Infinite Armies

Currently viewing this thread:

Calabanar

Sergeant
Hi, I just want to make sure of something.

In my current 1.5.9 playthrough using RBM (can't play without it), my Vlandian lord finds himself in a bit of a pickle... armies respawn too damn fast. And that's on both sides! There are ALWAYS at least two armies active during a war, thus I need to know: is that normal?

Because the process of fighting and defeating them over and over is VERY tiring and not rewarding at all since as soon as I (or the AI) beat one, another just pops right out of nowhere a few days later mostly erasing any progress made by my faction (and me). It feels like I'm stuck in a loop of recruiting, besieging, fighting, recruiting, etc. Without seeing any meaningful progress.

Do any of you experience this as well?
 

AnandaShanti

Master Knight
Sounds like you're in a faction or leading one. Normal intended gameplay.
I don't anything about RBM or if it effect war/peace and NPC recruitment though.
 
I like to compare it with Total War. Instead of actually improving the AI, they instead rectify player vs AI with unlimited numbers. Think 20 stacks in total war one after the other. Of course, while obviously repetitive, the real issue lies with the fact that TW believes in the concept of having the player only be able to do the things the AI does, introducing restrictions to the player to compensate for this. Of course, this isn't the case for the entire game, but for when it counts. With no systems like population which could act as a way to deteriorate town prosperity when you hire new recruits from notables (think of taking working hands that could be used to better the village/town to instead ride to war), each faction essentially has an unlimited supply to manpower without any consequences from the people they rule...


At 27:50 minute mark, does anyone remember Lust's responses to defeating even SINGLE lords. Nothing as natural or strategical as his explanation in-game really exists. If a clan has one village raided, it really doesn't matter because they can (and WILL) just travel to the next village and recruit troops, you know, without consequence. Would the clan of that village not be upset that another clan is relying on THEIR men, which could cause quarrels within the kingd... why do I even bother.
 

Antaeus

Sergeant
I've always thought that the AI can raise armies too quickly and easily.

It creates a situation where there are no war defining battles, but rather wars become an attritional series of battles.

At 27:50 minute mark, does anyone remember Lust's responses to defeating even SINGLE lords. Nothing as natural or strategical as his explanation in-game really exists. If a clan has one village raided, it really doesn't matter because they can (and WILL) just travel to the next village and recruit troops, you know, without consequence. Would the clan of that village not be upset that another clan is relying on THEIR men, which could cause quarrels within the kingd... why do I even bother.

This scenario does have some justification in feudal systems.

Armies could and were created on the march by collecting levies from lands of ambiguous loyalty. During the 100 years war and the following wars of the roses, armies of 10s of thousands were sometimes assembled in transit by calling on local levies. Kings would leave London or Paris with their own retainers, march through a series of provinces collecting short term levies, and face an enemy who did the same thing, but marched through a different series of provinces to get there.

The populace didn't view themselves through the same nationalist lens as they do now, rather allegiance was to which ever lord was the owner of their land, and if it looked like that lord might be on the wrong side, then most would have no qualms about joining up with the side who might represent their likely future lord. If you look at personal stories of soldiers in feudal wars, their names bounce about and fight for all sorts of seemingly contradictory sides.

War was also an opportunity to break that bond and escape/earn money by joining a company as a professional.
 
Last edited:

Apocal

Master Knight
Hi, I just want to make sure of something.

In my current 1.5.9 playthrough using RBM (can't play without it), my Vlandian lord finds himself in a bit of a pickle... armies respawn too damn fast. And that's on both sides! There are ALWAYS at least two armies active during a war, thus I need to know: is that normal?
Yes, it is normal. You can't stop the flow of armies but you can attrite their faction strength and ability to recover by raiding villages constantly.
Do any of you experience this as well?
After a certain point, assuming you beat them down in a continuous chain, the enemy armies become far less threatening. They still have broadly similar numbers but the troop quality is like 75% tier 1 or 2 recruits taken straight from villages so they meet your army in the same manner a thrown banana meets a brick wall.

That's the point when I start looking around for towns (NOT CASTLES) to siege, since the enemy won't be able to launch a relief against my siege and all of their garrisons have been squeezed for field strength.

Just my thoughts on it.
 

Calabanar

Sergeant
Thanks for the answers, I’m glad this isn’t a bug though saddened it’s intended.

I suspected raiding villages would be the best way to prevent recruitment, but I just don’t like raiding in general (role play). Does that mean an honourable play through is basically condemned to be a grind? Granted, it would make sense and would explain the many genocide playthroughs posted everywhere.

Wasnt there a war attrition mechanic added at some point?
If anything, the villages and towns should have a decreased spawn rate while war attrition/fatigue increases to force factions to either deal an organised, crushing defeat or make peace and recover. Because who would join a war where they are almost guaranteed to die in that castle’s tenth siege in a row?


The comparison to Total War makes sense, in an aggravating way.

RBM doesn’t influence diplomacy, just the battles (harder).
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Does that mean an honourable play through is basically condemned to be a grind? Granted, it would make sense and would explain the many genocide playthroughs posted everywhere.
Nope, not at all. I've done more than one complete conquest without a single raid. You just deal with a significantly faster recovery rate by going a bit more hard on sniping small, weak or assembling armies then concentrate on the most productive recruiting towns (the ones with more notables) as your primary targets. Raiding villages turns off their recruiting for 15-20 days but conquering the town the village is attached to turns it off for as long as you remain at war.

Alternatively, you drag a big army through enemy territory, beat the enemy's armies then "shed" a few larger parties so they do the raiding without sullying your good name.
 
Just in case you wanna paint the map. You will come to the point where a all out war comes and doesn't disappear until you execute one faction after the other. At least in my playthroughs the main clan of each faction will be there no matter what(or they die in battle). So in the short, you want a peaceful ending? Execution is your solution

Edit: oh man just forgot about trade, yeah the 300 trade perk can also be a solition
 

AnandaShanti

Master Knight
I suspected raiding villages would be the best way to prevent recruitment, but I just don’t like raiding in general (role play). Does that mean an honourable play through is basically condemned to be a grind? Granted, it would make sense and would explain the many genocide playthroughs posted everywhere.
Actually forced recruitment is a good option for not loosing relations. You can even save and re-load the game and do it again and again to strip all of a villages recruits. They will respawn but it does slow it down overall and removes all the advanced troops and nobles. Plus there's no relation penalties and does not require extra campaign time like raiding..
I use this to stock up on (future) khan's guards and although it doesn't really hurt the khuzait, it does make them spend a little more time recruiting. It probably could effect other factions more.


At 27:50 minute mark, does anyone remember Lust's responses to defeating even SINGLE lords. Nothing as natural or strategical as his explanation in-game really exists. If a clan has one village raided, it really doesn't matter because they can (and WILL) just travel to the next village and recruit troops, you know, without consequence. Would the clan of that village not be upset that another clan is relying on THEIR men, which could cause quarrels within the kingd... why do I even bother.
Yeah it's sad. The threshold of damage you have to do to make 'observable' difference (let alone useful) in the enemy AI faction is so much that nothing except just beating down thier parties and holding them as long as possible has any real effect.

Last time I mentioned the AI's 'resilient' behavior I was corrected that the AI doesn't have any 'cheats'. I have come to think of it more like the entire way the AI factions behave and function is like a cheat, in the sense that nothing they do lines up with what the player must do in the game.

The player doesn't just get 20 recruits and go "okay now I'll go raid a village", this is absurd, 1 raiding gives hardly any money 2 raiding doesn't level troops. The player instead must Spend campaign time earning money and exp for troops by beating bandits and doing other tasks. The enemy may incidentally fight some looters or solve an issue, but it's not nearly the amount of campaign time the player would spend in preparation so it seems like a cheat how soon they are raiding a village or joining an army.
TBF I do make20 khuzait tribes men early and start forced recruiting ASAP, but I seriously never read another person say they do this to start the game.

Likewise the AI's approach to garrisons and finances is basically "whatever dude", they just keep going n going and if they loose some garrison units or some troops desert (from low moral cuz no money) or no food in town.... "whatever dude". This has a double edged sword( stupid metaphor) as it does make thier parties somewhat weaker and it does cause rebellion to be more likely... but it makes them seem relentless and on a different cycle them the player! The player is compelled to solve issues, provide food, preserve garrison and plan for the the future.... the player is not okay with "whatever dude". This means the player consumes massively more campaign time with domestic and maintenance activities and again, by contrast it seems like the enemy is cheating by not spending time doing all these things.

Anyways I'm stoking out thinking about it now, TLDR The AI doesn't spend enough campaign time doing other activities so it seems like it cheats, even though it totally doesn't actually cheat.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Likewise the AI's approach to garrisons and finances is basically "whatever dude", they just keep going n going and if they loose some garrison units or some troops desert (from low moral cuz no money) or no food in town.... "whatever dude". This has a double edged sword( stupid metaphor) as it does make thier parties somewhat weaker and it does cause rebellion to be more likely... but it makes them seem relentless and on a different cycle them the player! The player is compelled to solve issues, provide food, preserve garrison and plan for the the future.... the player is not okay with "whatever dude". This means the player consumes massively more campaign time with domestic and maintenance activities and again, by contrast it seems like the enemy is cheating by not spending time doing all these things.
This explains why you keep bringing up soloing sieges. I was wondering why the hell anyone would go through the bother.
 

AnandaShanti

Master Knight
This explains why you keep bringing up soloing sieges. I was wondering why the hell anyone would go through the bother.
Because if do a normal siege 1 of my khan's guards might get killed by a stinky little militia archer. In a normal battle 10X militia archers couldn't touch my guys, but in the derpy, clunky, sucky siege map they can magically still do cheap shots to my guards! I'm not having it!

And in 1.5.10 I can't even put them in a garrison cuz it might eat them. Khan's Guard party for life.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Because if do a normal siege 1 of my khan's guards might get killed by a stinky little militia archer. In a normal battle 10X militia archers couldn't touch my guys, but in the derpy, clunky, sucky siege map they can magically still do cheap shots to my guards! I'm not having it!

And in 1.5.10 I can't even put them in a garrison cuz it might eat them. Khan's Guard party for life.
I came to the realization that trying to keep around a full party of T6 troop was one of the things that sucks the fun out of Bannerlord. I suppose I play the game like the "eh, whatever" AI you described, because I literally don't give a **** if my garrison starts to starve and bring along a ton of crap troops for the express purpose of dying in a siege so archers I care about won't.
 

Rbtparker13

Regular
I came to the realization that trying to keep around a full party of T6 troop was one of the things that sucks the fun out of Bannerlord. I suppose I play the game like the "eh, whatever" AI you described, because I literally don't give a **** if my garrison starts to starve and bring along a ton of crap troops for the express purpose of dying in a siege so archers I care about won't.
Yeah in warband it was so much fun getting a T6 army. Destroying the opposition. But why bother now? It's whatever, just throw some mid level archers at the problem. Then you're good.

Side Note: Are there any noble troops that aren't cavalry besides the fian champions? I feel like infantry gets the short end of the sword all the time.
 

AnandaShanti

Master Knight
Side Note: Are there any noble troops that aren't cavalry besides the fian champions? I feel like infantry gets the short end of the sword all the time.
Nope, unless you count the lower tier forms of viga recruits and the sturgeon one... which we shouldn't :razz:

Yeah in warband it was so much fun getting a T6 army. Destroying the opposition. But why bother now? It's whatever, just throw some mid level archers at the problem. Then you're good.
I don't just wanna beat em, I wanna beat em really bad and make them feel really bad about it. They probably doo, they've been my poisoner for like 2 years now lol
 

Rbtparker13

Regular
Nope, unless you count the lower tier forms of viga recruits and the sturgeon one... which we shouldn't :razz:
Poor poor infantry
I don't just wanna beat em, I wanna beat em really bad and make them feel really bad about it. They probably doo, they've been my poisoner for like 2 years now lol
I think annihilating an entire army without losing an single unit is a pretty good way to make them feel bad. That's a good feeling.
And those lords must be so bored. I get bored sitting in prison after 1 day let alone 2 years!! Do you at least them have free time every so often?
 

AnandaShanti

Master Knight
Are you going to catch the kids too when they become of age? Have a zoo full of now endangered/extinct clans?
I'll let them all go long before then. I'm stocking up on noble troops from thier castle villages via forced recruitment, when I have all towns garrisoned by them I'll just take the castles over, then I'll sell the whole faction to the ransom broker, step outside and pay (most likely be paid) a tiny but of money for peace and they will go bananas attack all the other factions while my clan sits pretty with our 10k daily income.

And this is basically the end of the game. Sure I still have all the other factions I 'could' fight, but why should I? I re-took all of the heritage lands and nobody can take them back. After this I just make babies and **** around until a new update comes out.
 

Rbtparker13

Regular
I'll let them all go long before then. I'm stocking up on noble troops from thier castle villages via forced recruitment, when I have all towns garrisoned by them I'll just take the castles over, then I'll sell the whole faction to the ransom broker, step outside and pay (most likely be paid) a tiny but of money for peace and they will go bananas attack all the other factions while my clan sits pretty with our 10k daily income.

And this is basically the end of the game. Sure I still have all the other factions I 'could' fight, but why should I? I re-took all of the heritage lands and nobody can take them back. After this I just make babies and **** around until a new update comes out.
You know. You're kinda a monster. Basically releasing a plague of locusts in the form of lords onto Calradia.

I can respect/dig that
 
Top Bottom