Medicine most OP skill in the game

[Sweynforkbeard]

The issue isn't giving playing more actions and more decisions. The issue is that the player isn't held accountable for the actions and decisions he already makes. For that to happen there needs to be more balanced trade offs in player decision making. For example during sieges the player can choose to siege down the walls. The is a smart choice. The problem is that there is no penalty for taking down the walls. You can take down the walls then 2 days later get into a siege and those walls are magically good as new. This is unrealistic and in order to balance it and you need force the player to think strategically by making it a more difficult choice. Otherwise there is absolutely no downsides to taking down the walls and the player will just abuse it every single time. Thus turning it into an exploit. The game is littered with examples like this. How can you force a player to be more strategic when he is given zero downside to any decision he makes.

New Players will struggle with the game but the part your leaving out is that after they admit they struggle their next sentence usually is but I absolutely love the game and I'm having a blast. They are a having a blast because there is a struggle to overcome. This doesn't exist for experienced players which is probably why they have become so bitter and miserable.

There is a tradeoff.

The "smart" play is not to bother building siege gear at all.

 

[thomas13]

There is a tradeoff.

The "smart" play is not to bother building siege gear at all.

That would be smart except I'd also deny the player the ability to maneuver his troops during a siege. Giving the player the ability to maneuver his troops allows the player to bypass the siege mechanic all together. It allows the player the ability to mass archers and take fiefs without losses and without having to even enter the fief in the first place. It completely breaks sieges. It's an exploit. And it shouldn't be in the game. It takes away from the experience and turns taking fiefs into a trivial experience.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

That would be smart except I'd also deny the player the ability to maneuver his troops during a siege. Giving the player the ability to maneuver his troops allows the player to bypass the siege mechanic all together. It allows the player the ability to mass archers and take fiefs without losses and without having to even enter the fief in the first place. It completely breaks sieges. It's an exploit. And it shouldn't be in the game. It takes away from the experience and turns taking fiefs into a trivial experience.

Well, good luck with that. I am sure that will be very popular.

 

[thomas13]

Well, good luck with that. I am sure that will be very popular.

It wouldn't be popular but it needs to happen.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

It wouldn't be popular but it needs to happen.

Double down on the grind or take away the player´s agency; this is pretty much the only thing that we are able to contribute with here.

 

[thomas13]

Double down on the grind or take away the player´s agency; this is pretty much the only thing that we are able to contribute with here.

I think you are being a bit over dramatic about it taking away a players agency. Its a flawed design in the first place and has nothing to do with player agency. What is the point of the developers trying to fix sieges if experienced players can bypass them in the first place? Does it really make you a brilliant commander to mass fians and rain hell upon a force of 400-500 troops that are made up of mostly militia and recruits? When most fiefs aren't even capable of raining down even a fraction of the fire power back on the player. It's completely unbalanced and it ruins the game.

 

[Ichon]

There is a limit on how much the AI can be improved- especially in a complex game like BL which has numerous interacting systems.

Ideally the way to make the game more interesting is to give players more paths to power but also squeeze the options slightly per each path to power AND adjust character traits such that building the character stats to use more than 2 paths at the same time is either impossible (some traits lock out other traits) or just a very long grind (focus points system with limited amount of points that increase levels of character stats).

That would mean if a player wants to be King they will have to focus on building relations with enough Lords to create a powerbase. The Lords would have personalities which only cared about 2 out of 4 areas- 1. status (clan tier and kingdom reputation, smithing) 2. military power (renown and clan party size) 3. support of the people (influence with notables and contolled number of prosperous towns) 4. weatlh (control of gangs, workshops, hideouts, and caravan routes).

Players would not need a majority of Lords but at least 10% which support them on both paths the player has chosen and another 25% that support at least 1 of the players chosen paths to power but amount of support makes a big difference on what policies a King can enact and how many parties can be called into an offensive army at any one time. Low support the King can only call his own clan and the 10% of Lords which support him on at least 2 of the character's chosen paths to power. The rest of the Lords adopt a defensive stance responding to enemy raids and sieges. Medum support and a King can call 35% of the Lords into an army which would be the normal condition for players until they have either grinded out high enough to attain a 3rd path to power or persuaded enough Lords by doing quests, bribery, or intimidation to switch one of the Lords 2 primary concerns to match the player character's concerns. Once the player's character of King had more than 50% support they could call up multiple armies and assign offensive and defensive targets to armies led by other Lords while also having veto power on the Council of Lords calls to war/peace (but using veto powers too often risks causing Lords to switch their primary concerns and losing support).

Basically, more ways to play the game and achieve power and players could still 'win' the game as currently by simply following the military path to power but it will be the same long grind we have now.

Choosing to invest their character attributes and pursue 2 paths to power would make the late stages of a campaign slightly more focused with specific goals that are not always 100% military power focused but also getting to High support should allow players to speed up coloring the map to 1 color to feel like an actual reward rather than simply increasingly tedious micro management.

 

[JunKeteer]

If you make them party leaders you don't have this issue. Making them party leaders will grow medicine fast especially family members who can max it out. Outside of this though you're right it's difficult. But not impossible.

They don't really grow fast as their own party leaders - as mentioned before, that is entirely dependent on whether they engage an enemy (you can't direct or 'manage' this in any real sense) and come out as the victor; with casualties.

Not entirely, the important part isn't the perks necessarily it's attribute point management. That you can't change. That decides the perks you get to benefit from. The game is setup for specialization of two attributes you can max out. When you spend your attribute points wisely it allows you to get the most out of a build while also setting logical limits for the player.

I understand the part and reasoning for why they do the cap with attributes and top perks so you only get a certain type; I have no issues with that. It's more with your companions, it's completely restricting since the ones you assign to a party role only get that particular skill (+combat skills) - and all your other companions cannot; besides kicking them out as their own party. So it significantly stunts/stops any form of 'mediocre' (jack-of-all) build or progression for the rest; both for the player and other companions in the party.

I think the main issue is misunderstood. The skills/roles/perks system is just fine. The difficulty level of the game that we were given that coincides with that skills/roles/perks system is the problem. Well, tactics is a problem too. How are you not bored from fighting battles/sieges and getting zero deaths every time? Oh wait.. you are, that's what the grind is. If the game was more challenging and prevented the player from taking everything so quickly and easily, it might actually make for a better and more balanced game.

Which I agree with, grind is probably near unavoidable, the grindiest is the late-game elements; so if it makes it 'harder' to get there (more early game challenges and balance scaling), the better.

 

[thomas13]

There is a limit on how much the AI can be improved- especially in a complex game like BL which has numerous interacting systems.

Agreed there is a limit. But you'll never discover that limit if they continue to neuter the AI the way they've done.

Ideally the way to make the game more interesting is to give players more paths to power but also squeeze the options slightly per each path to power AND adjust character traits such that building the character stats to use more than 2 paths at the same time is either impossible (some traits lock out other traits) or just a very long grind (focus points system with limited amount of points that increase levels of character stats).

Exactly couldn't agree more. The way attributes and skills are setup currently it forces the player to make smart decisions. The problem we have is that you can't say the same about everything else. With sieges they give you two options that aren't even close and it becomes a no brainer what option to choose. There are positive limitations in games and their are negative limitations this game has way too many negative limitations.

Basically, more ways to play the game and achieve power and players could still 'win' the game as currently by simply following the military path to power but it will be the same long grind we have now.

It may be the same long path but it doesn't necessarily mean it will be the same grind. If the player is challenged he's not thinking grind if he's thinking grind it's because he's not challenged.

I understand the part and reasoning for why they do the cap with attributes and top perks so you only get a certain type; I have no issues with that. It's more with your companions, it's completely restricting since the ones you assign to a party role only get that particular skill (+combat skills) - and all your other companions cannot; besides kicking them out as their own party. So it significantly stunts/stops any form of 'mediocre' (jack-of-all) build or progression for the rest; both for the player and other companions in the party.

If they made the game more challenging in numerous different ways then it opens up a path and reason to open paths for companions to level easier. But as the game stands right now it's too easy to even necessitate the need for opening those paths. I'm not against it entirely but to open more paths now just makes the game even easier.

 

[JunKeteer]

You don't extend early game. You greatly slow down mid to late game snowball. One of the main reasons people create new games all the time is because early game is the only challenging part of the game which makes it more enjoyable. It's more enjoyable because you can actual lose a fight. The further from early game you get the more likely the game turns grindy because unless you do something outrageously stupid its impossible to lose and victory is inevitable. That is what makes everything feel so grindy like you just going through the motions.

Do both, the early game has some fine-tuning as well. TBF, I think most re-new playthroughs are probably due to unsalvageable saves (old patches/crashes), or new mods; which is all fun, until you get to the same late-game issues again that remain there since the start of EA.

I think you overestimate the scale and length it would take to give a significant change to difficulty. Once you change the difficulty then you can tweak the number of battles. But if you tweak the number of battles now it just streamlines a flawed system. Playing video games is a waste of time regardless but we do it anyway. If your being given a better quality product maybe people would enjoy 200 battles and not care about the increased wasted time they invest in the game.

There is no easy way to make 200 battles enjoyable as they are without an overhaul really. But from what some others figure, if we can at least tune the existing systems so we can decrease their frequency and increase their quality; through a few good suggestions littered here over the years.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

I think you are being a bit over dramatic about it taking away a players agency. Its a flawed design in the first place and has nothing to do with player agency. What is the point of the developers trying to fix sieges if experienced players can bypass them in the first place? Does it really make you a brilliant commander to mass fians and rain hell upon a force of 400-500 troops that are made up of mostly militia and recruits? When most fiefs aren't even capable of raining down even a fraction of the fire power back on the player. It's completely unbalanced and it ruins the game.

It...doesnt matter. The single best way to manage sieges is also the most intuitive; bring lots of men!

Why does it have to be a problem that it is not the only way of doing it...

 

[thomas13]

It...doesnt matter. The single best way to manage sieges is also the most intuitive; bring lots of men!

Why does it have to be a problem that it is not the only way of doing it...

I also think they should limit the players ability to create armies and especially create large armies during mid game. Don't tell me.. That's going to be a popular idea as well.

Do both, the early game has some fine-tuning as well. TBF, I think most re-new playthroughs are probably due to unsalvageable saves (old patches/crashes), or new mods; which is all fun, until you get to the same late-game issues again that remain there since the start of EA.

I'm not opposed to changes in the early game but the meat of the game is mid-late game. What does everyone consider early game anyway? I consider it getting clan tier 1. Experienced players can get to clan tier 1 in 7 days or less. That's fine. The early game experience is mostly for new players anyway. And most new players already spend a lot of time in early game. Yes, people restart because of crashes but I doubt that is the overwhelming reason for why people to start a new game.

There is no easy way to make 200 battles enjoyable as they are without an overhaul really. But from what some others figure, if we can at least tune the existing systems so we can decrease their frequency and increase their quality; through a few good suggestions littered here over the years.

I disagree. Truth is you'll never make a game that someone will want to play non stop forever while keeping it enjoyable. Eventually a player will get bored and that's normal. If it wasn't for the battles what separates this game from any other game? Its the special sauce of the game. Battle frequency can be tuned once you dial in the difficulty/quality of the battles.

 

[Apocal]

That would be smart except I'd also deny the player the ability to maneuver his troops during a siege. Giving the player the ability to maneuver his troops allows the player to bypass the siege mechanic all together. It allows the player the ability to mass archers and take fiefs without losses and without having to even enter the fief in the first place. It completely breaks sieges. It's an exploit. And it shouldn't be in the game. It takes away from the experience and turns taking fiefs into a trivial experience.

It is a perfectly suitable and realistic tactic for storming a castle or other walled fortification.

The problem is the AI is too dumb to stay off the wall. But that's being unfair: the problem is that TW decided to script these scenes for cinematic reasons instead of letting the AI function as normal.

edit:

In Bannerlord, any position that allows the defenders to send arrows down allows the attackers to send arrows up, and it isn't an equal relationship since -- as far as the game is concerned -- any wall at upper-chest level will block the arrow of the person behind the wall, but still allow them to be headshot. Load up archers to clear the wall and the enemy will only get off when they are all dead. People call it cheese, but it is using almost-literal textbook assault tactics and the current AI can't cope because its imperative is to hold the wall at all costs.

But that's silly. The wall is an advantage precisely because it can be (not must!) be used to deny the enemy ranged units the ability to tear into packed-rank formations below, along with channelizing them along predictable and very limited routes (towers, stairs). If the defenders are to cede the wall, they shouldn't just mill around aimlessly but reverse the situation by massing their own archers to cover it as attackers filter in, still forcing attackers to endure an arrow storm -- but on their own terms.

There are Bannerlord castles where it is already in effect, with the archers having not just the wall but an interior fallback position where they can cover the wall in arrows and the attackers can't mass against them effectively. But all of them should work that way, because that was the way real castle defenses functioned*.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

I also think they should limit the players ability to create armies and especially create large armies during mid game. Don't tell me.. That's going to be a popular idea as well.

Just look at that, we are beginning to understand each other

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

. For example during sieges the player can choose to siege down the walls. The is a smart choice.

Why? You can kill the defenders faster with ranged in font of the ladders. You save campaign time, actual time and usually many units by using good tactics with the ladders rather then building other siege gear.

You can take down the walls then 2 days later get into a siege and those walls are magically good as new.

This is a little silly but the AI will siege constantly regardless of the walls, but the walls and siege defense in general is worthless. You're much better of always defeating them enemy in the field or just ignoring their siege and sieging a better target. Live siege defense wastes campaign time if you wait for attackers, wastes units if you break in and prevents you from moving and placing your forces optimally.

New Players will struggle with the game but the part your leaving out is that after they admit they struggle their next sentence usually is but I absolutely love the game and I'm having a blast.

Nah it's more "wtf am I supposed to do about X Y Z?!".

The problem is the AI is too dumb to stay off the wall.

Yep. And won't keep shields facing ranged power if they have to move and won't/can't put enough ranged units in good enough places to damage attackers enough.

 

[thomas13]

It is a perfectly suitable and realistic tactic for storming a castle or other walled fortification.

The problem is the AI is too dumb to stay off the wall. But that's being unfair: the problem is that TW decided to script these scenes for cinematic reasons instead of letting the AI function as normal.

If garrisons were stronger and utilized the defensive fortifications properly then the ability to maneuver troops wouldn't be an issue because they would take losses. The issue right now isn't that its a realistic tactic its the result. The fact that the player can decimate every garrison without losing a single is what is unrealistic. If you can siege a garrison without losses they might as well just add a surrender feature. Regardless it still allows the player to bypass an important feature of the game rendering it trivial.

Agreed. That's another issue I have with sieges is how the defenders troops aren't ready and waiting on the walls in the beginning when they decide to do that stupid cinematic where they all run to the walls. That extra time wasted running to the walls allows the attacker to get into position easier without being attacked.

Why? You can kill the defenders faster with ranged in font of the ladders. You save campaign time, actual time and usually many units by using good tactics with the ladders rather then building other siege gear.

It's not that it isn't a smart tactic. It's that until they can counter balance that tactic it's way too overpowering for the player. As I've stated above.

This is a little silly but the AI will siege constantly regardless of the walls, but the walls and siege defense in general is worthless. You're much better of always defeating them enemy in the field or just ignoring their siege and sieging a better target. Live siege defense wastes campaign time if you wait for attackers, wastes units if you break in and prevents you from moving and placing your forces optimally.

My experience is the opposite I think that since they changed combat in the release patch sieges have gotten even easier to defend. I think defensive sieges are great way to take out very large armies especially when your a smaller party/army. I've taken out over 2000+ troops with 300 men with very little deaths. For me it's a very efficient way to kill. I like siege defenses but unlike most of you I'm not obsessed with keeping in game time to a minimum. Different playstyles/priorities. But it makes sense for you because I know you like KG and the benefit of KG is being on horseback. A siege negates that benefit.

Yep. And won't keep shields facing ranged power if they have to move and won't/can't put enough ranged units in good enough places to damage attackers enough.

It's not just the number of range units its also that there all mostly recruits/militia. Even in significant numbers they can't do enough. And every fief, 75% of their defense are recruits and militia. It's a joke.

 

[JunKeteer]

I'm not opposed to changes in the early game but the meat of the game is mid-late game. What does everyone consider early game anyway? I consider it getting clan tier 1. Experienced players can get to clan tier 1 in 7 days or less. That's fine. The early game experience is mostly for new players anyway. And most new players already spend a lot of time in early game. Yes, people restart because of crashes but I doubt that is the overwhelming reason for why people to start a new game.

Early should probably include T2, T3-4 for mid, T5+ for late. I think for most, the more fun parts are right up to just getting to the end of T4 (personal experience). Where you/companions may not have the best armor yet, workshops/caravans only just capped, party not 'steamroll/all T6' just yet, your income still barely a few hundred denar, bandit hideouts not stale yet, certain quests still decent to do for their odd rewards, etc...When there are still tangible goals and reward payoffs; whether that's to get richer/net positive, best armor, battle xp, party composition, kid/marriage, obtain that first castle/town/manage it, etc...

I disagree. Truth is you'll never make a game that someone will want to play non stop forever while keeping it enjoyable. Eventually a player will get bored and that's normal. If it wasn't for the battles what separates this game from any other game? Its the special sauce of the game. Battle frequency can be tuned once you dial in the difficulty/quality of the battles.

But from what I think most can agree - painting the map one colour is akin to players that wish to get 100% achievements in games. Most don't care - but as it is now, you can hit that 'stage' very easily; but there is technically no 'achievement' element as you would in those situations.
Battle frequency should be directly tuned and affected by the changes that are made in the difficulty/quality of changes.

 

[Ichon]

Things that make the game easy and decrease the social/relations aspects of the game;

1. High tier units are easy to get... the player can barely afford mid-tier equipment but can afford to pay a whole party of nobles and still save money. The ONLY barrier to top tier units is time/money, Historically top warriors did not risk their lives for a new leader until that leader had proven themselves.

TW could simulate that many different ways but I prefer 2 main ways, firstly that tier 1 & 2 clans can only recruit warriors of their culture, bandits, and mercenaries. Secondly- every unit recruited costs renown proportional to their tier so the most efficient way to play is recruit low tier and train up the warriors thru battle. It could also cost influence to recruit all noble units and rather than a fixed cost have it proportional to # of noble units in a party. Easy to get a few noble units, once nobles are 33% of a party the cost increases, at 66% the cost triples. If you are already a vassal this is basically a small influence sink that barely matters but once playing as a King, the influence costs could be significant though still largely avoided if a player stocked up on noble units before rebelling/inheriting.

2. Highest tier ranged units are OP. The low and middle tiers are not too bad but the efficiency of the top tiers is 50% to 100% better than the next tier down which is a HUGE jump. The next most efficient units are the 2 handed polearms but even the best of them are only 30% to 50% more efficient than 1 tier below. Khans Guard, Fians, Master Archers, Marksmen, Palatines, etc.

3. There are not enough money sinks in the mid/late game. Sure the top armors cost 250,000 but when you have 3 million and only 10 companions to kit plus you get 75% of your best armor from battle loot anyway, money kinda becomes meaningless. Having the ability to buy civilian clothing which boost charisma, roguery, persuasion, trade, temporarily while in town (where there can be assassination attempts, riots, thiefs, extortion) would reflect how prestige items were so important in medieval era. People of status paid half their incomes for silk, jewelry, food, and other status items because SHOWING they were rich often increased their wealth. If someone wanted a favor, they better come up with a gift at least equal or better to what they could see their potential benefactor wearing.

It would also get people to go into towns where more events have a chance of occurring if they want to use the status bonuses and if influence/clan tier/renown mattered more, those bonuses could actually matter especially in the mid-game and early late game.

4. Troops wages are too low- in addition to influence costs the higher tier troops need to cost 2x or 3x as much as they currently do. Look at the wage rolls of English, Ottoman, or Italians- basic footmen were paid about the same as a day laborer, archers twice that, anyone with a horse 5x that, trained soldiers with armor drew 5-7x day laborer wage, knights or heavy cavalrymen drew 10 to 50x day laborer rate (harder to evaluate as often the pay for a knight included several men in his retinue) but the base rate for a single man at arms was pretty much universally 10x.

That would not be that huge of a change honestly- currently base wages are 3 upkeep and top rate is usually 18 which is 6x so make it 30 depending on armor (horse requirement already reflect cavalry cost) but the mid-range troops wouldn't change hugely, tier 4 and tier 5 troops would see the biggest wage increases but they would still be worth it and way more efficient but it would be more difficult to build huge stockpiles of them in garrison. My current campaign I just counted all the Fians, Palatines, and Marksmen on day 280 in garrison and I had accumulated over 1,200 but with a couple governors with -upkeep perks the total garrison wages were less than 12,000 which is easily covered by 4 towns, max workshops, and a few castles. I am not even smithing and my income is still going up 500 to 3000 per day from taxes before adding in battle loot and whatever I might be making from smithing.

Then add the 150 in my army, the 50 in each party of the clan, and the 100s of prisoners I recruit constantly from and that adds at least 50% to give almost 1800 which is probably as many as the entire combined kingdoms currently field.

5. End game is... nothing. Most annoying is the Lords of defeated kingdoms constantly raiding. Once a Kingdom has been defeated for a month the Lords of all non-ruler clans should join other kingdoms and the ruling clan appears again only if a town of their culture revolts.

To speed up the end game, Kings should be able to use influence to choose offensive or defensive targets and create armies to attack or defend those targets using influence & money.

On the other side, once a Kingdom controls 1/3 of the map, the remaining kingdoms should split into 2 alliances to defeat the largest kingdom. Whenever 1 kingdom gets past 30% for a month, the other kingdoms peace out and focus on the new target.It is currently way to easy but also annoying to focus 1 kingdom down at a time with the annoyance being the AI Lords constantly asking for war or wanting to pay tribute for peace. Having to fight swarms of armies from 2 equally sized Kingdoms could be bad... but if TW allowed players SOME tool like actually choosing where armies attack or defend, it wouldn't be atrociously annoying and most likely feel way more like a King than a playground school teacher.

 

[SudianX]

It says it's "personal" - the Minister of Health perk, that's why I was wondering if it would work with a companion.

This still confuses me. As far as I can tell from my play time it does not work like any other "personal" skill so I think at the very least the tool tip should be changed to "party leader" to match what seems to be happening in the game

Of course... I would prefer it to be "surgeon" and actually function that way. I can always dream.

Actually functioning as "personal" like it says would be hilariously overpowered (imagine getting it on 5+ companions and them all stacking ).

 

[Hero07911010]

This still confuses me. As far as I can tell from my play time it does not work like any other "personal" skill so I think at the very least the tool tip should be changed to "party leader" to match what seems to be happening in the game

Of course... I would prefer it to be "surgeon" and actually function that way. I can always dream.

Actually functioning as "personal" like it says would be hilariously overpowered (imagine getting it on 5+ companions and them all stacking ).

The perk description says "Personal", but the code checks if the Party Leader has the perk and applies it to regular troops, not Lords or Companions, so this won't stack with others that have it.