Lots of posts in here focus on balancing the various factions in the campaign... But I don’t think a balanced map/world would be very interesting. I like my playthroughs to be distinct, and while there are obvious geographical problems for the Battanians, The Sturgians and the Aserai, those should not be “corrected” in my opinion. You want the Sturgians to win? You have to get to work. You want to sail to victory, you mount up with the Vlandians, you want to drive your enemies before you and hear the lamentations of their women, you go dress up in teal and mount a pony...
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
I don’t want a static world
- Thread starter Magnusnyg
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
karijus
Regular
I agree and I'd even add that the units are way too balanced. In warband you had nord with just crap archers and excellent infantry, swadians had everything, khergits horse cav was annoying af etc. Now it seems that everyone has everything, with some things being better, and only the battanian noble archers and khuzait horse armies being really distinct.
I agree
Aserai having like no armor at lower-tiers is certainly distinct enough. It is the exact wrong kind of distinct, but when you're in command of an Aserai force, you know it by how much red scrolls by.
Locklave
Recruit
It feels like you clicked historical mode every game, because the same factions always dominate. I feel you there.
Which ridiculous mods are you speaking of?
TheCalradian
Recruit
I would like every playthrough to be distinct, but I also want some sort of inertia and stability.
This is supposed to be a place where the main NPCs are descended from dynasties of traditions going back multiple generation. It is a bit weird that this immediately turns to a speedrun game of Risk.
But I don't want this to be forced. I want there to be flavour. If the queen of southern empire loses her main cities, I want her to have a special preference for getting them back. They mean something to her.
I want a Battanian lord to plunder the Aserai, but have a less desire of conquering and running desert cities because he simply is not keen on desert culture.
Of course, when a kingdom gets more different lords, then they also have lords that would like different things so you would have lords both liking to be lord at the icy mountains as well as the scolding hot desert , but at the expense of internal cohesion because these lords may not like eachother as much as those of similar culture.
I would like to see a lord having a special connection to a town (because of his backstory). And if I could offer him this city, then that would be very valuable to him. I would even like to offer him the city in advance (you will get it in 40 days) so that I could scheme against a kingdom and find discontent lords.
Likewise, that a lord of desert culture ruling a mountain city would be with some penalty.
And the effect of this would be that the starting kingdoms would have preference for a gradual expansion and have a tendency for behaving as cultural pillars rather than excel driven NPC economist.
I want every playthrough to be unique, but I want cultural flavor and the feeling of a world where the background story makes sense. It doesn't make sense that Aserai have been at the same place for 700 years, but then they swap place with the battanians within 2 years with the kingdom just being "business as usual".
This mechanic could also create stable/unstable regions. Particuarily, the empire would have a number of holdings who other houses in other factions felt they had a du jure claim for. Whereas nobody thought they had a du jure claim for Aserai territory.
This is supposed to be a place where the main NPCs are descended from dynasties of traditions going back multiple generation. It is a bit weird that this immediately turns to a speedrun game of Risk.
But I don't want this to be forced. I want there to be flavour. If the queen of southern empire loses her main cities, I want her to have a special preference for getting them back. They mean something to her.
I want a Battanian lord to plunder the Aserai, but have a less desire of conquering and running desert cities because he simply is not keen on desert culture.
Of course, when a kingdom gets more different lords, then they also have lords that would like different things so you would have lords both liking to be lord at the icy mountains as well as the scolding hot desert , but at the expense of internal cohesion because these lords may not like eachother as much as those of similar culture.
I would like to see a lord having a special connection to a town (because of his backstory). And if I could offer him this city, then that would be very valuable to him. I would even like to offer him the city in advance (you will get it in 40 days) so that I could scheme against a kingdom and find discontent lords.
Likewise, that a lord of desert culture ruling a mountain city would be with some penalty.
And the effect of this would be that the starting kingdoms would have preference for a gradual expansion and have a tendency for behaving as cultural pillars rather than excel driven NPC economist.
I want every playthrough to be unique, but I want cultural flavor and the feeling of a world where the background story makes sense. It doesn't make sense that Aserai have been at the same place for 700 years, but then they swap place with the battanians within 2 years with the kingdom just being "business as usual".
This mechanic could also create stable/unstable regions. Particuarily, the empire would have a number of holdings who other houses in other factions felt they had a du jure claim for. Whereas nobody thought they had a du jure claim for Aserai territory.
They actually have this working in-game already, but buried under the hood where players can't see. Factions will declare war to get prior holdings back. But since war decs don't come with casus belli, you just have to guess at the reason why while actually playing. It should be made more clear -- along with wars started due to "border tension" -- so players can better understand and build a narrative around their playthroughs.
It was even working in Warband, with every faction having claims on Dhirim, which was why that place was such a goddamned Thunderdome.
There are culture penalties (plural) for town prosperity and loyalty depending on owner and governor culture already. They aren't very big though, and trivial to overcome, so it is easy to miss them. There should be more to it, I agree. There should be very real differences that come up in events and quests and policies, but right now all Kingdoms are just cut-and-paste monarchies.
Notice how you get the Empire-culture prosperity bonus just for holding an Imperial city. It shouldn't be like that. It should be that if you want an Imperial prosperity bonus, you have to rule in the manner of an Imperial noble.
jipped
Regular
I meant it is Ridiculous that mods are needed for it. Almost every troop mod has battanians with an archer tree now.
Armies of calradia is my preferred one so far.
Rush09
Regular
I get what you are saying, I was kinda bummed out to see that 4 factions out of 6 have cavalry as T6 (Aserai, Sturgia, Vladia and Empire) I mean, why can't the Aserai and Sturgians have something more unique, more in line with the "feel" of the faction, like the Battanians have their archers and the Khuzaits have their horse archers. A mean elite two handed Sturgian and an elite javelin thrower for the Aserai as T6 would be pretty sweet.
Lesbosisles
Knight at Arms
Yeah, and if you want to stay aside for some time to get some money and a bigger party size/better troops, you will see Sturgia wiped out every time. Or you can join them with a bunch of recruits on one or two high-tier warriors and share the feeling of being helpless and humiliated with Raganvad. Every time. So much for a unique playtghrough.
OP being unique and being balanced are not exclusive of each other. I agree that every faction should have strengths and weakness but what we have now is almost always either Khurzaits or Vlandia dominating that's boring as hell. In Warband I felt like any faction had a chance. The Nords had terrible archers and no cavalry but their infantry was incredible and I never felt like they were inferior to any other faction. I'm all for distinctive cultures but there has to be some kind of balance between factions too.
Individual troop stats dont matter that much in the campaign simulation, it has more to do with battle auto resolve and the overall economic/strategy simulation. I remember someone suspecting that it has more to do with the campaign map location of each faction and how distance between them affects the AIs strategy. Sturgias cities are supposedly within attack distance of too many factions while factions like vlandia, aserai or khuzait are less accessible or the ai will declare war on them less often simply because of distance.
The Vanguard Faris does use javelins. Quite well, in fact. In short battles, they typically out-perform Banner Knights and Elite Cataphracts thanks to the power of their thrown weapons.
Aerational
Regular
Yeah the aimless nature of the AI gives the gameplay a hollow feeling eventually. I thought the game would really pick up when I finally got my first fief. Finally sieged my first castle and realized afterward that my life is now empty as I just wait for random lords to attack me for no apparent reason.
