Should recruits have shields?

Should some recruits have shields?


  • Total voters
    35

Users who are viewing this thread

The balance of most high tier units is decent.
It's only high-tier ranged units, like Khan's Guard or Fian Champs killing more than 20x their number, that are an issue. Fix ranged damage to armor, you fix them.

A desperate farmer who is extremely poor.

Just look at looters. Nobody gives them any equipment when they join up. Yet they roam the world in packs using farming equipment to fight.
Looters aren't recruited their criminals no one to equip them they are self-equipped with out a proper leader other than who's toughest. The looter even if a farmer and Recruit is a farmer. The recruit would get very basic training even if it was a day's training. They would be equipped.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Looters aren't recruited their criminals no one to equip them they are self-equipped with out a proper leader other than who's toughest.
The player isn't a proper leader either. We may as well just be another bandit at the start of the game. We aren't carrying around big stacks of shields to hand out to recruits.
The recruit would get very basic training even if it was a day's training. They would be equipped.
From who?
By who?
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
No, not really.

Time/replacement. The problem is that it will not affect classes uniformly. In practice, your typical army would, in all likelihood, end up being high quality archers and low quality infantry, until the day you can scrap infantry altogether.
We're talking about the ease of obtaining the top-tier troops in this regard, whether a player 'naturally' trends to have top-tier archers vs infantry (survivability basis) is not the point. Those can be tweaked, archer stats/armor can be tweaked, tier caps can be tweaked (that De Re Militari mod for example).
Quality. Playes want quality to matter. You would have, and there has been, 10 times (random number) more complains that quality is not important enough.
I'm not against upgrading quality of units, that's not the point of this. If you increase the quality of whatever units (top or bottom), have either their cost or time to obtain counterbalance accordingly. Just advocating to add shields to recruits or better armor for X troops as it is without adjusting the other systems won't work well without making the player stronger.
Cost. Vitually impossible to balance around. At worst you risk ending up in a MMO stile situation where you would need to grind for hours to gather enough resources. Besides, complains about the economic balance is already rampant with plenty of post of the "the game impossible, you need to smith to make money, game sucks" nature around. When cost reasonably function, as a choice variable, it is practically always in the context of a tradeoff between numbers vs. quality. But that is not practical in Bannerlord; you already have a hard limit on partsize and a soft limit on speed.
Again, you're missing the point. If you want your Elite Cataphracts to tank even more damage and also keep with how 'easy' they are to get, we have to make them more costly. If you want the EC to be tankier but don't want to pay more than the current model, they should take longer to obtain. If you want EC to stay cheap but also easy to obtain/replenish, they shouldn't be even more overpowered in armor.
Same applies, though on a significantly smaller scale, recruits+shields.

You're isolating each issue by itself and saying it can't be done because of another X 'fixed' system, which is exactly how each of these half-assed features in the game were seemingly implemented. So we're stuck with all these random systems and band-aid features that don't connect with each other which is why it feels bland.

The game is already a grind (and it gets there very quickly); but that grind has no 'purpose' to it. If you want to use MMO's as an analogy, the 'acceptable/successful' grind-models tend to have some useful reward for one to suffer the grind. What is there in TW at the moment behind the inherent grind?
 

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
We're talking about the ease of obtaining the top-tier troops in this regard, whether a player 'naturally' trends to have top-tier archers vs infantry (survivability basis) is not the point. Those can be tweaked, archer stats/armor can be tweaked, tier caps can be tweaked (that De Re Militari mod for example).

I'm not against upgrading quality of units, that's not the point of this. If you increase the quality of whatever units (top or bottom), have either their cost or time to obtain counterbalance accordingly. Just advocating to add shields to recruits or better armor for X troops as it is without adjusting the other systems won't work well without making the player stronger.

Again, you're missing the point. If you want your Elite Cataphracts to tank even more damage and also keep with how 'easy' they are to get, we have to make them more costly. If you want the EC to be tankier but don't want to pay more than the current model, they should take longer to obtain. If you want EC to stay cheap but also easy to obtain/replenish, they shouldn't be even more overpowered in armor.
Same applies, though on a significantly smaller scale, recruits+shields.

You're isolating each issue by itself and saying it can't be done because of another X 'fixed' system, which is exactly how each of these half-assed features in the game were seemingly implemented. So we're stuck with all these random systems and band-aid features that don't connect with each other which is why it feels bland.

The game is already a grind (and it gets there very quickly); but that grind has no 'purpose' to it. If you want to use MMO's as an analogy, the 'acceptable/successful' grind-models tend to have some useful reward for one to suffer the grind. What is there in TW at the moment behind the inherent grind?
No, I am not missing the point. These are just not really viable choices.

Again, if you make it take longer to reach the highest tiers then the consequence will most likely be that only low attrition units, such as archers, survive long enough to reach there. So it wouldnt matter if e.g. a similar tier high level infantry was equally as good as an archer. You wouldnt have many of the former, but you could potentially have plenty of the latter. So, its not an option to tweak this!

Practically no-one wants high quality units to be "bad". So... its not an option to tweak that either!

Cost. You cant tweak it high enough that it would matter for an experiences player. So, it would only affect less experienced player who, for some reason, already have some financial challenges. So... not an option either!

In short. I sincerely doubt TW would go down that road. This just aint gonna fly. Mods perhaps.
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
No, I am not missing the point. These are just not really viable choices.
You are missing the point. I'm not dealing with the issues as their own isolated incidents.
Again, if you make it take longer to reach the highest tiers then the consequence will most likely be that only low attrition units, such as archers, survive long enough to reach there. So it wouldnt matter if e.g. a similar tier high level infantry was equally as good as an archer. You wouldnt have many of the former, but you could potentially have plenty of the latter. So, its not an option to tweak this!
If you make it take longer to get the higher tier troops as it's one isolated solution, yes, archers would predominantly survive more (in scenarios where player recruits equal amounts all the time and splits the upgrades equal all the time; and also not adjusting their battle tactics too). I'm saying, of the 3 'options' (time/money/quality) to improve a unit, pick 2 to improve/buff/keep; the remaining should counterbalance it.
Practically no-one wants high quality units to be "bad". So... its not an option to tweak that either!
I did not say to make them 'bad', if you/us want to make the top tier units/armor more effective than they currently are (relatively ok spot atm), either make them cost more or take longer to get. I'm not for making them steamroll even further than they currently are without adjusting the other aspects to counterbalance. You want OP troops, don't make them both cheap and also quick to replenish; just dumbing down the game's 'complexities' even further.
Cost. You cant tweak it high enough that it would matter for an experiences player. So, it would only affect less experienced player who, for some reason, already have some financial challenges. So... not an option either!
It would for experienced players - if they have a few garrisons, own/companion parties, caravans, etc...those minor % increments to the cost-efficacy of the units (be it in the upgrade cost, maintenance/upkeep cost, recruit cost, food consumption cost, morale cost, etc...) can make the difference of netting $5k denar after to maybe $2k. Or how much food variety you should keep for morale, or how many horses to upkeep or keep in inventory, etc...Maybe add a few more actual conscious decisions for them to 'balance' whether they should upgrade certain troops or not, or go for different builds TBD on that cost-efficacy and the route the player ended going or RPing. As it is currently, you can just upgrade all with no thought or no impact on your playstyle.
So for less experienced players that currently already struggle with money in the game, it should be challenging and not easy to get a 150+ stack of Elite Cataphracts/Fians. You steamroll all enemies and it completely accelerates the snowball effect of the player power way too quickly/easily than it is already. It should feel challenging achieving and maintaining a 150+ stack of elites.
Especially if that does require making sure your workshops are efficient/capped, caravans/perks are somewhat optimal, fiefs owned/management decisions impactful. As it is with the above, it is just clicking a few buttons, but there's no 'management' or 'puzzle-like' aspect to any of it.
In short. I sincerely doubt TW would go down that road. This just aint gonna fly. Mods perhaps.
Again, don't look at those 3 aspects as individual issues without adjusting the rest, as they should all counter/balance with and against each other. Or you end up getting an inflated player power scaling; more so than it already is (and always will) for players.
 

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
You are missing the point. I'm not dealing with the issues as their own isolated incidents.

If you make it take longer to get the higher tier troops as it's one isolated solution, yes, archers would predominantly survive more (in scenarios where player recruits equal amounts all the time and splits the upgrades equal all the time; and also not adjusting their battle tactics too). I'm saying, of the 3 'options' (time/money/quality) to improve a unit, pick 2 to improve/buff/keep; the remaining should counterbalance it.
I did not say to make them 'bad', if you/us want to make the top tier units/armor more effective than they currently are (relatively ok spot atm), either make them cost more or take longer to get. I'm not for making them steamroll even further than they currently are without adjusting the other aspects to counterbalance. You want OP troops, don't make them both cheap and also quick to replenish; just dumbing down the game's 'complexities' even further.
It would for experienced players - if they have a few garrisons, own/companion parties, caravans, etc...those minor % increments to the cost-efficacy of the units (be it in the upgrade cost, maintenance/upkeep cost, recruit cost, food consumption cost, morale cost, etc...) can make the difference of netting $5k denar after to maybe $2k. Or how much food variety you should keep for morale, or how many horses to upkeep or keep in inventory, etc...Maybe add a few more actual conscious decisions for them to 'balance' whether they should upgrade certain troops or not, or go for different builds TBD on that cost-efficacy and the route the player ended going or RPing. As it is currently, you can just upgrade all with no thought or no impact on your playstyle.
So for less experienced players that currently already struggle with money in the game, it should be challenging and not easy to get a 150+ stack of Elite Cataphracts/Fians. You steamroll all enemies and it completely accelerates the snowball effect of the player power way too quickly/easily than it is already. It should feel challenging achieving and maintaining a 150+ stack of elites.
Especially if that does require making sure your workshops are efficient/capped, caravans/perks are somewhat optimal, fiefs owned/management decisions impactful. As it is with the above, it is just clicking a few buttons, but there's no 'management' or 'puzzle-like' aspect to any of it.

Again, don't look at those 3 aspects as individual issues without adjusting the rest, as they should all counter/balance with and against each other. Or you end up getting an inflated player power scaling; more so than it already is (and always will) for players.
So, you are mostly fine with the value of quality (I am fundamentally ok with it, as is; I would like a tier 6 infantry for christmas though).

We are now already down to two options; making units take longer to level or make them cost more.

The first option creates a unit balance issue, archers will live everything else will not..soo.. make archers cost more?

The problem here is that money is, and always has been, insanely easy to get. There is just no price, at all, that could make me want to choose anything less than the best that I can get my hands on. Its just not going to happen. You are not going to see any version where optimally managing workshops, caravans and fiefs etc. are actually going to be necessary. Among other things simply for the reason that you need to raise too large sums to, eventually, buy clans for it to be an issue to make ends meet on a daily basis. And ofcourse, not everyone does equally well with the economic aspect of the game.

I am sure that there will probably be plenty of mods around that will balance (nerf) battleloot into the ground, but most likely, they will also massively boast the viability of whatever the mod creator´s favorit mean of making money is instead. So, I dont really know if managing money is something that is ever going to be a thing, who knows.
 
Last edited:
The player isn't a proper leader either. We may as well just be another bandit at the start of the game. We aren't carrying around big stacks of shields to hand out to recruits.

From who?
By who?
The game doesn't cover this, but the player buys the recruits or other lords. There is no way a basic troop wouldn't have shields no way. Unless it was a peasant's hiring peasants. Then they would have basic farm tools but even then, some would knock up a crappy shield.
 

Phantom425

Sergeant at Arms
Recruits are literal peasants that you drag out of a village. Once they survive a battle they shall be allowed protection, but until then nothing.
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
So, you are mostly fine with the value of quality (I am fundamentally ok with it, as is; I would like a tier 6 infantry for christmas though).
It's not as bad as it was, but that is still besides the point.
We are now already down to two options; making units take longer to level or make them cost more.
Not down to two options; but IF you consider it as such, yes, if the quality of the troops as they are now are fine (or even if one wants it even better), either make the unit cost more or take longer to replenish to counterbalance/reflect those adjustments.
The first option creates a unit balance issue, archers will live everything else will not..soo.. make archers cost more?
Again, it's 'pick 2 options' among the 3; not an individual change in its isolation. But you're treating it in a very isolated manner - as if picking one option to change makes all other affected/tangential aspects immutable to change. Going back to OP with recruits+shields, IF TW was to give them shields (ie quality), either tone down their replenishment/upgrade rate (time) or make their cost reflect as such.
If troop 'quality' were to improve (including the counterbalance mentioned) and if archers (still currently a bit OP atm) come out even further ahead than before, tweak their values in the same manner. Whether that's making it harder to upgrade them, changing their quality, or making them cost more.
The problem here is that money is, and always has been, insanely easy to get. There is just no price, at all, that could make me want to choose anything less than the best that I can get my hands on. Its just not going to happen. You are not going to see any version where optimally managing workshops, caravans and fiefs etc. are actually going to be necessary. Among other things simply for the reason that you need to raise too large sums to, eventually, buy clans for it to be an issue to make ends meet on a daily basis. And ofcourse, not everyone does equally well with the economic aspect of the game.
Yes, pretty fair to say money in this game gets way too easy to obtain and hold even for newish players. And you know one of the reasons why? There's not enough 'challenges' against the ease to accumulate said wealth. One of the reasons, imo, why the early/mid game is substantially better than late-game is because it was one of the challenges I had to play around/work with to get the wealth and upgrade (excluding tournament and smithing cheese); it also meant the losses were more impactful.
It's easy currently because your party comp+workshops+fiefs+caravans (with practically no player input or thought/management necessary behind it) can easily maintain a large party of the highest tier troops, while still netting denars; also at a daily rate which means any 'investing' you apply can grow exponentially too (vs the weekly input in WB). Not to mention being able to steamroll AI with said party and the value of selling loot has increased too so it accelerates it completely; and while still excluding the smithing/tournaments element.
I am sure that there will probably be plenty of mods around that will balance (nerf) battleloot into the ground, but most likely, they will also massively boast the viability of whatever the mod creator´s favorit mean of making money is instead. So, I dont really know if managing money is something that is ever going to be a thing, who knows.
Money doesn't have to be the sole measure, but TW made it a huge element of how they balance/tie the game's systems, so any adjustment that is to be made to other elements must also pass that balancing filter; it's not something that can be just dismissed/ignored when considering adjusting other values/aspects.
 
Last edited:

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
If troop 'quality' were to improve (including the counterbalance mentioned), if archers (still currently a bit OP atm) come out even further ahead than before, tweak their values in the same manner.
But this is the problem. Every time you tweak one aspect there is a solid chance that you create a new imbalance. Case in point, you could slow down the general rate at which units gain xp, but that would change the balance between units, in this case highly likely in favor of ranged units; which as you say are hardly in a bad spot as is. Its just not that easy.
So are you advocating for the less experienced players or the veterans? Yes, pretty fair to say money in this game gets way too easy to obtain and hold. So if we make it more costly (not just money-wise) to upkeep a high-tier army or whatever manner, that accumulation of wealth is not as 'easy'.
It's easy currently because your workshops+fiefs+caravans (with practically no player input or thought/management necessary behind it) can easily maintain a large party of the highest tier troops, while still netting denars; also at a daily rate which means any 'investing' you apply can grow exponentially too (vs the weekly input in WB). Not to mention being able to steamroll AI with said party and the value of selling loot has increased too.
I am saying that the differences between what players, or different playstile, can accomplish financially is astronomical. You talk about workshops, caravans and fiefs; those are incomesources that I would personally consider completely irrelevant.

Its just not possible to reach a reasonable middleground where money would be a meaningful instrument for balance across the different ways in which players choose to approach the game.
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
But this is the problem. Every time you tweak one aspect there is a solid chance that you create a new imbalance. Case in point, you could slow down the general rate at which units gain xp, but that would change the balance between units, in this case highly likely in favor of ranged units; which as you say are hardly in a bad spot as is. Its just not that easy.
Exactly, which is what I've been saying, you tweak one aspect, you have to counterbalance it (whatever that new imbalance is that 'popped' up). Never said anything about it being easy, but they did have literally 2+ years of free/mass QA testing from us players to help weed those issues out (subjective as it can be sometimes - though most can see similar issues). IF it takes more XP to upgrade troops, and it results in even more archers (without splitting up XP calculation they have inherently from battles currently), nerf the quality of archers (whether that's their damage, aim, speed, or HTK due to other troops better armor).
I am saying that the differences between what players, or different playstile, can accomplish financially is astronomical. You talk about workshops, caravans and fiefs; those are incomesources that I would personally consider completely irrelevant.
What? That 'astronomical' difference is from what one does in game, workshops+caravans+fiefs+mercs(+tournaments/smithing) ARE relevant - why are you separating/isolating that financial aspect from the same issue you have with how easy it is to make money in game and how it relates to how one could build their party comp?
Its just not possible to reach a reasonable middleground where money would be a meaningful instrument for balance across the different ways in which players choose to approach the game.
It very much is on a macro sense.
 

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
Exactly, which is what I've been saying, you tweak one aspect, you have to counterbalance it (whatever that new imbalance is that 'popped' up). Never said anything about it being easy, but they did have literally 2+ years of free/mass QA testing from us players to help weed those issues out (subjective as it can be sometimes - though most can see similar issues). IF it takes more XP to upgrade troops, and it results in even more archers (without splitting up XP calculation they have inherently from battles currently), nerf the quality of archers (whether that's their damage, aim, speed, or HTK due to other troops better armor).
So, after those 2+ years; what makes you think that TW would suddenly succeed in striking just the right unit balance, after tweaking the xp calculation:smile:
What? That 'astronomical' difference is from what one does in game, workshops+caravans+fiefs+mercs(+tournaments/smithing) ARE relevant - why are you separating/isolating that financial aspect from the same issue you have with how easy it is to make money in game and how it relates to how one could build their party comp?

It very much is on a macro sense.
Up till now, you have been able to do very well economically through fighting. Hence, why I say those things are of no relevance.

What you can potentially make, on a daily basis, is too high for the cost or wages of troops to be a significant factor in deciding your party composition. But again, it comes down to what you do. If you fight alot you are not going to care about wages, you will want top tier stuff. If you make your living as a trader then it would, and probably already does, make sense to cut back on your daily costs.

Changing the cost of running and army just isnt going to change anything. At most it will just make your campaign (grind on) a little longer.
 
Last edited:

five bucks

Knight at Arms
The game doesn't cover this, but the player buys the recruits or other lords.
Source? This sounds like your headcanon you're using to justify why recruits "need" shields. Nowhere is it even hinted that the player is buying recruits from lords. What actually happens in the game is you go to a notable, they tell you about available recruits, and if the notable likes you enough, they'll tell you about more recruits available.
There is no way a basic troop wouldn't have shields no way.
They aren't even a "troop" yet. They are a recruit, which means someone who is not even yet a soldier.

"Recruit: noun. A person newly enlisted in the armed forces and not yet fully trained."
Unless it was a peasant's hiring peasants.
That's essentially what the player is. You can have a peasant background, start the game, walk into town and hire 10 recruits instantly.
some would knock up a crappy shield.
Read the thread, previous posts here prove that idea wrong. Even the worst shield in Bannerlord would be quite difficult and time consuming to make and require tools that would be expensive for a peasant.
 

Philozoraptor

Sergeant
I know the Tod mail video you're talking about - it's worth mentioning that they used a 160lbs bow where the most powerful bow (Noble Long Bow) in Bannerlord would most likely be around 100lbs, and most non-longbows would be more in the 60lbs range.

As Tod says when they are comparing the types of bow: "We are using the 160lbs bow because we want to answer the question, do arrows go through armor, and you can't do that with a 100lbs bow, you can't answer that question."

For a little context on bow poundage, here's a 36lbs bow against a real human:

Another Tod mail video where arrows only reach to 2.5cm through mail over gambeson:

Yes, this stuff should be in vanilla. Especially for console users who can't mod.
I think 45 pounds was bare minimum for byzantine militia archers, but they preferred 60 pounds of draw weight. Also composite bows are more efficient than selfbows (longbows) so 60 pound compposite bow can do some 60+ joules. 60 pounds is also generally considered draw weight that hunters used in middle ages, so minimum should be probably somewhere there. Supposedly vikings used 80 pound long bows, though I have no idea whether this information comes from archeology or some other source.
 

Ichon

Sergeant at Arms
Recruits are literal peasants that you drag out of a village. Once they survive a battle they shall be allowed protection, but until then nothing.
Recruits is generous- more like conscripted peasants without a fighting tradition. To be fair, very few militaries even bothered with such men because it took too much time and cost to train them, especially for offensive campaigns. Their only use was as a very weak garrison/police when most of the real fighters were busy.

The typical middle sized castle garrison was something like 5-10 knights, 20 sergeants, 40-50 archers/crossbowmen, and however many other men without much military training that could be fed and quartered when an attack came, rarely more than 100 who could still drop rocks, push off ladders, restock arrows, keep watch on parts of the wall there weren't enough actual fighters to constantly defend, etc.

Because Bannerlord is a game, TW added a bunch more tiers and branches to miitary levels to distinguish capabilty with pay, calling the first tier recruits is maybe unfortunate for English language users who imagine modern recruits being similar which they are not.

Personally I find the pay rates atrociously wrong compared real historical pay differences where the top fighters, knights and mercenaries were paid 10-20x as much as the average foot soldiers who were themselves paid 2-3x the 'recruits; or basically low skilled men who were mostly servants though there were often young men that were sort of army apprentices, recommended to serve with an experienced fighter by a personal recommendation of a family member or retired soldier.

Then the costs of keeping horses supplied during a campaign could be huge as horses consume about 8x the weight of food/water a normal man does. Bannerlord is not a simulation, it is merely a game that creates a medieval themed sandbox but like almost all sandbox games, it is up to the player to create their own goals and usually the systems in place are rather weak because they are so broad.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
I think 45 pounds was bare minimum for byzantine militia archers, but they preferred 60 pounds of draw weight. Also composite bows are more efficient than selfbows (longbows) so 60 pound compposite bow can do some 60+ joules. 60 pounds is also generally considered draw weight that hunters used in middle ages, so minimum should be probably somewhere there. Supposedly vikings used 80 pound long bows, though I have no idea whether this information comes from archeology or some other source.
Very interesting information and good context, thank you.
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
So, after those 2+ years; what makes you think that TW would suddenly succeed in striking just the right unit balance, after tweaking the xp calculation
I don't, this is all just ranting into the void, as it has for the last 2+ years, TW does what they do.
Up till now, you have been able to do very well economically through fighting. Hence, why I say those things are of no relevance.
Yes you could sustain through just battles besides those other factors, but that highlights the issue more as to why money is practically no value since there's no hindrance to obtaining it after a certain degree. Sure, can put up your hands and say it is what it is, might as well just remove money altogether from the game then since it's no relevance whatsoever. Same with influence currency, same with generations, same with smithing, same with tournaments, same with quests, same with outlaw playthrough, etc...
What you can potentially make, on a daily basis, is too high for the cost or wages of troops to be a significant factor in deciding your party composition. But again, it comes down to what you do. If you fight alot you are not going to care about wages, you will want top tier stuff. If you make your living as a trader then it would, and probably already does, make sense to cut back on your daily costs.

Changing the cost of running and army just isnt going to change anything. At most it will just make your campaign (grind on) a little longer.
It will, yes, in essence, it's making the 'grind/effort' longer. If, say, just on money alone, cost of troop wages went up 5%, basically means will be 5% more grind by the player (5% 'slower' to get your gear, 5% slower to buy next workshop, 5% smaller roaming party 'strength', 5% slower to get to the late game, 5% slower to rule Calradia in 5 years, etc...). Again, don't treat the adjustment as an isolated change, it's not like they can't tweak the battle loot or trading too; there's just too much money in the game atm.
 

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
I don't, this is all just ranting into the void, as it has for the last 2+ years, TW does what they do.

Yes you could sustain through just battles besides those other factors, but that highlights the issue more as to why money is practically no value since there's no hindrance to obtaining it after a certain degree. Sure, can put up your hands and say it is what it is, might as well just remove money altogether from the game then since it's no relevance whatsoever. Same with influence currency, same with generations, same with smithing, same with tournaments, same with quests, same with outlaw playthrough, etc...

It will, yes, in essence, it's making the 'grind/effort' longer. If, say, just on money alone, cost of troop wages went up 5%, basically means will be 5% more grind by the player (5% 'slower' to get your gear, 5% slower to buy next workshop, 5% smaller roaming party 'strength', 5% slower to get to the late game, 5% slower to rule Calradia in 5 years, etc...). Again, don't treat the adjustment as an isolated change, it's not like they can't tweak the battle loot or trading too; there's just too much money in the game atm.
Yeah, but I just dont see grinding/a longer campaign as a goal in itself. To me, personally, Bannerlord is just not the kind of game where it really makes sense to have really long campaigns. You end up repeating the same actions too much.

As I said in the thread about the price of gear. I would be more than happy to spend a bit more time on partial goals. Spending a couple of month, the first year perhaps, gearing and levelling up companions, in a small party setting, I would totally "dig".

I just dont see any value in making the campaign "catching and releashing XXX+10 lords instead of just XXX lords".
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
Yeah, but I just dont see grinding/a longer campaign as a goal in itself. To me, personally, Bannerlord is just not the kind of game where it really makes sense to have really long campaigns. You end up repeating the same actions too much.
No, but why are they so focused/waste resources making the game seem so? With the dynasties/death&aging, rebellion clan replenishing, cultural permanency, the war/peace 'balancing', castle/town 'management' (takes good couple days to upgrade), undying clans/factions, etc...making sure there's no snowballing 20+ years down the line. Sure, there's no 'endgame' really besides taking the umptieth town/castle.
As I said in the thread about the price of gear. I would be more than happy to spend a bit more time on partial goals. Spending a couple of month, the first year perhaps, gearing and levelling up companions, in a small party setting, I would totally "dig".
Which is what the cost (not just money) can do, make the early part take longer to get past. Make it harder to accumulate wealth, make it feel impactful getting to the next clan tier, make the wage perks more meaningful to obtain, add some challenge vs being able to get a 50stack party in 2 months. Can agree that the Clan T1-3 is where the most fun is but that can all be done through within a year or two in game; T4 adds 'some' fun (ie own a castle/own kingdom) but after that few hours, it's just a grindfest.
I just dont see any value in making the campaign "catching and releashing XXX+10 lords instead of just XXX lords".
I'm saying, by making it more challenging for the early-stages you 'delay' how easy/quick it is to get to the 'catch and release' grind. And as a by-product, make it actually challenging to maintain an army, party, top-tier troops, net money, take towns, etc...so one can't get to that phase so quickly as you can already. It's a boring grind because it's mind-numbingly easy and quick to get there as it is - if they make it actually hard to call armies and defeat parties and replenish troops and harder to steamroll ****ty AI lords, that repetitiveness is toned down or 'delayed' much further along.
 

Sweynforkbeard

Sergeant at Arms
No, but why are they so focused/waste resources making the game seem so? With the dynasties/death&aging, rebellion clan replenishing, cultural permanency, the war/peace 'balancing', castle/town 'management' (takes good couple days to upgrade), undying clans/factions, etc...making sure there's no snowballing 20+ years down the line. Sure, there's no 'endgame' really besides taking the umptieth town/castle.
To be honest, I thing they originally might have thought that it would be long. But you dont include all the balancing that they have done to speed up the campaign not the least speeding up the rate at which skills level.
Which is what the cost (not just money) can do, make the early part take longer to get past. Make it harder to accumulate wealth, make it feel impactful getting to the next clan tier, make the wage perks more meaningful to obtain, add some challenge vs being able to get a 50stack party in 2 months. Can agree that the Clan T1-3 is where the most fun is but that can all be done through within a year or two in game; T4 adds 'some' fun (ie own a castle/own kingdom) but after that few hours, it's just a grindfest.
I'm saying, by making it more challenging for the early-stages you 'delay' how easy/quick it is to get to the 'catch and release' grind. And as a by-product, make it actually challenging to maintain an army, party, top-tier troops, net money, take towns, etc...so one can't get to that phase so quickly as you can already. It's a boring grind because it's mind-numbingly easy and quick to get there as it is - if they make it actually hard to call armies and defeat parties and replenish troops and harder to steamroll ****ty AI lords, that repetitiveness is toned down or 'delayed' much further along.
When you put your focus on it it only takes you around 2 weeks or less, to get to the lordhunting stage. Its going to be difficult to stretch out the early game much, as long as the goal is to get an army. Thats why I think it will be better to fit in another partial goal, worth aiming for, instead.

My fundamental point here is that goals just need to be reasonable.

No, I dont want to spend say a year grinding bandits to be able to afford a cool chest armor for one person. Thats just too slow progress. On the other hand, it doesnt really matter that you can/could buy the entire world with little effort through a combination of trade/smithing.

Now, I am pretty sure that "blitz to lordhunting" will remain one of the most efficient means to win. And that would be ok, as long as there are some other reasonably worthwhile alternative. They dont need to be competitive, just entertaining/rewarding/reach that level where you feel you progress at a reasonable rate.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom