SP - General Too big focus on leveling your troops

Users who are viewing this thread

Again the problem is not that i want it easy to get high level troops.
I want to shift the problem from leveling units to being able to afford units.
Yes this it's more about leveling than getting t4-5 troops instantly. Training will take time but less than you training them.
Do you think a King took part in training? Or did he have Sergeant At Arms and trainers for that?

Most wars I see theirs 1-2 troops in a Village mostly Recruits.
And
During a prolonged war it is perfectly realistic that you will run out of troops if you incur heavy losses
Yes but their should be plenty of young men ready to fight for pay. Especially since Years go faster and therefore people age up fast. I don't want to have to rely on Barbarian Sturgians if I'm doing a Vlandian Knight Lord based out of Galend, Pravend etc deep in Sturgian lines playthrough.
 
During a prolonged war it is perfectly realistic that you will run out of troops if you incur heavy losses. During late WW2, the German army was mostly just young boys and crippled old men. And it is a fantastic realistic way to prevent any few factions from snowballing. But even so, I quite regularly see lots tier 3-4 troops in villages that are slightly out of the path of other nobles, or areas where massive armies weren't just created.

What I do is stock up on high tier troops during peace times and stick them in a garrison. Then as war goes on later, I can go back and exchange any unwanted recruits from prisoners with the troops I actually want, or simply just restock troops from it. Additionally you can even cheese it and just form an army with your companion parties and take their best troops, then send them away again to recruit more.

Outside of the very early game, you will also quite frequently encounter nobles with your own culture who have changed kingdom. Or encounter nobles with prisoners from your faction(that you can recruit directly).

I really really don't see this problem, and think increasing the number of strong troops already so readily available will only cause massive imbalance.
You are not on the same page. We are not talking about wartime or history or the difficulty of getting troops. We are talking about the enjoyment of this activity that you are doing the entire game. How are you going to get enough reserve troops to stick in a castle for wartime? Spend 3 hours chasing looters. What if you don't have a castle? How are you gonna get enough troops to fight a lord to even get prisoners? Spend 3 hours chasing looters.
Outside of the very early game, you will also quite frequently encounter nobles with your own culture who have changed kingdom. Or encounter nobles with prisoners from your faction(that you can recruit directly).
You cannot reliably do that. You are thinking about something else. We are talking about raising troops, not how many you have for wartime.

Don't respond to me until you have responded to @Kreu2009
 
@rhn
An answer to this would be nice.


Here a question. How often do you reload an older save after you lost your army in a battle? How often to you engage partys that have a big chance to defeat you? From what i can tell most people never want to deal with the setback after loosing all of their men or even just a part of them.
The reason is, releveling your soldiers isn't fun. So far i haven't seen a single player who actually enjoys that.
The problem is not that people can't deal with setbacks. Games like dark souls or warhammer vermintide proof that.
The problem is that people don't want to deal with a setback, if that forces them to do a very boring activity again for several hours.
If the problem wouldn't be to relevel your entire army but to have enough money to afford a new one, a setback would be a totally different thing.
Simply because getting enough money back can be fun. Releveling your troops isn't.


Again i don't want it easy to get high level troops.
I want to shift the problem from leveling units to being able to afford units.

Btw this is not the case anymore in the latest beta:
Outside very early when getting used to the game, commands etc. I practically never reload an older save. Only really times I can recall have been when either quirkiness of the map having sent me off right into a superior force instead of where I wanted to go, or the call to an army has.

I quite often engage superior forces(in number at least) on purpose if it can benefit the overall war. Like sacrificing a lot of your party to halt an initial invading force can really turn the tide. And this often ends up with me loosing 30-50% or more of my force. But deliberately engaging an an army with vastly superior odds? No, why would I? That would be downright dumb. Instead I let them go, or even take a castle/town while I regroup, go gather some more troops(from garrisons, friendly villages or companion parties in a pinch), form an army with nearby lords and then hit them back with better odds. Is this not the whole point of the MB games? A strategic war/kingdom builder sandbox?

Yes, re-gathering and re-levelling troops is not particularly "fun" (I do find it satisfying in a way though), but honestly with the many ways of getting higher tier troops, I cannot personally see that it is a big deal. And it definitely doesn't take several hours to regain a capable "entry level" force. And I do think there there need to be a "less fun" or a somewhat aggravating consequences to loosing, and specially to playing reckless with your men.

I suppose you could implement something alike to what the Floris mod for Warband had: A constable that allows you to pay for them to gather recruits and/or train them. But it would have to be slow and expensive to be balanced and believable. Something you would have to have started before going off for war. And from my personal experience, to be balanced the availability of high tier troops available elsewhere would have to be lowered.

Another option could be to create a difficulty option to allow a chosen percentage of your troops to escape after a complete loss, and make their way back to one of your garrisons. That would help the more reckless people out, while still being somewhat realistic and balanced.

And I do agree that money has to become a factor in gathering your forces. War should dry out the lords(and your) coffers eventually. And the current finance system is quite broken in that regard. But I don't personally think that you should be allowed to sidestep the consequences of loosing and the realistic downtime to gather a new army by simply waving money at it.


TL/DR: I am simply putting my 2 cents in that I simply cannot recognise this as an issue. Quite the contrary I seem to end up with having way too many high tiered troops compared to the enemy, even after having had heavy losses. Perhaps the new beta changes helps that, I dunno about that. But if you are not playing careful and strategic with your men, but still just want to have a blast with the combat stuff, then there are excellent difficulty settings that can be lowered to help with troop mortality.
 
Last edited:
I am simply putting my 2 cents in that I simply cannot recognise this as an issue
Well this is the issue:
Yes, re-gathering and re-levelling troops is not particularly "fun"


And I do think there there need to be a "less fun" or a somewhat aggravating consequences to loosing
I disagree with that to a certain degree. Most well made games don't force you to do a non fun activity upon loosing. In Dark souls for example you loose progress. But to get your progress back you do a fun activty. In Bannerlord you loose progress and you have to do a non fun activity.
Releveling units is not just "less fun". Its "no fun" at least for a lot of people.


Quite the contrary I seem to end up with having way too many high tiered troops compared to the enemy
Having the abillity to buy high tier units does not create the problem that the player have to many of them.
Only if the player has to much money at the same time it creates that problem. Thats why getting money should be a lot harder (depending on the difficulty) and thats why money should be needed for a lot more things.

You can buy high level units in almost every strategy game. The limiting factor in those games is always money or having enough ressources.
Thats how it should be in Bannerlord too. Because getting money can be fun. Leveling units is not.


I suppose you could implement something alike to what the Floris mod for Warband had: A constable that allows you to pay for them to gather recruits and/or train them.
Yes that could be a nice addition.
Again being able to buy high tier troops is not OP.
It is OP if getting money is to easy and if buying troops isn't expensive enough.


I am simply putting my 2 cents
That is totally fine. If you don't have a problem with leveling units then it is absolutely understandable why you disagree with my idear.
 
Last edited:
n real life you don't get better by slaughtering kids, you get better by defeating people who are better then you.
this is something that warband had you got more experience from killing higher tier units than killing looters. in this game this doesnt seem to be the case. you seem to get the same experience from killing an imperial legionare and a looter.
 
But I don't personally think that you should be allowed to sidestep the consequences of loosing and the realistic downtime to gather a new army by simply waving money at it.
i agree. part of going to war is dealing with the consecuences of your decisions. if you want to fight a war against a bigger army then you have to be ready to deal with what comes with that decision, heavy losses, the possibility of getting caught, losing money and losing fiefs.
I disagree with that to a certain degree. Most well made games don't force you to do a non fun activity upon loosing. In Dark souls for example you loose progress. But to get your progress back you do a fun activty. In Bannerlord you loose progress and you have to do a non fun activity.
Releveling units is not just "less fun". Its "no fun" at least for a lot of people.
i do agree with you that it is a bit grindy BUT it seems to me that you want to go to battle without having to risk anything. this is not Dark Souls and dark souls is not the best comparison as in that game you have to do the same thing over and over until you get it right, so it is grindy as well. i would like a way to get some minimal amount of your units back after a war, maybe the retreat could get you some of the units back. i really dont like how war is always to the last man and lords get captured 99% of the time, but paying to get high tier unist would make this game more inbalanced. you can already take on armies bigger than yours because the AI has a bunch of recruit units, even after the 1.3 patch, so paying for top tier units would just make you too strong. in one of my saves i stoped fighting because the battles became too easy, because i always had the better units. and if you aproach battle with tactics you barely lose any soldiers. i would like to see recruiting improved for the player and for the ai, i would also like to see the ai use strategy other than just sending their cavalry alone first to get mauled and then send the rest of their peseant army. anyways in the state this game is at paying for units or getting your back after a battle is just too OP. Remember that mount and blade is a war simulator, in war you dont lose all of your army in a battle and a few days later you have a huge army again.
 
But I don't personally think that you should be allowed to sidestep the consequences of loosing and the realistic downtime to gather a new army by simply waving money at it.
You don't sidestep the consequenzen of loosing a battle at all only because you can buy high tier units. Why do you think that?
You lost your army as always. Also a lot of you money and other ressources (horses, food). But instead of having to get new recruits and level them back up, you now have to get money so you can affort new soldiers.

Again. Getting back an army doesn't get any easier that way, if your money income and troop costs is correctly balanced.


BUT it seems to me that you want to go to battle without having to risk anything
It seems like you didn't read the thread very carefully. The consequenzes of loosing a battle stay the same. But instead of having to get new recruits and level them back up, you now have to get money so you can affort new soldiers.
Depending on how money income and troop costs is balanced, this doesn't make getting an army back any easier.

i would like to see recruiting improved for the player and for the ai,
Of course if the player can buy high tier units the AI can too.


Getting high level troops doesn't get easier if you can buy them, if it is hard to affort them.

Hear an overexagerated example. Lets imagine it is possible to get 7 banner knights from an ransom broker. But they cost 1million. But after new balancing it takes you 30 ingame weeks to get 100 denare. Would you say being able to buy these banner knights makes the game to easy?
 
Hear an overexagerated example. Lets imagine it is possible to get 7 banner knights from an ransom broker. But they cost 1million. But after new balancing it takes you 30 ingame weeks to get 100 denare. Would you say being able to buy these banner knights makes the game to easy?
i know what you mean, it gets grindy and it can get really boring. my current playthroug is with sturigia and they have the worst recruiting ever man, so everytime i go into battle i fear for my units, because recruting gets really hard, specially whit Raganvad as your leader declarin war on the whole world at once. i would really like to see improvements to the recruitment and to the leveling up of units, we agree my man. i just want this game to be really balanced. right now im fighting with only 10 cav in my army some 20 archers and the rest infantry because fighting bacame too easy, even after the 1.3 patch. at least sieges are now a challenge and those days of taking a 200 manned castle with 80 units are gone. but they do need to work this out. i agreed with you on you being able to ransome some of your units back, i do agree that leveling up and recruiting needs a massive overhaul.
 
right now im fighting with only 10 cav in my army some 20 archers and the rest infantry because fighting bacame too easy, even after the 1.3 patch.
Yes playing with infantry is a lot harder. Even if i try to have a balanced army with roughly equal amount of archer, inf and cav, i always end up having more cav and archer than infantry. Simply because the infantry dies far more often.
 
realistic downtime to gather a new army by simply waving money at it.
If you have enough money that you can buy a Army then you're late game. I'd like to see hiring Mercs in mass for a Army as a thing. As many Armies consisted Highly of Mercs
I want my Swiss Guard, White Company or my Varangian Guard
Any ways paying a Sergeant At Arms for say 500-1000 Denars per recruit for say a week or 2 can speed up for more gold and they can go up t3-t4 Troops would be splendid. AI would have the option as well. Leave Village and Town recruitment the way it is and you've got a choice recruit Peasents train them yourself or hire a Sergeant At Arms to train them for you taking 1-2 or more weeks
 
Agree w a lot of the various ideas here. Recap + a couple other ideas:

1.‘Increase per level effect of Medicine’ - yes, this.
2. Mercenaries: yes, but they should be small in number and very expensive. They should supplement, not replace, the recruitment system.
3. ‘A mechanism for training troops outside of battle’: yes, exactly. Castles garrisons via training fields already do this, but I think it should be a much more robust system at castles. Side benefit: This would make castles more interesting and uniquely useful vs strictly-worse-version-of-city.
4. There should be more and stronger ways of improving relations w local notables. I like the realism of the politics, but even if you do their quests, there’s almost no way to get very high relations. Maybe if you take their junk recruits often you would develop better relations so they would let you in on their good stuff?
 
There should be more and stronger ways of improving relations w local notables. I like the realism of the politics, but even if you do their quests, there’s almost no way to get very high relations. Maybe if you take their junk recruits often you would develop better relations so they would let you in on their good stuff?
The last time i played, the best way to get good relations was by voting for policies and who gets a fief. By giving max influence you can raise your realations with one single familie to approcimately 80. Yes you loose relations with two other familys but only by about 15. So in the long run this works extremly well. (Of course only if you have enough influence)

I would say the influence system still needs a lot of work.
 
Gaining recruits and leveling troops have always been the core of what this franchise is.

Indeed the experience is subtly different from prior games, but I feel it is not without good reason, and if anything, motivates me to fight better and minimize losses if possible. And if not, take in the losses and learn to recover from it.

The prior experience of multiple companions with trainer skill + high level surgery skill, to be frank, simply turned the troops into mass-production line that takes in recruits and pushes them up to mid-tier within a matter of days, as well as your top-tier troops rarely suffering any devastating blows. Compared to WB, the rate of attrition is higher in BL, and I actually like it better this way.

Losing troops means something in this game, because leveling them up takes more time. In WB, frankly, once I had a full 200~250-man elite cavalry band going, nothing else mattered since they'd just grind everything down and recover almost scot-free after a few days.
 
Gaining recruits and leveling troops have always been the core of what this franchise is.

Indeed the experience is subtly different from prior games, but I feel it is not without good reason, and if anything, motivates me to fight better and minimize losses if possible. And if not, take in the losses and learn to recover from it.

The prior experience of multiple companions with trainer skill + high level surgery skill, to be frank, simply turned the troops into mass-production line that takes in recruits and pushes them up to mid-tier within a matter of days, as well as your top-tier troops rarely suffering any devastating blows. Compared to WB, the rate of attrition is higher in BL, and I actually like it better this way.

Losing troops means something in this game, because leveling them up takes more time. In WB, frankly, once I had a full 200~250-man elite cavalry band going, nothing else mattered since they'd just grind everything down and recover almost scot-free after a few days.

I agree. I thought the surgery skill was way overpowered and strange, and not fun in extension, and the trainer skill was also borderline overpowered - in my opinion. I much prefer, like you, how it is in Bannerlord, with more felt consequences and a greater feeling of progress and success. I like having to be a bit cautious, work for myself, and think,
 
There are usually quite good units and in good numbers in taverns.
In the last beta update they said they raised the number and quality of mercenarys. Haven't tested it out so far. Before that i only got myself mercenarys two times so that my wife has some soldiers. I only found 2 watchmen and seven thugs.


motivates me to fight better and minimize losses if possible. And if not, take in the losses and learn to recover from it.
this wouldn't change with my suggestion. After a loss instead of having to get new recruits and train them, you would have to get money to be able to affort new soldiers.
The time it takes to recover from a loss doesn't change. Just the way how you recover.
You could still recruit low level units and level them up. But you could also get money and after some time you can buy mid or high tier units. The time it takes to level the recruits or the time to get the money can be exactly the same. You also could get money and hire somebody to level your troops. This doesn't change how long it takes to build back up after a loss.

Im talking about this the entire threat. My suggestion doesn't change how hard you get punished after you loose. It also doesn't change the recovery time after you loose. It just offers option after you loose, how to recover from that loss.


Compared to WB, the rate of attrition is higher in BL, and I actually like it better this way.
I agree with that btw
 
In the last beta update they said they raised the number and quality of mercenarys. Haven't tested it out so far. Before that i only got myself mercenarys two times so that my wife has some soldiers. I only found 2 watchmen and seven thugs.



this wouldn't change with my suggestion. After a loss instead of having to get new recruits and train them, you would have to get money to be able to affort new soldiers.
The time it takes to recover from a loss doesn't change. Just the way how you recover.
You could still recruit low level units and level them up. But you could also get money and after some time you can buy mid or high tier units. The time it takes to level the recruits or the time to get the money can be exactly the same. You also could get money and hire somebody to level your troops. This doesn't change how long it takes to build back up after a loss.

Im talking about this the entire threat. My suggestion doesn't change how hard you get punished after you loose. It also doesn't change the recovery time after you loose. It just offers option after you loose, how to recover from that loss.



I agree with that btw

I went to taverns all the time before this patch you are talking about, and whilst I found the occasional looter, I'd often find say 12-15 watchmen at once, or 10+ mercenary guards, Cavalry, or Hired Crossbowmen, and stuff like that. Haven't tested at all though with the new changes yet.
 
I went to taverns all the time before this patch you are talking about, and whilst I found the occasional looter, I'd often find say 12-15 watchmen at once, or 10+ mercenary guards, Cavalry, or Hired Crossbowmen, and stuff like that. Haven't tested at all though with the new changes yet.
So with the latest beta you might actually be able to get an decent amount of mercenaries. But they seriously need to balance the economy in the near future.
 
Just last night i read this thread about Bannerlord being bad, because troops level up too fast and it was unrealistic and ruined the game, alot of people agreed with the OP there aswell.
 
Just last night i read this thread about Bannerlord being bad, because troops level up too fast and it was unrealistic and ruined the game, alot of people agreed with the OP there aswell.
Yeah the entire troop upgrade mechanism is kinda unrealistic. I doubt that in reality lords where running for weeks arround their territory, hunting bandits so they can give their soldiers a little bit money, so they suddenly have a complete set of armour.
Of course from time to time it might have happened that you took your men to a skirmish so they could get some experience. But most of the time you would have trained them so they are as good as possible prepared.
 
Back
Top Bottom