SP - General Too big focus on leveling your troops

Users who are viewing this thread

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 inexperienced men to a skirmish so they could get some experience. But most of the time you wouldn't have trained them so they are as good as possible prepared.
Well im happy with the system we have, it works for the game, might need a bit of balance, just pointing out that we have people on polar opposites of the argument saying taleworlds should do the the opposite of each other, cant always be easy being a game developer.
 
Well im happy with the system we have, it works for the game, might need a bit of balance, just pointing out that we have people on polar opposites of the argument saying taleworlds should do the the opposite of each other, cant always be easy being a game developer.
sorry had a typo that i corrected. So your quote doesn't match my post anymore.

So far i haven't seen anybody who likes leveling troops. So im not happy with the current system.
But a suggestion that wants to make troop leveling more realistic is not contrary to my suggestion at all.
 
sorry had a typo that i corrected. So your quote doesn't match my post anymore.

So far i haven't seen anybody who likes leveling troops. So im not happy with the current system.
But a suggestion that wants to make troop leveling more realistic is not contrary to my suggestion at all.

I like leveling troops in general, I think it is great fun and provides a very welcome challenge to battles, and the game overall.
I am not saying fighting should be the only way to level up troops - but I do find it fun in general!
 
I like leveling troops in general, I think it is great fun and provides a very welcome challenge to battles, and the game overall.
I am not saying fighting should be the only way to level up troops - but I do find it fun in general!
I think a battle can only be intense/fun if there actually is a chance of loosing it. Usually the battles i pick to level up my troops, are against inferior foes, so i can minimise the risk of loosing to many men. I would say currently only 10% of the battles i fight are fun. The rest is just hunting weak partys.
 
I think a battle can only be intense/fun if there actually is a chance of loosing it. Usually the battles i pick to level up my troops, are against inferior foes, so i can minimise the risk of loosing to many men. I would say currently only 10% of the battles i fight are fun. The rest is just hunting weak partys.

I understand, which is why it would be great with some additional ways to level troops as well, such as paying for training in both money and time, and maybe other solutions.
 
nah, the worst balancing issue with troops is the horse cost for cavalry, any kind of cavalry will eventually eat up war horses... Each can cost up to 2k depending on where you are in the map, and it's virtually impossible to fit all of the upgradable troops with war horses.
If on of those idiots die it means you've just lost hundreds of upgrade cost + the horse (which is idiotic). If they use horses to upgrade, then horses should be given back when they die.

On the leveling thing, I think that adding troops to actively practice in the arena with the player would be good, as long as they receive more xp than in battle, it should work.
 
nah, the worst balancing issue with troops is the horse cost for cavalry, any kind of cavalry will eventually eat up war horses... Each can cost up to 2k depending on where you are in the map, and it's virtually impossible to fit all of the upgradable troops with war horses.
If on of those idiots die it means you've just lost hundreds of upgrade cost + the horse (which is idiotic). If they use horses to upgrade, then horses should be given back when they die.

On the leveling thing, I think that adding troops to actively practice in the arena with the player would be good, as long as they receive more xp than in battle, it should work.

yeah can agree that you should get the horse back if it didnt got killed on the battlefield
 
In my opinion the biggest problem is that results of defeats are too harsh. I don't mind leveling up troops but losing everything in one moment and doing it again is not fun after some time. Makes you choosing fights carefully which leads to boredom, at least for me.

Most troops after defeat should not die and disappear but scatter and then be available again after some time, just like lords respawn with troops magically. It's not that magic however as in reality most soldiers after lost battles fled and could be regrouped.
 
This is an area in which I’d like to see moderate, measured, limited reforms to increase access to better recruits, but not a radical shift to effortless recruitment. I agree w Kreu that choices in the game should have consequences.

Or in other words, I hope they don’t do with recruitment what they’ve done to other balancing questions in the game. E.g. Nerfing influence from donating prisoners by 90%. Seems like they’ve been letting the balance pendulum swing wildly with predictably silly results. I still like the basics of the game, and I don’t want to see them ruined for no reason.
 
You can get decent troops if you run an army with a few of your companions leading parties. When you visit villages they snatch up all kinds of troops, even nobles, that you cant, and then you can transfer them to yourself.

I personally find capturing bandits and training them into nobles to be quite fun, but that's the only aspect I think is somewhat fun.

Overall though I agree, it's not fun, badly designed, and it was better done in warband, mainly because it had the trainer skill and global battle xp gain. In wb, when you get to high level, and if you invest into intelligence -> training, it makes a big difference, and if you level up training in your intelligence focused companions, then you can really level up a band of fresh recruits into top units pretty fast, and it feels rewarding - you grinded your levels, and invested into int, and now you don't have to worry about your army all that much.

This was expanded in mods, some of which add very high lvl troops that take time to level up even with high trainer and lots of fighting, but it feels cool.

What you have in this game, is the perk in leadership, that adds a bit of xp, and that's it. It's impossible to level that up in companions as far as I know, so that's all you get. And then you get the disciplinarian perk to level bandits, but thats it. There is no investment you can make into troop training, or anything, just those 2 perks you get early on.

This ends up with a situation where you have to keep your troops alive in lategame, just like you did in earlygame, because losing them just means hours of grinding.

This is certainly a design mistake, as usual here. The main problem, I think, is this new skill system. The solution would be to have stewardship (for example) give like +0.1xp per skill level to troops below your level, and/or a mid/late game perk, that works something like - "every level gives troops below your level +0.1 daily xp", or - "every level above 200 gives +1 daily xp to troops below your level". That way, you will have to invest focus and stats into stewardship (as an example) if you want to train your armies faster. Stewardship can also be leveled by your companions if they run parties, so that way you can train them and, if you want, move them back into your party for some even more boosted xp.

This would be akin to how training worked in warband - investing into intelligence and training was costly. You could instead just get agi/str up and become an xp farming killing machine faster, but you have to choose between army xp and yourself, so it was a meaningful choice, and it all required grinding, for which you get rewarded

The solution I described above for bannerlord would be based on similar design principle - invest focus points etc into a skill that trains troops faster, so lategame you don't have to worry about training fresh troops and can screw around more and stuff.

Although I'm not sure if there is global battle xp - in warband, if you level up your fighting skills, you can kill a lot of stuff yourself, so the troops quickly get the global xp and that speeds up too. But that's again a problem with the new leveling system.
 
Last edited:
In my opinion the biggest problem is that results of defeats are too harsh. I don't mind leveling up troops but losing everything in one moment and doing it again is not fun after some time. Makes you choosing fights carefully which leads to boredom, at least for me.

Most troops after defeat should not die and disappear but scatter and then be available again after some time, just like lords respawn with troops magically. It's not that magic however as in reality most soldiers after lost battles fled and could be regrouped.
not harsh, unrealistic. In theory wounded troops should be returned to garrisons after a long cooldown (like 30 in-game days). But that would be kind of clumsy to manage. Armies can't regroup if they were caught btw. Because then all of them are prisoners, and they would get sold (hence why I've said 30 in-game days). Dead troops are just, dead...

You're asking for a "cheat-like" feature that doesn't make much sense at all
 
not harsh, unrealistic. In theory wounded troops should be returned to garrisons after a long cooldown (like 30 in-game days). But that would be kind of clumsy to manage. Armies can't regroup if they were caught btw. Because then all of them are prisoners, and they would get sold (hence why I've said 30 in-game days). Dead troops are just, dead...

You're asking for a "cheat-like" feature that doesn't make much sense at all
Not all troops get caught tho. Fleeing troops for example just disappear into thin air never to be seen again. those troops could regroup.
Historically the survivors of a battle would regroup somewhere and try to make it home.
Like in the battle of Pendraic in game.
Or like the The Ten Thousands(Mercs) route and retreat back to Greece after the Defeat of Cyrus the Younger in Persia.
The 1st bull run where Union troops routed and regrouped etc etc
 
Not all troops get caught tho. Fleeing troops for example just disappear into thin air never to be seen again. those troops could regroup.
Historically the survivors of a battle would regroup somewhere and try to make it home.
Like in the battle of Pendraic in game.
Or like the The Ten Thousands(Mercs) route and retreat back to Greece after the Defeat of Cyrus the Younger in Persia.
The 1st bull run where Union troops routed and regrouped etc etc
That would need to have a background counter for each lord, then calc the number of fleeing soldiers, subtract a % into desertion, and after that you would return 10 recruits. It would be kind of pointless. Yes, you could once in a life-time return an elite troop, but that would add more layers to balance, which is an issue on in itself.

"oh, player has Elite Cataphract returning from defeat, too bad that the garrison is full" done deal, you've lost the troop anyway

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.

What the game is lacking in this specific issue are ways to level up troops outside of the basic lame-ass loop. Both for AI and the Player.
 
Last edited:
That would need to have a background counter for each lord, then calc the number of fleeing soldiers, subtract a % into desertion, and after that you would return 10 recruits. It would be kind of pointless. Yes, you could once in a life-time return an elite troop, but that would add more layers to balance, which is an issue on in itself.

"oh, player has Elite Cataphract returning from defeat, too bad that the garrison is full" done deal, you've lost the troop anyway

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.
Idk I'd rather have the option that my men return to me as they would irl than not have the option it all adds to the immersion and recruiting and training Troops for a hour is a drag and boring for most, that's why like 2/3s of people that save scum save scum.
If I lose a large large battle 1k+ on each side I'll just kill my character off and play a Heir if no Heir I'll just start a new game.
Even if they are lower tier troops itd be nice cause jokes on them I almost never have under t3s. And if I do they usually die first in a fight 1/4 Recruits live to see the next battle. Shield wall is hell.
 
Idk I'd rather have the option that my men return to me as they would irl than not have the option it all adds to the immersion and recruiting and training Troops for a hour is a drag and boring for most, that's why like 2/3s of people that save scum save scum.
If I lose a large large battle 1k+ on each side I'll just kill my character off and play a Heir if no Heir I'll just start a new game.
Even if they are lower tier troops itd be nice cause jokes on them I almost never have under t3s. And if I do they usually die first in a fight 1/4 Recruits live to see the next battle. Shield wall is hell.
the only other way would be to force the regroup assigned to character's death to roll with it, then the troops would disband into the nearest garrison, so if you had no fiefs, you'd be ****ed anyway. Also, deal with the loss, move on, do not lose again
 
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.

Like a roguery/charm/leadership check depending of the chosen option, it does make sense that you'd get close and try to escape with your fellow inmates

And defeat wouldn't be as scary as it is now + you would have the chance to limit the loss of time you had re-recruiting/leveling your troops
 
Back
Top Bottom