Khuzait still snowballs

Currently viewing this thread:

sidri

Recruit
My kill count is 60k /14k.
They nonstop spam 2k troops on my castle. Dont need to fix it cuz thats rlly fun!
 
I gotta Say that in my latest campain it feels way more balanced. I have to help armies catch up Khuzait armies still to prevent snowballing but now i dont feel forced to deploy all my energy on Khuzait. Ive even noticed a 500 vs 500 battle where empire won vs Khuzait on the Battlefield (not auto calc, i was helping them with 30 troops only). It is slowly getting There and it makes the game significantly better.
 

8uzzard

Recruit
I gotta Say that in my latest campain it feels way more balanced. I have to help armies catch up Khuzait armies still to prevent snowballing but now i dont feel forced to deploy all my energy on Khuzait. Ive even noticed a 500 vs 500 battle where empire won vs Khuzait on the Battlefield (not auto calc, i was helping them with 30 troops only). It is slowly getting There and it makes the game significantly better.
Day 300 now your "vs Khuzait" is balanced for me. This is my favorite faction as I am real life horse archer. Day 300 I am with Aserai and khuzaits have conquered 2 empire cities 2 castle and sturgian Tyal and one sturgian castle and this is day 300. Also they have lost Odokh and Akalat recently. This is balance 1.5.7. I thought that they will nerf them more in 1.5.7 but I take my words back. This is balance now. And u r right when they fight almost equally on numbers in most cases they loose because of the terrain and speed. They are a bit slower now and empire specially sturgians are catching them in big armies. Sturgians are a bit harder for the khuzaits now.
 
Day 300 now your "vs Khuzait" is balanced for me. This is my favorite faction as I am real life horse archer. Day 300 I am with Aserai and khuzaits have conquered 2 empire cities 2 castle and sturgian Tyal and one sturgian castle and this is day 300. Also they have lost Odokh and Akalat recently. This is balance 1.5.7. I thought that they will nerf them more in 1.5.7 but I take my words back. This is balance now. And u r right when they fight almost equally on numbers in most cases they loose because of the terrain and speed. They are a bit slower now and empire specially sturgians are catching them in big armies. Sturgians are a bit harder for the khuzaits now.
What would make the most sense to me is that when a faction is in ITS territory it moves faster. Aserai would catch Khuzait in sand, Sturgia would catch them in snow and Battania would be faster than them in Forests, etc.
 

8uzzard

Recruit
What would make the most sense to me is that when a faction is in ITS territory it moves faster. Aserai would catch Khuzait in sand, Sturgia would catch them in snow and Battania would be faster than them in Forests, etc.
Ye I like this. One does not just walk into the "sands of faith" or in the steppes or in the snow. Terrain speed advantage is balanced :> Again 1.5.7 I take my words back and I do apologize for my ragey comments about 1.5.6 for the stupid endless comebacks. They actually listen everyone in this forum. And that's why the community will love them more in future. Peace be upon you \/
 
Virtually every battle is fought using autocalc and autocalc doesn't take any of this into account. It doesn't even distinguished between ranged and melee troops, let alone specific types of equipment. Except horses, that is.
Ok I thought we were talking about battles fought in the first person, but I don't think the speech changes much.
In summary, what I write in the thread is that the armor, net of having a different efficiency according to their structure and the type of material, generally with the same material and quality of armor, what mainly intervenes in protecting a soldier is the amount of covered area compared to the uncovered one.
Let's imagine two plate armor:
One covers you for 80% and let's call it armor8 and the other for 50% and let's call it armor5.
Assuming that many forests of 20 arrows each arrive, statistically 16 will be blocked by armor8 and 10 by armor5.
So if we revise the armor system in such a way as to increase the number of hurtboxes (currently limited to arms, legs, torso and head) and ensure that not all armor can cover and protect them all (as it obviously is) , or that if they protect them, it is not said that they do it with great efficiency (for example not all joints can be covered except with full armor) then in the self-calculation it could be considered that in the case of a very heavy infantry (armor plates and wide shields) the probability that archers will be able to injure soldiers is equal to the number of hurtboxes multiplied by the corresponding puncture defense value and divided by the total number of hurtboxes, so as to give us a "weighted defense" in terms of "probability of being hit".
Multiplying this probability by the number of soldiers defending themselves gives us the number of victims.
The average damage the arrow would inflict on the average defense gives us the number of arrows it would take to take a victim.
If the arrows of the attacking army are equal to or greater than the number of arrows that would be needed, then the number of casualties will be just that calculated, otherwise it will be less and the calculation is a simple proportion.
The same system can be applied to any bullet and also to the melee.
In the case of blunt weapons vs plate armor just enter some coefficient that takes into account the fact that certain types of weapons perform better against certain types of armor.

Other factors can be considered such as for example the hp of the shields which would make the number of bullets necessary in order to kill a soldier much higher
The idea would be to have to break the shield, so in practice you have to take:
(hp of the soldiers + K * hp shields) / arrows damage, where K is a factor <= 1
In this way the calculation is not left to an arbitrary chosed formula, but strongly depends on the type of equipment.
This is without taking into account the benefits by personally playing the battle (or even 1 vs 1 fights).
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
In this way the calculation is not left to an arbitrary chosed formula, but strongly depends on the type of equipment.

Haha you could have saved your in depth formulas and simply joined the club of those of us been clamoring for a complete Auto-Calc do-over. Including all items, terrain, weather, region of map etc..
 
Haha you could have saved your in depth formulas and simply joined the club of those of us been clamoring for a complete Auto-Calc do-over. Including all items, terrain, weather, region of map etc..
I did not "ask" the formula, I suggested a calculation method applicable in a non-approximate and erroneous way only if the armor system is changed.
Without changing that, my formula is not applicable.
The formula I wrote contains only the part relating to the variables related to armor, soldiers and their equipment.
To consider other variables just make some changes.
I'll post the link to the armor thread so you know what I mean.
JOINT HURTBOXES and ARMOR HURTBOXES: an armor system that provide a way to balance factions warfare and make more deep the combat system(suggestions)
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
I did not "ask" the formula, I suggested a calculation method applicable in a non-approximate and erroneous way only if the armor system is changed.
Without changing that, my formula is not applicable.
The formula I wrote contains only the part relating to the variables related to armor, soldiers and their equipment.
To consider other variables just make some changes.
I'll post the link to the armor thread so you know what I mean.
JOINT HURTBOXES and ARMOR HURTBOXES: an armor system that provide a way to balance factions warfare and make more deep the combat system(suggestions)

Nice thread very thorough
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
Seriously im getting god damn tired of this snowball bull****. Rework their freaking map movement speed perk for christ sake, Khuzait needs to be balanced so that the other AI can fight them (i dont want ANY cuck boy replying to this thread with their personal idea on how to win vs khuzait as a player, no one cares, it has NOTHING to do with this thread, this thread is about AI vs AI). I'm tired of having to f****g restart campains hoping that the next one will not get snowballed by god damn Khuzait. Its been so many months and this stupid ass problem has been ruining my game experience since day one.
Why the **** doesnt Aserai ever declare war on them ?
Why the **** do they win every siege
Why the **** do they have a perk that makes them unreachable by other AI on the world map
Why the **** do they win every and any encounter with other AI.
Why the **** are they so well positioned on the map making armies starve to death before even reaching them.
Why the **** do all my lords vote against declaring war to them
Why the **** does Southern Empire and Sturgia still suck ass vs them ?

Bring the god damn nerf hammer upon these stupid ass Khuzait already, i think its pretty clear im getting sick and tired of this ****.

Well, I know without a doubt that in any battle between my and the AI, the Khurzait's are OP. I took an Aserai army of 900 commanded by me with my setting set to only take 2/3 damage for mine and friendly parties against 900 Khurzaits. Also 200 of my troop, my personal army were Tier 5/6 elites. Despite what should have been an overwhelming advantage, my army got their buts kicked. We lost all 900 troops which the enemy walked away with over 300 still left alive. Also my army was very Horse Archer and Cavalry heavy so the normal Horse Archer/Cavalry advantage the Khurzait's have was negated AND WE STILL GOT WIPED OUT!!! I was completely shocked because against a similar sized Western Empire army, winning was a walk in the park with me taking less than 300 casualties. That is a huge power gap.

However, the AI vs AI is all simulated so I wouldn't think that the skill levels and armor of the troops would matter. I mean it seems you would just assign a Khuzait Tier 5 troop the same value as a Aserai Tier 5 troop, add up all the values then toss in some sort of RNG to determine which AI controlled army wins the simulation. Then you just adjust the values of the troops until you get a 50/50 ratio for all armies against all other armies at least for simulations meaning two equal sized armies with the same number of each troops in each tier with have a 50/50 shot at winning. That way the player is the only one with any real control over winning or losing a battle. I would expect this is how taleworlds has things set up.

Now what I personally think happens really has nothing to do with the troops themselves, but rather various parameters around the troops. For example, because of the way the game treats horses, the Khuzait always have an advantage in speed because so many more of their troops are always mounted. This allows the Khuzait AI armies to always dictate when the will fight a battle. If they are a more powerful army, they can almost always run down another factions army. Consequently, if they are weaker, they can always run away. This, combined with a pretty simple "fight or flight" type of AI pretty much ensures that the Khuzait's win many more battles than they lose. The only way to prevent this is to balance campaign maps speeds for all armies on something other than the amount of horse they have. Also and I will say I honestly don't know if this is the case for the AI or not but if the Khuzait cultural trait is modeled for the AI as well, then the problem just gets worse.

The second possible issue could be the upgrade paths. From what I have heard, the AI uses the same recruiting and upgrade paths that the player does. This could have a huge effect on balance faction to faction. For example, the Battanian's can't get archers through the normal tree and instead have to rely on acquiring more rare nobles to actually include archers in their armies. This could be the reason the Battanian's always seem to get their butts kicked, simply because they cannot incorporate archers into their roster as other factions do. Again this is assuming that Taleworlds doesn't just use a simple formula where say a Tier 5 is a Tier 5 whether it is an Archer, Infantry, Cavalry or Horse Archer for its calculations. If they are using more complex calculations, were say a Tier 5 archer has more value than a Tier 5 infantry and a Tier 5 Horse Archer has more Value than anything else in the calculations, well obviously the army with more Tier 5 archers and horse archers will always when the simulations.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Ok I thought we were talking about battles fought in the first person, but I don't think the speech changes much.
It does change it, a lot. Adding in those factors makes some sort of sense where the player is in a position to manipulate them to their advantage. It doesn't make sense otherwise.
The same system can be applied to any bullet and also to the melee.
Including such a huge number of factors will almost certainly lead to a situation of noise factors (where neither side has an advantage) drowning out actual, meaningful advantages which leads to outcomes determined by bigger numbers (more troops, higher tier wins). Every additional dice roll you add to the autocalc is an additional weight pulling the final result towards "expected." Your proposal is a long, and spectacularly complicated method to essentially reproduce what we have now, where bigger numbers (more troops, higher tier) virtually always win, deterministically.

Throw fewer dice.
 
It does change it, a lot.
I was referring to my speech, the validity of which exists whether we are talking about combat played or that it is simulated with self-calculation.
In this sense it was reported, the context changed but my proposal aims to solve the problem in both cases.
Including such a huge number of factors will almost certainly lead to a situation of noise factors
There are not many factors that I have mentioned.
Furthermore, I have not talked about "dice" or "tier".
The armor system I suggest eliminates the concept of "arbitrarily placed tier" by replacing with the more realistic one of "this armor covers more hurtboxes and protects more from damage, you will be less likely to be hit".
Calculable probability.
If you don't want to apply the formula exactly then you can also roll some dice to vary the result.
complicated method to essentially reproduce what we have now
It is just the opposite.
The current armor system provides coverage for a few hurtboxes with not excessive defense.
This means that in hand-to-hand combat, even if you do not hit the least protected part of the body, you will still do a non-negligible damage and in 4-5 hits (even 15 but you don't get to give it 99 hits) you defeat it.
The system that I propose foresees the increase of the hurtboxes of which some, SMALL, will occupy those points of the body that make up the joints (armpit, knee, elbow joint etc.)
Many armor does not protect all the hurtboxes, and therefore those uncovered (both joints and not), although few, have a defense but are small, vice versa those protected have a high defense, much greater than what is in play now.
In this way it is inconvenient to attack the enemy where the armor protects him, as the risk is to have to hit him in those points 60 times, and therefore it is advisable to direct the shots along the uncovered areas, so that 2-3 shots can suffice.

This, in the melee is reflected in a greater ability of the player to be able to wait for the enemy's open guard, aim carefully and hit, without spamming the blows.
With ranged weapons this means that the individual arrows are either well placed in those little exposed hurtboxes, or you have to hope that the enemy has armor that cannot withstand piercing damage, OR if you are 10 archers and the enemy is covered at 90% with plates (example) then it is likely that the first forest of 10 arrows will hit him once (or maybe not even that)
Conversely, a shirtless man has nothing to cover his hurtboxes and therefore gets all 10 arrows.
These probabilities are easily calculated because they depend on information known to us (the composition of the army and its equipment).
where bigger numbers (more troops, higher tier) virtually always win, deterministically.
It is not deterministic because we are not evaluating the dynamics of events, it is probabilistic because we are evaluating factors that allow us to calculate a probability that is not arbitrarily posed.
They also do not win large numbers as a small but well equipped army with shields and heavy armor and a few archers can win against a larger army always made up of archers and light melee infantry.
It is not insured, but it is possible.
Certainly if one is better equipped and also in numerical advantage, only strategy can change things there, and then factors that I have deliberately ignored should be considered because they can be introduced separately.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
There are not many factors that I have mentioned.
Your previous description:
Ok I thought we were talking about battles fought in the first person, but I don't think the speech changes much.
In summary, what I write in the thread is that the armor, net of having a different efficiency according to their structure and the type of material, generally with the same material and quality of armor, what mainly intervenes in protecting a soldier is the amount of covered area compared to the uncovered one.
Let's imagine two plate armor:
(1) One covers you for 80% and let's call it armor8 and the other for 50% and let's call it armor5.
Assuming that many forests of 20 arrows each arrive, statistically 16 will be blocked by armor8 and 10 by armor5.
So if we revise the armor system in such a way as to increase the number of hurtboxes (currently limited to arms, legs, torso and head) and ensure that not all armor can cover and protect them all (as it obviously is) , or that if they protect them, it is not said that they do it with great efficiency (for example not all joints can be covered except with full armor) then in the self-calculation it could be considered that in the case of a very heavy infantry (armor plates and wide shields) the probability that archers will be able to injure soldiers is equal to the number of hurtboxes multiplied by the (2) corresponding puncture defense value and divided by (3) the total number of hurtboxes, so as to give us a "weighted defense" in terms of "probability of being hit".
Multiplying this probability by the number of soldiers defending themselves gives us the number of victims.
The average damage the arrow would inflict on the average defense gives us the number of arrows it would take to take a victim.
If the arrows of the attacking army are equal to or greater than the number of arrows that would be needed (4), then the number of casualties will be just that calculated, otherwise it will be less and the calculation is a simple proportion.
The same system can be applied to any bullet and also to the melee.
In the case of blunt weapons vs plate armor just enter (5) some coefficient that takes into account the fact that certain types of weapons perform better against certain types of armor.

Other factors can be considered such as for example (6) the hp of the shields which would make the number of bullets necessary in order to kill a soldier much higher
The idea would be to have to break the shield, so in practice you have to take:
(hp of the soldiers + K * hp shields) / arrows damage, where K is a factor <= 1
In this way the calculation is not left to an arbitrary chosed formula, but strongly depends on the type of equipment.
This is without taking into account the benefits by personally playing the battle (or even 1 vs 1 fights).
I count at least six additional factors (to autocalc) you want to add just to model the act of infantry being hit with arrows, before anything else. That's a silly level of fidelity for autocalc, especially since the actual differences between factions' armors are marginal. It is the extreme end of simulating more stuff for the sake of simulating more stuff, since the end result -- in your words -- is that better protected (which translates to higher tier in BL) troops:
will be less likely to be hit
Recreating the already existing mechanic of high-tier troops being harder to hit in autocalc and when taken out, being more likely to be wounded than killed (both autocalc and missions).
Furthermore, I have not talked about "dice" or "tier".
I use "dice" as shorthand for anything involving probabilities in games, since you need a random number generator to pull an actual result from a probability.
 

VersusXY

Recruit
Khuzaits are to OP and you guys need to embrace it. They are nomads and their fight tactics are different than empire or sturgia. They have Cavalry and Horse Archer units most which makes them OP + cultural map speed bonus + cavalry&horse archer map speed bonus. They putting all other factions to trash bin easly. But, I'm not sure about sieges tho. Khuzait should not be that OP in sieges. Like Khegits in Warband, Khergits was too op on field but not that great at siege. I think this siege/field balance can stop them doing snowballing.
 
I count at least six additional factors (to autocalc) you want to add just to model the act of infantry being hit with arrows, before anything else. That's a silly level of fidelity for autocalc, especially since the actual differences between factions' armors are marginal
You skipped a few comments because I wrote in previous comments (to froggyluv user) that I suggest a modification of the armor system.
And only after this change do I suggest the approach you recommended for self-calculation.

Having said that, the quantities involved in the self-calculation are not 6 because both the "weighted defense" and "the probability of being hit" do not need to be calculated during the aucocalculation since they can be calculated separately.
moreover the probability of being hit, as well as the weighted defense corresponds to points 1,2,3, the calculation is the same although it can be associated with 2 different meanings (one is a probability and the other an average defense value if the associated weight is equal to 1).
So the real number of parameters that come into play in the self-calculation has decreased.
The parameters you need are:
probability for the soldiers of each party to be hit, number of soldiers per party, weighted (or average) defense, projectiles damage, number of projectiles.
The variables are few, simple and they are not the ones you identified.

And what do you tie these probabilities to?
Which nut do you use and why?
the point is to answer these questions, not to roll dice with an arbitrary number of faces and draw the consequences.
I use "dice" as shorthand for anything involving probabilities in games, since you need a random number generator to pull an actual result from a probability.


And what is the set of dice you use associated with?
What is the connection between the N-sided die and soldier armor vs enemy bullet?
A function to associate a given set of dice from a given number of faces to the characteristics of the armies in play is still necessary.
By itself, throwing dice brings out numbers at random, too bad that in themselves they have no associated meaning.
They don't represent a model describing events if you don't have the formula.
And if you find the formula (i.e. the probability associated with information) then you don't have to roll 300 dice to see what happens to your 300 soldiers, just multiply that probability by the number of soldiers and find the number of hit.
Then nothing prevents you from using both systems, that is to find the number of hit and then roll the dice to see what happens, but clearly doing this will not reflect the initial probability calculated.
I am not saying that the use of dice is unnecessary or wrong, I am saying that they must be used wisely and that their use does not conflict with what I have written.
Without a formula (a function that goes from the set of variables associated with information on the two armies to the set of probabilities) it makes no sense to use dice.
And if you need a formula to use the dice correctly then you have to do the above calculations anyway.
At this point we might as well use both.

I propose a solution that deals with and solves 2 problems:
self-calculation and the relationship between bullets and armor.
As an extension I also get greater depth and realism of both hand-to-hand and ranged combat and also the wound / death system.
All this by changing only the armor system.

Then if one just wants to roll the dice and expect that without "degrees of freedom to act on" something can change, go ahead.
Without levers, the boulder does not raise it.
I propose levers rather than approximating the calculations until the model is not representative of the phenomenon.
 
Khuzaits are to OP and you guys need to embrace it. They are nomads and their fight tactics are different than empire or sturgia. They have Cavalry and Horse Archer units most which makes them OP + cultural map speed bonus + cavalry&horse archer map speed bonus. They putting all other factions to trash bin easly. But, I'm not sure about sieges tho. Khuzait should not be that OP in sieges. Like Khegits in Warband, Khergits was too op on field but not that great at siege. I think this siege/field balance can stop them doing snowballing.
LOGISTICS AND SUPPLY LINES
Well said: they are fast, go far in a short time and tend to be numerous.
So the solution is to make speed and number a double-edged sword for those who do not use it with full knowledge of the facts.
-If you are very fast and move quickly, it means that your supply line will be just as long and you will move further away from it.
So if you don't defend it, I can attack it and so you are forced to retreat momentarily if you don't want to run out of ammo and food.
-If you are very numerous with the cabbage that I face, rather I cut your supplies if you can not defend them and so even if they are a small army, I can stop a huge one ... because the bigger you are the hungrier you are.

-Want to defend your support lines? then you have to detach parties that walk parallel to you in such a way as to form a front, so that the enemy cannot get around you.
You want to defend the back, same thing, detached parties have to stand along the line and patrol it.
The supply line is made up of wagons, it starts from a city (so the economy has to withstand this demand, which will have consequences if it continues for a long time) and reaches the army it is associated with, it is not an imaginary thing.
Camps can be built between the beginning of the line and its end.

Without even wanting to do so, we have just created "borders" or "friction lines" to allow weaker or slower factions to slow down the faster ones and force them to redesign the invasion.
Also you can do strategy in the campaign map.
It is unwatchable that an army quietly crosses enemy territory and attacks a city without this having consequences.

If you share what is written, I invite you to read these threads which contains that link I have inserted above and others related to the same argument but from a different field and to vote if you find them shareable.
ECONOMY , LOGISTICS and WARFARE SUGGESTION LIST
 
Last edited:

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Your previous description:

I count at least six additional factors (to autocalc) you want to add just to model the act of infantry being hit with arrows, before anything else. That's a silly level of fidelity for autocalc, especially since the actual differences between factions' armors are marginal. It is the extreme end of simulating more stuff for the sake of simulating more stuff, since the end result -- in your words -- is that better protected (which translates to higher tier in BL) troops:

Recreating the already existing mechanic of high-tier troops being harder to hit in autocalc and when taken out, being more likely to be wounded than killed (both autocalc and missions).

I use "dice" as shorthand for anything involving probabilities in games, since you need a random number generator to pull an actual result from a probability.

Im confused by your seeming desire for an over simplified auto-calc. So Tier level and troops is good enough for you? What about if we were talking about a WW2 game -and you had high tier soldiers with no Anti-Tank weapons facing off against low Tier tanks should the Infantry win based on that when in fact they could inflict close to zero damage on tanks? Should not terrain come into play as well in these off-player calculations? And how about weapon caliber and other special weapons? To me -this is exactly what computers are built for -too allow us to throw alot of interesting variables in the oven and see what comes out

Now the result also needs a narrative to better illustrate "These Spec Ops troops were decimated by Panzer II tank while being overly exposed in open ground with no counter weaponry"
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Im confused by your seeming desire for an over simplified auto-calc. So Tier level and troops is good enough for you?
No. But the formula @darksoulshin offered up literally recreates the exact same feature already existing in autocalc -- high tier troops are harder to kill by low tier troops. It just has a bunch of additional factors thrown in.
To me -this is exactly what computers are built for -too allow us to throw alot of interesting variables in the oven and see what comes out
I can tell you the result of what happens when you throw a lot of interesting variables into the oven: average. So you include as few as you can get away with to allow a reasonable variance in outcomes and focus on the meaningful ones. This isn't a new issue; wargames (both computer and hex-and-chit) have pretty well explored the ground and most settled on few factors while CK2 kept a slurry of variables that resulted in bigger numbers winning most of the time unless they happen to cross a river. It was stale, it was boring and the only way they "fixed" it was by allowing players to custom-build OP armies that would mash out the grab-bag AI armies. That's fine-ish for CK2 but the wrong solution for BL.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
I can tell you the result of what happens when you throw a lot of interesting variables into the oven: average. So you include as few as you can get away with to allow a reasonable variance in outcomes and focus on the meaningful ones. This isn't a new issue; wargames (both computer and hex-and-chit) have pretty well explored the ground and most settled on few factors while CK2 kept a slurry of variables that resulted in bigger numbers winning most of the time unless they happen to cross a river. It was stale, it was boring and the only way they "fixed" it was by allowing players to custom-build OP armies that would mash out the grab-bag AI armies. That's fine-ish for CK2 but the wrong solution for BL.

So then whats your solution? As it is its stale as 2 day old bread left in the Sun -there is absolutely nothing interesting in Bannerlords auto calc results. Seems like you like to say no -but what have you offered up?

And are you telling me hex games and other strategy games do not take unit type and effectiveness vs other units into equation? Sounds like the guy is using an armor system not unlike a Tank Armor penetration rates. I find realistic Tank penetration systems extremely important extremely desirable in my war games and would hate to think its as simplified as you seem to be advocating.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
I would add (ask) -what exactly is interesting about any of the warfare that is not player centric in Bannerlord? On any level? I find absolutely nothing. Maybe you are just used to the status quo although decisions to go to war are even more "streamlined" than previous titles. So your concern of "bad" or "average" results to me are puzzling and kinda comical. There is absolutely zero things of interest in the narrative of either any decision to go to battle, the battle itself or the post battle narrative as it stands now in Bannerlord. If you have any interesting AAR to report im literally all ears.

Again - adding more interesting variables and a post battle narrative report would not worsen either the result (they are already bad) and could only enliven the rinse and repeat attack attack attack feeling of the game now. Im all ears

Edit: heres a good read for you: https://www.reddit.com/r/mountandbl..._you_should_know_about_auto_calc_kind_of_sad/

Its simplicity is almost nauseating i can literally see no justification for worrying about adding more variables
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom