Users who are viewing this thread
I'm happy to go with whatever the majority opinion is--Currently I'll count Pode as a vote for halving the effects, and DeSoto as a vote for removing it entirely. If anyone else has an opinion, please chime in (feel free to use PM if you prefer). If opinions remain evenly split, I'll lean towards removing it outright as the tie-breaker.
URGENT REQUEST: Please can anyone confirm or otherwise comment on Muirhied's report that Alliances are incorrectly reported as truces in notes, and the countries are reported as allied to self in war declarations. I haven't been able to reproduce, but I've had very limited playtesting time. I'd ideally like to receive a saved game, but even just hearing confirmation that someone else has encountered the issue, or, JUST AS VALUABLE, reports that alliances seem to be listed fine and failure to encounter the issue, would be extremely useful.
Here's Muirhied's screenshot of one of the screens he saw: https://imgur.com/VZPSGvy . Muirhied also reported the following error in notes: "Also, I noticed that the allies aren't actually allies in the note tab. just truced with each other which is weird. Northybre is supposed to be allies with Laithland but it just shows up as a truce, not an ally."
I'd really like to move us out of Beta and do the final releases, but I need to confirm whether this is a generally encountered issue or not (sometimes idiosyncratic glitches can come up in one campaign and not for others), and fix it if it can be confirmed. I've had a lot of people write me to say they haven't encountered any bugs, but I can't be sure whether they looked for this one or not--so please, check your notes screen for how alliances are described, and let me know whether you have seen a declaration of war with an alliance listed.
So please, some players report back on this, one way or the other. This is the last obstacle to a finale release.
URGENT REQUEST: Please can anyone confirm or otherwise comment on Muirhied's report that Alliances are incorrectly reported as truces in notes, and the countries are reported as allied to self in war declarations. I haven't been able to reproduce, but I've had very limited playtesting time. I'd ideally like to receive a saved game, but even just hearing confirmation that someone else has encountered the issue, or, JUST AS VALUABLE, reports that alliances seem to be listed fine and failure to encounter the issue, would be extremely useful.
Here's Muirhied's screenshot of one of the screens he saw: https://imgur.com/VZPSGvy . Muirhied also reported the following error in notes: "Also, I noticed that the allies aren't actually allies in the note tab. just truced with each other which is weird. Northybre is supposed to be allies with Laithland but it just shows up as a truce, not an ally."
I'd really like to move us out of Beta and do the final releases, but I need to confirm whether this is a generally encountered issue or not (sometimes idiosyncratic glitches can come up in one campaign and not for others), and fix it if it can be confirmed. I've had a lot of people write me to say they haven't encountered any bugs, but I can't be sure whether they looked for this one or not--so please, check your notes screen for how alliances are described, and let me know whether you have seen a declaration of war with an alliance listed.
So please, some players report back on this, one way or the other. This is the last obstacle to a finale release.
DeSoto
Sergeant at Arms
Sadly I can't comment on the alliance issue, but I found something else regarding faction interactions.
I'm at day 200 currently and been mainly running around gathering companions and improving my proficiencies. I tend to do that before making a push towards establishing a kingdom, cause I never make myself a vasall, so I have to be ready when it goes down.
Earlier (around day 130) I came across a freshly sieged town with a garrison of only 50 men. I took the chance and grabbed it to get the Crown headgear. Strangely enough that didn't make me declare war on the former owner, but merely decreased my relations and gave them a Casus Belli. After 60-70 or so days they finally declared war on me and sieged my town down in no time (it had only 5 troops). Them taking over the town immediately stopped the war (I guess because I had no more holdings?), but again they left the town pretty much unprotected (only around 40 men). So I took it right back and what do you know, the same thing as before happened. No declaration of war and on top I got another crown.
It has been years since I played vanilla M&B, so I can't say whether this behaviour is "normal". But it seems weird that I can pretty much shut down all wars by just loosing my fief and getting it back almost immediately without declaring war again. Also the crown should be unique I think, otherwise you could equip every single companion with it (as it gives +1 persuasion/leadership).
Maybe also raise the initial garrison after a successful siege to 100 troops, at the current level you can pretty much take over these fiefs solo.
EDIT: I kept going, always with the same town, to see if the pattern changes. After the first 2 sieges the opposing faction declared war on me just a few days after each subsequent siege. This leads to another problem, easy reputation farming. Each siege yields 5 (I think) rep, so doing this over and over will get you to positive triple-digit reputation in no time.
Considering that towns are a massive income boost, they shouldn't be that easy to take. I'm not sure what the exact formula is, but from observation it seems that the garrison is only about 10% of the attacking army size. Changing this to 15-20% would probably be enough to prevent it. I don't want to ruin anyone's fun here, but this doesn't only affect the player. In my game the town of Tomtun changed hands almost on a weekly basis for months on end. So the AI abuses the same strategy, cause it always goes for the lowest garrison. That stalls game progression, cause two factions might be caught in an eternal loop of sieging the same town/castle.
I'm at day 200 currently and been mainly running around gathering companions and improving my proficiencies. I tend to do that before making a push towards establishing a kingdom, cause I never make myself a vasall, so I have to be ready when it goes down.
Earlier (around day 130) I came across a freshly sieged town with a garrison of only 50 men. I took the chance and grabbed it to get the Crown headgear. Strangely enough that didn't make me declare war on the former owner, but merely decreased my relations and gave them a Casus Belli. After 60-70 or so days they finally declared war on me and sieged my town down in no time (it had only 5 troops). Them taking over the town immediately stopped the war (I guess because I had no more holdings?), but again they left the town pretty much unprotected (only around 40 men). So I took it right back and what do you know, the same thing as before happened. No declaration of war and on top I got another crown.
It has been years since I played vanilla M&B, so I can't say whether this behaviour is "normal". But it seems weird that I can pretty much shut down all wars by just loosing my fief and getting it back almost immediately without declaring war again. Also the crown should be unique I think, otherwise you could equip every single companion with it (as it gives +1 persuasion/leadership).
Maybe also raise the initial garrison after a successful siege to 100 troops, at the current level you can pretty much take over these fiefs solo.
EDIT: I kept going, always with the same town, to see if the pattern changes. After the first 2 sieges the opposing faction declared war on me just a few days after each subsequent siege. This leads to another problem, easy reputation farming. Each siege yields 5 (I think) rep, so doing this over and over will get you to positive triple-digit reputation in no time.
Considering that towns are a massive income boost, they shouldn't be that easy to take. I'm not sure what the exact formula is, but from observation it seems that the garrison is only about 10% of the attacking army size. Changing this to 15-20% would probably be enough to prevent it. I don't want to ruin anyone's fun here, but this doesn't only affect the player. In my game the town of Tomtun changed hands almost on a weekly basis for months on end. So the AI abuses the same strategy, cause it always goes for the lowest garrison. That stalls game progression, cause two factions might be caught in an eternal loop of sieging the same town/castle.
Concerning injured horse movement: it should remain in one form or another. The extent of the hindrance I leave in your capable hands.
Hi DeSoto:
This is all Vanilla VC behavior, not from the mod, so I can only guess as to why things work the way they do. Here are some thoughts on changing each:
Crowns: I’d guess the devs made it give a crown each time the player kingdom is created in case the player lost their own. I agree with you though that farming crowns is a potential exploit. It isn’t dramatically concerning (as repeatedly losing/gaining your kingdom to get crowns won’t generate much extra in terms of loot vs other options, and the leadership bonus for putting them on companions isn’t so dramatically great and is clear exploitive behavior that the player should hopefully voluntarily avoid). But yes I think ideally it should be changed. Really, maybe a crown shouldn’t be automatic at all, instead the player should need to commission one by paying one of the special blacksmiths, but only enabled if a player king. If I find some extra time before release, I’ll look into changing this, but can’t guarantee yet.
Faction creation/destruction from independent conquest diplomatic behavior: I haven’t modded or even experienced this as a player much. There are some oddities you correctly note. However, I am reluctant to start modding those systems—the creation and destruction of the player faction have a lot of implications and can potentially be the source of all kinds of glitches (especially, when claimant quests go wrong, but also I’ve heard some Warband reports of rare strange behavior when player factions gets destroyed), and I would be too worried that the developers had very good reason to keep it working like it does to avoid problems arising. Given the amount of playtesting I would need to do to become comfortable that any change did not introduce bugs, it isn’t feasible at this stage of development.
Repeated siege rep implications: good point, though honestly there is so much potential farming for stuff in the game, that unless I felt the rep reward is too high as a general matter, I’m not inclined to nerf it just to remove this niche unjustified use, and implementing a check tracking for recent reconquest would be too complex given the relatively minor size of the problem. So probably no changes there.
Garrison increase after conquest: I will look into this one, and likely implement your suggestion for a small increase.
Thanks for contributing your thoughts!
Anyone else who has opinions on this as well (whether remove or to keep in reduced state, or even keep as is), please do keep sending them to me.
This is all Vanilla VC behavior, not from the mod, so I can only guess as to why things work the way they do. Here are some thoughts on changing each:
Crowns: I’d guess the devs made it give a crown each time the player kingdom is created in case the player lost their own. I agree with you though that farming crowns is a potential exploit. It isn’t dramatically concerning (as repeatedly losing/gaining your kingdom to get crowns won’t generate much extra in terms of loot vs other options, and the leadership bonus for putting them on companions isn’t so dramatically great and is clear exploitive behavior that the player should hopefully voluntarily avoid). But yes I think ideally it should be changed. Really, maybe a crown shouldn’t be automatic at all, instead the player should need to commission one by paying one of the special blacksmiths, but only enabled if a player king. If I find some extra time before release, I’ll look into changing this, but can’t guarantee yet.
Faction creation/destruction from independent conquest diplomatic behavior: I haven’t modded or even experienced this as a player much. There are some oddities you correctly note. However, I am reluctant to start modding those systems—the creation and destruction of the player faction have a lot of implications and can potentially be the source of all kinds of glitches (especially, when claimant quests go wrong, but also I’ve heard some Warband reports of rare strange behavior when player factions gets destroyed), and I would be too worried that the developers had very good reason to keep it working like it does to avoid problems arising. Given the amount of playtesting I would need to do to become comfortable that any change did not introduce bugs, it isn’t feasible at this stage of development.
Repeated siege rep implications: good point, though honestly there is so much potential farming for stuff in the game, that unless I felt the rep reward is too high as a general matter, I’m not inclined to nerf it just to remove this niche unjustified use, and implementing a check tracking for recent reconquest would be too complex given the relatively minor size of the problem. So probably no changes there.
Garrison increase after conquest: I will look into this one, and likely implement your suggestion for a small increase.
TadhgEomonn said:
Thanks for contributing your thoughts!
Anyone else who has opinions on this as well (whether remove or to keep in reduced state, or even keep as is), please do keep sending them to me.
Zeqe
Recruit
Hi Tingyun,
Haven't posted in a while, but I'm all for removing the horse speed debuff. It has only served so far to punish me for random javelins/headshot arrows making it over the shieldwall when I am carefully avoiding "exploiting" the horse. I mostly just use it as a higher vantage point from which to direct battle on hilly maps. Can't count the number of horses I've lost to some random nutjob npc getting a lucky javelin over the shieldwall as we advance, and now any hit from a rock/arrow/javelin turns my moving platform into a slug. Yuck from me!
Regards,
Zeqe
Haven't posted in a while, but I'm all for removing the horse speed debuff. It has only served so far to punish me for random javelins/headshot arrows making it over the shieldwall when I am carefully avoiding "exploiting" the horse. I mostly just use it as a higher vantage point from which to direct battle on hilly maps. Can't count the number of horses I've lost to some random nutjob npc getting a lucky javelin over the shieldwall as we advance, and now any hit from a rock/arrow/javelin turns my moving platform into a slug. Yuck from me!
Regards,
Zeqe
incas
Recruit
I think a slowing horse is a good addition. It would fit better in vanilla and other mods imo, where horsery is just plain over powered.
I would vote for keeping it but halving the effect.
A question Tinygun. How do you solo Vikingr with horse & sword when many of them carry spears?
I would vote for keeping it but halving the effect.
A question Tinygun. How do you solo Vikingr with horse & sword when many of them carry spears?
Thanks Zeqe and Incas for your votes. I really appreciate you both taking the time to contribute your opinions and reasoning.
First I should say I don’t solo the Northmanthr Viking parties (not sure if that is the right name—but the Vikings with very long spears). The long spears make it way too dangerous. Exception is a small party of them. Then I can kill most with throwing weapons by having them follow me and throwing when they drop their shield, and clean up any leftovers by either dismounting and taking them on foot or staying mounted and angling sideways to them on approach exposing my shield and waiting for the spear to glance off and then turning and cutting them then (tactics that would be a bad idea with more than a couple left).
Danish elite vikingr parties are the primary targets. The Danish elites, ulfhedin, and ship captains don’t have spears, so the only spear users are the normal vikingr, who only have the relatively short and weak spears. Then, the short spears users are dealt with the same way as their swordsmen comrades, after a standard circling at long range gallop getting progressively closer to let the javelins and then the shorter range throwing spears be wasted, and help them blob up tightly, then ride at full gallop circling them, select one slightly separated from his comrades, angle a bit more directly towards him but turn away at the last second whipping the sword around faster, but being ready to abort or raise shield if the AI’s timing becomes worrisome. There is some slight variation in initial angle of horse and change depending on their angle if they prechamber their weapon, but that is the basic formula, pick a charging angle that invites them to make a mistake, and change horse direction at the last second generally in a way that makes you a bit safer and helps whip your sword around faster to hit them before they hit you.
It is also possible to get a long spear yourself and just sort of sit on the horse trotting lightly and poke people as they lower their shield, exploiting the much greater reach compared to their short spears, but it feels so much less fun by removing the fast-paced speed, variations in approaches, skill in timing, and the sense of risk (from the speed bonuses you give the enemy if you mess up the sword version) etc, so after trying it a few times I went back to sword (but that is probably personal preference based). Of course, throwing weapons are also the easiest soloing route, with the standard trot away from the enemy army at slow speed so they form a line behind you, then alternately go slower and faster to let one almost catch up and nail them with a throwing weapon when they lower their shield. If you follow the Balance Mod description’s suggested house rules (restrict inventory chest ammo reloads) it only works for small parties. On the other hand, if a player doesn’t restrict inventory chest ammo loads, then they can do standard Warband horse archery craziness, and just gallop a circle around the enemy blob that runs over the inventory chest at one point in the circle for continuous reloads as they wildly throw into their midst quickly breaking all shields and killing everyone, but that really is no fun and best restricted with the inventory chest houserule.
I should note that in terms of real world player time investment, I think you probably get a lot more wealth/prisoner rescues sailing a snekja or skeid in the various ship-bandit hotspots (ie, Danish elites in the English Channel, Frankish between Dunwic-ribe-dorested, and the two types of ship bandits in the Irish Sea), or even hunting on land with a band of elites that can more quickly kill the vikingr parties. But I really enjoy doing some solo battles now and then, and you can do it very early as a way of speeding progression into midgame.
incas said:
First I should say I don’t solo the Northmanthr Viking parties (not sure if that is the right name—but the Vikings with very long spears). The long spears make it way too dangerous. Exception is a small party of them. Then I can kill most with throwing weapons by having them follow me and throwing when they drop their shield, and clean up any leftovers by either dismounting and taking them on foot or staying mounted and angling sideways to them on approach exposing my shield and waiting for the spear to glance off and then turning and cutting them then (tactics that would be a bad idea with more than a couple left).
Danish elite vikingr parties are the primary targets. The Danish elites, ulfhedin, and ship captains don’t have spears, so the only spear users are the normal vikingr, who only have the relatively short and weak spears. Then, the short spears users are dealt with the same way as their swordsmen comrades, after a standard circling at long range gallop getting progressively closer to let the javelins and then the shorter range throwing spears be wasted, and help them blob up tightly, then ride at full gallop circling them, select one slightly separated from his comrades, angle a bit more directly towards him but turn away at the last second whipping the sword around faster, but being ready to abort or raise shield if the AI’s timing becomes worrisome. There is some slight variation in initial angle of horse and change depending on their angle if they prechamber their weapon, but that is the basic formula, pick a charging angle that invites them to make a mistake, and change horse direction at the last second generally in a way that makes you a bit safer and helps whip your sword around faster to hit them before they hit you.
It is also possible to get a long spear yourself and just sort of sit on the horse trotting lightly and poke people as they lower their shield, exploiting the much greater reach compared to their short spears, but it feels so much less fun by removing the fast-paced speed, variations in approaches, skill in timing, and the sense of risk (from the speed bonuses you give the enemy if you mess up the sword version) etc, so after trying it a few times I went back to sword (but that is probably personal preference based). Of course, throwing weapons are also the easiest soloing route, with the standard trot away from the enemy army at slow speed so they form a line behind you, then alternately go slower and faster to let one almost catch up and nail them with a throwing weapon when they lower their shield. If you follow the Balance Mod description’s suggested house rules (restrict inventory chest ammo reloads) it only works for small parties. On the other hand, if a player doesn’t restrict inventory chest ammo loads, then they can do standard Warband horse archery craziness, and just gallop a circle around the enemy blob that runs over the inventory chest at one point in the circle for continuous reloads as they wildly throw into their midst quickly breaking all shields and killing everyone, but that really is no fun and best restricted with the inventory chest houserule.
I should note that in terms of real world player time investment, I think you probably get a lot more wealth/prisoner rescues sailing a snekja or skeid in the various ship-bandit hotspots (ie, Danish elites in the English Channel, Frankish between Dunwic-ribe-dorested, and the two types of ship bandits in the Irish Sea), or even hunting on land with a band of elites that can more quickly kill the vikingr parties. But I really enjoy doing some solo battles now and then, and you can do it very early as a way of speeding progression into midgame.
Final release scheduled for Tuesday. If anyone has any final suggestions, feedback, or reports, please post now, this is the last chance.
Alternate version for faster travel speeds will be released Tuesday as well. Sorry for the delay—I know players have been missing it (at least, the messages have been piling up on Reddit/nexus/etc from people looking for it). I should have included it in the Beta, that was a lazy mistake on my part—sorry about that.
Alternate version for faster travel speeds will be released Tuesday as well. Sorry for the delay—I know players have been missing it (at least, the messages have been piling up on Reddit/nexus/etc from people looking for it). I should have included it in the Beta, that was a lazy mistake on my part—sorry about that.
Cool!
What have you decided about the slowing horse penalty? I think it's realistic, but also kills the mounted gameplay.!
would be fine if the penalty could increase non linearly with the damage, in the sense that the horse slows down only when very close to 0 HP (with speed that should be comparable to the "lame" version)
however, if it starts to slow down after the first hit, it will dramatically increase the chance of being hit again, and then again, meaning that horses will be useless after the first hit.. so what would be the point of having a horse HP bar
What have you decided about the slowing horse penalty? I think it's realistic, but also kills the mounted gameplay.!
would be fine if the penalty could increase non linearly with the damage, in the sense that the horse slows down only when very close to 0 HP (with speed that should be comparable to the "lame" version)
however, if it starts to slow down after the first hit, it will dramatically increase the chance of being hit again, and then again, meaning that horses will be useless after the first hit.. so what would be the point of having a horse HP bar
Hi Dhamon,
Given the fairly even split in opinion, Pode’s compromise is the winner—it will continue but in much reduced form, between 1/2 and 1/3 the current effect. Consistent with your suggestion, it will be set to only be noticeable at very low horse hp.
Btw, current version if I remember correctly starts slowing when going below 70% horse health, and drops slowly at first but then speeds up at lower hp, so it already sort of works that way, I just need to lower the thresholds and magnitude.
Given the fairly even split in opinion, Pode’s compromise is the winner—it will continue but in much reduced form, between 1/2 and 1/3 the current effect. Consistent with your suggestion, it will be set to only be noticeable at very low horse hp.
Btw, current version if I remember correctly starts slowing when going below 70% horse health, and drops slowly at first but then speeds up at lower hp, so it already sort of works that way, I just need to lower the thresholds and magnitude.
Will do Toster.
Short delay--I need to push release back to Thursday. A family emergency came up just a few minutes ago, nothing serious but I need to devote a great deal of time to it today and tomorrow. Thursday is definite though, I always have a lot of time that day, and I want to ensure the final version is out before Christmas weekend, so I won't delay any further.
(the final version is almost identical to the current except for example for the horse change discussed above, and completely save compatible with it, so unless you are looking for one of the alternate versions, this shouldn't affect you. To those who are, I do apologize for the delay, but I will not delay further and you will get your preferred version on Thursday).
Short delay--I need to push release back to Thursday. A family emergency came up just a few minutes ago, nothing serious but I need to devote a great deal of time to it today and tomorrow. Thursday is definite though, I always have a lot of time that day, and I want to ensure the final version is out before Christmas weekend, so I won't delay any further.
(the final version is almost identical to the current except for example for the horse change discussed above, and completely save compatible with it, so unless you are looking for one of the alternate versions, this shouldn't affect you. To those who are, I do apologize for the delay, but I will not delay further and you will get your preferred version on Thursday).
Zeqe
Recruit
Tingyun,
Thanks so much for all your hard work on this balance mod. I can't wait to see how version 10 plays. I plan to make it my final push through of a female norse pagan who converts the isles to paganism. I've dinked around in the past conquering Ireland, but I'm going to make this one my final push through for total conquest, and then retire until Bannerlord. I've really enjoyed your work over the past few months.
Regards,
Zeqe
Thanks so much for all your hard work on this balance mod. I can't wait to see how version 10 plays. I plan to make it my final push through of a female norse pagan who converts the isles to paganism. I've dinked around in the past conquering Ireland, but I'm going to make this one my final push through for total conquest, and then retire until Bannerlord. I've really enjoyed your work over the past few months.
Regards,
Zeqe
Zeqe, thanks for the kind comments! Total conquest is quite the goal, post updates now and then on how it goes. 
I’m ready to release version 10, but I want to take one final check over everything in a rested and clear-headed state in the morning, since this will be the final release. So, downloads will be up sometime tomorrow morning.
I’m ready to release version 10, but I want to take one final check over everything in a rested and clear-headed state in the morning, since this will be the final release. So, downloads will be up sometime tomorrow morning.
VC Balance Mod 10.0 (Final version) released at Nexus
All files are available now: main version, 2 alternate versions, module source files, dark age compatibility file, 3 optional add ons
ModDB release, updating the mod descriptions, and release announcements at other sites to come shortly, as I find time over the next couple of days.
All files are available now: main version, 2 alternate versions, module source files, dark age compatibility file, 3 optional add ons
ModDB release, updating the mod descriptions, and release announcements at other sites to come shortly, as I find time over the next couple of days.
Tingyun said:
Greetings TG, and thanks sincerely for your work.
I've been using your modifications since 5.0 likely, and appreciate your changes very much. Just curious, have you released a changelog? It may likely be right under my nose, on nexus or modb, or here on TW but i'm not finding it after looking several times in 2 days. I apologize in advance if you simply haven't posted the log yet, or if i've simply overlooked it. Thanks again.
Best regards, Daryl
ps. I found the Beta 10 changelog, but is it considered 'final'? and thanks!
Hi Grimnir9,
Thanks for your kind comments!
Beta 10 changelog is almost exactly the same as final (the most significant difference is the final version heavily reduces the effect of horses slowing from damage, so they now stay pretty fast even when heavily damaged).
I’ll get the documentation updated on Nexus and ModDB uploaded soon, likely either today, or early next week.
Thanks for your kind comments!
Beta 10 changelog is almost exactly the same as final (the most significant difference is the final version heavily reduces the effect of horses slowing from damage, so they now stay pretty fast even when heavily damaged).
I’ll get the documentation updated on Nexus and ModDB uploaded soon, likely either today, or early next week.
Thanks very much for the reply. I figured you may simply be busy with real life. Have a very good day.
