Recovering from casualties almost impossible in this game?

Currently viewing this thread:

Moton

Squire
No. Dont make the game even more casual and boring. Just lower your difficulty instead if you dont want the challange.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight
No. Dont make the game even more casual and boring. Just lower your difficulty instead if you dont want the challange.

This.

Seriously, complaining about something which you could fix lowering difficulty is silly. Especially when some people find the current difficulty ok, or even too easy.
 

ElCrisp

Sergeant
I think everybody in this thread telling op to "just lower the difficulty" is a bad faith critisism based in insecurities over possible directions of development.

You can easily say, no I disagree I think recruitment / recovery is in a fine place without also then dismissing op's whole opinion based on he should "just lower the difficulty."

People on this forums often try to win arguments on game design direction based on this flatening argument. Out of fear that things will become more casual if they dont "win" or shut down the conversation by any mean necessary.

I dont have an opinion that aligns with OP but clearly the AI cheats for XP and recovery are hotly debaited issues / features, this interacting with the player abilty for recovery seems like a spcae with a tone of balance levers and coversation to be had.
 

sniparsexe

Knight at Arms
This.

Seriously, complaining about something which you could fix lowering difficulty is silly. Especially when some people find the current difficulty ok, or even too easy.
did you quote my post accidentally? I got a notification but I can't find the message lol
 

HugoTheFrenchMan

Master Knight
AI cheats for XP
You can easily say, no I disagree I think recruitment / recovery is in a fine place without also then dismissing op's whole opinion based on he should "just lower the difficulty."
He directly wants to change the game to his subjective opinion when he can already achieve the same thing by lowering the difficulty its a sughestion for him if he wants to play in the way he suggests instead of changing it in his opinion which is clearly not the objectively liked one
It doesn't though
 

ElCrisp

Sergeant
It doesn't though
Yes it does
current passive xp gain per troop is (5 + troop level) per each troop in npc parties and this is not a low value.
The above post of mexxico's I am quoting included discussions about lowering this passive xp rate the AI recieve. This is in addition to any XP gained from perks of the AI party leader.

I am also not against the AI cheating in this regard, but there is an active conversation about what the right balance is.
 

Zoonanay

Knight
What do you mean by "elite"? do you mean regular t5 or t6 units? if so I agree, they are really not worth getting at all.
If you mean Noble tree line units, they are definetly worth getting.
Khan's guards eat any horse archer for breakfast with their 260 in bow and double quivers.
Same goes to Fian champions and same goes to the rest of the unique tree line troops.

By "elite" just regular T5-6, and yeah I agree T4 serves just as well.

I think Noble units should get a re-work on how they're recruited, and the bandit recruitement perk is just plain strange.

And in late game recruiters should be hireable, who'll go recruit regular units for you at a increased cost per recruit.

Other than that though, I've never found recovering from casualities too tedious, generally I have enough reserves to fill the majority of my army and fill the rest with new recruits. Or just raise a mass recruit army.
 

TimIZ

Regular
M&BWB
What I find way more painful than losing (even many) troops is what just happened to my inventory after I lost a fight against a gang in Balgard.

Seriously? All my food, 100 horses (except ONE MULE) and 75% of the weapons and armor that I got in 15+ battles are lost? I really didn`t want to reload this time but - ahahahaha.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
What I find way more painful than losing (even many) troops is what just happened to my inventory after I lost a fight against a gang in Balgard.

Seriously? All my food, 100 horses (except ONE MULE) and 75% of the weapons and armor that I got in 15+ battles are lost? I really didn`t want to reload this time but - ahahahaha.

Yeah having the player lose loads of stuff in a loss is a bad move but an even worse move is saddling you down with all of it after you escape.
 
Last edited:

kweassa

Sergeant at Arms
I think everybody in this thread telling op to "just lower the difficulty" is a bad faith critisism based in insecurities over possible directions of development.

You can easily say, no I disagree I think recruitment / recovery is in a fine place without also then dismissing op's whole opinion based on he should "just lower the difficulty."

People on this forums often try to win arguments on game design direction based on this flatening argument. Out of fear that things will become more casual if they dont "win" or shut down the conversation by any mean necessary.

I dont have an opinion that aligns with OP but clearly the AI cheats for XP and recovery are hotly debaited issues / features, this interacting with the player abilty for recovery seems like a spcae with a tone of balance levers and coversation to be had.

Not when plenty of people already made it blindingly clear, that the particular situation the op is suffering from is not a problem with the system, but of his own doing.

As a rule of thumb, sieges for the attacker require around 3~4 times more men than the besieged. This is true in both actual history, and games that follow realistic depiction of history. The 1st siege of Rhodes in 1480 saw around 80,000 ~ 100,000 Ottoman troops laying siege to 3,000~4,000 defenders with around 20~30 times the numbers advantage for the Ottomans, and yet the Hospitallers successfully defended their island with 30,000 casualties (10k immediate deaths) for the Ottomans.


In contrast, the op, laid siege to a 1,000 man settlement with 1,000 troops -- a 1:1 ratio. Is it any surprise that a significant chunk of his army was decimated?

The amount of casualties that result from such poor tactics is something that does not happen normally, because seasoned players know better than to foolishly besiege a spot with 1:1 numbers unless they're intending to abuse the game system and cheese it out somehow. Again, enough people told the op that this is the case -- the op's mistake is what made it so difficult to replenish the troops, not the system.


And yet, page after page the op refuses to listen to the majority opinion of the community and insists it's the game that screwed him over, and does not acknowledge his mistake. So, who really broke the "good faith" of the principle of charity here? You tell me.

At this point, the only real response that's warranted is "git good", since taking time to explain things --- coming from multiple people who initially DID approach with good faith --- is obviously a waste of time.
 

ElCrisp

Sergeant
Not when plenty of people already made it blindingly clear, that the particular situation the op is suffering from is not a problem with the system, but of his own doing.

As a rule of thumb, sieges for the attacker require around 3~4 times more men than the besieged. This is true in both actual history, and games that follow realistic depiction of history. The 1st siege of Rhodes in 1480 saw around 80,000 ~ 100,000 Ottoman troops laying siege to 3,000~4,000 defenders with around 20~30 times the numbers advantage for the Ottomans, and yet the Hospitallers successfully defended their island with 30,000 casualties (10k immediate deaths) for the Ottomans.


In contrast, the op, laid siege to a 1,000 man settlement with 1,000 troops -- a 1:1 ratio. Is it any surprise that a significant chunk of his army was decimated?

The amount of casualties that result from such poor tactics is something that does not happen normally, because seasoned players know better than to foolishly besiege a spot with 1:1 numbers unless they're intending to abuse the game system and cheese it out somehow. Again, enough people told the op that this is the case -- the op's mistake is what made it so difficult to replenish the troops, not the system.


And yet, page after page the op refuses to listen to the majority opinion of the community and insists it's the game that screwed him over, and does not acknowledge his mistake. So, who really broke the "good faith" of the principle of charity here? You tell me.

At this point, the only real response that's warranted is "git good", since taking time to explain things --- coming from multiple people who initially DID approach with good faith --- is obviously a waste of time.
Currently the in battle advantage of seiges is so low it probably wouldnt matter much if you did siege 1000v1000 but what op actually said was
The issue is that after a painful bloody siege or a 1000vs1000 bloodbath
He didn't "refuse to listen" he maintained his view that was based on his experiences. He recieved some rensponses that where counterposing his views in good faith. Then some counterposing his views that contained incomplete or incorrect infromation about the game. Then he copped a couple of rude responses and the conversation degenerated and its hardly surprising he dug in on his position as a result.

Not saying OP is some saint in the way he discussed it either. The capitalising random words for emphasis or to some how make your points more cogent is a pet peeve of mine as it just comes accross as some weird from of condescension, even though I dont think that is the intention.

Anyway my post was only a lament over how many of these threads unfold.
 
Hi everyone,
I am not sure if this has been discussed before. So far I have been really enjoying the game, I honestly think it's one of my favorite games.
Nevertheless, I want to bring up this issue that has been bothering me for some time, and it's actually something that by all means ruins the fun in the game for me.

The issue is, it's almost impossible for the player (not the AI though), to recover after suffering a substantial number of casualties.
Why?
Because unlike other games where your troops are recruited and managed in stacks or blocks, and when a block suffers casualties, as long as it wasn't completely wiped out it will slowly recover and regain its numbers, in Bannerlord every unit is individual and so when that unit dies its gone for good.

So what's the issue? Please bear with me for a few minutes.

The issue is that after a painful bloody siege or a 1000vs1000 bloodbath (without teleporting your archers via tab+retreat which I don't even know why is allowed, or save scumming or a combination of both), you are inevitably going to suffer a staggering number of casualties and many of your tier 5 or 6 troops you worked so hard and for HOURS to train from filthy farmers into knights in shiny armor, are going to die and be gone for good.
And here is actually where the problem is, after playing so many playthroughs I realized you just can't recover from this, because when you go back with your bleeding army to your cities and towns you are going to find for the most part pathetic tier 1 farmers that you have to train again all the way up to tier 5 or 6, and you are effectively starting again from scratch like in the first hour of your playthrough.

So unless I am missing something, why is there not a reliable system that allows you to upgrade your city barracks or something so it will only spawn say tier 3 or 4 troops and above?
I know there is the option of putting troops in your garrison and they will gain XP but I tested it and it takes too long.
So long that you wont be able to keep up with the constant waves of AI controlled armies filled with top tier cataphracts, top tier infantry, endless hordes of horse archers and what not, that just keep coming back.

Why do you have to go back and find miserable tier 1 farmers in your cities while the AI on the other hand magically comes back with high tier troops as if nothing had happened?
I wont even discuss a completely separate issue of lords escaping from your dungeons or being ransomed ridiculously fast that your only option is to execute them if you don't want to deal with what I have just mentioned...

So after playing for many hours in different playthroughs, the way I see it, you have a few options to deal with the lack of a reliable system that lets you recruit high tier troops, and none of them are really what I would consider a solution to this problem.

1) Cheese the HELL out of the game.
Recruit 100+ archers, train them to be Fian champions or Vlandian sharpshooters or whatever, massacre the enemy troops and when they get too close with their 800+ troops, hold tab and click retreat and rinse and repeat.
Still took too many casualties to your liking? reload the save and try again!

2) Suffer the casualties and try and fill the gaps with prisoners you just freed and recruited.

3) Base your party on bandits that have decent gear to begin with, decent stats and most importantly, always available almost anywhere on the map AND 100% free.
(and you can later upgrade them to elite troops after you reach level 150 in leadership)

So
option 1) completely breaks the game and I don't see why someone would want to continue playing the game like this (not even sure why the game lets you do it in the first place, teleportation that is)

option 2) doesn't always work, you are not always going to free prisoners that you can recruit, and even if you are successful in this, your army is going to end up as a nasty mixture of troops from all kinds of cultures, and that's not something everyone would want. If I chose to play Vlandians, its because in that playthrough I want to have my archers as Vlandian crossbowmen, my heavy cavalry Champions and Vanguards. If I play Sturgia I want to have nice Viking-like/Rus Axemen with large shields etc etc.. I dont want after a few hours into the game forget what culture I am playing, its understood.

option 3) is the only way I have been able to survive on realistic difficulty and deal with all the issues I have mentioned.
This is exactly how I have played my recent playthroughs. When I played Khuzait, I only recuirted steppe raiders and upgraded them to Khan's guards.
When I wanted to form a Viking like kingdom I solely relied on Sea raiders for infantry and some forest bandits as archers etc etc...

Please let me know what you think about this topic
i'm guessing your don't have a surgeon or engineer and you don't use the "send troops" option against looters. you don't need to level your troops to t6. by t3 they're equipped with the strategic gear you need and t6 is just a bonus
 
There are troops where you always want T6 - naming the noble troops branch here. Those are bread and butter for clearing out bandit hideouts for instance.
I guess you are talking infantry here, mostly because then it is o.k. just to have a shield and ample armor. Having archers higher tier means winning skirmish fights versus other skirmishers because more armor + higher bow stat = win.
The problem I see her: Gamers regard levelling as something positive - I do the same. I am happy, if my character progresses. I am happy, when my troops get better. Gaining XP and reaching a new level is - psychologically spoken - a reward. Only, that the effect in the game are in no way rewarding. Troops cost more and character development is somewhat hampered with each level gained (see other threads regarding that topic). One could ask whether the daily wage of a soldier (let alone a companion) is too high. Compared with a workshop's wage of 10 gold per day for a whole staff of skilled workers I can see some distortion here. I wonder, whether 1 gold per tier and day would be more reasonable. But then, this thread is about recovery.
In my opinion, recovery could be helped, if villages were a bit more resillient versus raiding (by being upgradeable with stockades, fortified house, motte/bailey so they must be 'sieged' somewhat or inflict attrition on attacker. Because raided villages remove recruitment options and when they recover we start at recruit again (of which we might lose some while training).
Secondary, castles should be a place for recruitment of higher tier troops starting at tier 2 (basic infantry) and have training facilities so you could 'harvest' villages for recruits which are trained in the castle to basic soldiers - maybe stop at tier 2 or 3.
Troops in the dungeon could be 'auto-recruited' by the governor to garrison. Recruiting prisoners seems to be slower with the newest patch but I guess being able to do that additionally to your main party could be a bit of a boon itself.
 
There are troops where you always want T6 - naming the noble troops branch here. Those are bread and butter for clearing out bandit hideouts for instance.
I guess you are talking infantry here, mostly because then it is o.k. just to have a shield and ample armor. Having archers higher tier means winning skirmish fights versus other skirmishers because more armor + higher bow stat = win.
The problem I see her: Gamers regard levelling as something positive - I do the same. I am happy, if my character progresses. I am happy, when my troops get better. Gaining XP and reaching a new level is - psychologically spoken - a reward. Only, that the effect in the game are in no way rewarding. Troops cost more and character development is somewhat hampered with each level gained (see other threads regarding that topic). One could ask whether the daily wage of a soldier (let alone a companion) is too high. Compared with a workshop's wage of 10 gold per day for a whole staff of skilled workers I can see some distortion here. I wonder, whether 1 gold per tier and day would be more reasonable. But then, this thread is about recovery.
In my opinion, recovery could be helped, if villages were a bit more resillient versus raiding (by being upgradeable with stockades, fortified house, motte/bailey so they must be 'sieged' somewhat or inflict attrition on attacker. Because raided villages remove recruitment options and when they recover we start at recruit again (of which we might lose some while training).
Secondary, castles should be a place for recruitment of higher tier troops starting at tier 2 (basic infantry) and have training facilities so you could 'harvest' villages for recruits which are trained in the castle to basic soldiers - maybe stop at tier 2 or 3.
Troops in the dungeon could be 'auto-recruited' by the governor to garrison. Recruiting prisoners seems to be slower with the newest patch but I guess being able to do that additionally to your main party could be a bit of a boon itself.
i bring low end troops to hideouts so they get exp. havent seen an instance where you need t6 except if you want to start your own kingdom without defecting and need to do a siege in a situation where you can't form an army. in that case you want T6 archers and infantry because you need to peg their archers off the wall fast and climb ladders
 
Get a doctor, favour troop-training perks and skills, upgrade your garrisons to give xp, and if you are still worried about casualties only enter fights where the numbers favour you 3/2 or so. Then in the fight, make heavy use of shield wall with ranged positioned behind it, cavalry charge when the enemy is in range to break enemy formations and give your ranged longer attack opportunities, which also forces the enemy to be in loose formation when they hit your melee. Then, skein infantry when the bulk of the enemy is close to maximize your damage output surface area while keeping a good defence, and cavalry charge again from the rear to finish the job.

You can walk away from massive field simulations with very, VERY minimal casualities with these tactics. Sieges are a different story, and one I haven't figured out yet...

But uh yeah die less, passive train more, and this problem goes away.
 
Get a doctor, favour troop-training perks and skills, upgrade your garrisons to give xp, and if you are still worried about casualties only enter fights where the numbers favour you 3/2 or so. Then in the fight, make heavy use of shield wall with ranged positioned behind it, cavalry charge when the enemy is in range to break enemy formations and give your ranged longer attack opportunities, which also forces the enemy to be in loose formation when they hit your melee. Then, skein infantry when the bulk of the enemy is close to maximize your damage output surface area while keeping a good defence, and cavalry charge again from the rear to finish the job.

You can walk away from massive field simulations with very, VERY minimal casualities with these tactics. Sieges are a different story, and one I haven't figured out yet...

But uh yeah die less, passive train more, and this problem goes away.
exactly, if this game had no penalties for weak strategy it would be a boring game
 

Monkey

Regular
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I will never play ANY game on a difficulty that is not hardest. NEVER.
I think you skipped several of my posts where I clearly said that the game is NOT hard. that's not the issue at all.
You can beat the game and take over 100% the map without fighting a SINGLE battle, that's how not-hard this game is.
My issue is that I feel like the game doesn't give you a solid way of replenishing your forces other than mostly tier 1 units, even in late game.
But that clearly isn't the experience for some other players like @Apocal for some reason. He claims his cities are always abundant with t2-t3 units.
You don't know half the story, man. @Apocal is the ****. He just comes into the village riding his Asaligat and all the notables scramble to offer him their hidden T5 horse archer daughters for battle or marriage. If you ever come into a Khuzait village and wonder where TF have the recruitable troops gone, now you know it: the notables are just hiding them for Apocal.
 

Gadheras

Regular
I'm not so worried about bounce back from a huge loss, what I get be a bit upset over is seeing the same lords I fought that also took heavy losses bounce back much faster.
 

Sanctumm

Regular
I agree to some extend that this game uses more time to replenish an army vs. playing battles - The AI is just too fast to make a new army of tier 3+ and thats is what makes this so hard - but still - whats the fun of getting the campaign map after a week? There is nothing to do once you got it all - Enjoy making an army and just go into battle and let the AI work the recruiting

1. Put 2-3 followers in each huge alliance castle(fief) so you can recruit fast
2. Kill stuff
3. Have fun

Ive spended a huge time gathering 150+ high tier horses - just to see them get annihilated by tier 2 infantry troops standing their ground closely
Apparently horses cant run through horses so its a bottleneck charging

Just take what you can - gather an army - Spank stuff or lose doesnt matter aslong as there is an epic fight!
 
Top Bottom