries to defend the town when sieged. This also affects towns like Poros, Amprela, Saneopa, Argoron... always switching constantly due to non existent defense. I do agree with Ananda, this patch seems like a big step in the wrong direction in terms of AI campaign

I was talking about the battlefield AI not the overworld AI.

 

[lukethisup]

The bad news about this is that nothing will get better, it will just continue to be optimized. Hopefully taleworlds made their grift money off the game considering it only cost them a huge swathe of their loyal fanbase. I just stop in every few months now to see what else is broken instead of wasting my time playing looter AI killing simulator