There are Lordly Padded Mittens all over the place, but that's the only that I've seen and there's something strange going on with them. They are cheaper than Reinforced Padded Mittens.
Big battles that should take a few hours IRL take like 2 minutes currently in game, even with the AI nerf to be pretty incompetent, it's just a sick joke. Sieges that could take weeks sometimes, are over in 4 minutes.
Shouldn't be hard to make big battles last at least 10 minutes even with competent AI. I don't know what the devs at TW were thinking these past 8 years.

you make little sense invoking history and then proposing 10 minutes would be good. by your line of argument it would not which makes your argument void. You just want the gameplay in battle to be slower, you are not interested in historic outcome but what you consider more enjoyable gameplay because 90% of casualties in war being dysentry and starvation is not fun gameplay either.

In the tooltip it says Roguery loot bonus only comes from party leader. So I guess you are getting none. Also most perks don't work.
Party skills are seriously borked. Roguery seems like its a purely party leader skill now, so the only benefit of a Rogue companion seems to be that he can do certain kinds of missions, but he doesn't seem to help at all with looting. Trade also seems to be mainly a party leader or governor skill now, so a good trader companion seems to be useful only for running caravans. Even surgery skills don't make a very big impact. I have a surgeon companion with 80 surgery and it still takes 3-4 full days to heal my health after getting KO'd. Honestly, the entire skill system needs to be reworked.So why have companions with roguery skill then? In Warband the party member with the highest looting skill did the looting.
Party skills in Bannerlord are a giant step backwards from Warband.
Go to nexusmods and download the mod that gives you a lords armor after you execute him. Maybe dont sell the armor though, bit gamebreaking since they are rlly expensive.
I agree the economy is really upside down, upgrading a cataphract costs like 200 denars, his yearly wage is around 2500, but buying his armor is 500k ?
Party skills are seriously borked. Roguery seems like its a purely party leader skill now, so the only benefit of a Rogue companion seems to be that he can do certain kinds of missions, but he doesn't seem to help at all with looting. Trade also seems to be mainly a party leader or governor skill now, so a good trader companion seems to be useful only for running caravans. Even surgery skills don't make a very big impact. I have a surgeon companion with 80 surgery and it still takes 3-4 full days to heal my health after getting KO'd. Honestly, the entire skill system needs to be reworked.

I used to see decent armor around but I haven't seen anything in the 1.1.0 beta patch -- just the starting nonsense.
I haven't tried building a smithy though. Seems odd that there aren't smithies already in even capital cities.
Loot, in general, seems really low. I just captured a town and got a few thousand dinars worth of stuff. All low level. Capturing a town should bring in tons of loot. I also haven't seen any high-level chest pieces in the whole game (I'm level 15, several years in). I bought a helmet for 60k or so, but that's the only good armour I've seen.
1000+ man medieval battles that are over in 2 minutes just kills the immersion for me. Not saying 10 minutes for 1000+ man battles is ideal, but something longer than the absolutely ridiculous 2 minute battles even with AI and cav charges completely nerfed would be better.
I know, but I think that this is not the way the game should be. If you have defeates more than 30 lords, how can it be that you've never gotten a sad piece of armor from them?
Yeah this is a bit of a problem, except for a companion with 140 Scouting which makes for a good scout if you assign him that role.Honestly I don't assign clan roles at all because all that it seems that they do is steal XP from the player. Yeah, the player might suck at a skill, but better I get XP than a companion get it, because the party leader is the only useful person.

In fact, real medieval battles they did not usually last more than half an hour in real life, one hour if they were immensely large (10,000 against 10,000, like in some battles of 100 years war). And this is a simulation game, one day it happens in a few minutes of the game. But it is true that they could lower the damage of the weapons a little, or keep it high only for localized damage, as in the head, or couched spear.
That's not really true. Off the top of my head Hastings lasted all day and Bannockburn was fought over two days. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples but the fact is that unless one side breaks immediately a battle would last a lot longer than an hour.In fact, real medieval battles they did not usually last more than half an hour in real life, one hour if they were immensely large (10,000 against 10,000, like in some battles of 100 years war). And this is a simulation game, one day it happens in a few minutes of the game. But it is true that they could lower the damage of the weapons a little, or keep it high only for localized damage, as in the head, or couched spear.
you could at least set a quartermaster, the quartermaster increases the max army size (make sure they have a high steward skill).Honestly I don't assign clan roles at all because all that it seems that they do is steal XP from the player. Yeah, the player might suck at a skill, but better I get XP than a companion get it, because the party leader is the only useful person.
There are historians who say that it is an exaggeration of the chroniclers. Most medieval battles were skirmishes with a few hundred soldiers. What is known from modern recreations is that a soldier in full armor cannot remain more than two or three minutes in direct confrontation before falling exhausted. And an archer cannot keep firing more than 20 minutes straight. If we take that reference, a whole day of fighting would have to be quoted. Perhaps half a day they were positioning the armies, and the other half collecting the wounded, and a little while of direct confrontation. Or there could be multiple attacks and withdrawals: a soldier goes to the front to confront, and when he is exhausted he returns to the rear to gather forces to continue fighting. These things are what the specialists say, I do not say it.That's not really true. Off the top of my head Hastings lasted all day and Bannockburn was fought over two days. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples but the fact is that unless one side breaks immediately a battle would last a lot longer than an hour.