Source?
This is directly from the store page, there is no mention of two separate game modes.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
-
If you are posting SP feedback without an actual suggestion, please head over to The Keep - Singleplayer section.
My thoughts on the Faction Snowball effect. Campaigns should go on forever!
正在查看此主题的用户
Source?
This is directly from the store page, there is no mention of two separate game modes.
Ah, yes. Confusion. My fault. I do not mean that the quest campaign should go on forever, but that the single player sandbox campaign should, with multiple factions to fight.
Source?
This is directly from the store page, there is no mention of two separate game modes.
My fault then, the pre early access Dev blog referred to the campaign early access mode as a new game mode they were introducing so I assumed it would be separate from the old sandbox game mode not replacing it.
Timmortal
Knight at Arms
While i do think the stalemate should last a long time, i dont think i agree, cause if a faction cant end the game without you, that means that whatever faction you join are going to win, thereby removing all challenge from the game. The issue we have had, is just that it happened way to fast, that some factions became massively powerful while others died completely and even if you joined the weakest one as the player, you could struggle to make a difference because all other lords instantly left the faction.
I think a suitable compromise is you can uncork the warmongering with perhaps a quest, when you turn in the banner, then all bets are off. This acts as a trigger and prior to this, you can feel free to do as you wish and the map would be relatively the same for the most part. This is in contrast to them warmongering right out of the gate when you start the game. Also peace time should actually be a thing, in every single playthrough I've never seen peace, there's always war, at all times, often with 1 faction versus multiple opponents.
Timers on army creation could also help. Seems like armies are sprouting up all the time even after another disperses, another forms instantly. Maybe the timer could scale with how much territory they own, so if they own more territory the slower the timer on when they can form another army.
Thank you so much for your very helpful analysis. If I may, I would like to share my observations regarding snowballing issue. I have to say, first of all, that I have not joined any kingdom, I have just hunted bandits, joined tournaments, involved in trading etc.
My observation while roaming around is that 1) If a lord loses a war or gives heavy casualties, it is pretty much the end for the lord. They cannot somehow gather an army again and they wander around with a lot of wounded units, which generally end up with their captivity by looters. A solution to this might be to adopt the Warband's system, sending the lord to nearest safe town. Alternatively, their movement speed can be boosted up incredibly that they will not be caught by bandits. 2) City garrisons are too weak. I see that cities are defended by around 300 soldiers. In my walkthrough, only the king conquered 3 cities by himself all alone. If garrisons size can be increased to maybe 1000 soldiers, then it might take the entire kingdom to summon its armies to attempt a siege.
Every game is unique, my experience might be different from yours. They are the things that I could observe in my save.
My observation while roaming around is that 1) If a lord loses a war or gives heavy casualties, it is pretty much the end for the lord. They cannot somehow gather an army again and they wander around with a lot of wounded units, which generally end up with their captivity by looters. A solution to this might be to adopt the Warband's system, sending the lord to nearest safe town. Alternatively, their movement speed can be boosted up incredibly that they will not be caught by bandits. 2) City garrisons are too weak. I see that cities are defended by around 300 soldiers. In my walkthrough, only the king conquered 3 cities by himself all alone. If garrisons size can be increased to maybe 1000 soldiers, then it might take the entire kingdom to summon its armies to attempt a siege.
Every game is unique, my experience might be different from yours. They are the things that I could observe in my save.
I did like 4 tests myself...till the 100 day mark, in all of them the western empire gets wrecked. By battanians usually, or both batanians and vlandians.
I cant think of why except they seem more spread out than the rest of the factions. Western really needs some love, i mean they are led by a general and they getting plastered every time.
Battania i feel is the most consistent "doing good" faction, as they start small and expand very quickly!
Nice info OP !
I cant think of why except they seem more spread out than the rest of the factions. Western really needs some love, i mean they are led by a general and they getting plastered every time.
Battania i feel is the most consistent "doing good" faction, as they start small and expand very quickly!
Nice info OP !
i think @somaholiday summed it up pretty well. It's not exactly about which kingdom the player joins - it's just about the player joining at all. When the player does decide to participate, all bets should be off and anything can happen, but not until then. Some kind of trigger would be perfect.
The Luminary
Sergeant
-Influence to form an army should be doubled, the duration I'm fine with.
-Food needs to be balanced in fiefs as in my current town I have only 150 militia and 120 garrison units but have negative food and thus am losing troops. 300 soldiers is too few for defending my only town mid-game.
-In times of emergency like a kingdom loses 2-3 fiefs without gaining any, influence to form an army should be halved or cost nothing for the king/marshal.
New Mechanic: Kingdom Treasury
-There should be a 5% tax for a kingdom treasury.
-In times of need the treasury can be used to hire mercenary armies or help out lords who are broke.
-Some policies (the ones with no downside) should cost influence and well as some gold from the treasury to implement.
-Food needs to be balanced in fiefs as in my current town I have only 150 militia and 120 garrison units but have negative food and thus am losing troops. 300 soldiers is too few for defending my only town mid-game.
-In times of emergency like a kingdom loses 2-3 fiefs without gaining any, influence to form an army should be halved or cost nothing for the king/marshal.
New Mechanic: Kingdom Treasury
-There should be a 5% tax for a kingdom treasury.
-In times of need the treasury can be used to hire mercenary armies or help out lords who are broke.
-Some policies (the ones with no downside) should cost influence and well as some gold from the treasury to implement.
Just because a game COULD go on well after Players death doesnt mean it WILL. I think they just made allowances such as an heir SHOULD that happen. Im definitelty against any sort of hard stop 'Game over 1 Faction rules' as much as i am against any artificial 'no one faction can dominate!' mechanism.
Agree with you that main problem is in constant army's creation spamming.
So my take on that. First of all, cost of gathering an army should be much more higher. Secondly, cost of containing lords in army should be a lot higher as well. Ideally army should disband after capturing 1 holding to give a breath for loser side. And at the same time higher cost of creating army gives time to lords to do their personal stuff (hiring new soldiers, patrolling, solo raiding etc) while they replenish influence to gather new army
Timmortal
Knight at Arms
I can definately understand where you are coming from, im just no sure i think its the right way to do it. I lean more to what i have stated other places. Keeping armies intact should be much harder. I have seen armies just stay in the field forever, even just patroling own nation, the Vlandians are very guilty here because of their policies. Armies should suffer more cohesion issues (this already seems a bit better from the last to patches, not sure what they changed) only being able to take one maybe two settlements, issue is that i once saw Vlandia fielding 3 armies, this should make other issues like discontent with lords, a system we know is coming, but is not implemented in the game yet. When rebellions come into the game, i think/hope, it will cause alot of stalemates as bigger factions have a higher chance of falling appart. Part of the Vlandian lore even states that it has issues with this, but since its not in the game yet, Vlandia just seem very strong. Do they need a temporary fix, maybe like yours, until these other systems are implemented, an argument could be made for it, but it really depends, how much time would that steal away form putting in the actualy systems.
When artmies
I don't like the timer idea, we are treating the symptom not the problem.
When armies are formed do them come fully loaded or does the lord need to go around and recruit to fill it? If fully loaded, then that is one of the the problems for snowballing, armies should not spawn fully loaded, maybe spawn @ 25%, and the AI runs around recruiting at that point.
I don't like the timer idea, we are treating the symptom not the problem.
When armies are formed do them come fully loaded or does the lord need to go around and recruit to fill it? If fully loaded, then that is one of the the problems for snowballing, armies should not spawn fully loaded, maybe spawn @ 25%, and the AI runs around recruiting at that point.
I mean, I agree...the background simulation of lord relations and all of that, coupled with rebellion opportunities, and lots of other things should be the determining factor if a faction should be able to continue to hold territory, but these are probably very complex and involved fixes, often introducing features or revising features, which probably takes some time.
I think in the interim, similar to capping workshop income to fix the exploit, they could institute army timers until that time as a hotfix until the true underlying problem is fixed. This way, I would actually have an interest in starting another playthrough. As it stands, I have very little interest in starting another if the game is going to be over before I even really begin.
I think in the interim, similar to capping workshop income to fix the exploit, they could institute army timers until that time as a hotfix until the true underlying problem is fixed. This way, I would actually have an interest in starting another playthrough. As it stands, I have very little interest in starting another if the game is going to be over before I even really begin.
A lot of great ideas flying around in this post, but I don't necessarily agree with some. Putting limits on how many fiefs a kingdom can concur I feel is a bit too stringent, as well as having tons of units in your settlements isn't to realistic. I feel like one underlying issue is not that there isn't enough men to hold a settlement its that its a little to easy to take those settlements. The devs are going in the right direction i feel with what they've implemented already. But maybe defenses need to a be a bit tougher, cohesion need to drop faster as well as AI's ability to recover from loses and not get caught as often. I feel like more natural approaches would be better than setting hard limits.
最后编辑:
20 years is way too fast, idk what the dev was talking about. I wont even see my first son grow up since it takes a few years to get a wife in the first place. Either they need to speed up aging, which in itself is already a good idea IMO, since waiting for a grandchild takes like 120hrs, or significantly penalize fast acquirement of lands.
) . The latest patches should've made them better at least by a bit.
