SP - General Too big focus on leveling your troops

[Kreu2009]

(not playing it smart)

I honestly would never say you need to be smart in M&B.
The point is M&B is in generall a very easy game, even on highest difficulty. Reason is that the game never forces you to overcome a difficult situation. You can always choose as a player what enemy you want to fight and I don't think you need to be very smart to choose the right fight. It is not that difficult to figure out who you can defeat and who not.
If you want challenging battles you have to attack enemys that are at least equally strong as you (Not talking about numbers, talking about actuall strenght of his troops). But in my experience taking battles against equally strong enemy might be fun but are not the best idear. Sometimes they are worth it but most often they are not. You take to many casualties that way. But i would never say somebody didn't play smart because he wanted to have an actuall fun and challenging battle. I would say this person just didn't want to play the game the boring way.

What would be reaaly fun would be to have a chance to escape with other prisonner of the party that captured you, something like making the escape active and not just passive while your ennemy is dragging you around.

I always ask myself if this is not in the game because Talewords didn't want it or because they didn't have time so far. Because it for sure would be fun.

 

[xdj1nn]

I honestly would never say you need to be smart in M&B.
The point is M&B is in generall a very easy game, even on highest difficulty. Reason is that the game never forces you to overcome a difficult situation. You can always choose as a player what enemy you want to fight and I don't think you need to be very smart to choose the right fight. It is not that difficult to figure out who you can defeat and who not.
If you want challenging battles you have to attack enemys that are at least equally strong as you (Not talking about numbers, talking about actuall strenght of his troops). But in my experience taking battles against equally strong enemy might be fun but are not the best idear. Sometimes they are worth it but most often they are not. You take to many casualties that way. But i would never say somebody didn't play smart because he wanted to have an actuall fun and challenging battle. I would say this person just didn't want to play the game the boring way.



I always ask myself if this is not in the game because Talewords didn't want it or because they didn't have time so far. Because it for sure would be fun.

Nothing new under sun there, good gawd, those speeches and excuses... So, what are you trying to white-knight here? You think people should receive "official" cheats to recover from defeat? Are you defending that we must play hard and not get the consequences of it? Strategy wise, no warlord wants his troops to clash with equally strong or stronger enemies, hence you'll aim for morale, strategies that involve taking away the will of fighting from the enemy, etc.

If you use basic common sense you can do that mid-battle in BL. Just hunt down and kill the enemy's commander, simple as that. Use 2 handed weapons in the middle of the enemy infantry, get some 10 kills there, everybody runs... So on so forth. Oh, another one is to pin-down your enemy and get quick bursts of kills, can do that with archers, cavalry, even infantry. Study the best option, use it. Morale drops, you win with less casualties. Though, what the person there was wanting is to be defeated and skip the consequences, receive back their troops, somehow. It's a really weird request tbh. Also, in WB fleeing troops would be counted to join deserter parties (we have no deserters here though, which's weird)

 

[BuckleUpBones]

Well I think the game is very nicely balanced between early game to mid-game (haven’t finished a game yet so no end-game comment) in raising an army of skilled troops. And levelling up is the game's content and without it the game would be rather hollow.

The problem may be in losing too many troops up to mid-game, thus not having enough skilled troops at mid-game. For me I don’t have that many losses and I never use F6, thus minimizing skilled troop lost, so on that bases I believe it’s a tactical skill thing and not a common issue.

If one improves battle tactics through commanding troops, then troops loses isn’t an issue, levelling up isn’t an issue. Skill based games are far superior that mindless action games and here in M&B it’s your command skill and command ability that's tested and on display.

 

[Kreu2009]

Nothing new under sun there, good gawd, those speeches and excuses... So, what are you trying to white-knight here? You think people should receive "official" cheats to recover from defeat? Are you defending that we must play hard and not get the consequences of it?

Where did i say any of that? In my entire post im constantly writing that the progression loss after a defeat shouldn't be less severe than it currently is. I just made an argument that M&B isn't really a challenging game that needs "smart" thinking. The problem is the player can always make progress without risking anything. This didn't have anything to do with my suggestion.

Well I think the game is very nicely balanced between early game to mid-game (haven’t finished a game yet so no end-game comment) in raising an army of skilled troops.

Yeah thats true. I agree the current system is well balanced. A system where the money income and the games economy needs to be correctly balanced (Like it would have to be for my suggestion) is of course harder to get right.
But according to this post:

Statement regarding Plans for Singleplayer and Engine

Warriors of Calradia, Today we will be sharing some of our current singleplayer and engine related priorities with you. Since the release of the game, we have been hard at work to improve stability and performance for our players. This will continue to be a top priority for us. Naturally, we...

forums.taleworlds.com

they are already working on a bether balanced economy.

And levelling up is the game's content

The question is is it fun content? I think for a short amount of time it is. But not for long. I started a new game but i really can't bear the level up grind anymore. I think earning money has the potential to be a lot more entertaining than leveling troops in an endless stream of battles.

and without it the game would be ratter hollow.

Well first my suggestion doesn't say that you can do what your currently doing and level troops up by yourself.
Second in my opinion a system where you can make progress by earning money is a lot less hollow than a system where all you do is fighting. I think earning money has the potential to be a lot more entertaining than leveling troops in an endless stream of battles.
Simply because you can earn money by fighting and in a lot of other ways. Sidequests, good fief management, caravans, trading by yourself. And all those things that i listed can still be improved. We don't have a lot of entertaining sidequests right now but we hopefully will have them in the future (refering again to the threat that i linked).

 

[Duchess Rosé of Suno]

(not playing it smart)

Yes cause when your archers don't fire like they're supposed to and you have to fall back but still lose multiple infantry isn't "playing smart" I can count a number of dumb things that your AI does that can make a defeat happen. Your Cavalry running right past the archers to attack the Infantry etc

So, what are you trying to white-knight here? You think people should receive "official" cheats to recover from defeat?

Most asinine thing I've heard today.
"Cheats" In your mind a cheat should be how OP your character and companions are compared to other NPCs and troops.
So being able to have a small number of troops that fell back before you where defeated regroup or to ransom troops/hire a trainer to train troops is cheating now huh?
It's called a SP game and you don't have to use that way of recruiting.
You could recruit as usual and take time to train them yourself.
Or you could pay a fortune to Ransom troops and a fortune to hire a Sergeant At Arms to train up recruits at a steep price and a good amount of time (week or 2)

get some 10 kills there, everybody

I want to know what battles you've fought where the Enemy break after you kill 10.
It's usually a bitter fought battle where only recruits and t2s run away and the higher tier troops usually fight to the bitter end.
Had a 497 Vs my 278 and the battle lasted 8-9 min the Enemy no shields got eaten by my Xbows/Archers before they reached my infantry line and the enemy High tiers held out to the very end in melee against my Infantry, and in melee against my Cavalry I don't think a single one ran. Maybe a few of the Ranged units but almost none of the Infantry.
So I don't get the them running away thing.

Though, what the person there was wanting is to be defeated and skip the consequences, receive back their troops, somehow.

Ransom or get troops that regroup back in friendly lands isn't "Receive back their troops" it's a small ammount and happened all the time in reality so wouldnt be a "Cheat". I dont get why that's hard to get through to you

 

[geala]

...

Defeat should always be punished, not rewarded and hand-held. It's your own fault to get defeated (not playing it smart), I mean, I've lost 2 or 3 battles in BL for, what, 210 hours? Also, the "magically spawning AI armies" is a place-holder, soon™ they'll play under the players rules, and atm they are already much weaker, spawning with what? 10% of their men? That's okay already.

...

That's the problem for me. I don't want to lose 2 or 3 battles out of 100. The number of losses should be much higher. It's hero-based nonsense for me to be such a semi-god. There is usually no stronger enemy able to catch you on the field, except in some early phases or if you use mods with some hefty enemies (which I do use), so you can always look for the fight you like, the AI cannot.

I nearly never lose; that's not because I'm a good player but because I carefully choose my battles because consequences of lost battles are so harsh for me. "Harsh" here means leading to boring grind again and again, and grinding I hate in any game.

 

[xdj1nn]

That's the problem for me. I don't want to lose 2 or 3 battles out of 100. The number of losses should be much higher. It's hero-based nonsense for me to be such a semi-god. There is usually no stronger enemy able to catch you on the field, except in some early phases or if you use mods with some hefty enemies (which I do use), so you can always look for the fight you like, the AI cannot.

I nearly never lose; that's not because I'm a good player but because I carefully choose my battles because consequences of lost battles are so harsh for me. "Harsh" here means leading to boring grind again and again, and grinding I hate in any game.

Well, you can still win through morale, as I've said. Spec some companions or your hero into morale damaging skill levels and watch them run shouting: "I don't care if you call me a COWARD!" hahaha (some units really do shout that before running hahahaha)

Yes cause when your archers don't fire like they're supposed to and you have to fall back but still lose multiple infantry isn't "playing smart" I can count a number of dumb things that your AI does that can make a defeat happen. Your Cavalry running right past the archers to attack the Infantry etc


Most asinine thing I've heard today.
"Cheats" In your mind a cheat should be how OP your character and companions are compared to other NPCs and troops.
So being able to have a small number of troops that fell back before you where defeated regroup or to ransom troops/hire a trainer to train troops is cheating now huh?
It's called a SP game and you don't have to use that way of recruiting.
You could recruit as usual and take time to train them yourself.
Or you could pay a fortune to Ransom troops and a fortune to hire a Sergeant At Arms to train up recruits at a steep price and a good amount of time (week or 2)


I want to know what battles you've fought where the Enemy break after you kill 10.
It's usually a bitter fought battle where only recruits and t2s run away and the higher tier troops usually fight to the bitter end.
Had a 497 Vs my 278 and the battle lasted 8-9 min the Enemy no shields got eaten by my Xbows/Archers before they reached my infantry line and the enemy High tiers held out to the very end in melee against my Infantry, and in melee against my Cavalry I don't think a single one ran. Maybe a few of the Ranged units but almost none of the Infantry.
So I don't get the them running away thing.


Ransom or get troops that regroup back in friendly lands isn't "Receive back their troops" it's a small ammount and happened all the time in reality so wouldnt be a "Cheat". I dont get why that's hard to get through to you

Because it's unrealistic to expect them at this stage to be able to insert such a thing and balance it out. It's too costly coding wise, for something that's almost insignificant. Yes, the grind is annoying, but if they insert more ways to train troops it won't be THAT bad... The issue here is that all background XP gain is too low (garrisons gain XP but the rate sucks, same for the perks that supposedly allow you and companions to "train troops") In WB we've had a skill that would do that, which made things less annoying. By end-game you could be skipping up to 3 or 4 tiers of grinding, only really requiring battles to level up T4 & T5 units. BL lacks such a background XP gain, so, if they "fix" that it stops being SUCH an issue, while also avoiding unnecessary performance hits due to codes to add a "gimmicky" feature... But, if they chose to do it, I wouldn't complain, but it'd take a LOOOOOOONG time for them to balance it out properly.

 

[TheMainCharacter]

That's the problem for me. I don't want to lose 2 or 3 battles out of 100. The number of losses should be much higher. It's hero-based nonsense for me to be such a semi-god. There is usually no stronger enemy able to catch you on the field, except in some early phases or if you use mods with some hefty enemies (which I do use), so you can always look for the fight you like, the AI cannot.

I nearly never lose; that's not because I'm a good player but because I carefully choose my battles because consequences of lost battles are so harsh for me. "Harsh" here means leading to boring grind again and again, and grinding I hate in any game.

Absolutely agree with everything.

Because of the boring grind i would also never do something like sacrificing my army so that my kingdome can make a victory.
Even if my defeat would still be helpfull for my faction i would never do that.
You can almost always just wait for an bether opportunity.

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

Damn what happened to gaming people these days.....i wonder what an Nintendo Mario early access forum would looked like today...
-Oh no we have to start over since we lost these lives, its to much of a grind xD But you have all these cheats you can get Billy....
-No my internet doesn't work...

Im curious how Minecraft survived and made top sales because thats an grind game ^^

 

[TheMainCharacter]

Damn what happened to gaming people these days.....i wonder what an Nintendo Mario early access forum would looked like today...

I don't think it would look any different than it would have back then.
If you define playing and replaying levels in Mario as grind, then the big difference is that it is fun.
Mario is a fun "grind". Leveling units in Bannerlord is boring.

Im curious how Minecraft survived and made top sales because thats an grind game ^^

I haven't played minecraft so i can't comment on that.

 

[Duchess Rosé of Suno]

Damn what happened to gaming people these days.....i wonder what an Nintendo Mario early access forum would looked like today...

Mario<BL
No correlation ones a side scrolling game the others a strategy game that takes littleral hours to grind troops and equipment.

these cheats you can get Billy...

What cheats? Sorry hiring recruiters that take awhile to train troops so you can focus on other game mechanics is cheats. Ight

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

I don't think it would look any different than it would have back then.
If you define playing and replaying levels in Mario as grind, then the big difference is that it is fun.
Mario is a fun "grind". Leveling units in Bannerlord is boring.

Ah so youre basically saying that battles in Bannerlord are boring ? Because thats what youre doing to level up your troops. Well you could cook em in castles to

 

[Duchess Rosé of Suno]

Ah so youre basically saying that battles in Bannerlord are boring ? Because thats what youre doing to level up your troops

Yes grinding Looters and bandits to get recruits up to fighting shape over and over and over again gets boring and repetitive and is a grindy game mechanic.
It would be nice to hire a trainer so you can get a feel for other game mechanics.
If you want you could still recruit and train as you usually would.

 

[TheMainCharacter]

Ah so youre basically saying that battles in Bannerlord are boring ? Because thats what youre doing to level up your troops. Well you could cook em in castles to

Battles which are actually challenging are fun. Battles where you can't tell if you will win them before they start.
The battles you fight in order to level your troops are 95% of the time no fun.

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

Yes grinding Looters and bandits to get recruits up to fighting shape over and over and over again gets boring and repetitive and is a grindy game mechanic

Well idk how much you guys are wasting your troops or loosing so in that case i can understand some frustrations but its not taking long to get em back up. You can also get a lot of recruits then get em back in to an army or help others.But saying it takes hours just to get an army back on the feet is little bit to much to say. Especially with perks. But guess you guys want T5-6 troops all the time which is gonna make it way to easy against the enemy. Also there is easy modes that getting your troops more health which should be enough

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

Battles which are actually challenging are fun. Battles where you can't tell if you will win them before they start.
The battles you fight in order to level your troops are 95% of the time no fun.

well then start fighting bigger battles from the beginning not picking the small ones and by having a medic youre pretty much set in the flow of building it. But remember tactics is very much key. A troop can look weak and dies easy if youre using em wrong

 

[TheMainCharacter]

well then start fighting bigger battles from the beginning not picking the small ones and by having a medic youre pretty much set in the flow of building it. But rememver tactics is very much key. a troop can look weak and dies easy if youre using em wrong

That way you very likely will loose more progress than you actually make. Even with a good medic.
If you win a battle whith very little casualties then it wasn't a challenging one. If you take casualties you don't make progress.

 

[Duchess Rosé of Suno]

Well idk how much you guys are wasting your troops or loosing so in that case i can understand some frustrations but its not taking long to get em back up. You can also get a lot of recruits then get em back in to an army or help others.But saying it takes hours just to get an army back on the feet is little bit to much to say. Especially with perks

Those perks don't give enough Xp to make a difference ngl.

Play on Realistic everything and you'll lose 5-10 Infantry each battle even if you use great tactics. Ie 2 archer Divisions Xbows and Bowman all t4s-t6s on a hill with infantry at the bottom in a shield wall and Cavalry flanking.
I'd rather have a option to hire a recruiter for say 20k + 500-1000(More to train faster) per recruit to train up recruits to t3-t4 in a week or 2.

Well idk how much you guys are wasting your troops...

As a Footmen main army almost Every battle I usually fight has at least 300 combatants on each side. Plus battles where you risk your troops to stall and try to cripple a much larger invasion force

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

Those perks don't give enough Xp to make a difference ngl.
Play on Realistic everything and you'll lose 5-10 Infantry each battle even if you use great tactics. Ie 2 archer Divisions Xbows and Bowman all t4s-

Strange because ive been playing on realistic almost since start and dont have the same results and feeling off grind as i see been written here. So there must be something wrong in tactics or gameplay. Sure i loose troops, and now and then all of em. But i see no biggie to get em back especially with Leadership tree and cooking troops in the castles.

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

That way you very likely will loose more progress than you actually make. Even with a good medic.
If you win a battle whith very little casualties then it wasn't a challenging one. If you take casualties you don't make progress.

No medic takes it away more then you think . Almost all my men went down in a big brawl against a significant larger force then me and i only lost 3 rest went unconscious. Sure sometimes you can get lucky or unlucky to on the roll but it helps pretty much to have one medic along with you and all your companions medic skills included even if they are small