LDominating
Regular
TW *This seems like good content*
*Therefore we won't do it*
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
World Map Balance
- Thread starter LDominating
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Regular
*Therefore we won't do it*
Someone was using a mod for this on youtube, they didn't bother to say what the mod was but it had alliances
Diplomacy has alliances. https://www.nexusmods.com/mountandblade2bannerlord/mods/832
I don't think that the world map should be balanced, I think an unbalanced map is more interesting. Of course, it shouldn't be too imbalanced like in the earlier EA version where the Khuzait or SE took over the whole map in 5-10 years. The map is nowhere near as imbalanced as people are implying it to be, Battania doesn't get destroyed every single time, nor does it die off after 3-5 in game years if it does indeed do badly. Kingdoms in this game are very resilient (way too resilient in the case of fiefless kingdoms, but that's a separate subject) and don't get steamrolled that easily.
I actually would like more asymmetric gameplay added to the game, such as the option to pledge allegiance to a kingdom with a single town, perhaps on the mirrored Cyprus island in the fake-Mediterranean (as a Venice based faction maybe?), or perhaps as a weak coalition of small kingdoms in the fake-Caucasus region between Tyal, Amprela, Makeb & Baltakhand (based on medieval Georgian, Armenian, Circassian, etc. kingdoms). What can actually be added to the base game sandbox quite easily, would be to have an option to have a unified, pre-civil war Empire led by Arenicos or Neretzes as a scenario at character creation. The Empire maybe could be at war with several factions at the start and we could try to destroy it or defend it, like the "fall or Rome" scenario in Civ 5.
I actually would like more asymmetric gameplay added to the game, such as the option to pledge allegiance to a kingdom with a single town, perhaps on the mirrored Cyprus island in the fake-Mediterranean (as a Venice based faction maybe?), or perhaps as a weak coalition of small kingdoms in the fake-Caucasus region between Tyal, Amprela, Makeb & Baltakhand (based on medieval Georgian, Armenian, Circassian, etc. kingdoms). What can actually be added to the base game sandbox quite easily, would be to have an option to have a unified, pre-civil war Empire led by Arenicos or Neretzes as a scenario at character creation. The Empire maybe could be at war with several factions at the start and we could try to destroy it or defend it, like the "fall or Rome" scenario in Civ 5.
LDominating
Regular
I ain't reading all that.
And I disagree with your point,the map should be more balanced.
I.E give all noble troops the same treatment as if they were a cavalry unit,this way everyone can run faster and deal with bandits better/
Best solution as a bandaid until we get better auto resolve/delegate calculations/simulations.
It would be nice for delegate to actually simulate a real fight like a player did,but with just the mechanics and not graphics so we don't get performance issues.
And I disagree with your disagreement, so what?
The "Best Solution" ain't jack ****, because not all of the player base agrees with your notion that the map should be balanced (although the auto-resolve bug introduced with 1.1 really needs to be fixed asap). As can be seen with this thread, not everyone thinks that the map being unbalanced is an issue.
I really don't understand the desire to equalise all the factions or balance the map. It's not a multiplayer game. When they announced the setting they implied that the non-empire factions were invaders who would start with armies but little or no land, but nope they're just equal sized blobs who all behave exactly the same way.
The migration period is the classic asymmetric setting, you have large vs small, nomad vs settled, aggressive vs defensive, many vs few etc etc and all the cool dynamic stuff that implies. To boil that down to essentially 8 Wyomings in a perfectly balanced arena of more or less identically wealthy towns is such a waste, and it blows my mind that they went with that after hyping up the migration stuff so much.
The migration period is the classic asymmetric setting, you have large vs small, nomad vs settled, aggressive vs defensive, many vs few etc etc and all the cool dynamic stuff that implies. To boil that down to essentially 8 Wyomings in a perfectly balanced arena of more or less identically wealthy towns is such a waste, and it blows my mind that they went with that after hyping up the migration stuff so much.
Exactly, what we have now is not the balance I was expecting; this fast, self-correcting equilibrium in spite of player influence.
Again, mainly because they are trying to get this multi-generation thing 'working' in a game with systems that don't really work with that concept really.
LDominating
Regular
No.
We need balance.
Kingdoms should have very big chances of coming back and every army lead by Battanians,Imperials and Sturgians should beat the Khuzaits,Vlandians and Aserai.
After all,it is the SLAVS in HISTORY that took over all Steppe societies and kneeled them before them.
WE HAVE TO STAY TRUE TO HISTORY,GUYS!
NIEEEEEE
Why do you have the gigachad avatar when you make the most soy posts imaginable?
LDominating
Regular
What makes you think my posts are soy?
Unless you're a soyboy and think whatever I say is soyboy out of jealousy...
Away with you vile beta!
Gigachads aren't Sigma,we see something we don't like,we change it!
Even you,Kentucky,can understand this simple concept,can't you?
They should, but that's provided if they actually could also overwhelm any other kingdom - they don't in BL. Where I want some form of ebb&flow/pendulum swing - we have a shallow pond/equilibrium (no swing).
