How would you change the passage of time in the sandbox/campaign?

[saittam]

I loke the idea that others suggested that children where added earlier. Lets say as a squire or follow a caravan, helper in a workshop.
The thought of adding a camp would add a lot of possibilities.
But then when roaming though the map it feels crowded. If camps were added it will be worse.

make recovery harder for everybody would be logical I think, and it would solve other issues along the way

Yes it will make it more real. Now major big battles happens 30 times a year. Losing a major battle should set a kingdom back. Now they just escape and come back with a new army.

 

[humility925]

I think some player prefer main character rather than take over children, I think passage is too quicker since I'm prefer playing main character I designed, also Often history it's seem to me that great man make happen great thing whatever it's bad or good create or conquer whole thing due great accomplishment but their children or they do not had children, everything fall in part or much weaker, fall after great man death, more or less, what I understand. It's very rare children take up and still do greater accomplishment, but it's backfire, not able to do great accomplishment, meanwhile one who had great accomplishment had parent who don't had a great accomplishment and their children or do not had any children more often not able to do same great accomplisment, so I had no issues single main character take over whole empire in lifetime without need children and that can be more realistic as single person had more time to do get goal done, while family do not had time for it, if you had children or family, meaning you are not allowed to go out for adventure or rather limited adventure, family limited your action of adventure and goal of create empire/conquest or whatever free adventure like carefree, big problem is that once you marry you just go advenure without consequences after married and had family, I don't think time passage is itself, and my option it's too fast for peaceful single character who do trading and smithing (you had to rest again and again to craft stuff)

Some player want time passage off, so they can enjoy game in peace of mind.

It's depend on player's taste.

Personal I do not like time limited, whatever quest or age to make game over, that is not fun to me, my main goal is main character with my design to do with goal, not some random NPC children that not human design to take over.

 

[Totalgarbage]

I think some player prefer main character rather than take over children, I think passage is too quicker since I'm prefer playing main character I designed, also Often history it's seem to me that great man make happen great thing whatever it's bad or good create or conquer whole thing due great accomplishment but their children or they do not had children, everything fall in part or much weaker, fall after great man death, more or less, what I understand. It's very rare children take up and still do greater accomplishment, but it's backfire, not able to do great accomplishment, meanwhile one who had great accomplishment had parent who don't had a great accomplishment and their children or do not had any children more often not able to do same great accomplisment, so I had no issues single main character take over whole empire in lifetime without need children and that can be more realistic as single person had more time to do get goal done, while family do not had time for it, if you had children or family, meaning you are not allowed to go out for adventure or rather limited adventure, family limited your action of adventure and goal of create empire/conquest or whatever free adventure like carefree, big problem is that once you marry you just go advenure without consequences after married and had family, I don't think time passage is itself, and my option it's too fast for peaceful single character who do trading and smithing (you had to rest again and again to craft stuff)

Some player want time passage off, so they can enjoy game in peace of mind.

It's depend on player's taste.

Personal I do not like time limited, whatever quest or age to make game over, that is not fun to me, my main goal is main character with my design to do with goal, not some random NPC children that not human design to take over.

While what you're saying is very fair, people who don't want their main character to die can always play with birth and death disabled. If you however want to be able to die on the battlefield but not of old age, I think adding such an option for character creation would be better.

Unless you're a console player which can't enable/disable birth and death, in that case, my condolences (but I wouldn't be surprised if it gets added in for consoles soon).

 

[Totalgarbage]

I am sure everyone would appreciate better quests or just more content in general.

Though, I am really more concerned with using the existing content more effectively. From my point of view, the main activity has to be battle. So, the rest of the content need to fulfill a supporting role, primarily by infusing a bit of variation into the mix.

If your ingame choice is between finding your next battle or doing something else, such as a quest. At the moment that decision is pretty straightforward, look for your next battle!

So, rewards needs to be increased to a point where it makes sense to choose to do something else. On the other hand, the quality of the other activities you can do are generally not strong enough to be a main pillar of the game, so they need to be rationed. Essentially, they need to be rewarding but not something you end up farming.

"Cool, I found a quest" is probably what you should be aiming for

I completely agree, and I hope that claimant quests will be a step in this direction.

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

I think some player prefer main character rather than take over children, I think passage is too quicker since I'm prefer playing main character I designed, also Often history it's seem to me that great man make happen great thing whatever it's bad or good create or conquer whole thing due great accomplishment but their children or they do not had children, everything fall in part or much weaker, fall after great man death, more or less, what I understand. It's very rare children take up and still do greater accomplishment, but it's backfire, not able to do great accomplishment, meanwhile one who had great accomplishment had parent who don't had a great accomplishment and their children or do not had any children more often not able to do same great accomplisment, so I had no issues single main character take over whole empire in lifetime without need children and that can be more realistic as single person had more time to do get goal done, while family do not had time for it, if you had children or family, meaning you are not allowed to go out for adventure or rather limited adventure, family limited your action of adventure and goal of create empire/conquest or whatever free adventure like carefree, big problem is that once you marry you just go advenure without consequences after married and had family, I don't think time passage is itself, and my option it's too fast for peaceful single character who do trading and smithing (you had to rest again and again to craft stuff)

Some player want time passage off, so they can enjoy game in peace of mind.

It's depend on player's taste.

Personal I do not like time limited, whatever quest or age to make game over, that is not fun to me, my main goal is main character with my design to do with goal, not some random NPC children that not human design to take over.

History's complicated and the trends vary per continent as well. In China, it's rather typical for the great hero of a chaotic era to establish a new country and for it to last at least 300 years with foibles among the founder's descendants never being severe enough to collapse the country, at least until the last generation (where other issues, often ongoing and generational in nature, pile up to create an unsolvable situation). In Europe, the feudal nature of many historical countries meant that empire building relied on a superman who could not only establish the country but maintain the loyalty of the feudal lords. In general, if they relied on force and charisma then what you said tended to be the result--it doesn't last and it falls apart quickly--but if they relied on key marriage alliances and systems built around them then, like the Habsburgs, they could maintain an empire lasting for many centuries but with nowhere the amount of centralized power nor stability as your average Chinese dynasty.

Basically, "realistic" varies depending on numerous factors. Given Bannerlord is meant to resemble a chaotic dark age, it's unrealistic for an empire to be sustained without curbing or eliminating the nobility and their independence since it was typically a lack of centralized government and numerous independent private interests that to the devolution and breakdown of unitary states created by uncommonly talented founders.

Somebody in another thread commented this game is like "Kobayashu Maru" game design, and, after learning it basically means "a game where the conventional options are always lose-lose so you have to think outside the box to win it," that comment may be very right since the way the game's world operates makes it prone to endless chaos and fragmentation and since it's not possible to really create a modern, centralized state that can take care of itself without depending on a superman to go on perpetual rebel suppression missions, I am tempted to agree lol.

On the main subject...

I think the playthroughs are long enough as they are from a newbie's perspective and I'd prefer the mechanics that already exist be refined and bug/oversight fixed since the game is already conducive to long playthroughs that span multiple generations, it's just that if you're too good at the game you can unite the whole world in a relatively short period of time. Therefore, the obvious solution is to improve the A.I., fix the broken things that players can do but A.I. can't (like hold siege weapons in reserve before spawning them out) and rebalance things that allow you to effectively skip gameplay mechanics (like gathering a horde of Battanian Fians and letting them just shoot dead the enemy sentries without the need to storm the city or build engines to facilitate storming) and you'll have a plenty long game.

I really enjoy the dynasty building side of this game and enjoy passing on from the first generation to the next with who I'm in direct control of, since it creates some emergent emotional storytelling and also makes me feel a real sense of time passing and all the little things associated with a limited lifespan and the possibility of death at any moment.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

I think the playthroughs are long enough as they are from a newbie's perspective and I'd prefer the mechanics that already exist be refined and bug/oversight fixed since the game is already conducive to long playthroughs that span multiple generations, it's just that if you're too good at the game you can unite the whole world in a relatively short period of time. Therefore, the obvious solution is to improve the A.I., fix the broken things that players can do but A.I. can't (like hold siege weapons in reserve before spawning them out) and rebalance things that allow you to effectively skip gameplay mechanics (like gathering a horde of Battanian Fians and letting them just shoot dead the enemy sentries without the need to storm the city or build engines to facilitate storming) and you'll have a plenty long game.

This is just not as important as you think.

It should be pretty evident that, if speed is your concern, you dont want to build siegeweapons in the first place. But this is true regardless of whether you are using archers or not. Fians are great, no question, but their impact is nowhere close to making the difference between generational gameplay or not.

The ability to place siege engines in reserve is hardly broken; it should be viewed as a feature. Basically the only way you are going to outshoot a garrison is by having a significant numbers advantage... But when you have such an advantage you will want to take it by storm.

Anyway, sieges are primarily a lategame activity. Its questionable how much value there would be in dragging that out.



That said, if you could combine a situation where battles are decisive and sieges are really costly; then you might be able to create a gameplay loop that would involve going out fighting a decisive battle or two, taking a holding or two, then sign a peace and rebuild. That might work. But it would also require that the diplomatic system is geared for it.

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

This is just not as important as you think.

It should be pretty evident that, if speed is your concern, you dont want to build siegeweapons in the first place. But this is true regardless of whether you are using archers or not. Fians are great, no question, but their impact is nowhere close to making the difference between generational gameplay or not.

The ability to place siege engines in reserve is hardly broken; it should be viewed as a feature. Basically the only way you are going to outshoot a garrison is by having a significant numbers advantage... But when you have such an advantage you will want to take it by storm.

You elucidated my point; you can skip the siege part of sieging fairly easily. I'd only add/clarify that I don't think holding siege weapons in reserve is a problem so much as it's unfair for the A.I. since they don't do it and they're helpless if you do. Sieges are way too heavily slanted in favor of the attacker. Something tangible has to be done to make the defender far stronger. What that "something" could be is not something I can say with any certainty though.

Anyway, sieges are primarily a lategame activity. Its questionable how much value there would be in dragging that out.

Define "late game?" The process of uniting the entire continent is THE game to me lol, like 80% of time spent is campaigning from war to war and going from city to city and castle to castle. If this process is fast and easy for the player then of course the playthrough is going to end relatively quickly, but if it's actually difficult to take cites and castles (ideally the time spent besieging should be measured in seasons rather than a handful of days) then it would reasonably be a multi-generational process to unite the world.

That said, if you could combine a situation where battles are decisive and sieges are really costly; then you might be able to create a gameplay loop that would involve going out fighting a decisive battle or two, taking a holding or two, then sign a peace and rebuild. That might work. But it would also require that the diplomatic system is geared for it.

That presently is the gameplay loop when last I played on 1.0.3. in December/January; I fought a major/decisive battle or two, besieged and took a fiefs, made peace, and then repeated the cycle until it was no longer possible and then just went from siege to siege to siege with very few major battles anymore.

The diplomatic system could definitely use some work to be more interesting and involved, that's for sure, but even in its (prior if not current) state there's already a loop of one major field battle followed by several fief take-overs with favorable peace for the winner going on. However, I wasn't as knowledgable about the game then as I was now so the loop might look slightly different since I was taking the time to build and deploy 4 Trebuchets to destroy walls before storming them; now that I know it's an unnecessary step in many cases the loop might devolve into something a bit more like a snowball than I'd like.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

You elucidated my point; you can skip the siege part of sieging fairly easily. I'd only add/clarify that I don't think holding siege weapons in reserve is a problem so much as it's unfair for the A.I.

Since sieges are inefficient to begin with then it doesnt really matter. It gives the players an alterative way to get things done (that is a good thing)

since they don't do it and they're helpless if you do. Sieges are way too heavily slanted in favor of the attacker. Something tangible has to be done to make the defender far stronger. What that "something" could be is not something I can say with any certainty though.

Yes, but the how is the problem. And no-one is going to like that part.

Define "late game?" The process of uniting the entire continent is THE game to me lol, like 80% of time spent is campaigning from war to war and going from city to city and castle to castle. If this process is fast and easy for the player then of course the playthrough is going to end relatively quickly, but if it's actually difficult to take cites and castles (ideally the time spent besieging should be measured in seasons rather than a handful of days) then it would reasonably be a multi-generational process to unite the world.

Late game, as is, is just wiping out one faction at a time. Set up the siege camp, storm, move on to the next target, repeat. Then move on to the next faction, gathering whatever garrison fodder you can scape together on the way.

That presently is the gameplay loop when last I played on 1.0.3. in December/January; I fought a major/decisive battle or two, besieged and took a fiefs, made peace, and then repeated the cycle until it was no longer possible and then just went from siege to siege to siege with very few major battles anymore.

See above.

The diplomatic system could definitely use some work to be more interesting and involved, that's for sure, but even in its (prior if not current) state there's already a loop of one major field battle followed by several fief take-overs with favorable peace for the winner going on.

This is not how it works.



The problem is that people think of the issue as one that is related to difficulty. Difficulty is irrelevant. Making the journey interesting is what really matters and the rest will correct itself.

 

[JunKeteer]

There are just development choices that are in conflict. There are a lot of systems that suggest the game will be a multi-generational playthrough with a shifting balance of power and politics.
The systems just aren't implemented well enough to challenge a competent player yet, so the game ends very quickly. usually by 1090 the world is mostly conquered, and it's just cleanup. The AI isn't able to defend itself against a player that wants to steamroll the map.

This, the multi-generational/dynasty system just messes the pace/balancing up entirely.

 

[bekkilyn]

As it is right now, it is not only possible, but actually rather likely for the players to conquer the whole map before their first child comes of age. Even though the addition of the retreat gave the players the ability to play as their child (also as spouse or siblings if playing campaign) before their character dies, there is still the problem of needing the necessary amount of time pass in order to have a child come of age (18 years in-game time, if we somehow magically got married and gotten ourselves or our wife pregnant within the 1st day). So, how would you change how time passes in the game?

For me, I've suggested a while ago that we should have a slider that adjusts the speed of the day/night cycle & the daily ticks at character creation; if we for example set the slider to 3x faster day/night cycle, the daily ticks such as wages, influence, settlement loyalty, etc. would happen once every 3 days (so as to not become bankrupted or have towns rebel immediately).

I've also seen suggestions for halving or 1/3ing the amount of days in a year (84 days normally), which I'm also partially alright with (but I think it would make seasons pass by too quickly).

What do you think should be done with the passage of time in singleplayer? Do you prefer any of the above suggestions or have one of your own?

I like this idea of having a slider. I'd personally like to have a longer cycle rather than a shorter one though because I don't rush to conquer everything as soon as possible and work on other things and just enjoy the natural progression of the kingdoms. I'd also like to have the option for console to turn off aging like the PC players get. There is no reason why having longer, shorter, or even no generational cycles should be forbidden in sandbox!

 

[GeminiTiger]

This is off-topic but conquer the whole map before the first kid is of age? My game is a lot slower than that! I started with my own kingdom though, obviously joining a kingdom and waiting for the king to die would make everything a lot different.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

This is off-topic but conquer the whole map before the first kid is of age? My game is a lot slower than that! I started with my own kingdom though, obviously joining a kingdom and waiting for the king to die would make everything a lot different.

I mostly just assume that people choose to fastforward time inorder to get those long campaigns.

So, I am honestly abit curious. How do you actually play the game / what do you actually do in-game?

 

[Totalgarbage]

This is off-topic but conquer the whole map before the first kid is of age? My game is a lot slower than that! I started with my own kingdom though, obviously joining a kingdom and waiting for the king to die would make everything a lot different.

Well the game requires around 20ish in-game years to pass in order to have a fully grown child; 2 years to get married & the child to be born + 18 years for the child to come of age. Fully conquering the map in 20 years is very doable. Of course, it's very possible to have a child in less than 2 in game years, but still, it at the very least takes 19 years of in-game time to pass.

As a reference, I've only "fully" conquered (I took over 90% of the settlements and then just called it a day) once, and had 1 child at age 20-21 and I think one other at either 17 or 18 at the end. But, in that campaign, I dawdled quite a bit as a mercenary, conquered half the map as Battanian vassal, and then decided to secede from Battania and founded my own kingdom to fully conquer the map, so I was far from "speedrunning" the game. I also could've chosen to have a leadership focused build to get that 5th clan party and +80 max party size if I wanted to play optimally.

 

[JunKeteer]

This is off-topic but conquer the whole map before the first kid is of age? My game is a lot slower than that! I started with my own kingdom though, obviously joining a kingdom and waiting for the king to die would make everything a lot different.

If you rp even somewhat remotely, it does take longer; but not by much really (maybe after your immediate kids take over). Given that the only avenue of progress in game are winning battles; unless you really like losing, most players figure out quite quickly how to efficiently - even with a host of self-imposed handicaps.
Because losing isn't really fun in games, particularly with BL where there's really no 'gameplay' aspect with losing anyways.

 

[GeminiTiger]

I mostly just assume that people choose to fastforward time inorder to get those long campaigns.

So, I am honestly abit curious. How do you actually play the game / what do you actually do in-game?

Well, I've got four grand children and but they are all babies, my clan has a total of 38 members including my deceased parents (2) and hired companions (10).

This is my only real attempt and the time spent on this campaign is easily more than all my other attempts combined. I did a number of things that probably wasted a lot of time not too much regret, the main pain in the ass is as I've conquered most of tthe empire land and all of Khuzait territory, I'm left with Sturgia, Vlandia and Aserai playing wack a mole. The progress has been incredibly slow. Currently at 25 towns, 31 castles and 17 clans. The other problem is thatt everything on the border has been laid to waste so many times that it's like fighting over a pile of rocks that you have to pay for the privilege to own.

Things I'm glad I grinded out:
making my 3 towns good before forming a kingdom, too bad it was in kind of a bad spot. (Phycaon, Onira, Danustica)
grinding reputation as a merc with 3 different factions doing capture and release so I could recruit some clans.
multiple smiths. between smithing and athletics you get 4 attribute points so pumping endurance to 7 and grinding those pays off.
building my clan.

Oh and it took me forever but I finallly also realized that just paying some faction 5k a day is better than a 3 front war usually. I'm dealing with them one at a time a lot easier, I had up to 5 factions declare on me at once at some points.

Before this playthough I never even got a town before so everything was a learning experience.
It's been fun. and very frustrating because a lot of the mechanics are bull****. Warband did most things better outside of combat.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

Well, I've got four grand children and but they are all babies, my clan has a total of 38 members including my deceased parents (2) and hired companions (10).

This is my only real attempt and the time spent on this campaign is easily more than all my other attempts combined. I did a number of things that probably wasted a lot of time not too much regret, the main pain in the ass is as I've conquered most of tthe empire land and all of Khuzait territory, I'm left with Sturgia, Vlandia and Aserai playing wack a mole. The progress has been incredibly slow. Currently at 25 towns, 31 castles and 17 clans. The other problem is thatt everything on the border has been laid to waste so many times that it's like fighting over a pile of rocks that you have to pay for the privilege to own.

Well..we are all dreaming about ending a civilwar and building an empire!

...what we are really doing is fighting a war in Afghanistan. So, conquer the land fast, declare victory, and leave before you have to deal with the aftermath

Things I'm glad I grinded out:
making my 3 towns good before forming a kingdom, too bad it was in kind of a bad spot. (Phycaon, Onira, Danustica)

Nothing really wrong with that. Though, after a few campaigns you will probably come to realise that it really isnt worth the time and effort.

grinding reputation as a merc with 3 different factions doing capture and release so I could recruit some clans.

The merc or lordhunting phase is good. It provides all the important resources (money, clan tier, and... even friends) you will need and it allows you to, potentially, effectively level 15 of the 18 skills in the game. Of the remaining three skills trade and smithing are mostly irrelevant and enginering is for later.

And ofcourse, lots of fighting which is, comparatively, the best part of the game. Still, it will slowly get stale as you start to tick off all those boxes and as you gain more experience navigating this part of the game that point will naturally happen much sooner.

Oh and it took me forever but I finallly also realized that just paying some faction 5k a day is better than a 3 front war usually. I'm dealing with them one at a time a lot easier, I had up to 5 factions declare on me at once at some points.

Yes, learning to pay off your enemies is an essential skill if you want to be effective! (hell, it might even be essential if you want to enjoy the game in the first place.)

 

[GeminiTiger]

You elucidated my point; you can skip the siege part of sieging fairly easily. I'd only add/clarify that I don't think holding siege weapons in reserve is a problem so much as it's unfair for the A.I. since they don't do it and they're helpless if you do. Sieges are way too heavily slanted in favor of the attacker. Something tangible has to be done to make the defender far stronger. What that "something" could be is not something I can say with any certainty though.

Personally I would like to see militia sizes doubled and add a prosperity drift (ala the loyalty drift) that was set to level out at 7500. The main problem in my game is the the fiefs in between established territories look like ww2 ditches. Adding more defense and keeping the prosperity of a city at a reasonable level would seem to solve a lot of problems.

Edit: I would also cut all build time for fiefs in half.

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

Personally I would like to see militia sizes doubled and add a prosperity drift (ala the loyalty drift) that was set to level out at 7500. The main problem in my game is the the fiefs in between established territories look like ww2 ditches. Adding more defense and keeping the prosperity of a city at a reasonable level would seem to solve a lot of problems.

Edit: I would also cut all build time for fiefs in half.

I dunno, I kinda like the high contrast between pristine, peaceful hinterlands and bombed out third world wastelands since it makes the human cost of war feel more real. Doubling militia sizes would certainly help in terms of auto-battles but I think their quality needs a serious update because they might as well not exist in actual battles (I mean, they're basically paper against anything I've ever sent at them--their A.I. or something needs a serious buff so that they can actually be a viable urban defense).

I don't know what cutting build times would do since then (I assume anyway) everything will be maxed in development within, like, the first decade or something of play. I haven't put enough thought in it to call my suggestion a... thoughtful one, but perhaps they could add some more development stages instead? Something to ensure that there's always something that could be improved with cities and castles. I know this isn't a SimCity type of game, but I'd love to see more urban development going on even if it's just simple number increasing.

 

[GeminiTiger]

I dunno, I kinda like the high contrast between pristine, peaceful hinterlands and bombed out third world wastelands since it makes the human cost of war feel more real.

On this point I would say f realism and just make the game better to play. You said you can max out a city in 10 years? NPCS can make a top tier army in 10 days! At this point a better function would be ala civilization where you just up and destroy a city so that it can't be rebuilt/garrisoned.

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

On this point I would say f realism and just make the game better to play. You said you can max out a city in 10 years? NPCS can make a top tier army in 10 days! At this point a better function would be ala civilization where you just up and destroy a city so that it can't be rebuilt/garrisoned.

No I didn't lol, I said I figured if development was any faster it'd probably all get maxed out before I even own a fief myself. I'd rather they broaden and expand that since it could be better than it is but presently it's just stuff happening in the background rather than something to regularly engage with.

What top tier army? All I saw were hordes of recruits and a couple tier 2s and 3s lol. A typical pattern for me was that after breaking their "real army" it was just little mobs of crappy tier 1s and tier 2s with a sprinkling of higher tiers now and then, so most of warfare beyond a certain point is repeatedly auto-resolving guaranteed victories with near-zero losses (or, really, zero losses if leading an army since it's people who are not you that are really sacrificing lol).