@@TwinkleToes69 I've been editing all the Bannerlord stuff still, it's hard to explain how to edit these to someone who has never played it before :( that said my wife has been editing the let's plays and I'm going to get her to do a video at some point lol it will be interesting to see how she does!
@@vida3225 Julius Caesar would jump in when it was bad. Grabbed a shield and went to the front lines, dude never died in battle despite having all reason to die to a random blade or arrow.
@@basic_avarage_person Julius had many moments, as well as other Roman generals, were they jumped off the horse and fought but the Battle of Alyssa is my favorite moment of his. Turned the battle with his charge.
@@RyanWaite101 Yea, time is moving pretty slow in game, I also just noticed it recently when I tried to stay away from snow and suddenly it was at the empire
Kind of makes sense that Vlandia won. Strong roster, a good few high prosperity cities that keep snowballing since no damage would happen to the heartland and extremely secure position
10-15%, 5-10% with good armour. I’d also love more things to do on the domestic/management side. Right now it’s just grind gold > get troops > grow your clan > become a vassal > continue being a vassal or make your own kingdom > rolfstomp all the kingdoms > end. It’s super repetitive rn. I usually manage to finish my save/start a new one because it’s boring before one of my children and/or nephews reach the age of 12.
Another thing the game desperately needs is an actual diplomacy and political side to it. Fighting battles is fun, but it does get super repetitive and hardly anything feels like it has real stakes to it. Even if you’re a lot weaker than the enemy, you can just hunker down some stronger forces into the garrisons of your cities and go between them with your own army to command the garrison during the sieges and absolutely wipe the enemy troops out with an effective defense until someone sues for peace. There’s no real power imbalances that make the player or the factions have to more carefully navigate a war or diplomacy. Alliances would be awesome too so allied nations could fight along side each other on the battlefield.
I would really like for major clans to replenish their members with randomly spawned in members just like minor clans. Think of it as aunts/uncles/cousins coming in to positions of power as the main family line dies.
It just feels like there is little to no consequence to combat and it would be cool to see some weight to it. I would love it if they added more options to the game so people who want a bit more death could have it and those who want a chill game can turn it off (like it is now). But I'm not a game dev so maybe it's a terrible idea haha
If making it really complex, I think local authorities (gang leaders in particular) should lead their culture-side in battle if feudal nobility is to be completely decimated. That being said, inheritance of entire countries as depicted is decently historical - really, the AI should just avoid massive battles, as those were always a terrible idea historically.
@@Strat-Guides Absolutely agree, there isn't much consequence, except for you the player losing hours spent on a character. More robust options would be fantastic.
It's kinda funny, but the "people die rarely" part is actually more realistic than the "they always die" part of battles; there is a reason why WW1, the first truly modern was was so devastating honestly, I feel that adding condottieri or other merc armies would fit better, so that there would also be others like the players, minor nobles or no, that would work for the kingdom.
Someone commented death rate for Medieval combat was around 17% so that makes sense. My understanding is a lot of battles were more posturing than actual combat.
@@Strat-Guides And professional armys, like the roman had, didn't just ignored their fellow soldiers wounded in the ground, they tried to drag him to safety or fight to hold the ground where the soldier was. Battles were more posturing than actual combat of mount and blade, a good game with that kind of combat is total war.
I love this mod. I set the death rate to 60% for nobles and 75% for troops. With higher armors I am sure these chances are lower, but you see real progress being made as war as factions are dwindled down harshly, and war becomes costly. Even victory can be bad if enough of your commanders are taken out for it. But when you win decisively, the enemy is crippled, and becomes ever more reliant on mercenaries.
Bannerlord is a game of incredible potential. I get why they concentrate so hard of the tactical battle as that's their bread and butter. Now's the time to start getting deeper with the rest of the game play. Imagine how much better this would be if the world had more dynasty mechanics like Crusader Kings. Yes I am aware of the mod that allowed Bannerlord battles in CK3, but that's not the same.
@@arseltanrverdi615 There was a mod made that sort of linked the two games. Playing in CK3, during a battle you could go down to the tactical battle level, which was Bannerlord. It wasn't perfect by any means and I'm given to understand that massive battles with 10s of thousands didn't work out very well.
It is hilarious watching entire kingdoms switch side due to some weird inheritance rule and it's crazy to think that that's actually how things worked. Kind of makes me think it'd be really cool to be able to have different government types entirely. Even as simple as Empire total war where you could switch between a monarchy constitutional monarchy in the republic. It would be cool to found the Rhodok Republic in valandia.
@@Strat-Guides Oh boy that would be really awesome. As unrealistic as it is it'd be cool to have kids grow up a bit quicker (not necesarily a whole lot) but to be able to continue the crusade of their ancestors, since I imagine surviving 18 years would be rough as hell or nearly leave you done with any interesting goals for that campaign. But Im excited to watch that campaign if you do decide on going forward with that!
I would've preferred 20% for most battles but the AI should be changed to retreat more in battles and also AI knowing when to surrender because continuing the battle will get them killed should be a thing. I hate how in Bannerlord you have 300 Troops and an army of 100 troops don't surrender although you outnumber them 3 to 1. Brave trait for heros/leaders should lower the surrender chance. These changes should be for the player too. It would make a lot more sense to surrender or retreat.
I like using Death For All + Perfect Executioner + Spawn More Clans to keep the Campaign bloody, but populated. Perfect Executioner actually makes it so merciless and cruel nobles actually act that way, on top of the Death for all rates to make loses costly for Kingdoms. And then Spawn more clans as a safety net so that Kingdoms aren't running around with the same two clans owning half the map. The War and Ai tweaks mod also helped curb the brain dead behavior of wartime AI, but it's not compatible with the current version yet. I find it funny how Bannerlord introduced a generational system with heirs, yet basically made it impossible to even pass on to play as your heir. Vanilla death rate is way too low, then you have to wait for a minimum of 18 years for your kid to grow up, then you need to wait an additional years for your character to die from old age. By that time, campaigns are basically over, unless you do wait in a city on max speed for a few hours.
Rome Total War 2 mod Divide et Impera had an interesting recruiting mechanic. You had populations of certain noble, commoner or warrior social classes in each settlement and if you drain that providence of that type then you cannot recruit the unit that uses that social class population pool until it replenishes. This means if you have a cavalry heavy army that uses noble population and they die, then you cannot get another one for some time. This also means you cannot doom stack massive high tier armies until late game when you have huge populations and good buildings that are unlocked through technology (the Bannerlord mechanic of building higher buildings in fiefs would be the same). You have to use foot soldiers from the peasant or warrior population. This means no high tier doom stacks (quality vs quantity), loosing a high tier or veteran army hurts hard, you have to choose your fights wisely, and paying attention to your fiefs and economy is just as important as which troops you control. I wish the kingdom mechanics were more dynamic and I felt like a true noble, not just a roaming general marauding the lands in a war of season unending.
That's how it was in Rome's Total War. As you recruit from a town, your population would decrease until it reaches 100 or so inhabitants, and then you can't recruit, also decreasing your income, etc. At the same time, you could disband in town, and the soldiers would be added to the population. It was possible to exhaust your supply of recruits or your enemies.
This might be a bit extreme but I actually enjoyed watching this. It showcased the importance of policy decisions for kingdom stability and the late game vast rebellion (push for democracy maybe?lol) was a VERY interesting dynamic. Effectively it made for swaths of micro kingdoms popping up all over, I only wish they could form "free state" alliances resulting in the creation of new factions. I'm considering downloading the kingslayer mod and trying this out. Right now it feels like to conquer the world you either really need to lean into executions, which make people hate you, or buy/charm your way to victory. While the latter is a valid and cherished part of the game, WAR is WAR, and it should feel as though the stakes are a lot higher than they currently are. Dialing back AI aggression and upping the stakes by increasing death rates would make the game feel a bit more realistic and bring a refreshing change of pace to the grind in the late game vassal/king stage.
I liked the troop death system in Warband, which basically made it “if the weapon is blunt (mace, horse, or stick) the troop is wounded, if the weapon it sharp (sword, axe, spear etc.) the troop is dead” obviously they would make it possible to die by blunt or be injured by sharp, and armor would have a say in it but I liked the general idea
Great idea. Personally I’ve modded the party respawn to greatly reduce the amount of troops the nobles spawn with. Seems to really help reduce frustration from having to knock down their infinite armies over and over again.
@@Strat-Guides It's on the Nexus and it's called True Parties. I didn't make it (sorry for the smoothbrained wording I used) and it hasn't been updated in a while, but the way it was done should make it compatible with 1.1. I know for a fact it works on 1.0.3 Lords will respawn with only 6-12 troops. Which greatly reduces the whack a mole effect. Works great, although when combined with Diplomacy's scaling war reparations the two mods can create some snowballing. If you turn off scaling costs it should be more balanced.
This was really interesting! I agree that I'd love to see the death-rate increased some. It's incredibly frustrating to defeat an enormous army, just to have them come back a minute later with the exact same names. Really neat idea doing the timelapse with major stats reported on, it was a ton of fun to watch.
I played a campaign with the king slayer mod at 15% death rate and it made for a much more interesting game. The biggest problem is that AI nobles have no sense of self preservation and continue to suicide charge into my army at the beginning of battles. Also I don't think clans should be eliminated if all of the adult nobles die but they still have children, I think they should have a chance to revive their clan and it would help reduce the amount of clans which would quickly be eliminated.
Doesn't that mean that "Vlandia" is the strongest faction based on their "realistic" strength. They were the last to survive. Maybe that's a hint to join them and not the Empire?
Hard to say as there's a lot of RNG with high death chance, but when death chance is low like the base game, Vlandia always seems to be a powerhouse so I think you're right
If you've ever played a campaign where you execute every noble you capture this will look familiar. I got frustrated in my own execution campaign though, because who gets the territories of a defunct kingdom seems to be pretty random except it's never you, the player.
I remember Lesser Scholar making a video on this - the game calculated a center point on the map based on where your fiefs are located. If you don't own any fiefs, then you get a random spot (or maybe it was based on where you spawn, I don't recall). When the last clan dies off, the game gives all those fiefs to the kingdom that has their center point closest to the center point of the dead clan. It's literally the stupidest thing they could have come up with LOL Why not let the towns rebel? Or look for a family member that got married off to inherit?
I agree - I really like how Project Zomboid set their game up. So many options to adjust and make it just how you want it. More options is rarely a bad thing IMO
Lmao you took away the Caldarians’ healing factor (I mean anyone from peasant to noble can survive a thrown spear through their sinuses) and reality ensuing led to a noble class collapse
this could be a intresting game mechanic like you said even winning could be devastating you would have to actually think and plan a battle before going in contemplating if you want to hold your generals behind or sending them forward to attack because you don't have enough troops and they could make the difference between winning and losing
There shoud be an option for this in the vanilla game, i like how the death rate for companions was before in the current version the deaths are way to rare.
AI should also offer you barter when they are outmatched in order to avoid possible death of the caracter, and when they don't stand any chances, directly surrender. And also each noble sould have some goods to trade instead of having clean sheet every time and no money to offer
Yeah that would be a great mechanic - instead of fighting 5 to 1 battles they could surrender or try to get out of through barter or sacrificing troops to delay (like the player). That would add so much depth to the game!
It would be interesting to play where you the player are at a much higher risk of death. Gives reason to retreat or flee and play farther back compared to acting like you're an anime protagonist
i hope taleworlds make the rebels make their own kingdoms and getting another rebel clans into their and start kingdom but i don't think they will do it may be mods made by players
Yeah it happens really slowly so it's hard to notice unless you're watching a fast timelapse! It comes down pretty far too, making everyone move much slower in the northern half of the map.
around 10% would be good as a base. But I think a greater amount of damage should increase this to the point that dealing massive damage in one strike (glaive + galloping in opposite directions sort of damage) should kill outright
historically 5-10% of an army died in pitched battles when on the victorious side. the Romans kept great records that we can still read (Egypt kept good records, but each quite a few of the rulers destroyed records, the Olmec language has yet to be deciphered, these are two good examples of why we don't have records of great civilizations) and while they lost 5% in big battles they won, and 20% in big battles they lost, they only lost 2% of those that reached the doctors tent. that means that nearly all of the 5% were killed immediately on the battlefield. after we discovered sterilization again we cut down deaths that reached the doctor's tent down to 1%, and today we have reached a point that 0.01% that reach a medivac die, both reducing the rate of death that receive medical treatment and bring medical treatment closer to the front lines. so based on the time period about about 20% should die that are injured, with medicine skill being able to cut that in half.
Wow that's a pretty good survival rate then! I guess it would need to be modeled better in a different way - destroyed armies rarely got back together in a fighting force from what I understand, so losing a battle might not have all your troops killed, but effectively they were as good as dead since they ran off. At least that's what I recall from watching documentaries (and my memory isn't great so some of that is probably wrong lol)
@@Strat-Guides it really depends on the documentary and their focus. when troops run off after a lost battle they tend to go home. this does mean you can raise them again (though some would reject this, or run off again at the first opportunity), but it took weeks or months to raise troops. so for most wars once the run off they are not usable anymore. if it is a very long war that lasts years or decades then you can end up recruiting them again and it wasn't that unusual for that to happen. they lose a battle and a year or two later show up back at home, then after they settle in a year or so later they get pressed into service again. some will run off and become mercenaries and then can get hired, which again is not a fast process. the Romans later on were keen on capturing as many as possible of their enemies, while most armies don't care about the defeated so long as they stop fighting and are no longer a threat. in the Bronze age there was a lot of shame in running away, as that meant that your home and family were probably destroyed and killed or enslaved, unless you were a raiding force. this helped to get the people to try and atone by rejoining the fight if there was enough time, but in medieval times usually the armies just protected the castles and such, so if you were a villager then you were not protecting your home and family so there is no real reason to rejoin the fight other than your lord pressing you back into service. they also were not very nice to those that lost a battle and ran if they were not of noble birth, so they were not too likely to let it be known they returned too quickly. being captured and costing your side a lot was viewed as more honorable than running away and helping to form another army.
Fun Fact: The Vlandians lorewise are likely the people who deal with rebellions the most. Not surprised with the results here, since they must be used to it lmao
90% death rate for normal troops, 70% with a good surgeon. 50% death rate for nobles, 25% with a good surgeon. AI should be done so that it fears for it's "life", army and kingdom. There would definitely be less wars and battles if the risk was higher. Losing armies and nobles would force them to sue for peace and pay tribute unless they wanted to be wiped out. That way we could also kill nobles WITHOUT executing them and making the whole multiverse dislike us. But we would definitely need better diplomacy options that isn't a mod.
What I never understood was how they took protecting officers to the extreme. I'm referring to like colonial times (I'm thinking of The Patriot), where it was considered weird to kill the officers during battle
it was a hold over from medieval times. during that time you could ransom a noble and pretty much make everyone in the battle rich. over time this creates a sort of cultural stigma on its own, sort of like the anti-slavery sentiment of the British. they banned slavery on their island in 1067 due to how it messed up the economy and weakened the king's power, which lead to a disdain for slavery and an idea that all slavery was brutal. then when they became a world power with colonies they decided to ban slavery in order to justify a sort of orderly piracy. this lead to a sort of idea that they had to rid the world of slavery among the populace and pushed their politicians to use diplomatic means to force other nations to give up slavery. this is in sharp contrast with say Japan that had slavery up until 1864, with a brief break in the 1600s due to the treatment of their slaves bought by the Portuguese. to them slaves were a part of a clan's household, and thus were treated quite well. today big corporations provide a lot of welfare type of support and other services that we think of as things provided by the state (such as schools) due to their history with slavery.
I think 25% should be base. From there, add modifiers for armor, perks, skills, etc. I agree that faster aging kids, and a revamped ai for being cautious with armies, is also needed.
Nobles should have the same chance of dying as anyone else. Having a companion with high medicine skill would be absolutely essential. Last I checked if I got shot with an arrow to my throat I wouldn't be able to throw money or status at the wound and magically be okay. I don't want faster births of children. I want a Calradian year to be the same as one irl. We have the speed up game feature for a reason after all. Have new clans pop up from the peasantry to represent the rare cases of social mobility in the medieval times. Leaders of uprisings that take a town are already considered nobles as well. Doing so would allow for a way to replace exterminated clans. Also make it so that the odds of a child of a clan surviving to adulthood is far lower due to disease and other factors. This would be realistic as it was exactly this case in medieval and classical eras. This would incentivize both the player and the ai to reproduce in game far more. Disease could be used to solve the prosperity issue as well. As an rng factor it will eventually hit a prosperous town which can result in the population decreasing drastically and thereby solving the prosperity issue. Make it effect parties as well and make the medicine skill be the way to contain and lower the odds of disease killing or wounding troops. Once again making medicine an absolutely essential skill to have. Also make towns and villages replenish once a month after changing the time calendar to be the same as the real world's. This would represent people coming of age every month and being recruited as soon as they were of age as well as making each individual soldier more valuable as they are all more long term investments that are a bit more difficult to replace. Finally allow soldiers to become companions and allow nobles to recruit heroes and turn soldiers to their own clan party heroes whom can be captured after battle and maybe persuaded to join the player. This would allow for the ai to counter the spread of disease amongst their own troops by having their own medics for larger parties and use more banners. Oh actually one more thing. You as the player character ain't special either all this should be able happen to you as the player character as well. This would once again force the player to have multiple offspring to further their in game goals and play far safer especially in the early game. Once again it would incentivize the player to invest in a medic or their own medicine skill far more. If the player character dies and none of their offspring have come to age or they have no offspring then it's either game over or they play after their husband/wife or as a last resort if they aren't married yet they can play as a clan member they recruited as a companion who takes over the whole operation. If that isn't available either then they either load an old save or start a new game as it's game over at that point.
There needs to be a Hardcore gameplay mode where your death chances are way higher but your level of learning is also higher. It would definitely make your gameplay feel like you're more of a king and less than a soldier. Yes I know they can do this with mods. If it was in the base game it would be a lot better.
My immediate thought was death should be about a 1 in 5 chance. Seems harsh but it would force you to play like losing matters and if the ai was adjusted to be more cautious, it could really work
Yeah I think the biggest thing would be adjusting the AI behaviors. They should be able to surrender when vastly outnumbered or try to barter/sacrifice troops to escape etc. I think it would add a lot of depth to the game
Although this is a fascinating way to up the realism, I can't imagine the Noble AI would ever be able to preserve their own lives effectively. This mod would require a battle overhaul where commanders/nobles only fight with a lot of personal support, armies would try to retreat, even with full numbers, if things are going poorly for them, and perhaps even a reluctance all-together for parties to wander the map alone (for example trying to raid a village far away from any army.)
Wait death chance is only like 1-2 %? I yesterday played the first time with deaths on, I played one minor skirmish, my companion charged some looters, was killed immediately and I was like: nope. I suspected it was like 30 % or something.
The base rate is supposed to be around 2% but it can be higher if you have armor on. I haven't really seen it higher than 3% and usually it's between 1-2% so you probably just got very unlucky :(
From what I can tell, they didn't really change much other than fixing a few crashes. My patch testing video for 1.1.0 is still valid: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rhwAQ2Dbe74.html&ab_channel=StratGaming
I think we at least need a special option in the settings for players to have a higher kill chance against enemy heroes Nothing more anticlimactic than slamming a battle axe into the enemy emperor’s head and then fight him again 2 days later. Am I fighting Deadpool?
Thats Why you didn't killed nobles in the medieval period. The rules of the Church and chivalry (although not always respected), were made to insure a maximum rate of survival amongst nobles. Most were captured and treated well until their ransom.
This is definitely something interesting to talk about, but I think the developers should really take a lot of time to rethink the way AI armies are created, act etc... A significative bunch of nobles dying around the map could be a good addition but it changes the game a lot
Hey Strat, Great video again. I've been doing a playthrough for about two months now with Death for all enabled at 3x multiplier. One thing I realized is due to the base game mechanics, clans can easily get wiped out even with many kids which are unusable which does take away the immersion from the game. To compensate and to give clans abit more of a higher survival rate, I downloaded the age tweaking mod letting kids come of age alot earlier so that they can be levelled up at an earlier age.
That's a great fix! One thing that always felt odd is they are useless until they reach 18, while in history most kids were used for serious tasks much earlier than that! How fast were your kids aging up?
@@Strat-Guides So what I did was, change the key base numbers for children making them "teenagers" at 6 years old and let them come of age at 8 which is when they become playable. Usually just dump the kids into my fiefs to govern/charm notables. Once I get elite armor for them I start training them the same way you would for companions. Definitely does add some risk to send your children to battle but I find it more immersive as well as slowing the overall pace of the game.
If you get hit in the head for your death, you get a 75% death chance. 90% chance if it's a double-handed weapon. 50% if unconscious or a death roll, which remains 75% with blunt weapons. 40% for stabs (90% from charge impales). 20% from legs. 10% from arms and all lowered with better armor. Cut it in half if you want easy mode. Too bad you can't have missing limbs. That would be a fun challenge. 1 peg leg. 1 arm.
