World Map Balance

[LDominating]

Sturgia,NE and Battania suffer due their noble lines not beign mounted early on.
So PLEASE,like you made other A.I cheat once to not require horses to upgrade,let A.I parties that use these troops gain the benefit of cavalry movement and bonus damage.
It is necessary that these band aids fixes are in the next patch.
With the peace cooldown(kingdoms not wanting peace before 30days have passed)or worse reinforcing armies,these 3 factions struggle way too much!

It shouldn't be hard to implement,as a band aid though,until you give us a better auto resolve fights with much clear results.

 

[JunKeteer]

I think their imbalance is more due to their placement on map (when looking at Batt/NE/Stur specifically).

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

these 3 factions struggle way too much!

Seriously, why is this a problem? Why should all the factions be equally powerful and not have any advantages over each other for decades ingame?

Khuzaits taking over the map in earlier versions was basically a bug but at least it was interesting to see the map evolving.

 

[Monga]

Sturgia,NE and Battania suffer due their noble lines not beign mounted early on.
So PLEASE,like you made other A.I cheat once to not require horses to upgrade,let A.I parties that use these troops gain the benefit of cavalry movement and bonus damage.
It is necessary that these band aids fixes are in the next patch.
With the peace cooldown(kingdoms not wanting peace before 30days have passed)or worse reinforcing armies,these 3 factions struggle way too much!

It shouldn't be hard to implement,as a band aid though,until you give us a better auto resolve fights with much clear results.

All you do is complain... chill out and try and enjoy the game while issues get solved please. It's getting to be irritating with all this NEGATIVITY

 

[GeminiTiger]

I think their imbalance is more due to their placement on map (when looking at Batt/NE/Stur specifically).

This is correct. Factions with no neighbors on one side of them have a huge advantage, but Battania has enemies on all sides. Stugia and Aseri can go either way because they have 2 ways in and out and it just depends on particular games, but Khuzai and Vlandia have some huge advantages.
(also good calvary units)

Seriously, why is this a problem? Why should all the factions be equally powerful and not have any advantages over each other for decades ingame?

They don't need to be equally powerful, but should not have all the advantages either, for example Vlads locatiton swapped with Battania would be a lot better balanced.

 

[LDominating]

All you do is complain... chill out and try and enjoy the game while issues get solved please. It's getting to be irritating with all this NEGATIVITY

My man I have almost 2K hours in the game.
These ISSUES are since the game's creation.
It is very much necessary for one guy to be "*****ing" because it shouldn't take more than 1 patch to fix these issues so not every campaign plays the same

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

They don't need to be equally powerful, but should not have all the advantages either, for example Vlads locatiton swapped with Battania would be a lot better balanced.

Having the player on their side is the only real advantage that matters. In that regard I would prefer it if some factions are just outright harder to win with than others, or that you have to rush to "save" them. People complaining that the Battanians get wiped out before year 20 or whatever seem to forget that this is a dynamic sandbox game and these things should be part of the experience.

 

[NPC99]

Having the player on their side is the only real advantage that matters. In that regard I would prefer it if some factions are just outright harder to win with than others, or that you have to rush to "save" them. People complaining that the Battanians get wiped out before year 20 or whatever seem to forget that this is a dynamic sandbox game and these things should be part of the experience.

+1

 

[Rossa]

Band-aid fixes are just adding garbage to the garbage pile, it will just make it higher and more likelly to break. As that's what the devs seem to go for i would like to add:
They should increasse militia and give bonuses for lords fighting close to their fiefs
I don't think all factions should be equally powerfull, but it's pretty stupid that a faction can easily take half of another's fiefs in just one war, then it's pretty much the end.
More diplomacy, and an AI capable of using it would give a lot more options to compensate for the factions weaknesses. And wasn't the empire going through a civil war? The three empire factions should be at war until only one is left, at least that is what the intro made me think. In my mind the empire factions were to be the strongest, but because they are constantly at war, the other factions are able to steadily take fiefs until the empire is unified again and can try to take all the fiefs back.

 

[GeminiTiger]

Having the player on their side is the only real advantage that matters. In that regard I would prefer it if some factions are just outright harder to win with than others, or that you have to rush to "save" them. People complaining that the Battanians get wiped out before year 20 or whatever seem to forget that this is a dynamic sandbox game and these things should be part of the experience.

With respect, I don't think so. If Battanians especially are out right considered an acceptable weaker faction that means it's neighbor, Vladia is ALWAYS going to end up taking it over and that means every game will end up the same, Vladia being a super power. IDK about you but I don't play either of those and so this ALWAYS happens (eventually). It's NOT a sandbox when the results are predetermined and it's NOT as REPLAYABLE when random isn't random.

Sandbox = Random = Balanced = Replayable

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Sandbox doesn't necessarily have to mean completely random. In fact a baseline of predicability is just the by product of having dynamic systems that make sense.

Surely the solution to this is a more randomised start then? Excessively balancing all the faction starts is just going to make every playthrough more boring, while having more randomness at the start will mean even the battanians can win sometimes.

 

[LDominating]

With respect, I don't think so. If Battanians especially are out right considered an acceptable weaker faction that means it's neighbor, Vladia is ALWAYS going to end up taking it over and that means every game will end up the same, Vladia being a super power. IDK about you but I don't play either of those and so this ALWAYS happens (eventually). It's NOT a sandbox when the results are predetermined and it's NOT as REPLAYABLE when random isn't random.

Sandbox = Random = Balanced = Replayable

Exactly this.

We need the developers to make the game feel fresh with each save.
Having Vlandia take over because:
1. Early access to Cavalry troops
2. Geography
3. Clans & Fiefs

Feels unfair to other factions,in this case to EVEN the playfield we have to:
1. Remove cavalry auto resolve as a band aid,or focus long term and introduce a more accurate auto resolve of an ACTUAL simulated battle,this would also imply rebalancing troops again.
2. Add new systems to make easy to defend factions struggle, Three Kingdoms had something like pirates in the south and nomadic raiders in the north of the maps.
3. Lower the impact of these fiefs and clans,reduce their prosperity and clan tiers at the beginning of the game.
3rd is my go to,I remember 1 year ago fighting the Vlandians trying to raid my Flintlog village,and boy...that village had like 15 full graveyards of Vlandians that just kept coming like flies to raid it.
IT WAS RIDICULOUS to watch and bothersome to defend.
By the time my faction made peace,I solely inflicted over 1500 casualties to them and held 25+ prisoners.

 

[GeminiTiger]

Personally I just think the map is garbage imbalanced. I love the new combat but everything else at this point is still superior in warband.

 

[five bucks]

I like Battania being more likely to lose than other factions. It's lore-friendly and it makes them feel like the underdogs. I do think Sturgia needs some small buffs though in their economic situation or something.

 

[GeminiTiger]

I like Battania being more likely to lose than other factions.

Why?

It's lore-friendly and it makes them feel like the underdogs.

Why is it lore-friendly?

I do think Sturgia needs some small buffs though in their economic situation or something.

Why? They actually have it a lot easier than Battania already.

 

[five bucks]

Why?

As a separate bullet point, I think it's a good thing to have an underdog faction in the game because it's more exciting for the underdog to win as well as more realistic for not every faction to be evenly matched. Battania is in a good place where it's a bit weaker and will probably lose, but still strong enough that it can sometimes win, especially with the player's help.

Why is it lore-friendly?

Battania is based on various real-life Celtic kingdoms like the Irish, Picts, Brittany and Welsh, who were mostly conquered by England/Vikings by the 1200s. Similarly, in lore, Battania no longer exists as an independent country in Warband; all its territory has been conquered by Vlandia/Nords. The only trace left of them are the Forest Bandits.

In addition just looking at Battania shows you it's a civilization on the brink of collapse, living in ruins on a small part of its former territory, and Vlandia has recently conquered places like Ocs Hall from them.

So in a playthrough which gets to the mid-1100s, it is very lore friendly for Battania to be wiped out by that point.

 

[GeminiTiger]

Giving one faction in the game a feeder faction (like pvp feeders) isn't lore, or balance or fun.
It certainly isn't a sandbox, it's predetermined fate being played out across the metaverse (each players game).
Boring.

 

[five bucks]

Giving one faction in the game a feeder faction (like pvp feeders) isn't lore, or balance or fun.

I just explained why it is lore appropriate, and why I find it fun.

It certainly isn't a sandbox, it's predetermined fate being played out across the metaverse (each players game).
Boring.

It's not predetermined fate. In the current state of the game Battania sometimes beats other factions or does well. Especially if you intervene, but even if you don't.

 

[NPC99]

it's predetermined fate being played out across the metaverse (each players game).

Nothing is predetermined. There are some more probable outcomes but in any game the specific outcome will depend on a whole series of war and peace declarations. Factions attacked by multiple factions suffer the most. Random elements in those war declarations ensure occasional surprise outcomes. The biggest deciding factor in winning is which side the player backs.

 

[Rossa]

Just giving factions the option to form alliances and non-agression pacts would improve balance a lot, they could even make so that weaker factions are more likely to ally each other. But unfortunately the AI can't handle making war with 2 or more factions at the same time without imploding.