Patch Notes e1.8.0

Users who are viewing this thread

I know it sucks that we need to resort to mods to fix stupid design decisions, but it is what it is. The detail that disgusts me the most is that the laid-out feature plan announced years ago by TW is leagues from to the current game state. BL currently has less than 50% of those announced features - the entire function of this mod was supposed to be available even for AI lords (at the cost of influence), we don't even have it for our own clan parties :roll:
Thank you friend! I myself used this mod, but from version 1.8.0. me and some others started crashing because of this mod... I was hoping that the developers would add features years later...
 

Flesson19

Not a Cookie
Knight
When I tried to help the devs fix an issue and was told by a developer of TW "You can always go mod", I knew the cooperation to make the game really good was over and modding would have to be the way. And some people wonder why we talk about mods having to fix everything. That statement says it all, they don't want to take the time to fix things when mods can do it for them. A sad reality of gaming today, settle for mediocrity and let other people outside the company make it great. When in life did we have to settle for ok or good, what has happened to the business side of gaming, is money all that matters??? Making an amazing game gets people to come back for more titles and loyal customers will as well, it feels like TW has abandoned both of those in the last year. With just 5 weeks to full release how many people can say they are really happy with the going to be finished product. No game is perfect, but a lot out there make up for the their flaws by having other things that are so spectacular that the flaw are outshined. Does Bannerlord live up to that? I would say a resounding no. I am excited for what mods could bring and hope they can eclipse what we was in Warband, but I am so disappointed in what the vanilla game could have been gone in so many directions, instead, boy did we get "vanilla" in the biggest way.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
We currently don't have any plans to increase this limit but I will bring it up for discussion in a modding meeting.
I'd buy a DLC with a higher minimum pc spec that increased the maximum number of agents the engine handles from 2,048 to 4,096 :smile:
 
Last edited:

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Grandmaster Knight
What's wrong with the current reinforcement system (1.8.0) and how would an increased cap help?
Troops spawn all willy nilly in places that are often infested with enemies at the time they spawn, causing them to get wasted before they can reach their assigned positions.
how would an increased cap help? : I'm guising SO there won't be any reinforcement because everything is deployed.
I think a GOOD solutions would be 1 option to turn off own reinforcement, we often don't need them and don't want troops spawning in and being wasted by enemies surrounding them. 2 A Flag you set on the battle field (default could be back of map on your side) where troops spawn or move to after spawning at the back of the map.

The goal being your troops don't spawn into a harmful situation and go to waste. It's astounding and concerning to all players that after "upgrading" the reinforcement system some updates ago , units can still spawn surrounded by enemies (or far ahead of you in the siege map lol). This should be an obvious problem to anyone who played it, even at basic playing skill and comprehension.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
Troops spawn all willy nilly in places that are often infested with enemies at the time they spawn, causing them to get wasted before they can reach their assigned positions.
how would an increased cap help? : I'm guising SO there won't be any reinforcement because everything is deployed.
I think a GOOD solutions would be 1 option to turn off own reinforcement, we often don't need them and don't want troops spawning in and being wasted by enemies surrounding them. 2 A Flag you set on the battle field (default could be back of map on your side) where troops spawn or move to after spawning at the back of the map.

The goal being your troops don't spawn into a harmful situation and go to waste. It's astounding and concerning to all players that after "upgrading" the reinforcement system some updates ago , units can still spawn surrounded by enemies (or far ahead of you in the siege map lol). This should be an obvious problem to anyone who played it, even at basic playing skill and comprehension.
Reinforcements need to spawn at map edges as opposed to teleporting into trouble as the battle ebbs and flows.
 
What's wrong with the current reinforcement system (1.8.0) and how would an increased cap help?

The increased cap would help in avoiding the current reinforcements implementation altogether.

Sometimes the AI or even the player will take up defensive positions behind their own spawn, an when reinforcements spawn, the troops will have to move through the enemy to get to their own formations and it becomes a mess as casualties pile up as new troops spawn. Easiest way to fix this would be to do as a lot of people have requested and have troops spawn outside the battle area and move in.

It is also infuriating to have your infantry on advance and then they start to fall back because more troops spawned in and for some reason you have no way to tell them to ignore new spawns and keep moving forward, so the best you can do is either order them to hold and watch while the enemy regroups and their ranged troops get a load of free kills or order a charge and watch the AI at its best.
 

xdj1nn

Knight
WBWF&S
Troops spawn all willy nilly in places that are often infested with enemies at the time they spawn, causing them to get wasted before they can reach their assigned positions.
how would an increased cap help? : I'm guising SO there won't be any reinforcement because everything is deployed.
I think a GOOD solutions would be 1 option to turn off own reinforcement, we often don't need them and don't want troops spawning in and being wasted by enemies surrounding them. 2 A Flag you set on the battle field (default could be back of map on your side) where troops spawn or move to after spawning at the back of the map.

The goal being your troops don't spawn into a harmful situation and go to waste. It's astounding and concerning to all players that after "upgrading" the reinforcement system some updates ago , units can still spawn surrounded by enemies (or far ahead of you in the siege map lol). This should be an obvious problem to anyone who played it, even at basic playing skill and comprehension.
since WB days I had this unorthodox idea of adding layered command bars; for the issue there it could handle reinforcement spawns automatically by placing them into the secondary composition (something like hold shift to show the formations for the second layer) - there are 2 reasons why I always thought that would be a good idea, one is the automated role assigned to 1/2/3/4 formations, if we had shift+1/+2/+3/+4 it would be much faster and comfortable to manage identical troop types with different roles into detachments (like keep 1 with shield inf, shift+1 with shock troops / or place mixed inf on 1 while keeping shift+1 with pikes for anti-charges - shift+2 for skirmishers, so on so forth.)

Supposedly, if that was done (which's quite a simple system really. Arguably way too simple) and they've provided us with more than 2 layers, auto assigning reinforcements to the third formations roll while auto-activating "sargents in charge" would go a long way to mitigate the spawning issue, formatiosn won't get destroyed by nonsense mid-battle spawn during a massive melee (causes a lot of uncontrollable grief when that happens forcing us to retreat because the "square formation" suddenly becale an L), it would also allow AI to take control and protect itself remaining in "reserves" - than if we get an breather we can manually transfer the troops into the main body roll, or simply let them doing their thing, or use them as a flanking opportunity. On top of that AI would also benefit from it greatly, considering the automation for players, AI would likely have easy access to the same feature, meaning more engaging possibilities if programmed right (the way for them to use these, and I'm exclusively talking about reinforcements here - AI has 0 issues handling usual detachments, yet we players do have problems because auto-dividing cav always tries to take the HA slot, and pressing any number from 6 to 0 during a battle is a nightmare.) The proper way would be to add these rolls, add this wild card idea of reinforcement system I have, than also applying auto-transfer like Formations mod used to do (no-ammo archers detach into infantry - no horse melee cav, detaches into inf - no horse HA detaches into archers - all automatically)

The only thing I know, though, is that you are correct, reinforcements have always been really stupid in M&B, all of them, no mater the version/dlc...
 
Last edited:

SOku

Sergeant
Troops spawn all willy nilly in places that are often infested with enemies at the time they spawn, causing them to get wasted before they can reach their assigned positions.
how would an increased cap help? : I'm guising SO there won't be any reinforcement because everything is deployed.
I think a GOOD solutions would be 1 option to turn off own reinforcement, we often don't need them and don't want troops spawning in and being wasted by enemies surrounding them. 2 A Flag you set on the battle field (default could be back of map on your side) where troops spawn or move to after spawning at the back of the map.

The goal being your troops don't spawn into a harmful situation and go to waste. It's astounding and concerning to all players that after "upgrading" the reinforcement system some updates ago , units can still spawn surrounded by enemies (or far ahead of you in the siege map lol). This should be an obvious problem to anyone who played it, even at basic playing skill and comprehension.


Regarding your 1st point, allow me to expand a little bit on this : this could work most of the time from early game to mid game but to me the bread and butter of Bannerlord is also multi-layered / multi-armies battles, while it's understandable that you as a Lord don't want X more soldiers behind your back, it's much more an hassle when you see your Allies getting waves of 100-200 soldiers slaughtered for nothing.
I have to concede the experience of " giant battles " is simply underwhelming by this single aformentioned issue.

I fully agree about the rest though, especially since we have an aerial camera before the battles nowadays, it would be a piece of cake to drop a flag or two on the scenes.
 

Spinozart1

Knight
AMazing siege action coming soo! 💊 🤡 💊

Be a good idea to put out that beta and allow a few weeks to receive bug reports..... and fix them.
Friendly troops trying to attack you (?), enemy troops ignoring you...
This little video emphasizes those situations where you know that AI still needs improvement...
@Duh_TaleWorlds @Dejan maybe you could use it and check internally if it is working as intended...
 

Alboin

Sergeant Knight at Arms
@Dejan Can you ask when MP(login) servers will be fixed? I understand that it might be too hard for such poor servers to handle 480+ players at once, but please, we want to play cRPG.
 

Madijeis

Sergeant
WBNW
In whichever edition, AI's cavalry charge and die first, and then infantry and archers. Then the reinforcement is generated and charge with no organization. their footmen and archers spread everywhere and fight like skirmishers and their cavalry harasses my archers. My archers have no arrows now because we are the winner and have no reinforcement. If I send cavalry to counter their cavalry and archers, they will be killed by their peasants. Oh, peasants. They're horrible. So my only choice is making everyone charge.
You see, AI has no tactic to win of course, but has a good tactic to consume the player.
In my experience, that's a mixed bag. In large battles (each side has atleast 600 or 700 soldiers) I can see the AI trying to pull back and regroup with their formations, then jump back in the melee, with the reinforcing soldiers running towards the survivors. I have seen the chaotic mess you describe, but I also see pockets of high tier troops slowly back away with the shields raised. Possibly that's an odd quirk of the morale system, but I can't be sure
 

MostBlunted

Sergeant Knight at Arms
What's wrong with the current reinforcement system (1.8.0) and how would an increased cap help?
Haven´t you seen a single one of the hundred feedback posts about the issue?

Small hint:

It´s a combination of the reinforcement system and the brain dead battle AI. But you can just read one of the threads/posts about it, I mean they are in your own forum since months.
 
Last edited:

Plagues

Recruit
Haven´t you seen a single one of the hundred feedback posts about the issue?

Small hint:

It´s a combination of the reinforcement system and the brain dead battle AI. But you can just read one of the threads/posts about it, I mean they are in your own forum since months.
And people say we are out of touch when talking about the game and its problems lol
 

AngryPanCake

Veteran
When I tried to help the devs fix an issue and was told by a developer of TW "You can always go mod", I knew the cooperation to make the game really good was over and modding would have to be the way. And some people wonder why we talk about mods having to fix everything. That statement says it all, they don't want to take the time to fix things when mods can do it for them. A sad reality of gaming today, settle for mediocrity and let other people outside the company make it great. When in life did we have to settle for ok or good, what has happened to the business side of gaming, is money all that matters??? Making an amazing game gets people to come back for more titles and loyal customers will as well, it feels like TW has abandoned both of those in the last year. With just 5 weeks to full release how many people can say they are really happy with the going to be finished product. No game is perfect, but a lot out there make up for the their flaws by having other things that are so spectacular that the flaw are outshined. Does Bannerlord live up to that? I would say a resounding no. I am excited for what mods could bring and hope they can eclipse what we was in Warband, but I am so disappointed in what the vanilla game could have been gone in so many directions, instead, boy did we get "vanilla" in the biggest way.
Hey Flesson,
I have reached the point you are describing in your post a long time ago, that's the reason I have not posted in a while!
This is not a TW problem alone though, the majority of the games I have purchased/played are the same as far as fixing "basic" issues or implementing/adding content. So I have no illusion (or delusions) about having a fantastic vanilla game upon release.
I am just thankful when I find a game that is "mod friendly". I tend to gravitate towards them as I know there are very talented people out there that turn "meh" vanilla games into amazing ones.
A few months ago, I had posted an opinion that to me, the most important thing was that the vanilla version was stable enough and mod friendly enough for release even if content was overlooked. Again, to me stability and user friendly mod tools are more important than everything else. I did get some flack with people saying it was not the job of modders to "fix" the game...etc.
To me, badgering the devs to give you anything other than a half baked product is like beating a dead horse. Maybe I'm a defeatist, but at least I am realistic.
Anyway, I can't wait for the release of at least a stable vanilla and look forward to playing with amazing mods that don't need to be updated every time there is a major update.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
To me, badgering the devs to give you anything other than a half baked product is like beating a dead horse.
Can't fault him for trying. Getting a functional product is his right, even when it comes to video games (at least in my country).
Anyway, I can't wait for the release of at least a stable vanilla and look forward to playing with amazing mods that don't need to be updated every time there is a major update.
The game will still keep being updated according to TW though, so unfortunately that isn't on the cards. Since it's still broken in so many ways there's going to need to be post launch updates.
 

Brocephus

Sergeant
You guys are assuming this product is going to be mod-friendly. While it is mod-able, is it really mod-"friendly"? Have the issues the modders complained about been addressed?
 

Flesson19

Not a Cookie
Knight
When they say they will be patching the game after full release that is for bug fixes, don't expect and content. Last count there were 408 known issues on the known issues post. How long you think it will take them to fix that when they say defection problem is their #1 priority and someone has already posted a fix for it but yet its been 2 months and nothing. Hopefully the console work will get done soon they can get back to their abandoned PC testers who have worked hard for 2 years to get the game right. hopefully we won't be cast aside much longer.
Defection bug, lords hoarding grain travelling at 1 speed, main character captain perks not working, half the policies dont work right, not minor issues that are still broken for months or years. I hope people know what product they will be getting for full release, certainty not a well polished product that's for sure---408 known issues-----. I've been sending them my date for over a year trying to help get shops running well for all of them and still sturgia sucks for shops and oil, wood and smithy are still an issue. only a year telling them and not fixed. And people wonder why we say mods will have to fix all the problems when months or years go by and things don't progress at a decent rate First year of game, amazing work by TW--months 12-18 just so so as thing slow down, the last 6 months, virtually nothing done and appalling work done
 
Top Bottom