Version Comparison 1.2 vs 1.3

[meowwoofneigh]

Before 1.3 my game never crashed despite the game's gradual build-up of slow loading times, CPU/memory leaks, fps drop and stuttering with every simulation battle, or just walking around town, as in the previous patches. Now I can't even play for a few hours without the game crashing on me.

I know it's good to have new content coming up on the weekly, but it won't do much as long as the game has the aforementioned problems, so: 1.3 has new content and faction balancing that's good, on the downside not only the problem with the stutter and CPU usage still there, now it started crashing after a few hours of playing once the game (and my PC) got overburdened with said problems. And I have already tried reinstalling and updating from scratch to be sure.

 

[Lesbosisles]

Peace cool down has been removed

What, already? Damn...

 

[mexxico]

Peace cool down has been removed. This is game breaking and we need a hot fix. Can you forward the issue? Someone should get fired for these brain dead decisions. I mean...I payed money for an uncomplete game and I volunteer in the beta branch but I can't do **** if Taleworlds breaks important mechanics.

My tolerance gets smaller and smaller if Taleworlds continues to remove or add stuff without even thinking about possible results. Seems the information why something has been added gets lost within 2 weeks. Forums are full with Khuzait complaints, even massive reports with 10 pages and someone thought "ok, let's remove the feature which made the game less annoying". Congratulations.

And don't get me wrong mexxico, it's not against you. I really appreciate your work and your activity in the forums. You do your best, you should be promoted and take the lead so things get sorted out properly.

https://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php?threads/beta-1-4-1-30-days-peace-mechanic-broken.423595/#post-9442980

Sorry. I am totally in your side. I made my warning about holding 25 days truce days until new replacement is ready. It was obvious players will get sad and gameplay will be effected badly.

Anyway I learnt how new mechanism will be. There will be daily payment for truce. So if truce is broken daily payment will stop too. This will prevent kingdoms breaking truce. This is a good solution but if I was giving final decision I hold 25 days truce days until this new mechanism is ready it was only a small code block preventing new war decleration if there was a truce in last 25 days. Also wars are 2x-3x compared to 1.3 in 1.4 (for example average war count at a moment is 5-6 in 1.3 and 12-13 in 1.4) this is also a bug related to new developments at these systems due to this problem snowballing again started and 1-2 factions usually destroyed in first 2-3 years because there happen lots of hostile actions in all borders because every faction have 3 wars in average.

My suggestion is play 1.3 until 1.4 is ready. I also open this comparision thread(s) to save game aganist possible wrong decisions in future. For example if at 1.4 these problems continue you can vote I prefer 1.3 to 1.4 in next voting. However I am 90% sure they will be fixed and 1.4 will be better than 1.3 however currently 1.3 is better than 1.4 because of these problems according to me. Please be patient. These problems are currently in beta branch and beta branch is a branch for adding new developments and getting feedbacks so I think it is normal beta branch has some broken mechanics your feedbacks will make it better. By the way I do not accept sending broken mechanics to even beta branch but I cannot prevent this to happen in some scenarios.

 

[Caps]

Imagine if something actually changed between the version, in regards to MP. I like the new idle animations i guess, cant really tell a difference though if im honest.

 

[Patwick]

There will be daily payment for truce. So if truce is broken daily payment will stop too. This will prevent kingdoms breaking truces

So, loosing side will pay winning side to hold the truce so the winning side has less reason to declare war again on the same ennemy right ?
It means that loosing side will have more reason to declare war against an ennemy they previously lost to aswell ? Will it really reduce the number of war going on if that's the case ?

Wouldn't the payment impacts lords finance like the lord bankruptcy issue again ?

 

[mexxico]

Wouldn't the payment impacts lords finance like the lord bankruptcy issue again ?

This is a good question. Probably there can be new finance problems after this new feature is totally implemented. Kingdoms should stop paying tributes at some critical point. This new tribute payment can make already strong kingdom also rich and snowballing can effected badly because rich kingdoms can hire more mercenary factions and can recruit more & better troops and their garrisons are stronger. After this implementation we need to check balance of economy again. However in old system there was nearly no diplomacy, there were only random wars and peace declerations without any background. Maybe this new development will open us areas for adding new diplomatic relations & deals between kingdoms so wars and peaces would have more sense. Probably Bannerlord needs more of that kind of stuff. So its good we will have them.

My only objection is we had to hold 25 days truce days until this new stuff was ready.

 

[Tintenkobold]

Ridiculous...I'm too deep in 1.4.x already, I will stop playing and wait until I see signs of wise decision-making. I understand it's the beta branch and the newest patch is always filled with problems...but this is not a technical issue, it's the result of developers not knowing what they do, not hearing to the community and most likely not playing the game to feel how bad this is. You can't justify everything with "beta".

 

[Lesbosisles]

Maybe this new development will open us areas for adding new diplomatic relations & deals between kingdoms so wars and peaces would have more sense. Probably Bannerlord needs more of that kind of stuff. So its good we will have them.

Yep, lack of diplomacy is a real issue, random wars without any thought or background look at the very least strange. Even in Warband there were some reasons for Kingdoms to declare war on each other. Very few and limited reasons, but at least we had them. Right now, with all this Lord trait and personality system, the new diplomacy can be a little bit deeper, than in WB (and I hope it will be, the potential is really great). Looks like you've been finally provided with some info concecrning this new system

My only objection is we had to hold 25 days truce days until this new stuff was ready.

And this was really reasonable objection, if you ask me (and I, suppose, most of the players).

 

[MinhTien]

So, loosing side will pay winning side to hold the truce so the winning side has less reason to declare war again on the same ennemy right ?
It means that loosing side will have more reason to declare war against an ennemy they previously lost to aswell ? Will it really reduce the number of war going on if that's the case ?

Wouldn't the payment impacts lords finance like the lord bankruptcy issue again ?

I have these concerns as well. This sounds like it would exacerbate the snowballing by funneling resource from the weaker side to the powerful.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

This is a good question. Probably there can be new finance problems after this new feature is totally implemented. Kingdoms should stop paying tributes at some critical point. This new tribute payment can make already strong kingdom also rich and snowballing can effected badly because rich kingdoms can hire more mercenary factions and can recruit more & better troops and their garrisons are stronger. After this implementation we need to check balance of economy again. However in old system there was nearly no diplomacy, there were only random wars and peace declerations without any background. Maybe this new development will open us areas for adding new diplomatic relations & deals between kingdoms so wars and peaces would have more sense. Probably Bannerlord needs more of that kind of stuff. So its good we will have them.

My only objection is we had to hold 25 days truce days until this new stuff was ready.

This new system has me a bit worried but it may just be due to my ignorance. My biggest question is, can kingdoms ever get out of the cycle of war/truce after the first time war dec? As in once two kingdoms get into war and then a truce, does that truce have a time limit? and is it guaranteed that they will go back to war with each other right after the truce ends, like is the only way out of tribute when you declare war again? If so then at some point every kingdom will be locked into either a truce with every other kingdom and paying tributes/getting paid or at war with them. Hopefully this isnt the case and after a truce payments have been made you can go back to peace for a time and not get insta war declared from that kingdom.

I'm sure at some point an update will let us become allies with another kingdom and this will be another option, but in the mean time that cycle with no intermediate peace would be rough to play with no respite.

 

[froggyluv]

Glad TW is seemingly striving to get a diplomacy system up in running but honestly aint it a little late in development for this intricate a system to be still in early development? Honestly i would have hired some of those hexagon strategy gaming kids to iron this out over the last few years

 

[kappawt]

Probably Bannerlord needs more of that kind of stuff. So its good we will have them.

Good news!

 

[Badcritter]

I also open this comparision thread(s) to save game aganist possible wrong decisions in future. For example if at 1.4 these problems continue you can vote I prefer 1.3 to 1.4 in next voting.

Timing is everything when it comes to the validity of such a poll for comparison to the current poll.

eg. if 1.4.1 brings rampant war under control before it goes to main branch (which I hope it will), then the vote will say 1.4.1 is better than 1.3 - because 1.4.1 has a lot of good features, and its most damaging flaw would no longer be present.

If the vote is for 1.4.1 as it stands today versus 1.3.x... the question becomes 1.3.x at what point? People may have trouble even remembering how 1.3 was when it was first released to beta and how much it improved by the time it went to main branch. And obviously it would make the future poll have different terms to the current one, which makes it questionable to compare them.

Obviously I'm 100% on board with your view, as are all the players who are commenting. I'm just advising caution in terms of the quality of evidence provided by comparing polls if you intend to use them to make your case to decision makers.

 

[mexxico]

Timing is everything when it comes to the validity of such a poll for comparison to the current poll.

eg. if 1.4.1 brings rampant war under control before it goes to main branch (which I hope it will), then the vote will say 1.4.1 is better than 1.3 - because 1.4.1 has a lot of good features, and its most damaging flaw would no longer be present.

If the vote is for 1.4.1 as it stands today versus 1.3.x... the question becomes 1.3.x at what point? People may have trouble even remembering how 1.3 was when it was first released to beta and how much it improved by the time it went to main branch. And obviously it would make the future poll have different terms to the current one, which makes it questionable to compare them.

Yes timing is important. You can assume you are comparing latest point of 1.2 (that you remember) with current point of 1.3; generally we do not add big fixes to live branch. So yes you are right until 1.4 goes live number of wars should go normal like it was in 1.3. It is important and we reported it.

Wars in 1.3 (average total wars is 4 at any moment, min 2, max 7)

Wars in 1.4 (average total wars is 11 at any moment, min 6, max 14)

 

[Carabus]

Wars in 1.4 (average total wars is 11 at any moment, min 6, max 14)

What happened between 1091 and 1092 there?
Everyone stopped their other wars, and then declared on Western Empire?
In 1091 there are lots of different wars. In 1092 there is Western Empire vs literally everyone, the only other war is a short one between Vlandia and Sturgia.

 

[ileboii]

What happened between 1091 and 1092 there?
Everyone stopped their other wars, and then declared on Western Empire?
In 1091 there are lots of different wars. In 1092 there is Western Empire vs literally everyone, the only other war is a short one between Vlandia and Sturgia.

I would assume that WEmpire lost a significant amount of fiefs, then other kingdoms took advantage to that. In my experience this happens sometimes.

 

[black_bulldog]

I would assume that WEmpire lost a significant amount of fiefs, then other kingdoms took advantage to that. In my experience this happens sometimes.

The problem is we really have zero idea why kingdoms go to war. Sometimes it to gain territory back but most times it's just random. I've seen kingdoms across the map from each other go to war. My current playthrough ever single kindgom is at war with a minimum of 2 - 4 other kingdoms it feels like I'm in a 40K game "in the grim dark future there is only war".

 

[Brodie]

Very nice analysis!

It would also be very nice that after me killing 3000-4000 men through several battles, The Western Empire purposes me peace instead of keep sending armies. Maybe a trait in the AI Rulers should be used to decide how many losses are they going to suffer before asking a truce.

I also hope the relationship with lords and rules have something to do on how frequent they declare wars on you in 1.4.1 beta a war can be declared and stoped everyday and it's a little bit annoying as if I'm onlye trying to defend my territory I can't do any other thing in the game.

 

[Waybook]

It would also be very nice that after me killing 3000-4000 men through several battles, The Western Empire purposes me peace instead of keep sending armies. Maybe a trait in the AI Rulers should be used to decide how many losses are they going to suffer before asking a truce.

Maybe the game should implement some "war exhaustion" mechanic? If a kingdom is constantly at war and loses a lot of troops in battle, then the people should become more and more angry with their ruler. Certain penalties could be implemented, like lower taxes, fewer recruits and maybe even armed rebellions.

This would pressure the rulers to make peace.

 

[Brodie]

Have you ever received a peace proposal? In my playthroughs/tests my kingdom is still too small to have greater strength than other kingdoms so I assume that's why I am always the one who has to pay for peace. I need peace to grow my kingdom as in 1.4.1 beta I can't convince lords in an army to join me (they are too busy staying in an army to talk...), and I need to be in an army to defend constantly my settlements which prevents me to catch any lord not in an army due to speed constraints. I managed to add one lord to my kingdom but he deserted in 10 seconds... didn't understand this behavior though...

To have a true sense of fair playing I need the other empires to request and pay me for peace when I am already winning the war and killing lots of their men. So... is implemented enemy lords asking for peace? bartering for peace?

Sometimes there other lords don't want to fight me (I have no wish to fight you), but it seems there's not a way to agree any terms, I need money to buy peace, you have money and don't want to fight, we could have an agreement as it works when I am the one not willing to fight. In particular that was also a strage case because that lord didn't want to fight me and I think he expected me to leave him on his way... his way was travelling to one of my cities to besiege it... so it was pretty non-sense.

I think we are near to a great system but it needs a common sense layer on top of it.