This is an excellent Idea +1 for Implementation.I'm always annoyed that need to travel for hours to find a specific item that I like.
It would be nice to have a feature where you can order stuff from a workshop.
How should this work?
IF a settlement has a smithy you should be able to ask for the catalog what they are making.
What is in the catalog should depend on culture.
Next part is easy, you should be able to place an order, pay upfront and receive you pick up your package some days later (depending on the tier of the item).
When receiving you also need to pay some extra cost, overall cost should be more then buying the item directly from the market place.
If they ever implement workshop leveling, then the lvl should have impact on the tier armor/weapon your can order and the creation time.
Let me know what you think (or if I missed a similar thread)
new conquered cityes should slowly change culture to the conquerors faction , so if kuzaits are dominating the map , we indeed see more and more kuzaits armies and no big empire or sturgians armies figthing for the kuzaits , or at least not so many
Uhmmm, can you please elaborate more about this? You mean that if I marry with someone from ruler clan, then I could get elected as King even if I am not vassal of that kingdom.
So your argument is that something can be wrong because there were other wrong things in prior games or versions? I don't think so.
All factions can use horses but there are some dedicated infantry factions (Sturgia, Battania) which should not be disadvantaged. Battania meanwhile is changed by the devs seemingly, I see them with a lot or cavalry and they became almost as annoying as the Khuzaits, not only because of their ugly beards. Making lore infantry factions cavalry heavy is not a good solution for the problems of the cavalry autocalc bonus.
I could accept the cavalry bonus (from which the Khuzaits profit the most) if there were situational disadvantages, for example a 20% autocalc malus for cavalry in wood and hill battles. Or if lord parties could ambush chasing parties under certain conditions. They cannot.
Then there is the Khuzait faction cavalry movement bonus which is nonsense in the game environment, with the very artificial movement-party engagement mechanic. Khuzait parties can catch smaller lord parties and can evade similarly composed lord parties with ease. I'm against such boni/mali which affect game core features. No movement bonus (also not for Battanians), no autocalc cavalry bonus, neither in sieges nor on the field, no autocalc cavalry malus for sieges (as proposed by some).
Yes okay sure, 100 000 vs 30 000 and still Hungary had minimal losses while the Mongols got their **** handed to them. The point is that the Mongols was a formidable force but they had some clear weaknesses and it isn't historicaly correct that they dominate everything. In the game they dont seem to have a clear weakness since they win mostly every fight they go into and take castle after castle with ease.
Everyone hated the fact that Knights was OP in M&B 1, people even hate the Swadian nights in Warband. One single unit shouldn't be totally OP, the game should encourage you to have a mixed army.
Although I enjoy a historical discussion about areas and eras I'm not very familiar with (or usually interested in), I find the direction not very helpful. Wether the Khuzaits are based on the Mongols or not or partly based on them is not of the utmost importance.
They are a faction in a video game based on factions conquering settlements from other factions mostly. All main factions are not nomadic but are settled, also the Khuzaits (unlike the early high medieval Mongols ...). All parties move on the map in a defined speed. There is usually no possibility to depart faster army parts to trap other parties (for the AI). It is not possible to use ambushes generally. Horse exhaustion is not simulated. Horses are important for the speed of parties. The game has to deal with it. Using Mongol historical achievements does not help in the faction design, even if we do ignore some modern bias which is obviously involved in the discussion.
There should be no faction in the first place which has game mechanic advantages or disadvantages that cannot be balanced by other game mechanics. The Khuzaits for me fall into this category however.
You guys should read this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary
The second invasion of Hungary Mongolia had an army of 200 000 and Hungary 30 000. Almost everyone of the Golden horde died or got captured while Hungary sustained light casualties. The first invasion was very successful but it went downhill after that.
I don't think many people want any faction snowballing consistently.
Only a tiny part of Bannerlord's world map comes close to resembling Central Asia, which is why I said "Near East" instead.
That's a myth.
Rashid Al-Din, a high minister and historian of the Mongol Ilkhanate, specifically states that Batu did not know about Ogedei's death when he decided to withdraw. He states that they withdrew from Hungary to put down a Cuman rebellion, and then left Europe later in 1242 because they felt they had completed their mission, not because of the influence of any outside force. Rashid had access to the official Mongol history when writing the Ilkhanate's history; additionally as historian John Andrew Boyle points out, the section where Rashid addresses the Mongol withdrawal from central Europe contains orthography that indicates he took this version of the events directly from earlier Mongol records. By Carpini's account, a messenger would have to be able to make the journey from Mongolia to Central Europe in a little over 3 months in the middle of winter. Carpini himself accompanied a Mongol party in a much shorter journey (from Kiev to Mongolia) during the summer and fall of 1246, where the party "made great speed" in order to reach the election ceremony in time, and made use of several horses per person while riding nearly all day and night. It took five months. The History of Yuan does not mention any particular reason for the withdrawal, but does note that Batu did not seek to attend a kurultai at all, and was only convinced to attend by Subutai in the year 1244, long after he had left Hungary.
What spared Europe from devastation was the Mongols incurring heavy enough casualties trying to besiege stone castles that they gave up and left.
Follow the ****ing link, man. The bright orange writing. That's the source.
Pretty much none of what you said actually contradicts my point. Be proud of the steppe peoples all you want, but Khuzaits snowballing to take a third of the map (less so in newer patches thankfully) are not an accurate representation of what their source material ever accomplished in actual Europe.
In 1000, 1001, and 1003 the Khitan repeatedly attacked Song fortifications, and each time retreated without actually capturing them or making permanent territorial gains. Now to me, that sounds like a prime example of the "absolutely nomadic cavalry" being poor at besieging fortifications. The tribute was just a tired empire seeking peace, a goal which it succeeded at, and was not made because the Song were facing destruction otherwise: the Song actually won the defense of Chanyuan and this is why the Khitan were willing to stop raiding and sign a treaty.
That quote isn't implying that horse archers can't be effective (I've already said I agree they could be an effective strategy, so I don't know why you're trying to make it look like I'm arguing with you). Instead, I'm using horse archers failing in battle against horse archers to make an obvious point: even the most effective tactics can still fail due to other factors.
And yet, there are scores of tribes of horse archer tribes who never survived the Mongols. Because horse archery, like any other tactic, can be defeated even if it is effective. If you do consider a state's survival an example of efficacy of a tactic, then again just look at Hungary and Poland.
The (admittedly unsourced) number I saw was 600,000 for the Mongols. I can't find your source anywhere to see the context you've left out, as all copies of that Cambridge text are paywalled. At any rate even your source sounds quite numerically close, and it's not as simple as raw numbers when defection was so extremely common among the disaffected Song nobility, who in many cases surrendered entire armies/cities/fortresses and joined the Mongols without a fight due to dislike of the Song emperor. Quickly 100,000 Song men could become 100,000 Mongol men, which meant the Mongols could overcome their inability to besiege by using the traitor locals' siege expertise.
What about the First invasion then? During the Siege of Esztergom they had 30 siege engines. These reduced the wooden fortifications but failed against the stone castle. The Mongols then suffered heavy casualties from crossbowmen while trying to assault the castle. Because they suck at sieges. Also, why are we counting non-Mongols from areas nowhere near Mongolia as "Mongols" in the first place? If for large periods of time the Mongols were bad at sieges when they didn't have other groups available to help them, it's a very safe statement to say that Mongols were bad at siegeing stone fortifications.
This argument has only lasted this long because you refuse to address my two key points.
1: The invasions of Poland and Hungary were a prime before-and-after example of how effective crossbow/stone castle/heavy cavalry tactics could be against the Mongols.
2: Using the Song as an example of crossbowmen/fortifications not being effective at stopping Mongols is like using a DIY carpenter hitting their thumb as an example of a hammer not being effective at driving nails. The Song were an incredibly incompetent, inefficient bureaucracy which made multiple crucial mistakes, had no experienced generals, had an army mainly consisting of barely-trained peasant militia, and often had its forces defect without a fight, and their collapse was inevitable. They couldn't use the tools they had available to their proper effectiveness. Despite this, their fortifications kept them alive for much longer than they would have lasted otherwise. The Mongols would have wiped them out in 5 years instead of 45. But instead the bungling Song were one of the most difficult cultures for the Mongols to conquer. Once you acknowledge that, the Song become a positive example and the argument is over. Which is why you keep skirting around it and pushing the argument towards tangential matters.
Bannerlord isn't meant to be all of Eurasia though. It represents only part of the Near East, Europe, and North Africa; a total area the Mongols only ever conquered about a sixth of. More importantly, Khuzaits aren't really Mongols! They only have partial Mongol inspiration, as Bannerlord's setting takes cues from 600-1000, well before the Mongols ever reached Europe. Khuzaits are mainly based on Gokturks, Avars, Kipchaks, and Khazars. These groups never conquered anywhere near as much as they do ingame. They were actually wiped out, for the most part.
The Roman empire utilized cavalry but the bulk of its army's strength was in its footsoldiers, and this applies for plenty of other large empires throughout history.