-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Patch Notes v1.2.3 ...?
- Thread starter five bucks
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Just implementing one single section would be great by itself, implementing all of them (maybe also fog, thunderstorm and sandstorm weather as well) would make the game improve by a significant margin.
I would also add a point to the voting section about greedy clan leaders starting votes for annexing fiefs from other clans or kicking clans that they have negative relationship with out, as well as sadistic leaders being much more likely to start votes to kick clans out from the kingdom. There should also be a voting option that forces the king to abdicate, which the lords will have a chance to start if the kingdom's heavily losing a war or has recently accepted a peace deal where they have to pay a significant amount of tribute (something like 5k denars/day).
I would also add a point to the voting section about greedy clan leaders starting votes for annexing fiefs from other clans or kicking clans that they have negative relationship with out, as well as sadistic leaders being much more likely to start votes to kick clans out from the kingdom. There should also be a voting option that forces the king to abdicate, which the lords will have a chance to start if the kingdom's heavily losing a war or has recently accepted a peace deal where they have to pay a significant amount of tribute (something like 5k denars/day).
Lesbosisles
Knight at Arms
I've nothing against adding bad weather conditions, but:
1) It should be reflected somehow on the world map, that there is a storm going on, before you enter the battle scene, so you know the weather isn't really good for fighting and leave beforehand
2) Bad weather conditions should at least somehow affect NPCs as well - reduced line of sight, accuracy, speed, etc. In most games, the sand- or stormsnow is only a problem for a player, since a human can't see through a sand or snow, but it isn't a problem for AI, since it's just a transparent texture to them. Hence, you, as a bowman, won't be able to do anything, while their sharpshooters will put you down before you know it, and you won't be able to even see them.
True, they should be reflected somehow and it would probably be relatively easy to show storm, fog and sandstorm visual effects imo. A thunderstorm can be the exact same thing as rain in terms of effects for all I care, it's mostly a visual and immersive thing for me.
I think the current mechanics are very good for the implementation of weather events. Snow already slows down the movement of all units (and maybe also lowers aim/ranged damage?), fog can reduce the aim of all units by a percentage (and maybe make the enemy not visible until they're nearby when pressing alt), sandstorm, rain and thunderstorm can reduce both the aim and projectile speed by a certain percentage, rain & thunderstorm can decrease the movement of only mounted units, etc. This way, weather will be effective against all units. Even if say fog making it harder to see is more of a nerf to the player than to the AI, it's fine, the player has the OP bonus of having a brain.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Just a heads up - this is not real patch notes.
Ohh okay the title confused me there for a sec
Lesbosisles
Knight at Arms
But don't you worry, the "change" you mentioned above will still be present in the next update for sure
Well, I'd say we already have enough AI-cheating mechanics for one game... Adding this will turn into an irritating factor really quick, in my opinion.
Last edited:
Any changes that don't include ability to change horse color, brother's appearance, and/or clan member/companion appearances will disappoint me. I'm becoming a single issue voter at this point...
Regardless, I vote no, even though some of these are good suggestions the combat section is way too broad to just dump in one patch and without tweaking items more individually for balance. Some of them aim to address things I agree are issues, but I'm skeptical that the solution is just tossing in very broad stroke changes to armor/damage/speed etc. all at once.
That said, I approve of making NPC personality traits and relations more impactful.
Regardless, I vote no, even though some of these are good suggestions the combat section is way too broad to just dump in one patch and without tweaking items more individually for balance. Some of them aim to address things I agree are issues, but I'm skeptical that the solution is just tossing in very broad stroke changes to armor/damage/speed etc. all at once.
That said, I approve of making NPC personality traits and relations more impactful.
TurkishEconomy
Regular
We keep telling them what we want, but no one listens!
Sorry to be a party pooper but this would be a terrible patch.
First, tribute payments is a measure of a faction's willingness to wage war not the war's body count or who is "winning". Your opponent shouldn't pay you for peace they don't want. The less they have to lose the less they'll want peace.
Second, the rest is all over the board but another one is armor. Head and body armor are plenty strong. You can take an absurd amount of damage on foot late game. Buffing it further would be less realistic and less fun. It's not just the player but the player party. Your party is often maxed out so 150 troops can easily take on 400. Beefier armor would make the game easier across the board.
First, tribute payments is a measure of a faction's willingness to wage war not the war's body count or who is "winning". Your opponent shouldn't pay you for peace they don't want. The less they have to lose the less they'll want peace.
Second, the rest is all over the board but another one is armor. Head and body armor are plenty strong. You can take an absurd amount of damage on foot late game. Buffing it further would be less realistic and less fun. It's not just the player but the player party. Your party is often maxed out so 150 troops can easily take on 400. Beefier armor would make the game easier across the board.
Well in real war the losing side makes reparations so making the winner pay for peace is ass backwards to how the real world works and why so many people hate it.
If everyone has better armor that doesn't make the game easier. It makes fights last longer for sure and in theory should make them more tactical. If you said you liked faster fights I could understand your pov but if you're saying it makes things easier for the player then you haven't thought it through. Personally I'd prefer that the ai was better at playing defensive rather that giving a big boost to armor the only exception to damage resistance should be against arrows because it's far too high. The game is easily winnable with just an all archer army. Personally I'd rather see individual soldiers have some kind of self preservation because right now the ai just gets in a swings away and rarely blocks and I'd also like to see some kind of line cohesion when armies clash because once they meet it's just chaos and the player has no way to try to direct his army.
100% agree with you on the combat AI.
And war reparations we're non existent in the early medieval period. The tribute in the game is just paying somebody to leave you alone. The mechanic would be less frustrating if dungeons weren't turnstiles, artificially prolonging conflicts.
Zerosaiko
Knight at Arms
I think that part of it is a problem with its presentation. Tribute's usual definition (or at least that which I just looked up, I'm not exactly a history buff) is related to a subordinate relationship in which a lesser state pays a greater one, which doesn't really mesh well with Bannerlord's usage as "so hey fellow AI, turns out that we need to maintain a state of equilibrium, how much are you willing to pay me so that I can make up for my losses and come back as strong as ever? Oh, and so that we'll leave you alone for a bit."
A player could be grinding the AI's metaphorical face into the dirt and still have to pay tribute unless they keep grinding them into the dirt for even longer, and god forbid they get raided. Though iirc the AI has their own value in what they'll give/ask for if they approach about peace instead of you approaching for peace.
It kind of takes some of the satisfaction out of your victory when a system that in real life was used for the stronger side to extract extra value/assert dominance over the weaker side is instead reversed and used to keep the losing side afloat.
A player could be grinding the AI's metaphorical face into the dirt and still have to pay tribute unless they keep grinding them into the dirt for even longer, and god forbid they get raided. Though iirc the AI has their own value in what they'll give/ask for if they approach about peace instead of you approaching for peace.
It kind of takes some of the satisfaction out of your victory when a system that in real life was used for the stronger side to extract extra value/assert dominance over the weaker side is instead reversed and used to keep the losing side afloat.
Last edited:
five bucks
Knight at Arms
If you can name some specific shields, throwing axes, or spears/pikes that you think need specific targeted changes, I can change the thread.
For me the aim of this thread was to show TW the big problems that people want to see attention for. If you can agree these are issues, then we're on the same page.
I think this is bad from a gameplay perspective, and not true from a realism perspective either.
Gameplay: it isn't fun to have to pay peace to someone who I am defeating.
Realism: in real life they would fear for their lives if they are losing this heavily. They would be tired of losing prisoners, losing their castles and towns, being executed, spending lots of money, and scared of maybe even losing their kingdom. This is why in real life losers paid tribute, not the other way around!!!!!
Armour is strong against melee but not ranged damage. Late game you can survive 4 arrows to the chest or 1 arrow to the head. That's absurdly low.
Warband had armour that was more than 2x more effective against arrows than Bannerlord, and that was a fun game.
As for realism, it is realistic for padded mail or lamellar armour to provide good protection against arrows. http://myarmoury.com/feature_mail.html
Beefier armour would also make AI parties harder to fight when the player doesn't have a fully leveled party, so it would even out.
Right now the game is very easy to cheese by spamming ranged troops. It would become harder to cheese if armour worked properly against arrows.
Last edited:
Regarding tribute...
It is VERY realistic for it to be based on a side's desire to wage war. I think the issue here is people think they are winning because they inflict casualties, which is meaningless, and capture territory, which would actually make your enemy MORE willing to fight.
You want to capture nobles... I have only ever paid for peace when I start my own kingdom to avoid fighting multiple wars. When you capture nobles, they can no longer break sieges, they sue for peace.
In fact it's so easy to get tribute for peace I often get screwed at the end of a war because peace is brokered before I can take another settlement.
It is VERY realistic for it to be based on a side's desire to wage war. I think the issue here is people think they are winning because they inflict casualties, which is meaningless, and capture territory, which would actually make your enemy MORE willing to fight.
You want to capture nobles... I have only ever paid for peace when I start my own kingdom to avoid fighting multiple wars. When you capture nobles, they can no longer break sieges, they sue for peace.
In fact it's so easy to get tribute for peace I often get screwed at the end of a war because peace is brokered before I can take another settlement.
Eh, it kinda depends. Low level archers and xbowmen can turn you into a porcupine if you have the top graded gear. But yeah, the efficacy and range of both ranged and thrown weapons is over the top. The accuracy too is a bit silly... flip side thrown weapons would be way less fun if the abided by the laws of physics and range weapons would be hard to train if you couldn't shoot straight.
An axe to a cataphracts head does comically little as it is and when you play with higher armor coefficients in realistic battle module.
And when I talk about too easy, we already murder machines by mid game ourselves and as long as you take care of your party, you are usually one of the largest parties on the map and the player's party usually skews far more towards elite units than NPC parties.
Shields have different speeds, coverage, weights and durability. Currently, these are oddly distributed, with many shields being 82 speed regardless of all other factors, but a few outlier shields offering superior balances of stats in general.
Shields need to be better differentiated at the level of individual items. Wooden shields should be much more vulnerable to breaking. Smaller shields with lower durability but light materials should in many cases be faster. The current shield stats feel kind of like much of it was just a copy/paste placeholder values sort of deal.
If the purpose of throwing axes is to break shields, they need to be better at it, 'cause they're not great at anything else. Lower shield durability for lower tier unit shields would help, but throwing axes could probably also use a damage buff. Javelins completely outclass them at doing damage, plus it's piercing damage, and you get more of them. Right now it takes 3 throwing axes to break some of the weakest shields in the game, and that's a full quiver for throwing axes. In battle, conditions are far worse considering misses, and that many infantry vs. infantry engagements don't give time for you to have throwing axe troops toss axes at a shield wall for 30 seconds or whatever.
Similarly, spears shouldn't get a generalized speed buff - spear length should be a bigger determining factor in particular. Currently, spears are primarily only good for cavalry or against cavalry, and that favors length and damage above all else. This makes many spear units quite bad, some almost completely useless.
I agree with this.
It happened to me several times where AI started a war with demanding lots of tribute and after they capture a couple of fiefs from me, they offer ME tribute for peace.
So the tribute system is not entirely about winning/losing the war and it's certainly not about raids having too much weight in calculation.
I think it comes down to; if AI wants peace = they offer tribute, if they don't = they demand tribute.
Lesbosisles
Knight at Arms
In that case, AI has no logic, seeing that the war they are so eager to continue, goes south but still they happily go right into the grinding machine again and again... They should understand and take into account the possible risks when declaring and waging wars against an enemy, who's twice or thrice stronger than AI, and not to cosplay Duncan Macleod as they do now.
five bucks
Knight at Arms
Casualties are not meaningless because feudal lord may not put much value on the life of a peasant but they would still think twice after losing 10,000 of them - you can't tax a dead man.
Lesbosisles summed it up: whether or not you are more willing to fight, at some point most people will accept the risk of losing everything is great enough that they will give up fighting.
Otherwise, how do you explain times in real life when losers agreed to pay tribute?
The loser in a war in real life is never really "willing" to pay tribute. They do it because they are afraid of losing even more, or losing their lives. That's what Bannerlord does not account for and what it should.
I have had wars where I have numerous nobles captured yet their faction will still demand tribute if I want peace.
It really seems like the ratio of clans to fiefs, and the amount of raids done, are the only two factors that matter. And that's a problem.
Which specific shields should get which speed rating/durability changes in your opinion?
I agree, and that's in there. Perhaps I should even change it to +20%.
Agreed. Do you think they should throw faster in addition to having more damage? Or would a damage buff be enough?
What change would you propose? I'm proposing a speed buff to spears because their attack speed is so unrealistically slow, like they're stabbing underwater. I'm sure other things could have a look at too, but I think faster stab speed would be an immediate improvement that would make them more realistic.
Last edited:
