-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Users who are viewing this thread
Rodrigo Ribaldo said:
Or, a twist on the "all adventurer" idea, everyone owns one fief at the beginning, but there is no allegiance/relation between the lords. Same idea pretty much, but you could have interesting experiences like two villages warring back and forth from the beginning, only to become the capitols of the two big kingdoms.
NPC99 said:
Definitely agree that quests would be player-only, but other aspects are not so clear. Do settlement issues (which are economic and affect settlement stats) affect AI fiefs, and do they have to deal with them -- even if by a shortcut/algorithm -- to resolve them just as we do? Would AI lords have behavior to install their companions as governors or to control the back alleys in their towns?
KhergitLancer99 said:
I believe the original AoE2: The Conquerors AI cheated on hard or above difficulty (by giving extra resources per worker), but yes otherwise it's a good example!
Seleucid said:
Good point, in fact I believe at some point Callum (?) mentioned that they have the early to mid game done but late game is still taking some work -- basically once you become a major lord or large kingdom, and how to keep the game realistic and interesting with rebellions, clan divisions, civil wars, etc. This is both hopeful and worrying: hopeful because if they can indeed program a realistic, challenging kingdom-level AI behavior in the faction leaders, it has the potential to make the game far more interesting right from the beginning as wars between factions will be more based on AI lord motivations we can understand (rather than the random "KINGDOM OF NORDS HAS DECLARED WAR ON SARRANID SULTANATE" messages of Warband). But worrying because this is a new level of complex AI that TW will have to program...
I would love a 'shattered world' scenario a la CK2 -- every fief starts out with an independent lord, and from the melee emerge larger dukedoms leading finally to the large empires.
Rodrigo Ribaldo said:
That first option alone sounds like it would it would be relatively easy at least -- generate some clan members and assign random castle to the player in whatever faction they choose. Warband already allowed you to start as a noble (with your own banner), although without land of course.
VC had an option to start a "standard" playthrough, a "vassal" playthrough (where you start with a fief, ~1,000 denars, decent gear, and a small army), and a "King" playthrough, which lets you start as a king of any of the kingdoms inVC.
oh well... Better than the unrealistically biased balance we have in vanilla M&B... I mean, the AI doesn't even have real rules applied to them, it's player vs multiple clones of gary stu medieval lords.
Taking longer or not, if we get a more or less "AI follows same rules as player" things will be much more strategical and less grindy, or so I like to think.
Even with 99 rtr, being a king, and having a village with 99 relations you'll still get 100 peasants and have to train them for weeks to level with lord's insta filling ranks. That's so dumb that it's immersion breaking on itself... There's no real strategy in vanilla M&B, hence why harder mods that add more flavor end up robbing it's shine. Even so, I do prefer Floris over most mods I've seen to date (balance wise), if they do only a portion of what I've seen in Floris it'll be good for me
Taking longer or not, if we get a more or less "AI follows same rules as player" things will be much more strategical and less grindy, or so I like to think.
Even with 99 rtr, being a king, and having a village with 99 relations you'll still get 100 peasants and have to train them for weeks to level with lord's insta filling ranks. That's so dumb that it's immersion breaking on itself... There's no real strategy in vanilla M&B, hence why harder mods that add more flavor end up robbing it's shine. Even so, I do prefer Floris over most mods I've seen to date (balance wise), if they do only a portion of what I've seen in Floris it'll be good for me
I seem to remember recruiting troops above tier one from villages after getting high enough relations.
Doesn't fix the spawning of troops for enemy lords, though, but that's mainly because they sit in cities and do it passively whereas the player needs to travel between several villages to fill out their party.
Doesn't fix the spawning of troops for enemy lords, though, but that's mainly because they sit in cities and do it passively whereas the player needs to travel between several villages to fill out their party.
It was great getting tier 3 Nord infantry directly from villages. One of the first things I did on most of my characters was to grind out quests for 2 or 3 Nord villages, even if I didn't intend on siding with the Nords. One of the best ways to dominate as a Khergit was to have a couple of pocket Nord villages you could pick up some decent infantry from. 
Njay_Knight
Recruit
You know if Taleworlds can pull this off then they might become the next best revolutionary thing for AI than chess engines beating Grandmasters. Everytime I watch a video on this game I am impressed more and more. I hope they don't drop this part just to release the game faster, I waited 2 years and shaved some of my college and first car money for this game.
Orion said:
I know that, it's just RNGesus happening. Most of the time I either get 100 peasants or, idk, some decimal number of t2 troops. Not that helpful, the funny one is getting hundreds of peasants while your enemy gets 30 top tier troops in a day
If you go and pitch for a fight right then, you're dead I've seen 3 specific improvements in mods that do make things more fair:
1- 1257ad Lance system (which's freaggin awesome!)
2- Diplomacy's "Recruiter" that, at least, allows you to bypass grinding for recruitment, and on top of it allows you to upgrade garrisoned troops automatically (this one is bad, but it's better than vanilla)
3- Floris' castle built menu for recruitment (I think this one recruits troops of all Tiers, but it's too slow)
Recruitment is one of the lowest points in WB and original M&B, so yeah, I'd like for the AI to undergo the same rules as the player for that at least. I mean, if the AI can catch us recruiting and pwn our faces why can't we do the same? And why on earth can the AI recruit from villages that hate them when we cannot!? It's mind boggling haha
Rodrigo Ribaldo said:
I hope we are offered multiple starting options as in Viking Conquest.
Standard (you ain't got nothing but a dagger and rags)
Lordly (lord in faction)
Royal (king of faction)
All were fun but I think my favorite was already starting as a King...
That said, I'll definitely start as an Adventurer in Bannerlord.
In Warband, I have gotten as many as 7 Nord Veterans at once.Orion said:It was great getting tier 3 Nord infantry directly from villages. One of the first things I did on most of my characters was to grind out quests for 2 or 3 Nord villages, even if I didn't intend on siding with the Nords. One of the best ways to dominate as a Khergit was to have a couple of pocket Nord villages you could pick up some decent infantry from.
Lord Brutus said:In Warband, I have gotten as many as 7 Nord Veterans at once.Orion said:It was great getting tier 3 Nord infantry directly from villages. One of the first things I did on most of my characters was to grind out quests for 2 or 3 Nord villages, even if I didn't intend on siding with the Nords. One of the best ways to dominate as a Khergit was to have a couple of pocket Nord villages you could pick up some decent infantry from.
As I've said, RNGesus. It's not often that you can recruit multiple high tier troops, in fact it's more of an exception. Most of my experience with ridiculous late game was to recruit 120 peasants from most villages with maxed out everything. Anyway, at least with high training it's kind of fast to get a decent army with so many peasants in the party, trouble is that while you do that your rival has 50 swadian knights while you are still struggling to upgrade 10
Getting tier 1 recruits wasn't much of an issue for me regardless, because I would pop into a training ground and do 1v4 melees until they were at least tier 3. It takes effort, but you can get more & better troops than the AI will get--and faster--by doing this. Upgrading them to the highest tier this way takes too much time, but you can easily begin fighting other lords' parties, which are always composed of mostly low-tier units anyway.
Orion said:
On lower settings, if you go for the hardest campaign AI it's a pain. But difficulty has never been a real factor in M&B, it's hard on early game, way too easy in late game, and that's not the BS rules fault nor a possible way around it, the only way to make it harder would be to improve the AI in battle, given them surgery checks too and maybe given companions to Lords so that they too can have some maxed out party skills. The exclusive thing that makes the game way too easy is in fact being able to carry around multiple companions one for each pt. skill. Without them the game would get dull and boring to some extent, but I've always missed Lords being able to have them too, if they did it would be an annoying nightmare dealing with lords in the current rules.
What bothers me with M&B in general is how dumb the AI is, and how, because of that, they are coded to create virtual difficulty (what I call BS difficulty), I hate this kind of thing in games, it takes away from the experience, and ends up creating some absurd situations. I'd like to see an M&B game where I can pretty much rule my conquered land instead of roller it... I have no interest in swangin' in Calradia hahahaha
Anyway:
Implying I play easymode...?
Not exactly, the "beginner" Campaign AI is actually the "no bull****" Campaign AI.Orion said:Implying I play easymode...?
In some mods if you don't turn it into the lowest you are in for the worst M&B experience ever, and some of the most "redecolous" BS ever, like, 200 men bandit parties, lords instantly re-spawning with 400 men armies, etc. The harder the mod the more noticeably annoying this setting, specifically, is...
In fact that and player dmg are the only ones I ever touch, everything else goes into max diff (and mind you, I only really tone down dmg to player IF the mod I'm playing has some serious 'one shot aim bot archer' issues, nothing worse than having to restart sieges due to laser guided bolts/arrows)
The most critical change I want to see is for towns and villages to lose a portion of a tracked amount of population whenever their volunteers, mercenaries, or conscripts join an army. In other words, if you or the AI keep recruiting troops over and over, it should seriously impact the prosperity and long-term recruitment potential of the town or village.
If, for example, a village has 600 people, and your recruitment there is at 1%, without bonuses to increase it, 6 peasants will offer to join you. The village will then be down to 594 people, and at an optimistic/exaggerated/(fun>realism) 1% growth rate per month, it would recover to 600 in one month. If you or a faction lord have enough bonuses to recruit 5%, then 30 peasants will join and the population would drop to 570 instead, taking more than 5 months to recover back up to 600 peasants (replacing 5.7 per month: 5 new people, plus the 0.7 remainder being added to the following month). On top of that, there should be a "cool down" mechanism, so if a village has JUST been recruited from, it can't hand over more for a few days at least. Perhaps after recruitment, the maximum number of available recruits from the village should be capped at +1 per day since the last recruitment, so if you go back 2 days later, you won't get 6 more troops, only 2. That allows around 30 men per month per village in the long run, which would be 5x the rate of recovery for a 600 population village. Armies SHOULD be able to run out of available recruits to fully replace losses, particularly in extended wars or several wars in succession.
In peaceful conditions, the villages should recover soon enough, and then begin to grow and prosper; in prolonged wars with forced recruitment by one lord after another, they should begin to suffer and decline, leading to less troops being available for future recruitment efforts. Bandits should also cause a loss in population to occupied villages, although some of those peasants might migrate to the towns instead of being killed, abducted, or forcibly recruited by the bandits. Obviously, the numbers would need to be tweaked after play testing, to insure that the villages don't get depleted too quickly, or that they don't expand too rapidly and wind up with massive overpopulation in a few years.
There should be a number of modifiers for recruitment, such as:
At War - would give a significant positive modifier, allowing you to take emergency conscription measures in times of crisis.
Owner - would give a significant positive modifier for the current holder of the fief, and possibly for his liege lord as well.
Enemy - would give a significant negative modifier, as the local population tries to flee, hide, or otherwise avoid being forcibly conscripted into a rival faction's army.
Relations - would give positive or negative modifiers based on how much the population likes or dislikes you.
The final result would then be multiplied by the current population, indicating how many peasants are available for recruitment, and subtracted from the population if hired.
Running your own fief well, by protecting it and not over-taxing or over-recruiting from your own land (where you would usually have the highest recruitment bonuses), you should gradually see an increase in population and prosperity. Abuse it, and it should suffer. Depleting the opposing factions' villages should be a viable strategic option, rather than being irrelevant as in the previous games. I found it especially ludicrous when a rival faction was down to its last castle and looted village, yet its 6-8 lords could all recruit hundreds of men each from the same village, over and over again without completely emptying that lone village of its male population. It's difficult to take a last castle when all of its lords are gathered there with sizable armies, in addition to the normal garrison, and all of that can automatically regenerate in just a couple of in-game days. A depleted faction that's down to 25% of its army strength, and can't replace losses quickly from its meager remaining holdings, would be forced to either come out and try to recruit from neutral factions without being chased down and crushed, or else be gradually wiped out by repeated assaults on the castle where it's hiding sapping its remaining strength.
If, for example, a village has 600 people, and your recruitment there is at 1%, without bonuses to increase it, 6 peasants will offer to join you. The village will then be down to 594 people, and at an optimistic/exaggerated/(fun>realism) 1% growth rate per month, it would recover to 600 in one month. If you or a faction lord have enough bonuses to recruit 5%, then 30 peasants will join and the population would drop to 570 instead, taking more than 5 months to recover back up to 600 peasants (replacing 5.7 per month: 5 new people, plus the 0.7 remainder being added to the following month). On top of that, there should be a "cool down" mechanism, so if a village has JUST been recruited from, it can't hand over more for a few days at least. Perhaps after recruitment, the maximum number of available recruits from the village should be capped at +1 per day since the last recruitment, so if you go back 2 days later, you won't get 6 more troops, only 2. That allows around 30 men per month per village in the long run, which would be 5x the rate of recovery for a 600 population village. Armies SHOULD be able to run out of available recruits to fully replace losses, particularly in extended wars or several wars in succession.
In peaceful conditions, the villages should recover soon enough, and then begin to grow and prosper; in prolonged wars with forced recruitment by one lord after another, they should begin to suffer and decline, leading to less troops being available for future recruitment efforts. Bandits should also cause a loss in population to occupied villages, although some of those peasants might migrate to the towns instead of being killed, abducted, or forcibly recruited by the bandits. Obviously, the numbers would need to be tweaked after play testing, to insure that the villages don't get depleted too quickly, or that they don't expand too rapidly and wind up with massive overpopulation in a few years.
There should be a number of modifiers for recruitment, such as:
At War - would give a significant positive modifier, allowing you to take emergency conscription measures in times of crisis.
Owner - would give a significant positive modifier for the current holder of the fief, and possibly for his liege lord as well.
Enemy - would give a significant negative modifier, as the local population tries to flee, hide, or otherwise avoid being forcibly conscripted into a rival faction's army.
Relations - would give positive or negative modifiers based on how much the population likes or dislikes you.
The final result would then be multiplied by the current population, indicating how many peasants are available for recruitment, and subtracted from the population if hired.
Running your own fief well, by protecting it and not over-taxing or over-recruiting from your own land (where you would usually have the highest recruitment bonuses), you should gradually see an increase in population and prosperity. Abuse it, and it should suffer. Depleting the opposing factions' villages should be a viable strategic option, rather than being irrelevant as in the previous games. I found it especially ludicrous when a rival faction was down to its last castle and looted village, yet its 6-8 lords could all recruit hundreds of men each from the same village, over and over again without completely emptying that lone village of its male population. It's difficult to take a last castle when all of its lords are gathered there with sizable armies, in addition to the normal garrison, and all of that can automatically regenerate in just a couple of in-game days. A depleted faction that's down to 25% of its army strength, and can't replace losses quickly from its meager remaining holdings, would be forced to either come out and try to recruit from neutral factions without being chased down and crushed, or else be gradually wiped out by repeated assaults on the castle where it's hiding sapping its remaining strength.
This is Samurai Warriors 2 Empires (I think), for the PS2. Absolutely fun to play even today, and great at making random world. I could never play like that in CK2, but I could see myself doing it in bannerlord. Eventually.Roccoflipside said:
Absolutely agree. If I am not mistaken, I think they said something of the sort in one of the interviews for gamescom, but I believe it was back in 2016. Something about each time you recruit/pillage, the fief population goes down. It would be screwed up if they just chopped it out.Honved said:
I love me some >2k armies fighting and all, but I'd rather prefer a more realistic world: if too many wars are being fought, and too many people are dying, the populace of everywhere (involved in the wars) becomes decimated little by little, so after a long enough while, it should be possible to entire 'countries' to amass at most a 600 men army, because everyone is dead.
It should make sense that if you're waging a 40 year war with another faction, and everyone is just gathering together and killing each other every 6-10 weeks, both their populations should be too small to wage war against another prosperous faction, ergo it should take at least 2-5 years to build up enough prosperity and population levels to be able to amass an army capable of fighting off this third prosperous faction.
I want this, and I expect this. I'm certain it'll be buffed/nerfed enough so that each faction is able to wage war yearly---for fun/streamlining reasons---else you would amass a 4k army, march against the khergit, get killed off in a stupid plain due to bad luck and bad commanding, and have to spend at least 6 hours playing to recruit half of that back. (As a faction leader, in generic terms, not the player per se). As long as we can modify that, configure that, I'm happy.
Similar threads
