SP - General Campaign Party Stamina

[JurgenJuggernaut]

Hi all,
If you played Bannerlord, probably have noticed that the Lords are very Warlike, and after 1-3 years of in-game time, some faction has lost territories already (probably the Empire and Sturgia). Its not as "SnowBall" as was when the game was released, but still you can see Lords marching non stop to capture some holding. With that in mind, I though of videogames of turns, where the player has a "bar" of movement per turn that limits both player and ai.

Suggestion:
All parties (player, npcs, bandits, lords & merchants) to have a "Stamina Bar" in world Map, which is depleted while moving around the map, and restored when resting. If a party goes without resting (forced march) after a time, the party will have penalties to Morale & Speed (Party movement speed). Acquiring the debuff "Fatigued" until they rest again, if this party engages combat will have in-combat "penalties", ex. -10% attack, attack speed, movement speed, defense, for all units.

This would have levels, positive and negative ones, ex:

• Well Rested: Party (+1 Morale, +5% Speed), Combat (+10% Attack, Attack Speed, Movement Speed, Defense)
• Rested: Party (+0.5 Morale, +2.5% Speed), Combat (+5% Attack, Attack Speed, Movement Speed, Defense)
• Fresh: Neutral, no bonus, no debuff
• Fatigued: Party (-0.5 Morale, -2.5% Speed), Combat (-5% Attack, Attack Speed, Movement Speed, Defense)
• Tired: Party (-1 Morale, -5% Speed), Combat (-10% Attack, Attack Speed, Movement Speed, Defense)

This of course would need the camping mechanic, and would also allow, camp battles, small parties to follow bigger ones and do night raiding/ skirmishing. Also pursue tired enemies which were faster, but once tired are slower. To "ambush" other parties.

Note: Initially I thought to debuff combat stamina, but there isnt one like some modded version of Warband, thus I tough in debuffs. This is a tricky mechanic because players could be ambushed aswell or chased when tired. But all in all I though this to stop a little the lords parties that go without stop around the map trying to conquer everything.

As always thanks for reading, please leave a comment.

 

[Short_n_quick]

I am up for this, from the realism standpoint, because it is ridiculous, that my men march 14 days non-stop, rest 2 hours in city and then they go to fight in major battle.
I think debuff is the least that should be done, I am not suggesting death by exhaustion, because that would shake the balance to the core. (I will probably make mod for his later anyway).

 

[Lusitani 5th Empire]

There's always the problem of AI, I doubt coding it to do adapt to this behavior doesn't require too much time for the devs standards, but it's an interesting idea and the concepts should be taken individually into consideration, as any suggestion on this forum.

 

[Tryvenyal]

I think debuff is the least that should be done, I am not suggesting death by exhaustion, because that would shake the balance to the core. (I will probably make mod for his later anyway).

The easiest way is likely to create a buff when resting.

 

[ElCrisp]

+1 There need to be more ways to upset the binary of faster parties simply being uncatchable or picking every fight.
Even perhaps if you could change your march speed but fatigue earlier. Although that is again an even higher level of complexity for the AI.

 

[Apocal]

Anything that makes march speeds overall slower means fewer armies/parties showing up to help defend besieged settlements. That isn't likely to do anything but make snowballing worse, since larger/more successful factions can run multiple armies more easily than small, weak factions.

 

[JurgenJuggernaut]

Anything that makes march speeds overall slower means fewer armies/parties showing up to help defend besieged settlements. That isn't likely to do anything but make snowballing worse, since larger/more successful factions can run multiple armies more easily than small, weak factions.

It doesn't unless you march around non stop for days, which you shouldn't. Also the idea would be able to attack camped armies and being able to retreat without casualties.

Using properly the fresh-tired mechanic to catch up faster parties. Snow balling is a multifactorial thing, reducing/increasing a little party movement won't do that.

 

[Short_n_quick]

Anything that makes march speeds overall slower means fewer armies/parties showing up to help defend besieged settlements. That isn't likely to do anything but make snowballing worse, since larger/more successful factions can run multiple armies more easily than small, weak factions.

I agree that such mechanic may amplify khuzait bias in game, as they would be able to travel more without fatigue (I mean distance) and if we factor in the horse/man ratio, they also may have additional boost to untireness. So that is not the best way to deal with that.

I feel that at this point, many ideas are being stopped by Khuz bias, as their so-called balance is so fragile, that any tweak may make them significantly stronger. This hurts my horde-loving heart, but they are kinda breaking the development.

 

[Apocal]

It doesn't unless you march around non stop for days, which you shouldn't.

Currently, parties march non-stop. Let's say average party speed over distance being 5.0. Any enforced rest/slowdown mechanic means parties periodically stop, let's say for ten percent of the time so (handwaving other factors) that's 4.5 sustained speed. Slower parties/armies (for any reason whatsoever) hurt weak factions more because most sieges succeed if no one intervenes and stronger factions have more armies. That mean the strong can retake what they lost and continue to beat up on the weak faction.

The rest:

Also the idea would be able to attack camped armies and being able to retreat without casualties.

Using properly the fresh-tired mechanic to catch up faster parties.

I have no opinion on.

I agree that such mechanic may amplify khuzait bias in game, as they would be able to travel more without fatigue (I mean distance) and if we factor in the horse/man ratio, they also may have additional boost to untireness. So that is not the best way to deal with that.

I feel that at this point, many ideas are being stopped by Khuz bias, as their so-called balance is so fragile, that any tweak may make them significantly stronger. This hurts my horde-loving heart, but they are kinda breaking the development.

It isn't even Khuzaits; it is easy enough to stop the Khuzaits from being 100% likely to snowball. The problem is that it involves doing a lot of stuff that hurts the player experience in the process. The problem is that once you tame the Khuzaits, some other faction starts to snowball and there are a lot of systems in the game that outright encourage it. Armies costing influence -- more powerful factions have much more influence to spend, so their armies are bigger and can stay intact for longer. Troop wages having big increases at T4+ -- more powerful factions have much more money. Rebellions? -- More powerful factions station bigger garrisons in their towns, their villages get raided less and they are more likely to have a correct culture noble to act as governor.

 

[Tryvenyal]

Armies I think should have a flat speed based on the slowest member and a general speed penatly depending on how many member-lords it has. This would mainly hurt big faction as they have several more clans with alot of weak secondary parties. This would solve general snowballing and Kuzhait rocket-armies(as soon as they have sturgian or imperial troops in their armies, their armies will revert to normal speed).

 

[Mikal Manfriedson]

I agree with Tryvenyal on that. Lowest speed member (mostly mounted infantry, if done right) determines speed of party. I would add subtracting morale if force-marching with the chance of party members deserting/dropping exhausted and left behind. Having a party stamina would give raise to encamp and this would have quite a beneficial effect in problems discussed in other threads:

- going in alone into enemy territory is a problem now. If parties encamp, they are a sitting target and are most likely not able to help each other out. So it is rather not a good idea to go in deep and raid every village and his little brother. Also it takes out the pace of wars a bit as parties will try to get rest and try to hold some cohesion.
- castles would get a strategic value. Someone waiting in a castle will always have fresh troops and can run a sortie to raid an encamped party hanging around. So basically spoken: emcampment near an enemy castle is dangerous. Maybe the garrison decides 'Player, we want to attack party of enemy lord X encamping near Y castle' -> autoresolve/play battle (maybe with governor as commander). Loot and prisoners are delivered to castle dungeons/stash. Now you might think twice coming with a 90 men raiding party near a castle with a garrison of 200.
- Maybe the idea above could give raise to guerilla strikes like raiding a bandit hideout only with raiding a camp disabling some troops then vanish again inflicting casualities on a stronger army.
- encampment could give raise to studying of books -> reimplement a good feature
- caravans will have a good reason to visit villages on their route to rest and buy stuff to bring to the cities

I cannot see something wrong with the idea - Khuzait problem aside. But generally spoken, this is a helpful feature in many ways.

 

[Short_n_quick]

I agree with Tryvenyal on that. Lowest speed member (mostly mounted infantry, if done right) determines speed of party. I would add subtracting morale if force-marching with the chance of party members deserting/dropping exhausted and left behind. Having a party stamina would give raise to encamp and this would have quite a beneficial effect in problems discussed in other threads:

- going in alone into enemy territory is a problem now. If parties encamp, they are a sitting target and are most likely not able to help each other out. So it is rather not a good idea to go in deep and raid every village and his little brother. Also it takes out the pace of wars a bit as parties will try to get rest and try to hold some cohesion.
- castles would get a strategic value. Someone waiting in a castle will always have fresh troops and can run a sortie to raid an encamped party hanging around. So basically spoken: emcampment near an enemy castle is dangerous. Maybe the garrison decides 'Player, we want to attack party of enemy lord X encamping near Y castle' -> autoresolve/play battle (maybe with governor as commander). Loot and prisoners are delivered to castle dungeons/stash. Now you might think twice coming with a 90 men raiding party near a castle with a garrison of 200.
- Maybe the idea above could give raise to guerilla strikes like raiding a bandit hideout only with raiding a camp disabling some troops then vanish again inflicting casualities on a stronger army.
- encampment could give raise to studying of books -> reimplement a good feature
- caravans will have a good reason to visit villages on their route to rest and buy stuff to bring to the cities

I cannot see something wrong with the idea - Khuzait problem aside. But generally spoken, this is a helpful feature in many ways.

I agree, but Khuzait problem is a problem. My fix would be more detailed autocalc AND making khuz more fragile, to make them something of a glass cannon.

 

[Mikal Manfriedson]

Terrain should have a big impact on cav maneuvers. For countering snowballing through Sturgia/Aserai I guess we need penalties to non-Sturgian units waging war in winter/snow and desert environment. I wonder, whether Empire is better equipped for battling them.

However, the existance of Khuzait should not devaluate the above ideas. They seem to work well with all other factions. Regarding Khuzaits I see another problem that might has not been covered yet:
They seem to emulate the mongol hordes in terms of style and army build. However, that is exactly the problem here: they are a faction just like any other owning fiefs BUT have an awesome rider army.
The original Mongols were somewhat nomadic thus very restricted in permanent settlements maybe having one big permanent city while the clans roam around.
If done consequentially, the Khuzait should not own more than Odokhs and their parties would resemble their villages herding sheep, cows and breeding horses. And this is what makes them awesomely strong but also awesomely weak. If allowed to gather, such a horde can be unstoppable but is heavily dependent on looting their food or eating their cattle and then disperse again, when none is left. And they are weak since such small tribes can be obliterated piecemeal. Destroying a Khuzait party would efficiently mean destroying a village for good limiting their actions further.

Since the game unfortunately treats them as any other kingdom but gives them a nomad-horde-style army, we might get a hint, where the problem lies. They get an awesome rider-style army AND are able to rule like any other kingdom, so no penalties in that regard.

 

[Short_n_quick]

Terrain should have a big impact on cav maneuvers. For countering snowballing through Sturgia/Aserai I guess we need penalties to non-Sturgian units waging war in winter/snow and desert environment. I wonder, whether Empire is better equipped for battling them.

However, the existance of Khuzait should not devaluate the above ideas. They seem to work well with all other factions. Regarding Khuzaits I see another problem that might has not been covered yet:
They seem to emulate the mongol hordes in terms of style and army build. However, that is exactly the problem here: they are a faction just like any other owning fiefs BUT have an awesome rider army.
The original Mongols were somewhat nomadic thus very restricted in permanent settlements maybe having one big permanent city while the clans roam around.
If done consequentially, the Khuzait should not own more than Odokhs and their parties would resemble their villages herding sheep, cows and breeding horses. And this is what makes them awesomely strong but also awesomely weak. If allowed to gather, such a horde can be unstoppable but is heavily dependent on looting their food or eating their cattle and then disperse again, when none is left. And they are weak since such small tribes can be obliterated piecemeal. Destroying a Khuzait party would efficiently mean destroying a village for good limiting their actions further.

Since the game unfortunately treats them as any other kingdom but gives them a nomad-horde-style army, we might get a hint, where the problem lies.

Problem is that cities/castles are only marker of a conquest of other culture, you cannot claim villages or pure land because you have control over it - you have to capture a castle. Making it otherwise may break the game, because it would be easier or maybe even harder (depending on the way to do it) to capture territory in other way than siege.
I guess that one way to deal with that is to make their cities/castles just weaker, so that they would be incredibly versatile in attack, but increadibly weak in defence, as they really did.

 

[Mikal Manfriedson]

@Short_n_quick: Yes, that is, what I am talking about. The game is not made to reflect such things mechanic-wise and this causes problems.
- What if upon conquest of a fief some stuff is downgraded and a Khuzait lord would be forbidden to upgrade?
- What if the recruit number would be halved for Khuzait faction reflecting that able men were needed at the villages as farm hands or other jobs in a tribal society. I could imagine that either they join a war as a clan or are very reluctant in letting their sons go adventuring, when herds are to be tended.
- what if the Khuzait villages are biased towards sheep, cows and horses thus very much limiting their trade options? You need the other factions for making goods you cannot make yourself. So warmongering leads to noone trading with you - win situation? I guess not. Maybe then their own caravans will be crucial for themselves in terms of importing goods and warmongering will lead to those getting destroyed preferrably.
- Maybe conquered fiefs will 'convert' production to 'typical' Khuzait trade goods like wool, sheep, butter, cheese and horses only to return to their former stuff upon reconquista?
- What if Khuzait lords cannot appoint governors for cities? The cities just are tributaries which tend to be rebellious quite often. Recruit their men? As if they want to work with you...maybe you can force them to give troops to you but make them more rebellic in turn. So maybe it is o.k. for the Khuzait to conquer non-Khuzait stuff, but keeping it will be the problem. Non-Khuzaits might not want to be ruled by them.

But: the Khuzait problem should be discussed in another thread. But I guess, some personality to the factions could be good. Otherwise we are derailing this thread

 

[Short_n_quick]

@Short_n_quick: Yes, that is, what I am talking about. The game is not made to reflect such things mechanic-wise and this causes problems.
- What if upon conquest of a fief some stuff is downgraded and a Khuzait lord would be forbidden to upgrade?
- What if the recruit number would be halved for Khuzait faction reflecting that able men were needed at the villages as farm hands or other jobs in a tribal society. I could imagine that either they join a war as a clan or are very reluctant in letting their sons go adventuring, when herds are to be tended.
- what if the Khuzait villages are biased towards sheep, cows and horses thus very much limiting their trade options? You need the other factions for making goods you cannot make yourself. So warmongering leads to noone trading with you - win situation? I guess not. Maybe then their own caravans will be crucial for themselves in terms of importing goods and warmongering will lead to those getting destroyed preferrably.
- Maybe conquered fiefs will 'convert' production to 'typical' Khuzait trade goods like wool, sheep, butter, cheese and horses only to return to their former stuff upon reconquista?
- What if Khuzait lords cannot appoint governors for cities? The cities just are tributaries which tend to be rebellious quite often. Recruit their men? As if they want to work with you...maybe you can force them to give troops to you but make them more rebellic in turn. So maybe it is o.k. for the Khuzait to conquer non-Khuzait stuff, but keeping it will be the problem. Non-Khuzaits might not want to be ruled by them.
But the Khuzait problem should be discussed in another thread. But I guess, some personality to the factions could be good.

I guess that making specific changes just to nerf one faction is not the way to do it. I mean, if one faction is specific, then all should. This won't help a game if we fix snowball by reducing possibilities of one faction, because then we end up having to adjust rest of the factions.
I agree that this is topic for a whole new thread.

 

[Mikal Manfriedson]

...which I am about to open just now

 

[JurgenJuggernaut]

Thank you all for your comments.

Yes I agree with you slowest member should define party speed, and weather/terrain should buff/debuff certain troops.

Ex. Cavs either unable to charge or be fast at hills/snow/forests.

Also I'd like to mention as I did in other post that problem is partially with archer units being way too powerfully. Not Khuzait being as they are since nomadic tribes were quite overpowered historically at their time.

High accuracy and damage, not taking where the arrow landed (excepting the head "headshot" that has it), plus they are paired in skills with melee counterparts.

 

[Short_n_quick]

High accuracy and damage, not taking where the arrow landed (excepting the head "headshot" that has it), plus they are paired in skills with melee counterparts.

Yeah, I had recent occurence that with almost equal forces on the battlefield my meele charge with the archers and several low tier troops defeated enemy who had infrantry and archers. I did not take heavy loses in the ranged unit, that supporting your sentence. Maybe nerf for them would bring some balance on the battlefield.

 

[Tryvenyal]

Yeah, I had recent occurence that with almost equal forces on the battlefield my meele charge with the archers and several low tier troops defeated enemy who had infrantry and archers. I did not take heavy loses in the ranged unit, that supporting your sentence. Maybe nerf for them would bring some balance on the battlefield.

Ranged attacks should excell against Low/Un -protected targets but against highly armoured units they should not. High - tier armour should have a chance to nullify the piercing ranged attack, only giving the target a low blunt damage for the impact.