This mindless castle exchange

[saittam]

To be honest it´s just crazy how the ai does war.
I am playing in my mind how it could do better.
Make only armys able to initiate siege? I think that will harm some players playstyle. But it would fix it i think alittle. It does follow the fact one can´t make army within your own clan. Also strange in a way. It removes a playstyle.

But i wonder if this is right.
Clans are various in member number. But does it work like this. Except for mercs do the clans only send one member with a party? When the first is taken a second makes a party? Sometimes i do get that impression.
So when an army takes a town/castle they are forced to leave one party to defend/rebuild.
How long should they stay. End of war? Until the garisson/militia reach a certain number? Loyality? Until the new governor is on site?
We assume they fix the the not leaving a garrison bug.

 

[Totalgarbage]

It's not that they should leave 1 party, though that would help as well, especially if it's the clan that was awarded the ownership of the castle/town. These exchanges happen so often because the conquering armies no longer leave as many troops in the newly conquered settlements. They used to leave quite a bit of soldiers, but (this part I might be remembering wrong) people complained about the attrition being too high when you conquered settlements and that it made pushing into enemy territories too slow. I think that this change in attrition was a change in the wrong direction regardless if people wanted it to be this way, and that armies should be leaving many more soldiers in a newly conquered settlement so that we won't need to retake that settlement for the nth time in the same war.

 

[mujadaddy]

It's not that they should leave 1 party, though that would help as well, especially if it's the clan that was awarded the ownership of the castle/town. These exchanges happen so often because the conquering armies no longer leave as many troops in the newly conquered settlements. They used to leave quite a bit of soldiers, but (this part I might be remembering wrong) people complained about the attrition being too high when you conquered settlements and that it made pushing into enemy territories too slow. I think that this change in attrition was a change in the wrong direction regardless if people wanted it to be this way, and that armies should be leaving many more soldiers in a newly conquered settlement so that we won't need to retake that settlement for the nth time in the same war.

Yeah, I get 1500 armies leaving 50 dudes behind, it's ping pong time. They /did/ used to leave way more.

 

[swally0ne]

It's not that they should leave 1 party, though that would help as well, especially if it's the clan that was awarded the ownership of the castle/town. These exchanges happen so often because the conquering armies no longer leave as many troops in the newly conquered settlements. They used to leave quite a bit of soldiers, but (this part I might be remembering wrong) people complained about the attrition being too high when you conquered settlements and that it made pushing into enemy territories too slow. I think that this change in attrition was a change in the wrong direction regardless if people wanted it to be this way, and that armies should be leaving many more soldiers in a newly conquered settlement so that we won't need to retake that settlement for the nth time in the same war.

people where complaining because if you run your own kingdom, ai armies and parties haven't placed troops into garrissons of settlements they took. now this exact issue is global and isn't exclusively affecting player-owned factions.

 

[Totalgarbage]

people where complaining because if you run your own kingdom, ai armies and parties haven't placed troops into garrissons of settlements they took. now this exact issue is global and isn't exclusively affecting player-owned factions.

Ah okay, thanks for correcting me. So the issue went from "this isn't fair for the player's kingdom" to "now it's kinda miserable for every kingdom". Armies should really leave more troops or one party should stay in the newly conquered fief so that they won't be flipped imo.

 

[Jehiel]

Stuff like this is always more complicated than complaints on forums seem. Does no remember remember the awful snowballing the game originally had? People were whining about it every day! It was the worst thing ever! Nice to know we have come full circle and now people forget where we came from.

Anyway I actually agree, it is annoying to see your progress in a war wiped away so fast. Sometimes just keeping a castle (or town!) for more thank 10 minutes is a massive victory.

But I underestand it's hard to balance. Make it too hard to take and snowballing is back. Make it too easy and you get this.

I also agree that it would be cool to actually have freshly taken castles/towns get a garrison, but it's uncool to have those troops pop up our of nowhere.

 

[Totalgarbage]

I also agree that it would be cool to actually have freshly taken castles/towns get a garrison, but it's uncool to have those troops pop up our of nowhere.

No one suggested newly conquered settlements getting troops out of thin air. Also, if anything, attacking armies leaving more troops to the garrison would slow down snowball.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Ah okay, thanks for correcting me. So the issue went from "this isn't fair for the player's kingdom" to "now it's kinda miserable for every kingdom". Armies should really leave more troops or one party should stay in the newly conquered fief so that they won't be flipped imo.

They're also not exactly the same problem and I doubt TW changed it on purpose to try to make it equally miserable (but if so Lol, at least they tried). The Player's faction will not put anything in a garrison after if conquers PERIOD until after the election. This and the small AI garrisons are made worse by the AI still being omnipotent about how many units are in every fief at any time. Even though TW obscured this information from the player/encyclopedia, the AI always know and immediately changes to try and capture the weakest, often even if it waste much more campaign time moving to it.

I think the gameplay would be improved if the AI did not know (or consider) this and would instead expand it borders only on proximity. SO if it goes to siege and something is too reinforced, it can wait for more parties OR LEAVE and go back to it's territory, but not go to other end of the map to siege a castle with no garrison it has no business knowing about.

 

[mujadaddy]

it's hard to balance. Make it too hard to take and snowballing is back. Make it too easy and you get this.

The healing rate is potentially the problem. "Injury" is a joke. It should be DAYS of healing for regular troops, like it is for us at the start. Slowing healing rate would also make permanent sieges much harder to do with peasants.

I think the gameplay would be improved if the AI did not know (or consider) this and would instead expand it borders only on proximity.

That would need a concept like when we Scout for the King; fresh info from fresh scouting. Huge save files!

 

[saittam]

Make it too hard to take and snowballing is back. Make it too easy and you get this.

Given the fact we all seem to play on very easy due to the bug. I choose bannerlord difficulty on every new game. Still it stands very easy on all when i check in the game. So making it harder seems right.

I am closing in to a year with this game. What is this snowballing you all seem to know about? I havent a clue.


Given realistic it should be some form of rebuild after a siege. Leaving a a party feels like the right thing to do.

 

[swally0ne]

The Player's faction will not put anything in a garrison after if conquers PERIOD until after the election.

yes you are right i was using misunderstandable words my bad.
the problem is not exactly the same when it comes to the background/causality, it just has the same outcome.

 

[Jozzzza]

Maybe a buff to siege defenders would make this whole thing more balanced?



*Having a larger max garrison limit.
*Increased possibilities to further reduce garrison wages.
*Increased income from settlements. (Giving the siege a High-Risk = High Reward vibe)

*Increased need for security in settlements.
*Low security increasing the risk of rebellion at a greater rate. (To force the settlement's owner leaving more troops in garrison, possibly reducing snowballing)
*Increased possibilities for Militia production (to cope with the settlement's need for security).

*Increased construction times for Siege engines.
*Increased possibilities for reducing Siege engine construction times. (Increasing the importance of Engineering skill. Possibly having to rework the perk tree)
Increased possibilities for a settlement to receive food while under prolonged siege.


This way the whole game in terms of conquering Calradia will slow down, giving a more in-depth meaning to Siege where you would have to think twice before trying to capture a settlement. (Hopefully the AI could be made to calculate better and not to suicide itself by entering 0-win-chance Siege).

Also, to develop further.
It would make it near-impossible to conquer the whole world in a lifespan of a single person, as it should be.
But then again, imagine the system where one's offspring will get quicker learning rates for the skills their parents are good at. This would reduce the amount of attribute points needed for those skills for them, enabling them to MAX more skills.
And lets say the great-grandson of a character X could end up being a near-maxed character, opening up so many possibilities for different playstyles and imaginations.

Right now the problem with the game is, IT GETS BORING TOO QUICK!. From the moment you create your character, yea maybe you enjoy being a merchant,a blacksmith or a rogue raider for a short while, but then you get bored and start massing armies and conquering the world and that's when the game loses it's beauty. Yes you may enjoy the first sweet town you captured, but then it ends up being a massive grind, siege after siege, after siege, after siege. Both attacking and defending. During that phase of the game - Who cares about back alleys, Tournaments, caravans, workshops, or anything else at all?!

So please, let's change that.



Jozzzza

 

[Dodgy]

It also annoys me to no end how lords/clan members will consider leaving some men to a settlement's garrison, but only as long as it's not the player's for whatever reason.

But yes the ping pong is bad, not enough garrison is left behind (and this not only helps single enemy parties retake fiefs too easily, it also makes the rebelliions worse in a round about why since the militia grows too quickly compared to the garrison).

What's even worse though is how stupidily aggressive minded the AI is. I have screenshots of me being in a fief, an enemy army of say 600 men coming over to siege and one of our armies of 900 men in the distance.

The enemy faction begins the siege while our army proceeds to pass right NEXT to my fief being sieged, ignores it despite being able to achieve an EASY win, and proceeds to go and siege a random enemy castle.

It feels like everything has been programmed this way to make the game artificially last longer.

 

[saittam]

What's even worse though is how stupidily aggressive minded the AI is. I have screenshots of me being in a fief, an enemy army of say 600 men coming over to siege and one of our armies of 900 men in the distance.

I have a screenshoot of the enemy planing to seige their own castle. And they just build that army in that area.

 

[Count_Morfetico]

What is this snowballing you all seem to know about? I havent a clue.

In the beggining of early access there was this 'problem' where one faction would conquer and bulldoze all the others...For me personally, it wasn't a problem per se, just cause it was generally the same faction who'd be in this place (khuzait if im not mistaken) and then they fixed by making no one snowball ever... which for me it's not really the perfect solution, but still...

 

[saittam]

In the beggining of early access there was this 'problem' where one faction would conquer and bulldoze all the others...For me personally, it wasn't a problem per se, just cause it was generally the same faction who'd be in this place (khuzait if im not mistaken) and then they fixed by making no one snowball ever... which for me it's not really the perfect solution, but still...

It do sound better then this. Even with the garrisons fix in the latest hotfix it wont change much.

Adding war goals/objectives Sond better. Insteed of only attacking the weakest settlement/castle.

But looking long term. When traits are working better. Adding a rebuild system after a siege. Leaving a party for managment. Attacking such a weak place is a sign of cowardish and should add that trait. And there should be a downside of having this trait.

 

[Apocal]

In the beggining of early access there was this 'problem' where one faction would conquer and bulldoze all the others...For me personally, it wasn't a problem per se, just cause it was generally the same faction who'd be in this place (khuzait if im not mistaken) and then they fixed by making no one snowball ever... which for me it's not really the perfect solution, but still...

It was actually more entertaining in a way, because you had a soft time limit and couldn't afford to wait decades just building up skills, relations and money. The Khuzaits were comin' and they waited for no man. That was the late game threat you had to prepare for or go out of your way to mitigate.

 

[SadMoney]

TW's main anti-blobbing mechanic is "your vassals are imbeciles". Whether it's them voting to declare 4th simultaneous war or leaving 5 peasants to defend a newly conquered castle - there's absolutely 0 fun in seeing this happening. It blows my mind that out of all possible ways to prevent blobbing TW have chosen the absolute worst option. Honestly, I'd rather have kingdoms snowball out of control.

 

[Count_Morfetico]

It was actually more entertaining in a way, because you had a soft time limit and couldn't afford to wait decades just building up skills, relations and money. The Khuzaits were comin' and they waited for no man. That was the late game threat you had to prepare for or go out of your way to mitigate.

That's what I thought too, it was a little bit more chaotic.. In some versions the game was sooo stale, nothing happened without the player input. 1.2.2 is good, but it'll be even better with more chaos

 

[Totalgarbage]

That's what I thought too, it was a little bit more chaotic.. In some versions the game was sooo stale, nothing happened without the player input. 1.2.2 is good, but it'll be even better with more chaos

I think if they added a late game invasion that is likely to steamroll as an optional add-on to the game, or made the empires much more likely to fall in a few in game years in the base game (maybe sandbox mode only), it the game would feel more exciting. I think the game would benefit from having more asymmetry in its factions. Another option would be to add city-states (factions with a single town) to the game with very large garrison and high income (maybe those towns could have 4-5 villages bound to them) so that you can choose to challenge yourself by joining them as a vassal.