Clans and Warbands

[Aboud2195]

Seems like bannerlord is very focused on clans. Like every army and caravan on the map is part of a clan. It's certainly a interesting kingdom management mechanic for democracy within clans, while being a king has less power. Clans get to vote for everything including being taxed, and even then it's only a 5% tax.

Not really a fan of weak kings. Wouldn't mind if it were the kingdom management style for one or two factions but if every faction is managed like this then I hope at least the clans feel unique with varying troops, items, questlines, lore, personalities/religion/cultures ect.

The king can still refuse the result of the vote, but he will lose influence doing this.

Of course, Bannerlord’s decision system represents politics in a feudal kingdom rather than democracy, and therefore the ruler has the ultimate word. However, in order to overrule a decision, the ruler needs to spend influence that is equivalent to the difference between the majority and minority vote. Also, this does risk drawing the ire of their vassals. Consequently, the more support a decision enjoys, the more expensive it becomes to change it. Similarly, if there is a tie, the ruler can freely decide on whether they want to pass or reject the decision.

 

[The Luminary]

The king can still refuse the result of the vote, but he will lose influence doing this.

That makes for a weak king. The king will not be able to overturn policies when low in influence. There should be base 10% tax on all lords with no relationship penalty and the king should be able to raise that whenever he wants, say 20% without a vote, but at the cost of relationship. The fact that you have to vote on a mere 5% tax and lose 2 relationship a day with lords is absolutely ridiculous and indicates a very weak king, I mean who would vote for higher taxes in the first place.

I feel like when you first set your kingdom up there should be at least 3 options on the style you want to run your kingdom
1. Divine Monarchy: Where you live like an actual king and can change policies at will without a vote however at the relationship penalty or gain of certain lords/clans depending on the policies you make/change.
2. Chosen Council: Only the chosen (3-6) clans of the King can vote. Results in increased loyalty and power for the chosen clans at the expense of the other clans who may have higher turnover.
3. Republic: Clans gain voting power equivalent to the number of fiefs they own.
4. Vassal State: Lords get control over how they run own their fiefs' policies individually as the King only cares about his 5% tax. For each lord to individually set how hard each fief is worked and the tax rate for each one. A higher tax rate would mean less stability, and increased productivity may mean more consumption, ect.
5. Chosen Nobility: Only members of the 5 chosen noble bloodlines can become lords in your faction. These chosen noble bloodlines will have strong unique weapons/mount breed passed through the generations and have high loyalty/relations with the king. Results in lower but stronger number of maximum lords.

 

[Rabies]

That makes for a weak king. The king will not be able to overturn policies when low in influence. There should be base 10% tax on all lords with no relationship penalty and the king should be able to raise that whenever he wants, say 20% without a vote, but at the cost of relationship. The fact that you have to vote on a mere 5% tax and lose 2 relationship a day with lords is absolutely ridiculous and indicates a very weak king, I mean who would vote for higher taxes in the first place.

I feel like when you first set your kingdom up there should be at least 3 options on the style you want to run your kingdom
1. Divine Monarchy: Where you live like an actual king and can change policies at will without a vote however at the relationship penalty or gain of certain lords/clans depending on the policies you make/change.
2. Chosen Council: Only the chosen (3-6) clans of the King can vote. Results in increased loyalty and power for the chosen clans at the expense of the other clans who may have higher turnover.
3. Republic: Clans gain voting power equivalent to the number of fiefs they own.
4. Vassal State: Lords get control over how they run own their fiefs' policies individually as the King only cares about his 5% tax. For each lord to individually set how hard each fief is worked and the tax rate for each one. A higher tax rate would mean less stability, and increased productivity may mean more consumption, ect.
5. Chosen Nobility: Only members of the 5 chosen noble bloodlines can become lords in your faction. These chosen noble bloodlines will have strong unique weapons/mount breed passed through the generations and have high loyalty/relations with the king. Results in lower but stronger number of maximum lords.

If kings were too powerful, you'd never be able to wrest control of an existing faction from the incumbent ruling clan. And on the other side that, if you do make it to the top and become king, you can't relax - you have to work pretty hard to keep your vassal clan lords in check, because they're all going to plotting ways to increase their influence at your expense and ultimately take over for themselves.

It's a balance. We'll have to wait and see how this plays out with the existing Kingdom Policies to judge whether kings are too powerful or too weak within the context of Bannerlord's particular representation of a 'feudal' system. But that judgement ought to be made according to gameplay (ie. the player's progression through the game), not some preconceived notion of the power of rulers in the real world. Is it too easy or too difficult to overthrow a king, or to be overthrown as king? Are there enough options for the player to utilise in doing this?

The good thing about an Early Access release is that these features are hopefully still subject to change and adjustment according to player feedback.

 

[Aboud2195]

If kings were too powerful, you'd never be able to wrest control of an existing faction from the incumbent ruling clan. And on the other side that, if you do make it to the top and become king, you can't relax - you have to work pretty hard to keep your vassal clan lords in check, because they're all going to plotting ways to increase their influence at your expense and ultimately take over for themselves.

It's a balance. We'll have to wait and see how this plays out with the existing Kingdom Policies to judge whether kings are too powerful or too weak within the context of Bannerlord's particular representation of a 'feudal' system. But that judgement ought to be made according to gameplay (ie. the player's progression through the game), not some preconceived notion of the power of rulers in the real world. Is it too easy or too difficult to overthrow a king, or to be overthrown as king? Are there enough options for the player to utilise in doing this?

The good thing about an Early Access release is that these features are hopefully still subject to change and adjustment according to player feedback.

+1

 

[vota dc]

Also is 5% of total income, not of the positive balance. A 20% could cripple the lords that couldn't be able to pay wages, repair/improve settlements and that 20% of tax.

About the default loss of relationship I think that a king snubbing his lords and taking their money would anger them. I hope kings have some cheap way to repair this loss, would be awful to force them to give fiefs or do feasts every time and burning the money collected from taxes.

 

[The Luminary]

Also is 5% of total income, not of the positive balance. A 20% could cripple the lords that couldn't be able to pay wages, repair/improve settlements and that 20% of tax.

About the default loss of relationship I think that a king snubbing his lords and taking their money would anger them. I hope kings have some cheap way to repair this loss, would be awful to force them to give fiefs or do feasts every time and burning the money collected from taxes.

None of the arguments above made any sense. If every clan paid a base 10% tax to their kings the game would still be very balanced, just the kings would not be as useless. I'm not asking for a very powerful king just a normal one. We'll see how this plays out once EA is out for testing.

 

[NachoDawg]

You guys keep talking about % tax with strong opinions, but does any of you have any idea how much any % tax brings in in actual money, and what things cost? We don't have any idea of the relation between money and value yet.

Maybe a 2 % tax increase for -2 relation per day is REALLY worth it sometimes. Maybe that's actually a lot of money, enough to make a big difference if you let the rule run for a week.

Maybe there are features that gives you + relation every day, so you can have multiple rules active to find a balance.

 

[elcapo29]

You guys keep talking about % tax with strong opinions, but does any of you have any idea how much any % tax brings in in actual money, and what things cost? We don't have any idea of the relation between money and value yet.

Maybe a 2 % tax increase for -2 relation per day is REALLY worth it sometimes. Maybe that's actually a lot of money, enough to make a big difference if you let the rule run for a week.

Maybe there are features that gives you + relation every day, so you can have multiple rules active to find a balance.

Yea we will really have to wait and see. Maybe there is a way to offset the relation penalty.

My guess is 5% is a lot of money. There are many lands and Lords in Bannerlord and if your kingdom is large 5% could be the equivalent of a few fiefs worth of income.