Keep Fights after Sieges - Good Idea, but

Users who are viewing this thread

swally0ne

Recruit
i think that keep fights are making you more vulnerable with Permadeath enabled. You can not decide which troops you take into a keep fight. No matter what, your party leaders in the armies and companions in your party are going to participate. that being said, your Vassals and Companions are exposed to enemy troops. In my experience, they are most likely getting shot by archers shooting out of every ankle. I lost 4 Party leaders and 3 Companions like that today.

I do like that taste of warband in the Sieges, but in combination with the high deathrate i rather just simulate the keep fight, knowing that my companions are more safe like that.

I dont know how others feel about it, but i think it would be neat if there would be an option enabled where you can decide which troops are going to participate in the keep fight, like you can do in hideout fights. Else its just another encounter where your important troops can die during a siege while the ai is not affected by that at all.
 
Last edited:

Julio-Claudian

Knight at Arms
so wy do u play with permadeath enabled? this is most stupidish feature ever
What a useless response.
If they'd just hurry up and fully implement it it wouldn't feel so stupid. Been in this 'testing' state for like half a year?

But yeah this is one of the things I was worried about with this feature. There needs to be way more control over which of your troops spawn first in every type of battle, as well as a way to leave certain companions/family members in your party out of fights.
 

swally0ne

Recruit
so wy do u play with permadeath enabled? this is most stupidish feature ever
what is stupid in making love with a beautiful lady making beautyful chad children? with permadeath enabled you have a life & death cycle which is making the game more interesting to me than a static experience. in my opinion at least. i concider permadeath as one of the features that i apreciate.

What a useless response.
If they'd just hurry up and fully implement it it wouldn't feel so stupid. Been in this 'testing' state for like half a year?

But yeah this is one of the things I was worried about with this feature. There needs to be way more control over which of your troops spawn first in every type of battle, as well as a way to leave certain companions/family members in your party out of fights.

i dont mind the troop spawns in battles, as this counts for the enemy as same as it counts for the player. people can die on both sides. that is making things somewhat even. that being written, this equality is not given in keep battles.
 

Mdraihan2223

Recruit
Well, I can see 2 things now player wants in keep battle,
1. The player should be able to do the keep battle .as well where player is the defender and AI is the attacker.
2. We should be able to choose what kinds of troops we want with us in keep battle.

Well I find the keep battle almost same as warband. Would be glad if they add some unique features in keep battle.

@MRay , @Dejan , @Duh_TaleWorlds any thoughts on this suggestions
 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
For 2. I like the idea and already forwarded the thread to the relevant designer. Not too sure how quirky it gets with the various menus, but I'm sure it will be discussed.

For 1, I don't really think it's a worthwhile goal. The player is unlikely to experience it, because chances are good they will already be knocked out on the wall. The defensive mission also struggles with a conflict between effective defense (aka forcing all AI into their tactical position) and player agency (being able to give orders).
 
For 2. I like the idea and already forwarded the thread to the relevant designer. Not too sure how quirky it gets with the various menus, but I'm sure it will be discussed.

For 1, I don't really think it's a worthwhile goal. The player is unlikely to experience it, because chances are good they will already be knocked out on the wall. The defensive mission also struggles with a conflict between effective defense (aka forcing all AI into their tactical position) and player agency (being able to give orders).
Are there any thoughts about improving the command orders for siege battles, I find the commands work well in field battles, but usually disrupt a siege attack/defense. At the moment I find it better to just let the ai run its course.
 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
Are there any thoughts about improving the command orders for siege battles, I find the commands work well in field battles, but usually disrupt a siege attack/defense. At the moment I find it better to just let the ai run its course.
There are no concrete plans to fundamentally change the order scheme to my knowledge (though this is not my area of expertise). I do know there is discussion on how we may better explain siege mechanics and controls to players - but the probably biggest priority lies with improvements to the way the mission plays out for the AI (ladders/siege towers/other behavior).
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
so wy do u play with permadeath enabled? this is most stupidish feature ever
to each his own but it's one of my favorite features of the game and i really hope TW implements it to player character aswell after balancing the death chance and implementing it in AI x AI battles, right now the death chance is set too high on purpose and the devs said they'll lower it in the future.

It would add consequences to fights, a reason to consider retreating/surrender sometimes and most important of all, would make the dynastic system worthwhile like in crusader kings :smile:
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
For 1, I don't really think it's a worthwhile goal. The player is unlikely to experience it, because chances are good they will already be knocked out on the wall. The defensive mission also struggles with a conflict between effective defense (aka forcing all AI into their tactical position) and player agency (being able to give orders).
Sorry did I read that right? Players can’t defensively participate in keep battles? Genuine question I’ve been away and can’t test.

If true, this would be massively disappointing if not implemented, I don’t see why just because it’s likely the player wouldn’t make it to that point that it’s a waste of time to implement.

If it was implemented that’s more of a reason for the player to attempt to survive, instead you’ve locked us into fighting till the end because there is no option to fall back.

The defensive Ai in sieges already retreat at the point of being overwhelmed so why not just let the player retreat and put a simple interaction at the keep door that puts the player into an unconscious like state and let us continue to watch the battle until all units have retreated.
 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
I don’t see why just because it’s likely the player wouldn’t make it to that point that it’s a waste of time to implement.
If a few players are to experience a particular feature rarely, it becomes less worthwhile to pursue than a feature that more players are likely to experience often - all else being equal.

If it was implemented that’s more of a reason for the player to attempt to survive, instead you’ve locked us into fighting till the end because there is no option to fall back.

The defensive Ai in sieges already retreat at the point of being overwhelmed so why not just let the player retreat and put a simple interaction at the keep door that puts the player into an unconscious like state and let us continue to watch the battle until all units have retreated.
Keep fights are set up to favor attackers (as a bit of a reward to a successful siege - not something that is likely to lose them the siege). So if it is about giving the player a better fighting chance, it would probably be better to ensure that any defensive assaults they partake in are fought to the last man. In any case, currently they are not supported and it would likely not be a good experience to make them defensive "as is" with everyone either clumped into a single hallway (given that the order scheme isn't exactly laid out for CQC) or no control at all by the player character (so the predetermined defensive positions are utilized by the defenders).

Having said that, I'm sure people will take into account any feedback given on them as we go forward - and they may very well come up with solutions that I can't :razz:
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
If a few players are to experience a particular feature rarely, it becomes less worthwhile to pursue than a feature that more players are likely to experience often - all else being equal.
I understand why you think the juice isn’t worth the squeeze, you’ve got limited time/resources. Personally I see myself using this feature a lot if it existed (IME end game is often a slog of running across the map to defend sieges). Last stand fights in the keep sound epic as **** honestly. Also it’s a self fulfilling prophecy that players won’t use a feature if you never implement it and don’t give us a chance to show you it would be used often. It’s going to leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth when they experience it as attackers but then can’t as defenders.

Keep fights are set up to favor attackers (as a bit of a reward to a successful siege - not something that is likely to lose them the siege). So if it is about giving the player a better fighting chance, it would probably be better to ensure that any defensive assaults they partake in are fought to the last man. In any case, currently they are not supported and it would likely not be a good experience to make them defensive "as is" with everyone either clumped into a single hallway (given that the order scheme isn't exactly laid out for CQC) or no control at all by the player character (so the predetermined defensive positions are utilized by the defenders).
I think keep fights should go to the attacker unless the defender has evened out the odds to 2:1 (like 50 d vs 100 attackers). It’s the defenders last stand it shouldn’t be that easily awarded to attackers. Plus players can make a massive difference in fights which is what we are looking for in gameplay.


Having said that, I'm sure people will take into account any feedback given on them as we go forward - and they may very well come up with solutions that I can't :razz:
Defending sieges is one of the most fun things in bannerlord and I think to leave this incomplete is to leave out one of the most impactful and rememberable potential features.

I just hope you guys don’t think we don’t care if it isn’t included. Could care less if it’s low on priority list, just as long as y’all attempt it at some point.
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
so wy do u play with permadeath enabled? this is most stupidish feature ever
It's an important mechanic to the game for npcs to die and be born, although tbf the long multigene game need work still so you're not missing much if you disable it. However death/birth on is the way the game is designed and balanced for.

I dont know how others feel about it, but i think it would be neat if there would be an option enabled where you can decide which troops are going to participate in the keep fight, like you can do in hideout fights.
Yes please! And really some way to leave out some troops for any irregular battle would be good since you can't retreat them by group like you can in a normal battle. Even a normal siege fight would be greatly improved by leaving out dead weight units/family and "too good" units. It doesn't seem at all unreasonable for the commander to leave back some troops and his family members.

Are there any thoughts about improving the command orders for siege battles,
There are no concrete plans to fundamentally change the order scheme to my knowledge (though this is not my area of expertise).
What players want is for it to just be more in line with the normal groups, formations and behavior we're used to in battle. For instance if change the starting spot for the troops they are put into group 1 and 2 and all mixed together. I would like for them to still respond to commands to the groups I have them in via the party menu so I can retreat or hide special troops and use grunts to get up the ladders first. And of course there should be way to stop troops from putting up the ladders or firing siege gear I the player wants.

For 2. I like the idea and already forwarded the thread to the relevant designer. Not too sure how quirky it gets with the various menus, but I'm sure it will be discussed.
Thanks for bringing it forward!

For 1, I don't really think it's a worthwhile goal. The player is unlikely to experience it, because chances are good they will already be knocked out on the wall. The defensive mission also struggles with a conflict between effective defense (aka forcing all AI into their tactical position) and player agency (being able to give orders).
Gott agree, if I can't control it I don't really care about it. Of course I feel the same way about normal siege defense, it's hard to control and position troops in way to have more advantage then just to sally out to a field battle.

Keep fights are set up to favor attackers (as a bit of a reward to a successful siege - not something that is likely to lose them the siege).
That's good to hear , although I will miss the free garrison units as typically in recent versions enemies routed in the final battle would end up in your garrison. If you went in alone and sniped down each group you could end up with a large free garrison to have security+ while you replaced with better troops. Now I guess I gotta kill em all.
 

Duh_TaleWorlds

Developer
Now I guess I gotta kill em all.
There is a maximum amount of defenders that can spawn in the keep mission (taking into account balance & space constraints) and no reinforcements for their side. So there may still be troops left at the end - though I am not too sure if they go to your garrison (sounds like a bug to me, will check :razz:).
 

XDaron

Sergeant Knight
I understand why you think the juice isn’t worth the squeeze, you’ve got limited time/resources. Personally I see myself using this feature a lot if it existed (IME end game is often a slog of running across the map to defend sieges). Last stand fights in the keep sound epic as **** honestly. Also it’s a self fulfilling prophecy that players won’t use a feature if you never implement it and don’t give us a chance to show you it would be used often. It’s going to leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth when they experience it as attackers but then can’t as defenders.


I think keep fights should go to the attacker unless the defender has evened out the odds to 2:1 (like 50 d vs 100 attackers). It’s the defenders last stand it shouldn’t be that easily awarded to attackers. Plus players can make a massive difference in fights which is what we are looking for in gameplay.



Defending sieges is one of the most fun things in bannerlord and I think to leave this incomplete is to leave out one of the most impactful and rememberable potential features.

I just hope you guys don’t think we don’t care if it isn’t included. Could care less if it’s low on priority list, just as long as y’all attempt it at some point.
Completely agreed, if they already went to the length of creating all these scenes, why not give it a little extra polish to make it shine.
 

Artem1s

Sergeant at Arms
WBVC
It’s going to leave a bad taste in everyone’s mouth when they experience it as attackers but then can’t as defenders.
This. I was very keen on defending the keep myself because I can imagine how awesome and fun this would be, a last stand among your companions and troops, only for me to notice that this ain't possible at all. I went to the keep doors and couldn't interact with it or anything even when I was the last man standing, naturally I thought "well maybe this is a bug" only to my surprise that, well, it's just not implemented which is a shame really.
 

Calabanar

Sergeant
I think alike Blood Griphon and Artem, I actually expected Keep Defence to be something the player could partake in. It doesn’t have to be overly complicated, just a wave survival mini-game, but it would be very fun!

I haven’t tested the feature yet, but I can absolutely see defending the keep as being a viable strategy, especially if say, once the waves are cleared, the ennemy has to retreat for a while and regroup: then it actually becomes a great asset as it buys time for reinforcements to come in and lift the siege!

It then wouldn’t be something most players wouldn’t use: it would be an essential part of defending a siege, and so making an effort to not get wounded would be made even more important.

Right now, although it sounds nice to be able to attack the keep, it feels more like a demonstration of what we could do ourselves but can’t.
 
with permadeath enabled you have a life & death cycle which is making the game more interesting to me than a static experience. in my opinion at least.
I dont wanna lose my character after dozens of hours leveling and then get control over some of my usless weak children with random attributes. Same as AI, strong lord with awesome stats die-> his 1st lvl son with 0 skills become an army leader. doze siblings are just so crappy i dont even bother to have sex with my wife
 
Top Bottom