This game is broken at a fundamental level

Users who are viewing this thread

StewVader

Sergeant
In my opinion, the gameplay is broken and ill-conceived at a fundamental level (specifically talking about vanilla).

The AI is granted cheats mechanics that make victories feeling meaningless, and yet, without these cheats mechanics the map could be completely conquered in no time at all by the player.

What do I mean?

When you defeat an enemy, unless they are captured, they spawn back with a near complete army/supply. So any loses you suffer from each engagement (assuming you aren't playing on very easy) in most cases cause you to give up sieges or retreat a deep push after 2 or 3 cycles of defeat/respawn (esp if your ally AI has been burning every village along the way). This makes conquering/snowballing slow because no victory is ever really meaningful or decisive and losing in some cases is preferable for the AI (they respawn with an army rather than having to travel around to reinforce it).

However, imagine if the AI didn't spawn back and had to go around and recruit and level troops like the player does after a significant loss? They would be captured by looters or caught in endless retreat loops between unfriendly AI and friendly caste/towns. The decisiveness of any single major victory would cause the entire losing faction to collapse.

How can there be no middle ground here? Can't a system be developed that facilitates meaningful gameplay that allows a faction to take advantage of victories without causing a faction to completely collapse? It seems like this system has been purposely designed to artificially stretch out the game, rather than implementing NEW and more complex mechanics (or a bigger map, more fiefs etc).

The current mechanics, which haven't changed since the launch of EA in any significant way (meaning the player does exactly the same things they did then, as they do now) are ill-conceived and completely negate the advertised sandbox experience.
 

MostBlunted

On probation
I think that it could be better (can always be better) but it´s not bad.

In most games the AI cheats in some way. In Bannerlord in most cases the AI has to follow the same rules as the player, as far as I know. It´s one of the better games when it comes down to AI cheating.

So fundamental broken is not really fair.
 

StewVader

Sergeant
I think that it could be better (can always be better) but it´s not bad.

In most games the AI cheats in some way. In Bannerlord in most cases the AI has to follow the same rules as the player, as far as I know. It´s one of the better games when it comes down to AI cheating.

So fundamental broken is not really fair.
I have to disagree. Its very bad.

For a game with nothing to do but combat/battles, if the battles feel (and are) meaningless, the core part of the game is ill-conceived.
 

MostBlunted

On probation
For a game with nothing to do but combat/battles
That´s a different issue, even without the AI cheating in any way there won´t be more to do.

And I totally agree that there need to be more depth overall. I also agree that´s it better if the AI won´t cheat at all but in comparison to a lof ot other games Bannerlord is looking good in that case.
 
That´s a different issue, even without the AI cheating in any way there won´t be more to do.

And I totally agree that there need to be more depth overall. I also agree that´s it better if the AI won´t cheat at all but in comparison to a lof ot other games Bannerlord is looking good in that case.
I know your trying to hold back your true answer since your on probation from your exile from the forums but i would have to agree with the OP. Clans should not be able to recruit their troops back again after a massive battle. I've seen cases where I would defeat an army of 800 and suddenly that same army would be able to regain its strength from the same class of troops. If it was a new army of 800 recruits that would be different but they shouldnt be able to regain their losses.
 

MostBlunted

On probation
I know your trying to hold back your true answer since your on probation from your exile from the forums but i would have to agree with the OP.
Not really in this case :grin:

As I said, less AI cheating = better. And of course it would be better if the AI has to do the same stuff to recruit an army as the player after it´s defeated. But it seems like it´s hard to achieve and I can understand this.

It´s annoying that you can defeat an army and they´re back in like 2 days with XXX troops, but mostly those armies have like 75% T1/T2 troops and are easy to beat. But it´s annoying for sure because big battles you have won feel useless and it becomes a "whack a mole" game. But the issue is more like, that your AI parties are doing dumb stuff instead off defending your kingdom so you have to run from point a to b to c to d to prevent the AI from pillaging villages.
 
When you defeat an enemy, unless they are captured, they spawn back with a near complete army/supply
IIRC they only now come back with 10 Recruits, but then they will drain their garrisons as well, hence why they can reconfigure so quickly. I believe the money and spawning cheat for them to come back was taken out somewhere in the 1.5.x branches.
This makes conquering/snowballing slow because no victory is ever really meaningful or decisive and losing in some cases is preferable for the AI (they respawn with an army rather than having to travel around to reinforce it).
Agree for minor engagements, I do find that you get meaning and can snowball raids once you defeat 3 field armies or half of their manpower. If you're stalking near cities they won't dump their garrisons, anecdotally, unsure if the code accounts for such behavior.
However, imagine if the AI didn't spawn back and had to go around and recruit and level troops like the player does after a significant loss? They would be captured by looters or caught in endless retreat loops between unfriendly AI and friendly caste/towns. The decisiveness of any single major victory would cause the entire losing faction to collapse.
I like this idea, I would rather them NOT drain their garrisons and actually raise troops like regular. They already have access to a "hidden" notable pools of recruits as it is. I don't like that they reconstitute so fast because it doesn't make sieges fun when you roll your doom stack up to a garrison of 200 militia and 15 nobles troops.
The current mechanics, which haven't changed since the launch of EA in any significant way (meaning the player does exactly the same things they did then, as they do now) are ill-conceived and completely negate the advertised sandbox experience.
Yeah, that's more than battles too though, there is hardly any flesh to the dynasty system, basic diplomacy isn't there, I cannot even even tell my stupid ass subjects as a King/Queen "Go Raid THAT village, go sack THAT castle". All things that were added just add to the Recruit-Fight-Siege loop (whether it's against wars, Minors, bandits, rebels).

EDIT TO ADD...
But the issue is more like, that your AI parties are doing dumb stuff instead off defending your kingdom so you have to run from point a to b to c to d to prevent the AI from pillaging villages.
Yes, this. You either get your boipucci pushed in by 7 merc parties amassing on your border and then you have to chase the one rogue party on the other end of your whole kingdom. Really wish the defensive posture meant that your parties just patrolled or sat in villages in wait for raiders.
 

MostBlunted

On probation
Another issue is the auto calc, I haven´t tested it but I would assume that a 300 recruit party is able to beat a 100 T3+ party. I mean 10 looters can kill a T5+ unit against your 100 man party in auto calc.

So you even have to fight more "useless" battles if you don´t want to lose any high level troop. And oh boy, those battles are really fun if you´ve fought them a hundred times........but of course this is really "realistic", everyone knows about those famous battles where a stone killed a knight on it´s horse with a stone.....

So we need to be tactictal with our F1 > F3 commands....
 
Last edited:

Ruihan

Recruit
They will eventually run out of troops, but you have to defeat them more than once or twice

I personally think the main reason why the AI is able to rebuild so fast is because they have a lot of relations with notables and a ton of the recruitment slots available

The AI does cheat in that it gets
-1 more recruitment slot than the player
- can automatically resolve quest issues and gain relations that way

But the main reason why I think the AI has so much relations with notable is because they start the game with massive clans. All the extra family members just sit in towns and through the envoy system generate a ton of passive relations. If you dont believe me on how powerful this is, just hire 5 companions and put the in a town and come back after a few years and you will see all the recruitment slots for that town are unlocked

Also you get passive relations gain with notables in owned settlements if the settlement have high loyalty.

I would say the AI having large clans and owning settlements at the start is a cheat, but it certainly does giving them a huge advantage to recruiting in the long run
 
Last edited:

Magello

Sergeant
I think the problem is that the game is just a combat simulator really. There are other mechanics but they are shallow in their engagement and over engineered in the background. If they had a true diplomatic and economic system they could use other tools and avenues instead of combat. Give us the tools to conduct matters of state to combat the enemy and give them the tools against us. Fighting gives you everything you need to win; money, prestige, and power all come from fighting is amounts that you have to limit yourself as a player to avoid snowballing the enemy.
 
Warning: If you steal my post for a crappy video without my permission please learn to read and actually play the the current version of the game so you can take your foot out of your mouth for once. I don't want anything I ever write associated with you in any way.
I say this because somebody harvests @StewVader recent posts and milks a lot of crappy reaction videos out of them. I'm sure nobody in this thread would ever want to contribute willingly to supporting that person who doesn't even play or understand bannerlord but just uses forum posts for click bait content-less garbage videos.
, without these cheats mechanics the map could be completely conquered in no time at all by the player.
And also with these cheats too! It's just pointless, it make the AI annoying and relentless yet they're still unable to stop the player. It actually accelerates the players desire to crush them thoroughly because they're so obnoxious. Oh I can't do my villages issues because people keep trying to raid me? Oh okay I'll just defeat every single party of the faction and use the little red button to make them go away permanently. Oh no the useless incontrollable NPCs don't like me? Oh no what will I do?

However, imagine if the AI didn't spawn back and had to go around and recruit and level troops like the player does after a significant loss? They would be captured by looters or caught in endless retreat loops between unfriendly AI and friendly caste/towns.
Yay! Yes I like this! They should get beat up looters sometimes ( they still do too lol), they should take out their garrison troops, oh no garrison" Well then they're a bum and deserve to be caught by looters!
. The decisiveness of any single major victory would cause the entire losing faction to collapse.
Good! The middle and late game is boring, end it in the early game!

Can't a system be developed that facilitates meaningful gameplay that allows a faction to take advantage of victories without causing a faction to completely collapse?
Yes, they need to make the AI do "Other things" besides looting and joining armies. This is the core of the problem.
One or more parties of clans should ALWAYS be doing village issues and hunting bandits and hideouts.
Clans should raise troops and garrison fiefs intelligently and use them as a resource to re-build parties ("Oh but they do" do it better then), not just some number that goes up and down because of some other number that goes up and down.
There should be Less armies in general.
Armies should have an objective, no wandering.
Also, I think some gamey stuff like +auto calc bonus for fiefs further in a factions territory( bonus from near by fiefs)would help them last longer as the enemy would need to build more and more power.
ill-conceived and completely negate the advertised sandbox experience.
They did make a point in dev blogs, to say the AI will compete with player and do more what the player does (I assume in comparison to WB), but after EA they have backed off of this it seems. I know "snowballing" and "recruit armies" were the excuse, but I think TW should still do all they can to make it more of a sandbox war game and less repetitive, relentless and no-options battle gameplay.
 
I always believe REALITY is best solution to problems.

If an AI army is beaten / slaughtered but the general flees, that general should be able to recruit more troops in a friendly town ..BUT as a "Loser" general, he would not be able to hire as many troops. The grape-vine has informed many soldiers that this guy will get you KILLED ! If the lost Battle was a slaughter, the general might even be SACKED !

Another point, The renown of the general should allow them to "Call up" (free) militia troops for a short period. For example, a large army is coming to siege a city, a highly respected general of the city "calls up' the citizens to defend their home. Thus he can get 20 - 80 ??? Citizen militia troops to defend the walls. These troops vanish after about 1 day.

I wander off sometimes .. :grin:
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
When you defeat an enemy, unless they are captured, they spawn back with a near complete army/supply. So any loses you suffer from each engagement (assuming you aren't playing on very easy) in most cases cause you to give up sieges or retreat a deep push after 2 or 3 cycles of defeat/respawn (esp if your ally AI has been burning every village along the way). This makes conquering/snowballing slow because no victory is ever really meaningful or decisive and losing in some cases is preferable for the AI (they respawn with an army rather than having to travel around to reinforce it).

However, imagine if the AI didn't spawn back and had to go around and recruit and level troops like the player does after a significant loss? They would be captured by looters or caught in endless retreat loops between unfriendly AI and friendly caste/towns. The decisiveness of any single major victory would cause the entire losing faction to collapse.
Just FYI for everyone else:

The AI is granted a very small number of free troops on spawn, not a complete army. Anyone else they get is pulled from their garrisons or recruited. Bannerman Man broke it down last year. The actual code behind has changed but the gameplay impacts are still (mostly; it seems like they don't get free troops if spawning at settlement their clan owns any longer?) the same.

StewVader has been told this before and ignored it.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
Just FYI for everyone else:

The AI is granted a very small number of free troops on spawn, not a complete army. Anyone else they get is pulled from their garrisons or recruited. Bannerman Man broke it down last year. The actual code behind has changed but the gameplay impacts are still (mostly; it seems like they don't get free troops if spawning at settlement their clan owns any longer?) the same.

StewVader has been told this before and ignored it.
The problem is that troops replenish too quickly in fiefs and they don't affect a manpower pool at all, they are just generated out of thin air every few days and thus lords recruit and recruit and recruit like crazy.

Troop spawn rates should be lowered and tied to population so military loses would affect regional populations, decreasing the economic output and the ability to recruit fresh troops there until it recovered, it should also be a factor taken into consideration by the AI so if they are too depopulated by a devastating war they would try to avoid conflicts while licking their wounds or if they have a huge population surplus they would be confident to start wars cause they knew they would outnumber the enemy or had satisfactory manpower reserves to drawn from in a prolonged conflict for example.

There was a mod that did this brilliantly soon after release but it has long been discontinued unfortunately.
 

madnessario

Squire
Troop spawn rates should be lowered and tied to population so military loses would affect regional populations, decreasing the economic output and the ability to recruit fresh troops there until it recovered

This would most likely bring back the snowball problem. Less economic output and less military output at the same time would cripple the faction. There needs to be a mechanic to counter this, e.g., alliances; I doubt we will see them any time soon (it has its own problems because of the small number of cations).

Depleting the fief from troops is not a bad mechanic. The problem is the attitude of lords during war (I won't go into peace gameplay; it is severely lacking). They need to value their life more, the troops need to also value their life more. Not to mention, that sieges need to take longer and incur heavier casualties. The pacing of war needs to be adjusted in general.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
This would most likely bring back the snowball problem. Less economic output and less military output at the same time would cripple the faction. There needs to be a mechanic to counter this, e.g., alliances; I doubt we will see them any time soon (it has its own problems because of the small number of cations).
It shouldn't be a looong time like RL that would completely cripple a faction but enough that it would change the outcome of the current war after a few major defeats and would make that faction take a more passive/defensive role for a while as they recover their manpower/economic base, in this a diplomatic system with alliances and other kinds of agreements would come very handy indeed.

The diplomacy mod already fixed all problems i had with the complete lack of diplomacy in the game (sadly we have to rely on mods for this instead of having it as vanilla features), maybe i'll try my hand in developing a proper manpower system to complement it in the future when the game codebase is more stable after full release, i don't have hopes left that TW themselves will tackle any feature more complex than a 5y old could understand lol
 
Last edited:

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I always believe REALITY is best solution to problems.

If an AI army is beaten / slaughtered but the general flees, that general should be able to recruit more troops in a friendly town ..BUT as a "Loser" general, he would not be able to hire as many troops. The grape-vine has informed many soldiers that this guy will get you KILLED ! If the lost Battle was a slaughter, the general might even be SACKED !

Another point, The renown of the general should allow them to "Call up" (free) militia troops for a short period. For example, a large army is coming to siege a city, a highly respected general of the city "calls up' the citizens to defend their home. Thus he can get 20 - 80 ??? Citizen militia troops to defend the walls. These troops vanish after about 1 day.

I wander off sometimes .. :grin:

This would actually be a really cool thing to implement into the game. It could make going to war a more serious decision, not just for the AI, but for the player too. It would also be nice to know you humiliated your rival and now everyone thinks he's just a push-over loser. lol
 

Eneas21

Recruit
The main issue is the lack of population and how underrated actual feudal economy is, which is based on ownership of property, lands and taxes. The problem is that you as a freelancer can go with 100 troops, defeat an actual Lord, and you complain that they dont recruit like you do, bruh, he is a lord and has several thousands of peasants under his protection at his fiefs, working for him, he should totally spawn with a bunch of troops raised to replenish his fallen army, tho they should be mostly T1-T3 troops, plus, his main income should come from taxes, war can be an enterprise so costly that it can make you lose money even when you win it, food and all takes a lot of money, and you make your best effort since losing the war can be the end of your rule, so you do everything at your hand to expand the possibilities, forcing peasants to join the army, confiscating food or raising taxes, maybe even starving your own population, all to win the war, which can totally be an economic loss on the short term. Most wars between feudal nobles are disputes on land ownership, which would give actual profit a few years after taking them.

And all of these features should apply to the player too once he becomes a lord. Which shouldnt be as fast as just leveling up your clan, you should come from lower nobility, do more relationship grinding. Right now we have this wacky economic system where being a lord and having fiefs gives really low income, not even enough to cover a reasonable defense of said fief, and with you, the chad player, making ends meet with trade/smithing/selling war loot. You main source of income should be fiefdom taxation as a lord. This is not a capitalist economy where you can just create goddamn Microsoft and become a billionaire to fund your kingdom. If at the XXI century not even Bezos or Bill Gates can earn more money that States, how the **** are we making more money than lords in a feudal economy.

War loot is overpriced and i understand that they did it this way so that there is a feeling of progression as you can afford high end stuff only when you are rich, but i think they could give the same progression if they link being able to wear certain armor or using top weapons, with your character skills. This allows even rpg gameplay for people who want to play as a lord would, commanding troops, not being good at fighting since he doesnt want to risk death (permadeath?) so he cant really use complicated weapons and armor effectively or should train a lot for it if not learned at battle.

We need population system to make sense of the world and link it to the economy, and there should be even types of population, having a 7% of population educated should make a huge economic difference agaisnt a kingdom with only 1%.

So yeah, Population and Feudal Economy, i know they wont do it, but talented modders should try to give a shot at this, could end up being a mod that would become a must have for other mods that change the setting of the game to Westeros or Feudal Japan.
 
Just to avoid any misunderstanding regarding the AI cheat.
Source
The confirmed cheats are:
  1. 1 extra slot for recruitment
  2. They don't need horses for upgrade
  3. Daily small xp for their troops
  4. respawn with several (10-15) initial troops near them
From the player perspective, it may give the impression that enemy lords are continuously respawning with full party.
But actually, as already mentioned, they just drain their garnisons and come back with mostly recruit level troops.
 

Ser Jon

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Whether or not AI is a lord or king, they shouldn't immediately be able to spawn back with or immediately require 100+ troops, even if they are low tier troops. It is unrealistic and not to mention, boring. There should be a penalty to losing, and there should be temporary debuffs to surrounding areas belonging to the AI/Player where recruitment is much harder due to the loss and opinion of the people.
 
Top Bottom