If the devs wanted to make changes to the campaign map, are you ok with that? POLL

[Blood Gryphon]

Recently one of the developers said there might be some balancing issues for Sturgia and Aserai due to the campaign map. Lets let them know how we feel as a community about a change to the campaign map, whether we are ok with the map changing or if we are not ok with the map changing. Lets discuss below as well.

I am currently examining reasons make these two factions weaker than others. What I see is one of main reason is economical. These two factions have less income compared to others. Two reasons of this are : 1-less average prosperity their settlements have 2-because they are isolated they have some other economical disadvantages (less tariffs, less loots...). When the reasons are proven (working on to prove currently) we can give these two factions better cultural advantages to overcome economical disadvantages. I do not think map easily changes but south lake is so big I wish there were a connection between Qasira and Poros or Askar to be located between Sanala and Quyaz. Probably that kind of things adds much to gameplay. However it can be late for this. These location/connection problems are generally in Aserai lands second problematic areas are Sturgians.

 

[Jagati Khan]

Sturgia suffers from a poor economy start a game and compare the prosperity of their towns compared with the rest.
And Aserai i have never seen do badly in all honesty due to their location but would benefit from some slight buffs to their infantry.
Before making changes to the map they should address these two issues imo.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Sturgia suffers from a poor economy start a game and compare the prosperity of their towns compared with the rest.
And Aserai i have never seen do badly in all honesty due to their location but would benefit from some slight buffs to their infantry.
Before making changes to the map they should address these two issues imo.

I agree with you about sturgia, I haven't fought Aserai (as/against) enough to have an opinion on that. For what was said in the dev post, changing the map does not look like the first avenue they would take, but it is an option they have and we should let them know if we are ok with that or not.

 

[Jagati Khan]

I agree with you about sturgia, I haven't fought Aserai (as/against) enough to have an opinion on that. For what was said in the dev post, changing the map does not look like the first avenue they would take, but it is an option they have and we should let them know if we are ok with that or not.

If a map change ends up being the best route then i don't mind at all but there are far better ways to balance them.

 

[ironiccookies]

The problem with Aserai and Sturgia is they are way too long. If their troops are on the other side of their territory and someone from the opposite side attacks, it usually takes about 4-5 days to get there. And their units are just weak overall.

 

[vota dc]

City position is messed.
City names are wrong (they switched Sargot for example).
No Zendar.

So they must change campaign map.

 

[ironiccookies]

City position is messed.
City names are wrong (they switched Sargot for example).
No Zendar.

So they must change campaign map.

There was a thread about city and castle positions making no sense. Some don't sit in choke points. Like why is Sibir in the middle of nowhere unless there's some lore we've yet to see.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

There was a thread about city and castle positions making no sense. Some don't sit in choke points. Like why is Sibir in the middle of nowhere unless there's some lore we've yet to see.

We actually saw a dev respond to that one and admit they made a mistake on Sargot, i think we will definitely see a shifting of town names at some point but idk if they will move settlement locations unless for a reason like balancing as it has such a huge impact to the game flow.

 

[Jagati Khan]

The problem with Aserai and Sturgia is they are way too long. If their troops are on the other side of their territory and someone from the opposite side attacks, it usually takes about 4-5 days to get there. And their units are just weak overall.

Large distances between places in a desert makes perfect sense and time taken to get anywhere goes both ways.
Certainly agree about the troops though their infantry is pretty terrible good archers and fast cav though.

 

[110951667]

City position is messed.
City names are wrong (they switched Sargot for example).
No Zendar.

So they must change campaign map.

I'm ok with the city name, it reflects that the ruling class of the city was changed from one culture to another.

 

[110951667]

The problem with Aserai and Sturgia is they are way too long. If their troops are on the other side of their territory and someone from the opposite side attacks, it usually takes about 4-5 days to get there...

Agree. I wish the devs could add a special attrition for none sturgian units in sturgia, and none aserai units in aserai.

 

[Reiksmarshal]

Yes if it accommodates sea travel and sea trade.

 

[Dean Beecham]

Dos not need map change just one or two name changes will do. but yes there should be a Zendar .. but that could just be a castle for now in this time frame

 

[Dean Beecham]

Agree. I wish the devs could add a special attrition for none sturgian units in sturgia, and none aserai units in aserai.

If they fight on the borders instead of having wars with factions on the over side of the map. they should be able to hold of against anyone.. thats what needs working on border wars.

 

[vota dc]

I'm ok with the city name, it reflects that the ruling class of the city was changed from one culture to another.

Sargot instead of Sargoth is ok, but I mean developers said that game name should be related with warband names but they named Sargot a city in the south.

 

[Esce III.]

I would like to see changes made to the world map. Maybe more open plains like in Warband and overall a map closer to the second version of Calradia
I do not understand why they needed to change the map completly again. How many map version were there just for Bannerlord? Four?

 

[Lesbosisles]

It's EA, so why not? Besides, we have Sturgia who suffers a lot from its location and almost always ends up devastated and defeated.

 

[110951667]

If they fight on the borders instead of having wars with factions on the over side of the map. they should be able to hold of against anyone.. thats what needs working on border wars.

Border war doesnt' sound very interesting. Only games that don't have free movement on campaign map like Crusader Kings can do border war without nerfing the gameplay.

 

[Pejot]

They should add more space for all those bandits and looters. Poor guys can't make a step without bumping to each other xD

 

[110951667]

Sargot instead of Sargoth is ok, but I mean developers said that game name should be related with warband names but they named Sargot a city in the south.

From Sargot to Sargoth is also quite a change. A smoother one would be from Sargord/Sargod/Sargoz to Sargoth. Many times the name for a city was changed not only because how people pronounce it differently, but also because some other reason that made it changed completely, for example Constantinople, Byzantion and Istanbul, they are not close to each other at all.