We need alliances

[Blood Gryphon]

Yes, game needs alliances. This was obvious and most of us come to this conclusion at diplomacy developments thread.

I offered alliances idea to armagan too. It is “partly accepted” but we will talk about details at October. I offered when there is an alliance 2+ allied factions should be able to make a siege to a fortification together or they should join battles on map when allied kingdom party is attacked or they can defend allied settlements or they can get more open slots at settlements of allied kingdom + we should find negative side effect(s).

This feature will probably increase battle variety on game which will result in better gameplay experience and it will be slow down snowballing (if nobody make alliance with most powerful factions) which again results in better and more balanced gameplay experience.

Imo biggest problem of alliances feature will be “what will be its negative effect?” What will stop factions making alliances all the time? There should be a cost or some other negative effect. Otherwise making alliances will be always logical. One possible solution is there can be a cost which both allied factions pay and it can be more expensive when factions are stronger. There can be more side effects.

Maybe some kind of Alliance fatigue where if they actually win some territory they will push that fatigue limit up until they break the alliance off. Alliances should be defensive only so any kind of offensive victories should chip away at the alliance.

Logic behind this being alliances are great until they have to choose who gets the reward, thats when the contention begins and the alliance begins to break. Settlements can't be split, so one side will be upset they didn't get it.

 

[HugoTheFrenchMan]

Maybe some kind of Alliance fatigue where if they actually win some territory they will push that fatigue limit up until they break the alliance off. Alliances should be defensive only so any kind of offensive victories should chip away at the alliance.

Logic behind this being alliances are great until they have to choose who gets the reward, thats when the contention begins and the alliance begins to break. Settlements can't be split, so one side will be upset they didn't get it.

Mabye a vote like the ones we have but between two kingdoms after that it goes into a normal vote or some sort of negotiation system

 

[Blood Gryphon]

An idea just popped in my head. Maybe alliances can cost influence and depending on your strength is how much it costs to initiate one and how much it costs to keep. Both kingdoms would be spending influence but it would be cheaper for small kingdoms so they can afford alliances, while it would be astronomical for large kingdoms? @mexxico

Or maybe what triggers an alliance option is if a kingdom initiates two wars against others, those two others would get an option to ally against the aggressor faction. The key point is the faction being allied against would be the initial aggressor against 2 kingdoms, meaning the AI thought they could take both kingdoms (wont lead to any situations where a weak faction is being ganged up on)

 

[HugoTheFrenchMan]

An idea just popped in my head. Maybe alliances can cost influence and depending on your strength is how much it costs to initiate one and how much it costs to keep. Both kingdoms would be spending influence but it would be cheaper for small kingdoms so they can afford alliances, while it would be astronomical for large kingdoms? @mexxico

Or maybe what triggers an alliance option is if a kingdom initiates two wars against others, those two others would get an option to ally against the aggressor faction. The key point is the faction being allied against would be the initial aggressor against 2 kingdoms, meaning the AI thought they could take both kingdoms (wont lead to any situations where a weak faction is being ganged up on)

Oh i think this a great idea but i dont really know if the defender only thing would really work since some people probably want to build uo money to just get a lot of alliances but i thin the influence suugestion is really good

 

[Apocal]

Imo biggest problem of alliances feature will be “what will be its negative effect?” What will stop factions making alliances all the time? There should be a cost or some other negative effect. Otherwise making alliances will be always logical. One possible solution is there can be a cost which both allied factions pay and it can be more expensive when factions are stronger. There can be more side effects.

Daily influence debuff, per party.

 

[DrunkenFrenchman]

I don't think there should be a downside other than making it very difficult to do if the two nations aren't in a situation which is conducive to such an alliance.

The trick is in the effect of relations on the ability to get an alliance signed. There should be a scaling bonus based on the relationship of the rulers and signing an alliance with one faction should affect relations with ALL other factions depending on their relations with the faction leaders.

For example, if Nation A and B ally with each other and Nation C hates B, they will also dislike A if an alliance is signed.

Additionally, smaller nations should be more likely to seek alliances and larger nations should have a harder time finding alliances. Again, a scaling buff/debuff based on the strength of each nation in the alliance.

Finally, there should be a malus chance for each subsequent alliance to avoid massive coalitions UNLESS the situation allows it.

All of these mechanics would, altogether, make it difficult, dynamic and yet remain a powerful tool in diplomacy.

 

[Tiberius Decimus Maximus]

Maybe some kind of Alliance fatigue where if they actually win some territory they will push that fatigue limit up until they break the alliance off. Alliances should be defensive only so any kind of offensive victories should chip away at the alliance.

Logic behind this being alliances are great until they have to choose who gets the reward, thats when the contention begins and the alliance begins to break. Settlements can't be split, so one side will be upset they didn't get it.

Diplomacy Fixes' alliance system has an expansion debuff. The more territory you gain, the more other factions will start to distrust you. An alliance is gained through two nations sharing common goals: being at war with the same nation and having a high relation with lords of a nation, or vice versa.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Diplomacy Fixes' alliance system has an expansion debuff. The more territory you gain, the more other factions will start to distrust you. An alliance is gained through two nations sharing common goals: being at war with the same nation and having a high relation with lords of a nation, or vice versa.

I like the sound of that a lot.


https://www.nexusmods.com/mountandblade2bannerlord/mods/832?tab=description seems like there is a lot of decent ideas in this mod, might be worth looking through

 

[Tiberius Decimus Maximus]

I like the sound of that a lot.


https://www.nexusmods.com/mountandblade2bannerlord/mods/832?tab=description seems like there is a lot of decent ideas in this mod, might be worth looking through

Yeah, you still need to spend influence to make it happen. It works rather well, but unfortunately the alliance feature has been broken since 1.4.3.

 

[Dr-Shinobi]

well at first they have to stable the factions so everyone has a chance to glory and make the campaign not so fast but still eventfull. Perhaps expanding the map for each factions territories of which there is room for and making it more difficult to capture towns and castles but also an challenge to maintain em. Same as getting diplomacy working like an clock. Only then i would say that Alliances could work. As it is now if khuz randomly got allied with one random faction those two would snowball together even faster, Then you're left with an campaign same as now but faster so to speak and not fun at all..But idk still...If two factions where Allies and the others are not would make em OP so would really need som deep thoughts in the diplomacy and strategical department before unleashing such things.. But i like the idea of dynamic warfare against different scenarios if the AI would take those in to account but would demand an very refined programming behind it as the alliances shouldnt be random but having an meaningful way to survival, cause and effect as well as heck even for revenge or friendly relations if we want to stretch it that far..
Just some 5 pence on it right now *continuing puffing on the pipe, steering the fire as he sips on the cognac while the gramophone is playing calmly in the background *

 

[RobustTurd]

Imo biggest problem of alliances feature will be “what will be its negative effect?” What will stop factions making alliances all the time? There should be a cost or some other negative effect. Otherwise making alliances will be always logical. One possible solution is there can be a cost which both allied factions pay and it can be more expensive when factions are stronger. There can be more side effects.

Alliances are about risk sharing: the benefit of an alliance is that you get help if you are attacked. The cost is that you have to help if your ally is attacked. The game should reflect this. When war is declared on your ally, it is also declared on you. Declining to help should lead to relationship and influence penalties. When AI thinks about alliance, it should do a cost-benefit analysis where it takes into account

Benefits:

1. Size of potential ally's army (how useful is help)
2. Ally's distance to your enemies (how fast help arrives)
3. Relationship
4. Previous record on breaking alliance (how likely is help to arrive)
5. Are you losing an important trading partner if potential ally gets attacked?

Costs:

1. Strength of ally's enemies and potential enemies (how costly it is to help)
2. Ally's distance to their enemies (how vulnerable you leave your own kingdom by helping)

A functioning alliance mechanic would see alliances formed among kingdoms that share interests: common enemies, mutual trade etc.

 

[xthefreemason]

I would think even if they've been in a civil war, they may put their differences aside for the empire to hold off the khuzait and then fight each other. It could go all sorts of ways. Foreign enemies tend to unite people.

Also other than alliances I think faction splits could be another way to deal with snowballing factions. I mean warband is essentially the world after bannerlord factions have split. Vlandia splits into butterlords and rhodoks, sturgia splits into the nords and vaegirs. This function could bring back some life to interkingdom relations and fits perfectly into the game lore.

YES, some way for discontented vassals to split off and rebel would be amazing, as would the rival claimants feature from Warband.

 

[Gundabad]

Alliances are about risk sharing: the benefit of an alliance is that you get help if you are attacked. The cost is that you have to help if your ally is attacked. The game should reflect this. When war is declared on your ally, it is also declared on you. Declining to help should lead to relationship and influence penalties. When AI thinks about alliance, it should do a cost-benefit analysis where it takes into account

Benefits:

1. Size of potential ally's army (how useful is help)
2. Ally's distance to your enemies (how fast help arrives)
3. Relationship
4. Previous record on breaking alliance (how likely is help to arrive)
5. Are you losing an important trading partner if potential ally gets attacked?

Costs:

1. Strength of ally's enemies and potential enemies (how costly it is to help)
2. Ally's distance to their enemies (how vulnerable you leave your own kingdom by helping)

A functioning alliance mechanic would see alliances formed among kingdoms that share interests: common enemies, mutual trade etc.

+1

 

[Olympeus]

I offered alliances idea to armagan too. It is “partly accepted” but we will talk about details at October.

Going talk about alliances in October huh?

That will leave you about 4 months left of “Early Access”. Are alliances being discussed as part of an expansion 2 years from now or a free/paid DLC 1 year from now?

Considering nothing is implemented yet in Vanilla and you will have 4 months left in October this alliance talk must be for a far-future version of the game.

Where is the link to a detailed timeline and roadmap for this game’s development? It’s really hard to follow how all these pie-in-the-sky ideas fit within the framework of actual plan without having the timeline and roadmap as a backdrop for the discussion.

Does someone have a link to where TW have posted their detailed timeline and corresponding development roadmap?

Has that roadmap been extended to the first DLC and expansion so we can see how alliances fit in a few years from now? Or will the roadmap only get updated after the October discussion if this new feature you are adding to the scope of work?

 

[HugoTheFrenchMan]

Going talk about alliances in October huh?

That will leave you about 4 months left of “Early Access”. Are alliances being discussed as part of an expansion 2 years from now or a free/paid DLC 1 year from now?

Considering nothing is implemented yet in Vanilla and you will have 4 months left in October this alliance talk must be for a far-future version of the game.

Where is the link to a detailed timeline and roadmap for this game’s development? It’s really hard to follow how all these pie-in-the-sky ideas fit within the framework of actual plan without having the timeline and roadmap as a backdrop for the discussion.

Does someone have a link to where TW have posted their detailed timeline and corresponding development roadmap?

Has that roadmap been extended to the first DLC and expansion so we can see how alliances fit in a few years from now? Or will the roadmap only get updated after the October discussion if this new feature you are adding to the scope of work?

Dude this isnt paradox interactive

 

[Revverie]

Going talk about alliances in October huh?

That will leave you about 4 months left of “Early Access”. Are alliances being discussed as part of an expansion 2 years from now or a free/paid DLC 1 year from now?

Considering nothing is implemented yet in Vanilla and you will have 4 months left in October this alliance talk must be for a far-future version of the game.

Where is the link to a detailed timeline and roadmap for this game’s development? It’s really hard to follow how all these pie-in-the-sky ideas fit within the framework of actual plan without having the timeline and roadmap as a backdrop for the discussion.

Does someone have a link to where TW have posted their detailed timeline and corresponding development roadmap?

Has that roadmap been extended to the first DLC and expansion so we can see how alliances fit in a few years from now? Or will the roadmap only get updated after the October discussion if this new feature you are adding to the scope of work?

Please leave the conspiracy theories in your conspiracy threads, real things are being discussed here.

Alliances are about risk sharing: the benefit of an alliance is that you get help if you are attacked. The cost is that you have to help if your ally is attacked. The game should reflect this. When war is declared on your ally, it is also declared on you. Declining to help should lead to relationship and influence penalties. When AI thinks about alliance, it should do a cost-benefit analysis where it takes into account

Benefits:

1. Size of potential ally's army (how useful is help)
2. Ally's distance to your enemies (how fast help arrives)
3. Relationship
4. Previous record on breaking alliance (how likely is help to arrive)
5. Are you losing an important trading partner if potential ally gets attacked?

Costs:

1. Strength of ally's enemies and potential enemies (how costly it is to help)
2. Ally's distance to their enemies (how vulnerable you leave your own kingdom by helping)

A functioning alliance mechanic would see alliances formed among kingdoms that share interests: common enemies, mutual trade etc.

+1 to this

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Going talk about alliances in October huh?

That will leave you about 4 months left of “Early Access”. Are alliances being discussed as part of an expansion 2 years from now or a free/paid DLC 1 year from now?

Considering nothing is implemented yet in Vanilla and you will have 4 months left in October this alliance talk must be for a far-future version of the game.

Where is the link to a detailed timeline and roadmap for this game’s development? It’s really hard to follow how all these pie-in-the-sky ideas fit within the framework of actual plan without having the timeline and roadmap as a backdrop for the discussion.

Does someone have a link to where TW have posted their detailed timeline and corresponding development roadmap?

Has that roadmap been extended to the first DLC and expansion so we can see how alliances fit in a few years from now? Or will the roadmap only get updated after the October discussion if this new feature you are adding to the scope of work?

Missing the point of the thread (also its 6 months until the beginning of April). Talk about how you think alliances could work to help us think it through.

 

[Flesson19]

I've said this a couple times, why Does Warband have more options than bannerlord, alliances, trade agreements, so many things to count

 

[Blood Gryphon]

I've said this a couple times, why Does Warband have more options than bannerlord, alliances, trade agreements, so many things to count

I think the mod Diplomacy added that in Warband, not in the native sadly.

 

[HugoTheFrenchMan]

I've said this a couple times, why Does Warband have more options than bannerlord, alliances, trade agreements, so many things to count

Wait warband has alliances and trade agreements what