Thanks, I don't use mods but this one I'll try.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Two sides of " enabled death "
- Thread starter Eugene Shutto
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Like I said, I find 10% very low still, to be honest with you when I want a Lord dead in battle, I sometimes reload the game, not always, but sometimes I do because his death will serve me. It's not always he'll die. Mostly I let the game run it's course, maybe next battle I get them, but when I need his immediate death i do this.
You mean the lords in their 30s with few memebers on clan? I believe fixing the birth rate, marriages between AIs or NPCs will solve the problem. They're young, so a child will born quickly. And it's not always will see non combatants taking roles as party leaders, as i noticed. The clan can survive, I agree.. they should put a child there at the beggining of these games, to give a extra help.. And stopping the Clan been losted, just because the child is underage, he's alive maybe without fiefs but alive and will come to age after 5 or 8 or 10 years to fight. A clan should only be consider destroyed with all members dead.
I don't use Mods either... not at this stage of the game, i prefer waiting until the game is fully complete
O
At least we both agree that something must be done with current state of death mechanic.
Ok I hear you . Let's see how they do in the end.
At least we both agree that something must be done with current state of death mechanic.
Mr. Walfington
Recruit
My solution was to start a new campaign with a 10 int char in order to max out medicine, get the perks that save and prolong companions' lives, potentially get Minister of Health perk later, and only *need* one companion as a scout to deck out in armor and keep in the back. The main char takes care of steward, engineer, medic. The rest of the companions could be party leaders, governors, whatever. If I need fighters I just use and replace normal troops.
I save often. If my char dies, scout dies, or anyone else important, I just start the battle over. It's like dying in Mario: it is a failure, there should be a penalty, but there are also infinite continues.
If you say the probability of noble deaths is higher in non-simulation battles, yeah that is a huge problem.
I think VC prepared many for this system with the various injuries... any permanent injury would be an immediate load previous save. It would make sense to have an injury system which could result in a death after a certain age, like 60. Normal injuries would shave some level points off of a random skill within vigor, control, or endurance, until you went to a healer.
The game just isn't set up for a 10% death chance at any age. Maybe 5%.
I save often. If my char dies, scout dies, or anyone else important, I just start the battle over. It's like dying in Mario: it is a failure, there should be a penalty, but there are also infinite continues.
If you say the probability of noble deaths is higher in non-simulation battles, yeah that is a huge problem.
I think VC prepared many for this system with the various injuries... any permanent injury would be an immediate load previous save. It would make sense to have an injury system which could result in a death after a certain age, like 60. Normal injuries would shave some level points off of a random skill within vigor, control, or endurance, until you went to a healer.
The game just isn't set up for a 10% death chance at any age. Maybe 5%.
That's why we need iron man mode like it was in warband. I'm sure it will be , but may be after EA.
Adryl
Regular
As I say in my many of my posts, to me, it's about player agency. A flat 10% chance is not the right way to handle this. It should be affected by how the battle is fought, and what I do in the battle - I should be able to control this chance to a large degree based on my actions in battle.
To me, it would be a lot cooler / more interesting if death had a higher percentage based on HOW the player/lord died in the battle. Basically if the lord takes a big chunk of damage at once, like a couched lance or running overhead 2h axe to the face, the lord has a very high chance to die. You could "hunt" lords on the battlefield this way, seeking them out on horseback, charging and spearing them off their mounts at full speed. That would maximize death chance. But if you wanted to "save" them you could aim for their horse instead, take it out from under them and let your troops "chip-damage" them down which would have little to no chance of death. Or, get off your horse and pull out a lighter weapon to take them down easy. That would be a fun system.
Also I don't know about you guys but personally I want to be able to turn ON lord death but turn OFF death for myself and my family/companions. Maybe this is not "realistic" but it'd be a lot more fun for me personally. I don't mind if my Lords have a chance to die, but I put a lot of time and effort into my companions and definitely do not want to risk them dying. It would just be nice to have two separate options here and I don't think it would affect balance, because I could still lose my own lords. Or, are there ways to do this in the current system? Medicine perks that guarantee family/companions can't die would work fine for me (but would have to be a 100% guarantee).
To me, it would be a lot cooler / more interesting if death had a higher percentage based on HOW the player/lord died in the battle. Basically if the lord takes a big chunk of damage at once, like a couched lance or running overhead 2h axe to the face, the lord has a very high chance to die. You could "hunt" lords on the battlefield this way, seeking them out on horseback, charging and spearing them off their mounts at full speed. That would maximize death chance. But if you wanted to "save" them you could aim for their horse instead, take it out from under them and let your troops "chip-damage" them down which would have little to no chance of death. Or, get off your horse and pull out a lighter weapon to take them down easy. That would be a fun system.
Also I don't know about you guys but personally I want to be able to turn ON lord death but turn OFF death for myself and my family/companions. Maybe this is not "realistic" but it'd be a lot more fun for me personally. I don't mind if my Lords have a chance to die, but I put a lot of time and effort into my companions and definitely do not want to risk them dying. It would just be nice to have two separate options here and I don't think it would affect balance, because I could still lose my own lords. Or, are there ways to do this in the current system? Medicine perks that guarantee family/companions can't die would work fine for me (but would have to be a 100% guarantee).
To me, it would be a lot cooler / more interesting if death had a higher percentage based on HOW the player/lord died in the battle. Basically if the lord takes a big chunk of damage at once, like a couched lance or running overhead 2h axe to the face, the lord has a very high chance to die. You could "hunt" lords on the battlefield this way, seeking them out on horseback, charging and spearing them off their mounts at full speed. That would maximize death chance. But if you wanted to "save" them you could aim for their horse instead, take it out from under them and let your troops "chip-damage" them down which would have little to no chance of death. Or, get off your horse and pull out a lighter weapon to take them down easy. That would be a fun system.
Big +1. I totally agree with a system like this.
Big +1. I totally agree with a system like this.
Mr. Walfington
Recruit
I would love to be able to shoot a lord in the leg to keep them alive after the battle.To me, it would be a lot cooler / more interesting if death had a higher percentage based on HOW the player/lord died in the battle. Basically if the lord takes a big chunk of damage at once, like a couched lance or running overhead 2h axe to the face, the lord has a very high chance to die. You could "hunt" lords on the battlefield this way, seeking them out on horseback, charging and spearing them off their mounts at full speed. That would maximize death chance. But if you wanted to "save" them you could aim for their horse instead, take it out from under them and let your troops "chip-damage" them down which would have little to no chance of death. Or, get off your horse and pull out a lighter weapon to take them down easy. That would be a fun system.
Big +1. I totally agree with a system like this.
... and aim for the head with some others.
That would be a very good thing.
You can use tournament arrows to knock out all the leaders.
You can (and should) not use AI parties in live battle.
This way you preserve all your future vassals as you build up, but still dispose of Husbands/Wives.
You can (and should) not use AI parties in live battle.
This way you preserve all your future vassals as you build up, but still dispose of Husbands/Wives.
Mr. Walfington
Recruit
I don't know. Ideally it would be nice to avoid any battles which include AI parties, but I think that risk is necessary when considering other goals.
I like to power level Leadership to Disciplinarian, farm bandit archers to make then Fians. In order to hit 125+ Leadership I have to be in constant army mode for a long time, and the easiest way of doing that is to invite 0 influence, companion-lead parties.
Did they finally patch out the ability to turn them into fians by giving them to a companion party (or garrison)?
If so I wonder if brother can still do it in a party, as you can give him the disciplinary perk during the tutorial (you can choose all his perks)
I know they patched out the control exploit for recruiting prisoners in 1.5.4 even though I didn't see it on the patch notes.
Not having lords die in simulation battles just makes the feature completely redundant anyway. Having only player participated battles count completely disconnects the reality of death from the game, and seems exactly opposite of what they're trying to do in every other aspect (making ai have to recruit, buy food, etc). Just a weird fricken oversight.
Absolutely agree. Also it brings disbalance in lords roster. Thought, death is one of the best features in this game , but it needs more work to become perfect.
There are just too many battles atm. Permanent-war mode just does not play properly with permanent death.
I personally would preffer to have a lot less big battles. Big army clashes should be less frequent. It should be harder to build big armies. Especially if some influential lord dies or his big army is defeated. Maybe just decrease his influence drastically in big defeats.
+1 for AI vs AI deaths
Additionally the dinasty system is prerequisit for perma-death
I personally would preffer to have a lot less big battles. Big army clashes should be less frequent. It should be harder to build big armies. Especially if some influential lord dies or his big army is defeated. Maybe just decrease his influence drastically in big defeats.
+1 for AI vs AI deaths
Additionally the dinasty system is prerequisit for perma-death
Similar threads
