I've nothing against adding bad weather conditions, but:(maybe also fog, thunderstorm and sandstorm weather as well)
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'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.
Just a heads up - this is not real patch notes.Server still crashing on multiplayer
Ohh okay the title confused me there for a secJust a heads up - this is not real patch notes.
But don't you worry, the "change" you mentioned above will still be present in the next update for sureOhh okay the title confused me there for a sec
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.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
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.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.
100% agree with you on the combat AI.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.
If you can name some specific shields, throwing axes, or spears/pikes that you think need specific targeted changes, I can change the thread.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.
I think this is bad from a gameplay perspective, and not true from a realism perspective either.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.
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.Head and body armor are plenty strong. You can take an absurd amount of damage on foot late game.
Warband had armour that was more than 2x more effective against arrows than Bannerlord, and that was a fun game.Buffing it further would be less realistic and less fun.
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.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.I think it comes down to; if AI wants peace = they offer tribute, if they don't = they demand tribute.
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.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.
I have had wars where I have numerous nobles captured yet their faction will still demand tribute if I want peace.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.
Which specific shields should get which speed rating/durability changes in your opinion?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.
I agree, and that's in there. Perhaps I should even change it to +20%.Lower shield durability for lower tier unit shields would help, but throwing axes could probably also use a damage buff.
Agreed. Do you think they should throw faster in addition to having more damage? Or would a damage buff be enough?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.
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.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.