What is the next major content after Rebellions?

[mexxico]

don't know if you have played Viking Conquest Mexxico, in it when you besieged some place there were many immersive options of how to conduct the siege like burning nearby crops, poisoning the well, foraging and the most important encirclement.

Without building encirclement the garrison would make your army's life a living hell conducting guerrilla assaults and grind your guys over time, if you didn't had a strong enough force to stand the assaults it could force you to lift the siege.

Now knowing that and allthough i prefeer the full range of features VC had for sieges i'll keep simple and suggest, what if you had a new siege option for building encirclement after the siege preparation, without it any enemy armies or single lords could pass right through the besiegers and join the garrison without any losses, with the encirclement built they would need to force their way through as it is now and take some loses if they want to join the garrison in defending the walls.

It wouldn't be as deep as the immersive siege options of VC but would give the defenders a better chance, specially if the AI would consider this like: A relief force arrives, no encirclement? good i'll join the garrison / encirclement built? i'll wait outside until our numbers are enough to overwhelm the besiegers like they do right now.

The besieging AI would calculate if they could afford the time to build an encirclement or if would be best to conduct the siege faster and try to storm the walls before any relief force could arrive.

With this i think it would help the players to experience more defensive sieges too, with the current loss numbers (and defensive AI being really bad) it's almost never worth it to break into the besieged settlement to help the garrison, you lose too many good troops for that.

I could not replied this yesterday but biggest problem of this system is :

If we add this encirclement then starting siege assault just after preliminary phase will be best option. Currently it make no sense building additional siege equipments especially for player sieges, even only ladders are enough. If parties can enter settlement then we will force player and AI to make assault as fast as they can.

This can be a good design what you offer but it does not suit current state of Bannerlord. First we must make equipments more important (starting assault with only ladder should result in very hard situation for attackers) and siege mission should be harder for attacker and they need these equipments to be successful.

Other problem is only enterence of settlement is their gate. Then there will be weird situations parties will pass by siegers and enter settlement when there is no encirclement. Player will be disturbed when a party come close his party and we will force him to give up siege and catch him while he is passing by.

 

[ElCrisp]

I believe anything else but working on this is a bit of a waste of time..., in my opinion.

I believe you are correct in a sense, though the fixes mexxico is spitballing takes next to no time.

Ultimately the ai will have to incorrectly assess forces otherwise they will always run.

However having a 3-4x multiplier for the defense in autocalc siege battles and thus AI assesment of them means even in a situation where they assess your forces at 0.35 strength that is 0.35 x 3 = 1.05 or 0.35 x4 = 1.4

Given siege defenses dont actually convery strong advantage to defenders, as mexxico describes them as closr to an open field battle, even this 1.05 number may be an over estimation of the player forces. (Of course the player in themselves can often be the difference maker.) Except of course all of the militia and garrison are still being horribly over estimated (3-4x) once the battle makes it into the live play simulation.

So I'm curious if anyone who has faught in a siege defense has actually won it without some fairly substantial cheese. If you won was it basically a solo lift?

 

[Toast434]

Not that I know what is coming next, but I would like to see some improvements for battles:

- AI (!)
- Siege AI (!!)
- Siege design - keep battles are coming, when is everyones guess. I would like to have multiple siege phases, eg in the streets/ keep courtyards etc
- I'd love to trip people in battle with a long weapon like a poelarm or a big 2h axe. Could be implemented similar to how hooked spears can knock riders off their horses.

ah yes. someone who feels the same.
More spacing in fighting so that the fights on the walls aren't retarded, longer combat. smarter ai. Better pathfinding and AI that can actually climb ladders. It would be really nice to actually have a say in what the AI do in siege too. gotta say, AI actually utilizing the entire siege map is super big for me. For every siege there is a massive map that the developers made and NONE of it is used. considering that they are the staple advertisement of the game, this seems like it needs some attention.

 

[Shun]

I believe you are correct in a sense, though the fixes mexxico is spitballing takes next to no time.

Ultimately the ai will have to incorrectly assess forces otherwise they will always run.

However having a 3-4x multiplier for the defense in autocalc siege battles and thus AI assesment of them means even in a situation where they assess your forces at 0.35 strength that is 0.35 x 3 = 1.05 or 0.35 x4 = 1.4

Given siege defenses dont actually convery strong advantage to defenders, as mexxico describes them as closr to an open field battle, even this 1.05 number may be an over estimation of the player forces. (Of course the player in themselves can often be the difference maker.) Except of course all of the militia and garrison are still being horribly over estimated (3-4x) once the battle makes it into the live play simulation.

So I'm curious if anyone who has faught in a siege defense has actually won it without some fairly substantial cheese. If you won was it basically a solo lift?

Most siege defenses I played are from custom battle, where the force calculation plays no part. There, even a 1:1 force ratio can be really dangerous for the defenders. The most effective strategy was to throw the catapuls' fire pots by hand to the bottom of the siege tower/ ladder. Defender "advantage" in sieges is basicaly nonexistent, so I thought this option was put in by design to improve player "agency". But yea, it probably borders on cheesing.

 

[CrazyElf]

What do you suggest?

A- Reducing break in penalty so player loses less men while entering to a castle/town?

I think that there should be perks that reduce and for high level (maybe engineering or roguery at >250) eliminating the breakin penalty.


One other consideration is that the AI should also be able to break-in as well - there would have to be calculations when the AI thinks it makes sense to break in (Ex: they have a high probability of winning with added troops in settlement from breakin).

 

[Apocal]

One other consideration is that the AI should also be able to break-in as well

When the AI joins an ongoing siege battle it seems like they get the full defensive bonus of walls applied as well, so AI armies basically already do this, with no downsides.

 

[babelfisch]

Most siege defenses I played are from custom battle, where the force calculation plays no part. There, even a 1:1 force ratio can be really dangerous for the defenders. The most effective strategy was to throw the catapuls' fire pots by hand to the bottom of the siege tower/ ladder. Defender "advantage" in sieges is basicaly nonexistent, so I thought this option was put in by design to improve player "agency". But yea, it probably borders on cheesing.

If defenders don't have a clear advantage in a 1:1 battle something needs to be done about it.
What are the biggest problems and how could they be solved?

 

[Shun]

If defenders don't have a clear advantage in a 1:1 battle something needs to be done about it.
What are the biggest problems and how could they be solved?

I am not sure honestly. Archer/ xbow units feel like they have much less impact on the defender side than they did in WB. In WB a castle stacked with archer units would destroy an attacking army. Also, the siege scenes are much bigger this time around, so that even with battle size set to 1000 any individual piece of wall has less defenders on it, and even less archer units. It also feels like the archer units are much more exposed and vulnerable to enemy fire when shooting.

Another point are the siege engines. If they hit a group of defenders (for example near the siege tower)they get a lot of kills. Like a lot. NOt sure how to balance that, cause it's great fun when an epic catapult shoot hits. Maybe lower the fire rate, idk.

 

[babelfisch]

I am not sure honestly. Archer/ xbow units feel like they have much less impact on the defender side than they did in WB. In WB a castle stacked with archer units would destroy an attacking army. Also, the siege scenes are much bigger this time around, so that even with battle size set to 1000 any individual piece of wall has less defenders on it, and even less archer units. It also feels like the archer units are much more exposed and vulnerable to enemy fire when shooting.

Another point are the siege engines. If they hit a group of defenders (for example near the siege tower)they get a lot of kills. Like a lot. NOt sure how to balance that, cause it's great fun when an epic catapult shoot hits. Maybe lower the fire rate, idk.

Good points. Additionally, in Warband attackers didn't have much cover.

 

[Faulty]

there should be at least 2X defensive advantage at also missions (I do not know how this will be achieved I hope it will be solved).

Defenders currently get overwhelmed at the gates in my experience, they sit in shield wall formation and get surrounded by the attackers. The defending soldiers inside the shield formation don't contribute.

If soldiers had a bigger bubble around them so melee is spread out more, then attackers would take longer to push through the gate/wall defenders. That would let defending archers shoot into the attackers longer.

 

[Worlok]

I had once a very hard siege defense. I replayed the defense maybe 30 times and it seemed I cannot win the defense.
It was 1k5 khuzait army with lots of elite troops and vlandia defender around 1k in town.

I could only win by some exact tactic. After I discovered the tactic I could win the fight multiple times.

1. I had to destroy the battering ram! If the gate was destroyed there was no way to win. It took few shots from catapults but I had to finish it myself with rocks.

2. I had to change all siege equipments to catapults. If I had only 2 catapults and rest was ballista they could not cause enough damage. They helped in destroying the battering ram and the siege towers. Later they bombarded the enemy groups.

3. I moved all troop groups to well defendable places. Inside of towers to protect the path to catapults, and put them into shield wall. The troops in shield wall covered the walls where the attacker used ladders. But most importantly they covered the whole path to the top of the towers.

Conclusion:
1. The defending forces never target the battering ram with priority. They cannot throw rocks to it, sometimes due to town/castle design, i.e. no rocks or place to throw rocks above the gates. Secondly they are totally incapable to properly target with rocks. Gates should be also more resiatant.

2. Siege weapons are not effective enough. These should be the main advantages aggainst attackers in siege defense. Including archers. Ballista is usless sh****. The siege weapons and archer towers should be well protected by (shieldwalled) infantry groups.

3. Troops are totally lost and they have no idea what they do. They run around like drugged bugs. I mean seriously they are like mentally retarded idiots. They should protect archers and siege weapons. Tower entrances are the best places. Well covered against ranged units. Troops cannot be surrounded.

So its all about siege AI (or lack of intelligence). I would preffer to make the level of this intelligence dependant on governor perks maybe.

I do understand the autocalc in siege is another story but the above main objectives could be built into the siege autocalc in phases.
Highest priority of autocalc should be focused on battering ram and siege towers - first phase. The destruction of the battering ram should be successful most of the cases but this could be dependent on governor perks. If it is destroyed the chances of the attacker should be drastically decreased.
Second phase, destroy siege towers as soon as possible. As long as the catapults are functional the autocalc should periodically cause many kills.
Third phase, protect defender siege and archers which would permanently shoot the enemy troops.

 

[a cool guy]

I think that you should be able to export and import characters without a mod, like in warband.

 

[Apocal]

If defenders don't have a clear advantage in a 1:1 battle something needs to be done about it.
What are the biggest problems and how could they be solved?

Having the basic sense to get off (and stay off) the goddamned wall when there are five times as many archers facing them. That would be a start.

 

[black_bulldog]

I think that you should be able to export and import characters without a mod, like in warband.

+100 that would go a long way to solve some issues.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Currently it make no sense building additional siege equipments especially for player sieges, even only ladders are enough.

I'd like to skip the ladders so my men would stop trying to set them and do what I say. Or just they don't put them up automatically.

Other problem is only enterence of settlement is their gate.

Are you sure?

Given siege defenses dont actually convery strong advantage to defenders, as mexxico describes them as closr to an open field battle, even this 1.05 number may be an over estimation of the player forces.

It's true and fighting in the siege map is really awkward. But If a sally out their whole faction is going to the ransom broker

 

[Mama Luke]

Waiting for diplomacy to be implemented to jump back into the game, personally.

 

[Lychee Nut]

The game isn't released yet.


Prison break, keep battles and education system don't exist either, so they are going to be new features.



I disagree about looter armies. Looters should remain disorganised in my opinion. I would love to see a bandit faction in each kingdom though with their own fort or castle somewhere in the mountains / deep inside the woods.

I am not keen about naval battles, they always annoyed me in VC and I believe they wouldn't make much sense anyway considering the layout of the world map.

Creating castles would be a nice feature but it's not going to happen.

New factions and castles aren't needed in my opinion, the world map is already quite crowded and I can't see how it improves the game. They should rather flesh out the minor factions instead.
Maybe a new faction could be added after early access as DLC. Expand the world map, add some isles and a Nordic faction that invades Calradia. This could also give some purpose to naval battles. But that's nothing for the next patches.

During Gamescon a buddy of mine got an interview with Armagan, and here is the link
At 2:10 Armagan mentions that Naval warfare is something they might consider for post-release or DLC.

Also everyone loves talking about how Taleworlds should do with Bannerlord with what they did in Viking Conquest but VQ was made by a separate team headed by the modders who are responsible for Brytenwalda (or at least that is what It say on like every wiki). So that is a totally different group with a different design approach. though I do agree some of those features, like player hideout, and bandit lords would be really nice.

If Taleworlds itself implements naval battles it will probably be a completely different experience to what you had in VQ.

 

[Lychee Nut]

Waiting for diplomacy to be implemented to jump back into the game, personally.

waiting for Sieges to be better

 

[TheBerserk]

During Gamescon a buddy of mine got an interview with Armagan, and here is the link
At 2:10 Armagan mentions that Naval warfare is something they might consider for post-release or DLC.

Also everyone loves talking about how Taleworlds should do with Bannerlord with what they did in Viking Conquest but VQ was made by a separate team headed by the modders who are responsible for Brytenwalda (or at least that is what It say on like every wiki). So that is a totally different group with a different design approach. though I do agree some of those features, like player hideout, and bandit lords would be really nice.

If Taleworlds itself implements naval battles it will probably be a completely different experience to what you had in VQ.

the fact that he's different and not the same team doesn't in any way justify the fact that they don't want to take Viking Conquest inspiration for the solo, I doubt that's the reason, they even sold under a DLC, it should not be forgotten. At that moment it would be hypocrisy on their part if it was

 

[babelfisch]

During Gamescon a buddy of mine got an interview with Armagan, and here is the link
At 2:10 Armagan mentions that Naval warfare is something they might consider for post-release or DLC.

Also everyone loves talking about how Taleworlds should do with Bannerlord with what they did in Viking Conquest but VQ was made by a separate team headed by the modders who are responsible for Brytenwalda (or at least that is what It say on like every wiki). So that is a totally different group with a different design approach. though I do agree some of those features, like player hideout, and bandit lords would be really nice.

If Taleworlds itself implements naval battles it will probably be a completely different experience to what you had in VQ.

Regarding naval battles, I agree they could be suited for a DLC. Expand the world map and add a few isles for a Nordic faction, let them invade by sea.