Limit Noble Troops

[SanyaBeli]

The unfortunate reality of troop trees and optimizing your party is that outside of role-playing or similar motivations, there is almost no reason to ever use non-noble troops. The noble troops are, for the most part, better at each tier compared to regular troops of the same type while costing the same in upkeep and recruitment costs. And they have a tier 6 potential. The main thing that limits the size of your party at basically all stages of the game is your party size limit. The ability to recruit troops is rarely limiting except during a prolonged war in a certain area and upkeep is never a reason not to build your army unless you are frankly bad at making money. This means that the ability to upgrade troops to tier 6 is a game changer in terms of packing more punch into your party.

I think it would be good for the game in terms of troop diversity and making party building more interesting if a separate cap was placed on the number of noble troops you are allowed to have in your party. Something like only 20% of your party cap can be noble troops. So if my party size limit is 200, I have have 200 troops, but at most I can have 40 noble troops. This is in line with the idea that your party size limit is based on your renown and ability to convince troops to keep following you. Noble troops are inherently elitist and demand that they are the elite of your party. If they notice that they are just being used as regular troops in your party, they will be offended and desert.
I think this would be in line with the original intent of allowing you to have some elites in your party without making your whole party elite troops. It would also make it so more that 6 troop types are relevant. Because frankly, it's the unfortunate truth that with all the variety of troops trees and bandits and mercenaries in the game, there are only 6 relevant troops if you are trying to optimize your party (and 3 of them are heavy cavalry that feel pretty sameish).

 

[JunKeteer]

Noble troops aren't that much stronger than their other top tier counterparts anyways - especially now that they are even easier to recruit. They should be a bit more unique/stronger; then justify that by making them cost more or limiting them.

If I was them, I would've made them cost those stupid influence bucks to recruit and maybe a cap limit too TBD scaling on fiefs owned or clan tier; with maybe a perk or two giving you some few more.
They would feel 'noble' since they need 'influence' to afford so it incentivizes both AI party sets and player to have more reasons to use for that stupid influence system.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

We've had this thread like 10 times. I don't think TW will reduce them anyways since they've increased them multiple times and tend to not back off from changes. I also don't think less noble troops improves anything since all it is is less t6 troops which means less benefit from medicine and more death and more using menus to do the same stuff even more.
Is is fun to open the village menu more and recruit troops?
Is it fun to open the item menu and discard gear to level troops?
That's all you're doing with less t6 troops is increasing how many times you have to open these menus which you already do too much.
The game already is far too repetitive.

in terms of troop diversity

I don't think there is any. You have 1 unit that is special (because of glaives actually working on horseback) and the rest are just like any other unit of that type, anyone who says otherwise is just gaslighting themselves so they can RP. Even worse, cavalry can be subbed for infantry and HA for archers and everything is fine, so now you have 2 things, thing that walk forward and hit and thing that stands and shoots. But it's even worse, because skills barely matter, those archers can fight almost as well as non-archers so you can even just sub more archer for infantry and almost nothing changes. I just don't count "it's slightly worse and green" as troop diversity.

But there is a place for all troops at the same time, because although early on packing you first 100-200 party/army with Elite troops is a good idea, after that it becomes a chore and not efficient to go out of you way to get more, (If I can defeat army with 200 it's not important to get more)so you bulk up with whatever you can get to put into garrisons and boost you camp build time and rely on those eltite troops to win the battles.

Elite troops with t6 survivability for killing, everything else for filling.
In fact it might be a nice change to have a perk or something that let you take 2 normal troops in place of a noble as often you just want the bulk.
Loving the new forced recruitment for this reason.
^Although this is another thing to point out, after 1.1.0 the amount of noble troops easily available is lower in early game because you cannot use forced recruitment to get them, it instead gives basic recruit depending on village hearths, rather then the actual troops available to recruit.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

De Re Militiari is your friend.

I have no hope for vanilla. Players wanted more noble troops, and they're getting exactly that. As far as TW cares, its all working as intended.

Don't get me wrong, its complete nonsense and kills the whole point of it, but eh. At this I personally would rather they don't change. If they decide to make them rare again, it will mess with my planned mod lol.

 

[niekdegrijze]

De Re Militiari is your friend.

I have no hope for vanilla. Players wanted more noble troops, and they're getting exactly that. As far as TW cares, its all working as intended.

Don't get me wrong, its complete nonsense and kills the whole point of it, but eh. At this I personally would rather they don't change. If they decide to make them rare again, it will mess with my planned mod lol.

love De Re Militiari great mod!

I still have hope that i can make my own mod in the near future. I started learning coding just for Bannerlord. I would like to make the following:

Recruitment changes:
Step 1
Only recruitment of regular units if friendly with lord (+10)
Only recruitment of noble units if very friendly with lord (+50)
Step 2
Remove all noble units from villagers
Step 3
Add weapon master NPC to castle halls or court yard
Add recruitment option for noble troops through him
Step 4
Add separate pool to garrison for noble troop (10-15) to replenish over time.
They should fight in defense and should me recruitable through the weapon master or through the garrison screen if you own the castle.
Step 5
Add extra bonusses to the noble part of the garrison based on buildings and upgrades.

• Bigger pool
• Quicker replenishment
• Higher tier

This would make nobles more rare and this would force the player to really invest in strong relationships and make castles useful.

For me this would also make logical sense. Why would a noble allow strangers to recruit from his fiefs. This is his own pool of manpower.
Noble and rich families would send their children to the castle to receive an education and training. This would be represented by the small pool of noble recruits at the castle.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

We've had this thread like 10 times. I don't think TW will reduce them anyways since they've increased them multiple times and tend to not back off from changes. I also don't think less noble troops improves anything since all it is is less t6 troops which means less benefit from medicine and more death and more using menus to do the same stuff even more.
Is is fun to open the village menu more and recruit troops?
Is it fun to open the item menu and discard gear to level troops?
That's all you're doing with less t6 troops is increasing how many times you have to open these menus which you already do too much.
The game already is far too repetitive.

I don't think there is any. You have 1 unit that is special (because of glaives actually working on horseback) and the rest are just like any other unit of that type, anyone who says otherwise is just gaslighting themselves so they can RP. Even worse, cavalry can be subbed for infantry and HA for archers and everything is fine, so now you have 2 things, thing that walk forward and hit and thing that stands and shoots. But it's even worse, because skills barely matter, those archers can fight almost as well as non-archers so you can even just sub more archer for infantry and almost nothing changes. I just don't count "it's slightly worse and green" as troop diversity.

But there is a place for all troops at the same time, because although early on packing you first 100-200 party/army with Elite troops is a good idea, after that it becomes a chore and not efficient to go out of you way to get more, (If I can defeat army with 200 it's not important to get more)so you bulk up with whatever you can get to put into garrisons and boost you camp build time and rely on those eltite troops to win the battles.

Elite troops with t6 survivability for killing, everything else for filling.
In fact it might be a nice change to have a perk or something that let you take 2 normal troops in place of a noble as often you just want the bulk.
Loving the new forced recruitment for this reason.
^Although this is another thing to point out, after 1.1.0 the amount of noble troops easily available is lower in early game because you cannot use forced recruitment to get them, it instead gives basic recruit depending on village hearths, rather then the actual troops available to recruit.

Agreed. Why on earth should it be necessary for TW to focus on something the player has complete control over. It does not matter.

 

[clovis_sangrail]

OP apparently lacks the self-control to limit the number of noble troops he uses, so he thinks the game must be changed to do the limiting for him, and to hell with how others might want to play it..

 

[anoddhermit]

Noble troops aren't that much stronger than their other top tier counterparts anyways - especially now that they are even easier to recruit. They should be a bit more unique/stronger; then justify that by making them cost more or limiting them.

If I was them, I would've made them cost those stupid influence bucks to recruit and maybe a cap limit too TBD scaling on fiefs owned or clan tier; with maybe a perk or two giving you some few more.
They would feel 'noble' since they need 'influence' to afford so it incentivizes both AI party sets and player to have more reasons to use for that stupid influence system.

I really like the idea of having them cost influence.

I think a hard cap feels too artificial, but at least the influence requirement distinguishes them from standard troops more substantially than just having them come from villages tied to castles.

However I think with this system there'd have to be a way to acquire influence that isn't tied to merc/vassal/kingdom leader status, otherwise this would cut a lot of play styles off from nobles entirely.

 

[JunKeteer]

I really like the idea of having them cost influence.

Only because influence is in the game already, at least give it some added purpose for gameplay reasons; among a variety of other uses I could see 'influence' being practical for.

I think a hard cap feels too artificial, but at least the influence requirement distinguishes them from standard troops more substantially than just having them come from villages tied to castles.

More of a soft cap, only limit being what the player can manage should they want to try and field even 100% nobles. Tying to clan tier just seems to make more sense to associate your clan's 'growth' same as it does now with party#. The hard-cap of workshops tied to clan tier is more nonsensical.

However I think with this system there'd have to be a way to acquire influence that isn't tied to merc/vassal/kingdom leader status, otherwise this would cut a lot of play styles off from nobles entirely.

Would require recalculating/balancing how it depreciates/decays (even as mercenaries). They have all these +1/-1/etc...perks, policies, etc...that affect your growth, but in the end - they're just doing the rubberbanding to zero for the sake of it; it doesn't serve any meaningful purpose to 'obtain'. Can't even use their love of sliders to allow us to just scale-dump it all either for those that want to abuse the vote mechanic.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Agreed. Why on earth should it be necessary for TW to focus on something the player has complete control over. It does not matter.

OP apparently lacks the self-control to limit the number of noble troops he uses, so he thinks the game must be changed to do the limiting for him, and to hell with how others might want to play it..

You can choose not to play an overpowered character in a fighting game. Doesn't mean you eliminate the issue at all though.

The whole vibe of the game feels off with the presence of easily obtainable nobles. They should be dangerous, but hard to acquire. Not something you can simply make an entire army out of.

But again, look to mods to fix this, not TW.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

You can choose not to play an overpowered character in a fighting game. Doesn't mean you eliminate the issue at all though.

The whole vibe of the game feels off with the presence of easily obtainable nobles. They should be dangerous, but hard to acquire. Not something you can simply make an entire army out of.

But again, look to mods to fix this, not TW.

Yes, just mod in a tier 7 unit and players will stop using those damn tier 6 units.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Yes, just mod in a tier 7 unit and players will stop using those damn tier 6 units.

Tier 7 troops don't exist anymore. TW removed that function because... they don't use tier 7 troops?

 

[black_bulldog]

OP apparently lacks the self-control to limit the number of noble troops he uses, so he thinks the game must be changed to do the limiting for him, and to hell with how others might want to play it..

Way to try to shift the blame onto the player, but it's not up to the player to balance the game. No gamer in the history of gaming is going to intentionally gimp themselves unless they're trying to prove something. But unfortunately Taleworlds is worse at balancing than a drunk on a tightrope.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Tier 7 troops don't exist anymore. TW removed that function because... they don't use tier 7 troops?

Sorry, I was just being sarcastic.

Ofcourse players are going to use the best tool for the job. If noble troops had never been introduced we would all be using the regular tier 5s instead. When I occationally go with an all infantry playthrough then I will, unsurprisingly, go with tier 5s.

The game does not have any mechanisms that support not doing so.

And those ideas...It is entirely beyond me why anyone would think introducing artificial limitations on us or forcing the player down a particular path (own castles) would in any way improve the playing experience.


Anyway, it is just an early to midgame issue. Once you get to the king level and beyond you will be starving for troops to the point that even tier 1s will look attractive.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

You can completely wreck armies with stacks of Heavy HA too, or subbing another t5 archer or Cav if that's the noble you were using (which may not wreck armies so good as Heavy HA, but still). Basically, you can just sub a T5 for the noble and very little changes, you WILL get more death/ko just because of the medicine scaling with tier, but it doesn't change the gameplay or create any new experiences. So wanting less nobles troops just seems like petty nonsense. I don't know how anyone could think the gameplay would be changed with less of them. You can just not recruit them and try and see if you even enjoy it more, I don't know why you would. There will be slightly more red skulls instead of white and you will make somewhat more trips to the inventory and party screen to level up troops, how is that interesting? You're not building T6 troops because you can't win without them, you build them to minimize that annoying, boring, parts of the game as much as possible.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Sorry, I was just being sarcastic.

Ofcourse players are going to use the best tool for the job. If noble troops had never been introduced we would all be using the regular tier 5s instead. When I occationally go with an all infantry playthrough then I will, unsurprisingly, go with tier 5s.

The game does not have any mechanisms that support not doing so.

And those ideas...It is entirely beyond me why anyone would think introducing artificial limitations on us or forcing the player down a particular path (own castles) would in any way improve the playing experience.


Anyway, it is just an early to midgame issue. Once you get to the king level and beyond you will be starving for troops to the point that even tier 1s will look attractive.

You can completely wreck armies with stacks of Heavy HA too, or subbing another t5 archer or Cav if that's the noble you were using (which may not wreck armies so good as Heavy HA, but still). Basically, you can just sub a T5 for the noble and very little changes, you WILL get more death/ko just because of the medicine scaling with tier, but it doesn't change the gameplay or create any new experiences. So wanting less nobles troops just seems like petty nonsense. I don't know how anyone could think the gameplay would be changed with less of them. You can just not recruit them and try and see if you even enjoy it more, I don't know why you would. There will be slightly more red skulls instead of white and you will make somewhat more trips to the inventory and party screen to level up troops, how is that interesting? You're not building T6 troops because you can't win without them, you build them to minimize that annoying, boring, parts of the game as much as possible.

See my idea would be to also limit the amount of tier 5 units too. As always, VC got some right with how extremely difficult it is to ever see end tier troops.

You get more interesting armies that can't just steam roll everything in the way. And elites feel like the amazing super soldiers they ought to be.

I dunno, I just like armies that look more like the sort of armies you'd see in real life and not hordes of nobles.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

See my idea would be to also limit the amount of tier 5 units too. As always, VC got some right with how extremely difficult it is to ever see end tier troops.

You get more interesting armies that can't just steam roll everything in the way. And elites feel like the amazing super soldiers they ought to be.

I dunno, I just like armies that look more like the sort of armies you'd see in real life and not hordes of nobles.

Yes, but VC is also an expansion/mod. It would have been a shame if it didnt have its own flavor.

 

[JunKeteer]

And those ideas...It is entirely beyond me why anyone would think introducing artificial limitations on us or forcing the player down a particular path (own castles) would in any way improve the playing experience.

Just introducing an arbitrary hard cap/limit is horrible (ala workshop/clan tier/companions) - there has to be meaningful ways to have it more engaging for challenging/gameplay aspect should a player want to go for 100% 'noble troops' (they really aren't unique anymore) party or 50 companions or 50 workshops or any other route in a 'sandbox'.
I mean, they have it with party wages - how do you maintain/build a large army should you choose to? Through constantly fight for loot, own castles/workshops/caravans, trade, and/or perk focus; if you don't want a large party - you can do so with lesser need to engage in the aforementioned features should you not want to (you still can nonetheless).
This is if noble troops were actually special enough for it (ie something like RoR in total war); they aren't - and probably why TW just went to simplistic route yet again to just nerf noble troops to make them no different from any other T6 troop except the 'pretend' diversity of troop variety within a kingdom; rather than adding depth to them.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Just introducing an arbitrary hard cap/limit is horrible (ala workshop/clan tier/companions) - there has to be meaningful ways to have it more engaging for challenging/gameplay aspect should a player want to go for 100% 'noble troops' (they really aren't unique anymore) party or 50 companions or 50 workshops or any other route in a 'sandbox'.
I mean, they have it with party wages - how do you maintain/build a large army should you choose to? Through constantly fight for loot, own castles/workshops/caravans, trade, and/or perk focus; if you don't want a large party - you can do so with lesser need to engage in the aforementioned features should you not want to (you still can nonetheless).
This is if noble troops were actually special enough for it (ie something like RoR in total war); they aren't - and probably why TW just went to simplistic route yet again to just nerf noble troops to make them no different from any other T6 troop except the 'pretend' diversity of troop variety within a kingdom; rather than adding depth to them.

I think the problem here is that you just cannot view the issue in issolation.

Did it work in VC. Yeah, it was basically fine. Partly you just learn to appreciate what you have. But there were other factors that played a role too. Low attrition units like archers wasnt all that great and just didnt have the higher tiers anyway. Perhaps more importantly, you had other areas in which you could indulge in your viking power fantasies. As with Warband, you could have up to 16 companions but you also had the possibility to equipt them with the best gear that the game had to offer and, on top of that, you even had the opportunity to improve these a couple of times further through crafting!

In POP (the one with the elves?) it also took a metric ton of xp to level anything. Despite that the midgame worked fine, but what made it work was that you could just recruit quality units from prisoners or freed prisoners.

In Bannerlord, unless you go with some version of a hard limit, then all you are going to accomplish is to make anything that is not Fians or KGs uninteresting (or more uninteresting than they already are depending on your point of view).

 

[JunKeteer]

I think the problem here is that you just cannot view the issue in issolation.

In Bannerlord, unless you go with some version of a hard limit, then all you are going to accomplish is to make anything that is not Fians or KGs uninteresting (or more uninteresting than they already are depending on your point of view).

At this point, 'noble' troops is not much different from WB with their 'characteristic' elite troops; ie nord huscarl, swad knight, vaeg marksman, etc...Which is fine, TW turned them into those essentially with BL - just with a slightly more convoluted way with their different 'recruit' linear path. I would think many of us thought 'noble troops' would've been more like 1/2 companion worth in terms of 'specialty' - stronger but more costly (recruit/upgrade/rarity).

I'd rather the game's troop diversity be less homogenized; De Re Militari mod being the closest to what I would prefer (and will probably use once game finally finishes development).