Live battles = slowly killing your kingdom?

[Adrivan]

I'm playing as a vassal, and I feel like me helping my allies in battle is destroying the kingdom. Almost every time I join a large battle, a few lords from my kingdom die. Over time this leads to our faction having less and less lords available to create a party. Who thought this is a good idea? Punishing the player for helping? I know you can disable death, but I do like the idea of people dying over time. However the player should not be the only cause of their death, they should also die when alone...

 

[Yertyl]

Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: Yeeeeeeees.
There's a reason every second thread on bannerlord forums is complaining about the death rate. I have personally killed about one full kingdom in ten years despite quite a bit of reloading.

 

[Fate]

Way out of their range of capabilities, hope moders can do something

 

[Apocal]

Who thought this is a good idea? Punishing the player for helping? I know you can

Nobody. It is apparently a bug or oversight.

 

[Galvar]

Supposedly they purposefully keep it that high to test some stuff before they scale it down in player battles and introduce it in AI simulated battles.

I wonder what they're waiting for, it's been like this for pretty long time already. We have to either gut our game out of a key feature (dynasty system) or play through it. It's very annoying. Would be nice if they update us on this issue.

 

[Senko]

Adjustments to Death & Inheritance are planned. What that means only TW knows.

 

[Adrivan]

Supposedly they purposefully keep it that high to test some stuff before they scale it down in player battles and introduce it in AI simulated battles.

I wonder what they're waiting for, it's been like this for pretty long time already. We have to either gut our game out of a key feature (dynasty system) or play through it. It's very annoying. Would be nice if they update us on this issue.

In my opinion they should have either implemented it in ALL battles, or none at all (even if just testing). Testing it only for battles in which the player participates makes 0 sense, that's very unbalanced from the get-go, since it puts the player's kingdom at a clear disadvantage. So what are they testing exactly

 

[Apocal]

In my opinion they should have either implemented it in ALL battles, or none at all (even if just testing). Testing it only for battles in which the player participates makes 0 sense, that's very unbalanced from the get-go, since it puts the player's kingdom at a clear disadvantage. So what are they testing exactly

Trying to quash some bugs related to death.

 

[Adrivan]

Trying to quash some bugs related to death.

Fair enough, but I thought that's what the beta branches were for . I'm playing "stable" 1.5.7

 

[Hans 77]

Almost every time I join a large battle, a few lords from my kingdom die. Over time this leads to our faction having less and less lords available to create a party. Who thought this is a good idea? Punishing the player for helping? I know you can disable death, but I do like the idea of people dying over time. However the player should not be the only cause of their death, they should also die when alone...

This is a common theme throughout Bannerlord: Punishing the player for playing the game.

It's evident from the way armor gets shredded by almost everything. It encourages the player to be passive and sit back rather than actively participate in combat.

It's evident in the convoluted leveling/progression system, where exponentially increasing exp requirements every time you level up produces diminishing returns on your character's skill progression very quickly.

It's evident in the way lords die at a disastrous rate during battles you participate in. To the point where it is the smarter option to not come to an ally's aid during battle and leave them to their fate -because by helping them you actually increase their peril.

Crazy.

 

[Pensaci]

So I heard it's a test rate. Which is something say 10% compared to their like first iteration of actually thing is 2%. Might be why it's only in player battle too. Which yea, hilariously make player the actually Death now, where ever he/she go, currently in game.

 

[AnandaShanti]

It's also annoying when trying to raise relation before recruit tine vassals by catch and release, as you will eventually kill some of the clan members.
Of course I don't know if you really eve need relations as you will get a lot if you recruit and give own fief, but whatever.

I would be okay with an option to have death by old age and birth, but not death in battle. Or perhaps death in battle only for clans with beyond a amount of adult members, so it can help reduce over population but not completely wreck clans.

When you kill a minor clan lord it feels awful because they can't recover that.

 

[Antaeus]

I quite enjoy the high death rate. It seems like it has dropped away in 1.5.8.

I'd just like it to also occur in AI simulations. War should be painful. And perhaps there should be some mechanic by which AI factions can measure their need for war against the likely attrition of nobles.

Perhaps we also need a minor clan replacement mechanic. Maybe if rebel factions don't disappear when their cities are recaptured, but become minor clans or free companies with randomly assigned names based on their region of origin... Or perhaps they just join an existing minor clan.

Example scenario: You capture Askar, it rebels. You recapture it but leave 3 rebel parties in the field. Rather than disappearing after so many days, they offer themselves to another culturally appropriate faction or minor faction. Thus refreshing the nobles in game.

I mean we have a shortage of nobles, and some nobles with no home. Why waste them?

In fact... I'm going to make this formal...

 

[sositehui]

gad demmat just disable dat stupid death option. hu ever wanna see their character die after days of leveling? its masochism!

 

[PaTi6op]

I see nothing wrong with the mortality of the lords. Maybe they should reduce the chance of death and definitely need to change the AI in battle so that the lords stay behind their army, and not rush to the enemy to die. This infuriates most of all when the offensive begins, the lords, without waiting for the infantry to reach the enemy, are already rushing at all times. If I can handle my own clan members, change their formation and leave them behind, then not with others.

And you also need to include mortality in the auto battle and in the general simulation. Otherwise, it turns out not very honestly, while I am at war with one kingdom, lords are dying on both sides, then I start a war with another faction, I have fewer lords, and the enemy is all alive. And again the lords die, and then the war with the third faction .. In the end, my kingdom is weakened to such an extent that there is no one to call in the army.

And they also need to shorten the period of growing up of children. Now this is a very long time and often I already have time to capture almost the entire map, then what's the point ... We need to balance this urgently.

 

[Antaeus]

definitely need to change the AI in battle so that the lords stay behind their army, and not rush to the enemy to die. This infuriates most of all when the offensive begins, the lords, without waiting for the infantry to reach the enemy, are already rushing at all times.

I feel like this should be a trait thing. As in, if they're daring, then they have to do daring things on the field - like charging off ahead of the army. They should probably just be a bit smarter about what they charge off and attack.

Certainly, if the enemy only has 5 or 6 cavalry or horse archers, I'm going to charge off to kill them before the main battle starts too.

 

[redmark]

And they also need to shorten the period of growing up of children. Now this is a very long time and often I already have time to capture almost the entire map, then what's the point ... We need to balance this urgently.

Or slow down the rate at which you can conquer the map - slowing down renown gain, essentially. If it's supposed to be a multi-generational game, then the player's starting character should only be establishing a relatively minor clan within his lifetime, for his successors to expand on - unless he's the reincarnation of Ghengis Khan. I'm not, and I can reach clan 5 - without trying too hard - within 10 years, clan 6 within 12-15. Once you're on a roll, recruiting clans becomes straightforward and you can be unstoppable.

But some players want a quicker pace (fewer days in a year, quicker growing up), others want slower (slow down renown, longer gaps between wars, more strategic and/or RPG elements). Needs some options in the game start.

 

[PaTi6op]

Or slow down the rate at which you can conquer the map - slowing down renown gain, essentially. If it's supposed to be a multi-generational game, then the player's starting character should only be establishing a relatively minor clan within his lifetime, for his successors to expand on - unless he's the reincarnation of Ghengis Khan. I'm not, and I can reach clan 5 - without trying too hard - within 10 years, clan 6 within 12-15. Once you're on a roll, recruiting clans becomes straightforward and you can be unstoppable.

But some players want a quicker pace (fewer days in a year, quicker growing up), others want slower (slow down renown, longer gaps between wars, more strategic and/or RPG elements). Needs some options in the game start.

Yes, adding advanced settings that could fundamentally adjust the gameplay of the game to the player would be helpful.

I agree with you that fame is now very easy and clans become strong in a very short time, this should not be so.
It looks like you will need to use mods to adjust the balance for yourself.

 

[black_bulldog]

This is a common theme throughout Bannerlord: Punishing the player for playing the game.

It's evident from the way armor gets shredded by almost everything. It encourages the player to be passive and sit back rather than actively participate in combat.

It's evident in the convoluted leveling/progression system, where exponentially increasing exp requirements every time you level up produces diminishing returns on your character's skill progression very quickly.

It's evident in the way lords die at a disastrous rate during battles you participate in. To the point where it is the smarter option to not come to an ally's aid during battle and leave them to their fate -because by helping them you actually increase their peril.

Crazy.

Boy did you hit the nail on the head.

 

[Yertyl]

Or slow down the rate at which you can conquer the map - slowing down renown gain, essentially. If it's supposed to be a multi-generational game, then the player's starting character should only be establishing a relatively minor clan within his lifetime, for his successors to expand on - unless he's the reincarnation of Ghengis Khan. I'm not, and I can reach clan 5 - without trying too hard - within 10 years, clan 6 within 12-15. Once you're on a roll, recruiting clans becomes straightforward and you can be unstoppable.

But some players want a quicker pace (fewer days in a year, quicker growing up), others want slower (slow down renown, longer gaps between wars, more strategic and/or RPG elements). Needs some options in the game start.

I think a lot, including this, could be achieved if recruit respawn times were significantly increased.
I would enjoy it if there was some recuperation time after big wars, in which you recruit and train new troops and do smaller quests and personal stuff.
Currently, you almost never spend any time below your troop limit, and if you ever fall below it, you can usually refill your whole army in 1-3 villages. Same for the enemy lords. And the best way to retrain these new troops is of course a new battle, which is why after a certain point in the game it's just
battle -> sell loot -> battle -> sell loot -> battle etc
which gets tiring. I enjoy the variety of the early game more. And fewer recruits might naturally result in a time in which you do again do smaller quests while rebuilding your army after a war even in the mid and late game. It would also make wars and large battles less frequent, but more meaningful.

I still remember how cool it was to fight in my first large battle, and in my first siege. But immediately after those, there was the next, and the next, and the next.... War is constant, towns and castles change owners every few months without much apparent rhyme or reason...Yes, you get more spectacle, but in the long run I think it hurts enjoyment of the later game phases.