Search results for query: *

I doubt pressing the mute button was more of an effort than creating this thread and discussing the effort it takes to press the mute button. I don't think spamming in-game chat is a common enough issue for it to merit discussion. A ban for it is just ludicrous overkill.

Yukmouth++ said:

Theres a difference between wanting to change a human being and a game though.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is the joke part of the comparison. You can't emotionally abuse Bannerlord, it's not a sentient being.

Yukmouth++ said:

Its normal to want a game to be better.

Click to expand...

It's also normal to want a human being to be better. This is the part of the comparison that does hit home. It's very easy to trick yourself into believing that loving the idealized version of something in your head is the same as actually loving it. A person who yells to another: ''If I didn't love you, I wouldn't be so angry with you all the time.'' isn't acting out of a place of love. While you may not be yelling to another person, you too aren't acting out of a place of love. You may be acting out of a place of selfish desire for example, because you want to play a really great game. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Yukmouth++ said:

we all love bannerlord, thats why we passionately want it to become the game that it should be in all its greatnes

Click to expand...

That's not really love, that's an emotionally abusive relationship. You know, how one partner only really ''loves'' the other for what they could be, but not for what they are.

Some thoughts: rocks, fire pots, ballista's, couched lances,... would all inflate the total damage number rendering it less useful. Accounting for overkill damage would be a solution in that regard. In addition, even though it might be obvious, it's nevertheless important to note it should only count damage against other players to retain informativeness.

Overall I don't see how it would be a negative inclusion in any sense, but I'm also not really sold on the added value it would provide. When it comes to scoreboard additions, I'd really like to see an objective-based statistic (especially for Siege) first and foremost.

HancockT35 said:

majority of high level players think throwing weapons atm are insanely broken

Click to expand...

That isn't necessarily an argument for throwing weapons being broken in damage/accuracy.

Aside from the in-depth experience and knowledge high level players have, they are also uniquely biased against throwables (and archery). The vast majority of this player group's preferred playstyle is (unshielded) melee combat, as that's where the highest skillcap in the game resides. Now what's the one thing that will thwart all that fancy swordmanship, no matter how good you are? If a worse player wields a melee weapon, there's little chance he'll beat you, but if he wields something ranged, that chance increases exponentially. The worse ranged weaponry is however, the less that chance becomes once more. It's an equalizer between high and low level players. Somewhat levelling the playing field between new and experienced players is more beneficial than it might seem.

Indulge me and compare the viability of ranged weaponry at its two most theoretical extremes:

1. If ranged weaponry was overpowered beyond compare then the melee skillcap would become redundant. It'd still be there technically, but it would rarely if ever come into play. You'd have a really tough time differentiating high level M&B players from lower ones on the scoreboard. Right now that's not the case. Even if I'm utterly wrong about this topic and throwing weapons are insanely broken (in terms of damage/accuracy) as you say, a high level M&B player will still easily top any scoreboard. The disparity with lower level players will be greater than if throwables were nerfed in damage or accuracy, true, but as long as the disparity is significant I don't see a problem.
2. If ranged weaponry didn't exist or was nerfed to the point that it might as well not exist, then the melee skillcap would become all-encompassing. The skill floor would soar and the accessibility of the game would plummet. It'll be a cold day in hell if a new player defeats someone at a higher skill level. Becoming truly good at M&B melee combat isn't something that happens overnight, it takes a lot of practice. Influx of new players would come to a grinding halt as nobody enjoys getting decimated with nothing to fall back on while they get better. In Bannerlord, as back in Warband, you see a lot of inexperienced players playing an archer class, that's no coincidence.

I believe throwables currently occupy a very balanced middle ground between those two extremes.. They can occasionally allow you to get the better of a higher level player, but in the end that higher level player will still come out on top. I do still very much agree with you though that their availability should be reduced, no need for just about every class to have access to them.

I feel like this thread was sparked by some in-game tilt rather than an objective analysis. A lot of ''nerf this, nerf that'' threads are though.

I don't see how throwables would still be viable after nerfing either their accuracy or damage. Neither of those values have appeared problematic or overtuned in my ~200h of MP experience.

As some people have already mentioned though, throwables' omnipresence might need a tweak. Too many infantry classes have access to them in too great a number. A Sturgian Berserker running away from a melee brawl in order to take potshots from a safe distance doesn't feel very in line with the class' concept. Aserai Skirmisher, Imperial Recruit, Battanian Wildling and Sturgian Brigand appear like the only true skirmisher classes. Anyone else could have their throwable usage revoked or limited in number.

Chaoslian said:

All of this doesn't happen in siege. So why is TDM staying? Is anynone currently satisfied playing as infantry in TDM?

Click to expand...

Literally all of those happen in Siege. I'll grant you the spawn ones are significantly less common, but it happens. Defender cavalry on attackers' spawn and attackers on defenders' spawn as they're trying to cap a forward point. (Flag F on the Battanian Castle map comes to mind)

I enjoy TDM a lot, playing almost exclusively infantry. No respawn timers and clunky spawns result in continuous, non-stop action. You die a lot more, but deaths also matter far less as there's no downtime in between. It's pure chaos - I can see why some people dislike that, but I love the ephemeral feel to it.

Separate Siege servers should definitely exist though, just not at the cost of TDM.

Zydrate said:

My point was that spearmen can become melee infantry so the disctinction is meaningless for the most part.

Click to expand...

Going by that logic spearmen can also become archers, knights or buddhist monks. Nitpicking semantics aside, I use the term ''spearman'' to denote the usage of their current weapon. For the purpose of this discussion, I'd say the distinction between spearmen and other melee infantry is pretty meaningful.

Zydrate said:

The phalanx was outmaneuvered and outflanked, shields only slowed the process of legions being poked to death.

Click to expand...

To say that's all it was is a bit reductionist. Interlocked shields allowed them to get past the eighteen foot long spears, forcing the Macedonians to draw their shortswords and thereby into a disfavoured scenario. Roman swords were vastly superior to the Macedonian counterparts.

Zydrate said:

Meaning even some cavalry have longer polearms than "pikemen", not to mention their mobility and timing advantages.

Click to expand...

I might be mistaken, but I don't believe (awl) pikes can be used on horseback. In any case cavalry classes do not have direct access to them. So, no, in Bannerlord cavalry does not outrange an actual pikeman.

Zydrate said:

So if a horse mindlessly chaarging into you maybe it is effective (not necessarily for the AI, AI has no clue how to use polearms), but if the horseman has brains he won't expose the horse's head and utilize his advantage in reach.

Click to expand...

''If any player has brains he won't expose himself and use his advantages while completely avoiding unfavoured scenarios.'' That sounds great on paper, but that's not the way it works in-game. Unless you've ascended to Bannerlord-Godhood, you'll always end up exposing yourself eventually, whether it be by greed, arrogance or simple distraction and miscalculation. That doesn't take away from your skill let alone render you brainless. Pikes are an excellent means to exploit cavalry's exposure. You are correct in the sense that pikes are a reactionary weapon in Bannerlord and you can't force cavalry engagements with it. On this point, I'd also like to quote myself here from yesterday:

Folca said:

Well a lot of players must be idiots then. Sometimes you get caught by surprise and sometimes you have no way to go. Getting reared happens to good players too. Lying in wait at chokepoints is an excellent way to make that happen.

Click to expand...

Zydrate said:

My point is you can't sidestep in Bannerlord.

Click to expand...

If that's your point then I'm failing to see how it's pertinent in the current discussion. Sidestepping affects most, if not all, weapons in equal measure.

Chaoslian said:

Oh and another thing. Whats the problem with friendly hitboxes? I can't count how often i died, because my spear got stuck, because someone stand to the left, right or behind of me? Also often i can clearly see, that i would have stabbed around an friendly enemy, but the spear still gets stuck.
If you are supposed to use the spear as support weapon, you need the ability to stab precisly. Currently it's more luck, than anything other

Click to expand...

Spears can still get stuck on hitboxes, but they, at least in my experience, have a much easier time than other weapons in that regard. What I do find annoying is that it's nigh impossible to rear a horse with a pike if it's crowded around you. It's increased length, which is otherwise very nice vs. cavalry, makes it very prone to get stuck on teammates.

I do agree hitboxes in general are an issue though, one that's been brought up a lot.

Zydrate said:

Like this.

Click to expand...

That video proves my point though? If a shielded man knows what he's doing the spearman doesn't stand a chance. Commentator even says so ''That's how to do it, get in there and don't stop, no chance.'' The shielded infantry losing to the spearman are making various errors, such as keeping their distance, blinding themselves and exposing themselves in attempts to parry the spear. In the instances where the spearman loses however, there's very little he could've done otherwise.

I'll grant you, it's not as black and white as I envisioned: a spear most certainly can get past a shield. I'm proven wrong in that respect. Yet if I had to choose between a (shielded) sword or spear, I'd still take the sword any day on the basis of that video.

Chaoslian said:

a spearman would sting for the legs. You can do this here too, but therefore, the shield user has to block his top side. But there is no need for them to do so, because you can block both attack directions from a spear, with a left or right block.

Click to expand...

I can see now why this is a very fair point though.

Zydrate said:

What kinda logic is that, played too much Total War? Pretty much every Spearmen would have a sidearm, which would be a sword, a mace or an axe or whatever. They're melee infantry as soon as they drop their spears and unsheathe their sidearms.

Click to expand...

Yes and once again you're sort of proving my point, no? Spear infantry (i.e. people fighting with a spear and not a sword/axe/mace/...) don't stand a chance once melee infantry get in there, which is why they they would swap weapons to even the odds.

Zydrate said:

Only hope of you getting close to a pike / spear wall is weakening the line with javelins and have massive shields like the scutum which in a group formation leave very few weak spots, but even then the enemy's spear, multiple spears even, are going to be poking your shield away so you have to push, push even slightly too much and you're gonna be exposing yourself to eight long sharp sticks and that's never fun.

Click to expand...

That (bolded) reminds me that's exactly how the Romans broke the Macedonian phalanx. Nevertheless, I won't even try to argue the ruthless effectiveness of spears/pikes when used in formation, as a single unit. However, we're talking spear combat on a different level here: as a cohesive unit and not as a lone wolf. This kind of army cohesiveness and discipline just isn't present in Bannerlord and that's something that goes far beyond the way spears themselves work.

Zydrate said:

Pikes in Bannerlord are twice or even thrice as short than they should be irl, which doesn't help with anything.

Click to expand...

That may be, but they still perform a very effective role vs. cavalry, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.

Zydrate said:

Even in duels, no shield is going to cover your whole body, even if it does protect your front will be blinded and the Spearman can sidestep and stab you in the side. Now try sidestepping one meter in Bannerlord.

Click to expand...

Sidestepping goes both ways though. It's effective for and against spear wielders.

Zydrate said:

And that's the exact same bs we're talking about.

Click to expand...

You were accusing me of having too much of a Total War mindset, yet aren't you yourself guilty of the same charge? Spears, pikes and the like are primary weapons when used in large groups, in cohesive formations which effectively function as a single unit. Strip the spear of that united stance and divided it shall fall. Such single unit cohesiveness is not a thing in Bannerlord multiplayer. You'll get closer with organized clan fights sure, but even then it pales in comparison with the real thing. As I've said previously, this is something that goes far beyond the scope of spear mechanics by themselves and even touches the core mechanics of the game.

Chaoslian said:

And about sending Cav to friendly lines:
Yes this happens alot, but the problem with this is, that i don't even get an assist for that. I wouldn't mind that, but because of this class system, i need to earn money somehow, to be able to purchase better armor (which you need with a 2H spear). Even if i send 10 riders to the ground, i don't get an reward for that. Though i did the main part of the kill.

Click to expand...

Well you get the reward of seeing that pesky cavalry get mobbed to death. You might not get explicit credit for it but you know you are the one who made that happen. In all seriousness, I get where you're coming from and perhaps you should get an assist for horse damage if the rider dies within a given timeframe. That's another discussion beyond spear mechanics themselves though.

Chaoslian said:

Correct me if i'm wrong, but if you block left with a shield, your left side, you bottom, and your top is covered. This makes it impossible, to attack a shield user with a spear, if he is not a complete moron.

Click to expand...

No and yes. Shields do not cover you completely. Well placed attacks and especially arrows can still catch you if your directional block is poor. Spears however have a very hard time taking advantage of this. You can sometimes get around a low block with an upper attack while jumping, but that's about it. Makes sense to me though, IRL if I have a shield I see no way how you're gonna stab me with a spear.

Chaoslian said:

The shield user will just hold block, and facehug you. And there is nothing you can do against it. Kick/Bash will give you some space, but because you can't set a direct hit after that, there is nothing that stops the shield user from facehugging you again.

Click to expand...

Well yes, but this once again makes a lot of sense to me. Melee infantry counters spear infantry. It's been that way and unless the laws of physics change, it'll stay that way

Chaoslian said:

Spear vs Bow/Crossbow -> No shield, so you are breakfast

Click to expand...

Unless it's a pike, you can wield spears while holding a shield. Regardless, I don't see why spears should be effective vs. archers.

Chaoslian said:

Spear vs Cav -> to get a horse to rear, the enemy has to be an idiot. Even if you do, Cav just shakes it of. If they get thrown of, they are so far away, that you will not be able to kill him, before he is ready to fight again.

Click to expand...

Well a lot of players must be idiots then. Sometimes you get caught by surprise and sometimes you have no way to go. Getting reared happens to good players too. Lying in wait at chokepoints is an excellent way to make that happen. If people get thrown off their horse they usually land smack in the middle of enemy lines, where everyone and their mother swarms them. Playing mostly Siege and TDM, survival once you get knocked off is rare.

Chaoslian said:

Also if Cav wields a spear too, they will outrange you.

Click to expand...

This entirely depends on the type of spear you're using and your position. Attacking from their left hand side will decrease their effective range and flexibility. Furthermore, nothing outranges a pike. Those things are absolute cavalry killers, they don't stand a chance against it.

Chaoslian said:

Long story short: I think spears need some love. And i don't think, i'm alone with this, regarding how few spear fighters (without shield) i see.

Click to expand...

Spears aren't the same weapon they were in Warband and tbh, I kind of like it. They're primarily support weapons which should be used in conjunction with other weapons and teammates. You know how your teammates tend to block all your attacks when you're attacking an outnumbered enemy? How everyone gets tangled up, often giving the outnumbered enemy an advantage? That's where spears come in very handy and avoid needless clutter.
When defending chokepoints or battling in large groups, spears also enable far more players' effective contact with the enemy. They're not meant for lone wolves or 1v1 duels but as a very situational and strategic option.

The fact that they're secondary weapons is further signified by all infantry classes only having the options of spears in the secondary equipment slot. The exception is the Menavlion of course, but I'm sure you can agree that's a spear on a different level altogether. Menavlions are your Warband spears of old.

Can't speak for Skirmish, but I've just played 3 consecutive hours of Siege without a single crash, disconnect or stutter. Even finished the tunnel map (which usually always crashes the server).

Usually it's server crash galore in Siege, but it's been going remarkably smooth for me since the patch so far.

Mikey said:

Not that the terminology difference is all that important to me - but it appears paramount to you, for some reason I don't quite get.

Click to expand...

Clear, consensual terminology is the basis of any constructive discussion. If it's not present then everyone ends up talking past one another (plentiful examples of that in this thread) and discussion is more prone to devolve towards, as you put it:

Mikey said:

I'll take the chance to say that a lot of people seem to be taking any criticism terribly personal, like it was their mothers we insulted.

Click to expand...

The way I see it, a lot of this discussion stems from mismatched terminology of new content, existing content and their implied meanings.

New content, on the one hand, is content not yet within the game. It might be a part of the game at some point, but that is not a definitive given. Many ideas and suggestions exist within the realm of new content. It's good to push these issues and show your support for them as their implementation hangs in the balance.

Existing content, on the other hand, is content that already is part of the game, in some way, shape or form. It stands to reason that this content, especially in an EA game, will be fleshed out and expanded upon. If it is broken, or somehow lacking, it will be fixed. Discontinuing further implementation of this content would invariably result in an unfinished game.


Now let's take your non-exhaustive list of proposed changes as an example:

Mikey said:

Personally, I'd like to see at least these (not exclusive):
A diplomacy system would be a new feature, since what we currently have by all accounts amount to little more than a call to Math.Random() every X hours, and if it returns the right value, war is declared. Re-enabling the existing button to initialize war/peace does not constitute a Diplomacy system, therefore that would be a new feature.

More quests - perhaps. Depends on their nature, but that could constitute new features, if they turn out to be more in-depth than "train X soldiers" or "carry item X to location Y.

Kingdom Management - is arguably existing, though given how barebones it is, fixing it might constitute enough to call it a new feature.

Dynasty features - again, arguable whether it's an existing feature, if it is it's not implemented: while players can marry and have children, NPC lords cannot (or at least do not) marry or generate children except for what they start out with, leaving the whole idea broken and pointless

Click to expand...

This is a very good list. I agree with all of it and I'd be surprised if anyone had a different opinion. However, you yourself find yourself on the fence on whether to attribute (emboldened) these topics to new content or existing content, understandably so. Ultimately you lean more towards new content, and make some good arguments for it, but in the end it's still a matter of opinion. Many others, myself included, would say that these issues are part of existing content. Their implementation, somewhere down the line and given enough patience, is a given, because otherwise this would be an unfinished game. When we bought this game, we did so in good faith, trusting the explicit promise of the developers that this would become a finished game.

Some people might have lost that good faith, but, however saddening, there's nothing to be done about that at this point immediately. Perhaps it'll be renewed as they're proven wrong or perhaps they'll be proven right in the first place altogether. We'll have to wait and see, anything in between will amount to little more than pointless bickering.

Mikey said:

what I take umbrage at is whenever anyone dares criticize, they're met by a chorus of "it's early access moron"

Click to expand...

Understandable you take offence at that. It's poorly articulated, but the ''It's EA'' reply automatically assumes you are, like them, of the it's existing content persuasion. They still possess that same good faith and believe these issues will be resolved and fleshed out down the line no matter what. You just have to be patient. If you however believe that it's new content and, if not implemented, the developers won't be breaking their promise, that's another point of view altogether, one that merits discussion.

So, this thread argues the roadmap is lacking because it fails to outline new content. Insofar as I have seen, nine pages in, there still is no consensus on what new content actually entails.

OP is saying that new content has to be something radically new and cannot be anything already in the game, no matter how bareboned it is:

StewVader said:

I also don't get the this mind set. FIXING perks is not new content. New content would be a MERCHANT Republic play style with supported game mechanics, or being able to control and dictate what your fiefs produced, or the endless plethora of great ideas not included in the game already.

Not already introduced into the game is the key take away here. Perks are already in the game, if you think fixing and balancing them is new content, well that's incredulous to me.

Click to expand...

I take this to mean that fixing or fleshing out existing aspects of the game does not qualify as new content. It has to be a completely new aspect or mechanic that's added in.

However, when someone argues that this interpretation of new content is essentially DLC, he's absurd, premature and strawmanning the argument:

Mikey said:

iimstevo said:

Would you rather they produce some DLC content and then be like "Yeah, that's another 25.00 whatever currency you have"... All you'll be doing then is moaning that they haven't fixed the game you originally bought. It's a lose/lose scenario when you're already *****ing about DLC.

Just because they haven't revealed to you any DLC plans or additional features... doesn't mean there won't EVER be DLC or additional features. It means that through the course of EARLY-ACCESS, they're intending to fix the game that is in EARLY-ACCESS.

Click to expand...

Who's not making sense now? I never asked for DLC, talking about DLC is absurd and incredibly premature. So nice strawman, but no. I don't want DLC, neither does anybody with half a brain.

Click to expand...

So what is new content? At this point it appears to occupy the mystical space of not present in the game in any way, shape or form and not being DLC worthy. It's also important to note that DLC and paid DLC are not one and the same, as that nuance seems to have eluded some.

In conclusion, this sentiment seems to summarize this thread up to this point quite well:

chemical_art said:

"Content" is this vague abyss out of reach, a greener hill on the other side. It cannot be met.

Click to expand...

What you said:

hossfxr said:

*snip* it only takes a few minutes of playing Mordhau *snip* They are nowhere as fluid as mordhau *snip* go play mordhau for competitive melee. *snip*

Click to expand...

What I read:

hossfxr said:

Hi, there's a similar game I'm pretty good at. Could you make this game more like that game so I can also be good at this game? Oh and anyone who disagrees with me is old and can't handle change.

Click to expand...

Undoubtedly my Aserai one where I went on to create my own Empire. Late game Aserai armies feel so insanely strong. Heavy Mameluke Cavalry and Aserai Vanguard Faris are two of the best cavalry units in the game and I honestly think they're better than even Khuzait cavalry. It takes a while to get them rolling, the early Aserai army might be one of the weakest, but once you upgrade them to the max they just wipe the floor with everyone and everything. With a decent mix of archers, infantry, cavalry and cavalry archers there's so many different battle styles/tactics you can adopt.
The only weak point in their army roster is their infantry, which I supplemented with Sturgian Veteran Infantry very early on in my game (right at the start I went north and got myself a bunch of Sturgian recruits before heading south). More than a decade later that same Sturgian Infantry core is still in my army.

I went on to conquer about half the world (Aserai, Khuzait, Southern Empire, half of Sturgia and bits and pieces of Western/Northern Empire), but I don't play as much anymore. I've sort of hit critical mass and actually closing out the game feels like a grind at this point. I still play occasionally, add some more castles/cities/vassals to my collection, but at this play rate it'll be some months before I actually take all of Calradia.

Some other playthroughs I've done or am doing: Vlandian -Joan of Arc styled- Vassal (probably my second favourite), Battanian mercenary/freebooter, Sturgian merchant-prince and Khuzait independent Warband. That last one is the one I got bored of the fastest, Khuzait armies are very one dimensional (i.e. you just spam cav archers) and every battle therefore feels the same.

RCC_God said:

The problem is taleworlds reception to feedback and how they treated easily fixable problems in closed beta

Click to expand...

The problem is people deflecting their own rashness and poor sense of judgement onto others. That's how you get threads like these.

Like everyone else OP was duly warned it is EA and all that that entails. Yet he chose at his own risk to buy it anyway. Let's hope he learned his lesson and doesn't have to continue littering forums of EA titles with his petulant tantrums.

Bannerman Man said:

Yeah, I really like the idea of a mounted heavy infantry unit that can use their horses to manuever around the enemy line, dismount, then engage the enemy flank on foot.

Click to expand...

Is there any real life equivalent of this? From a tactical point of view this sounds like complete gibberish to me. If you're already on horseback, at the flank, just cavalry charge in... Why take your time to dismount only to run in on foot? It's something that could happen if you missclick something in a strategy game, but not on purpose surely?

Sturgian special unit should just be a continuation of the Varyag, no cavalry at all. It's supposed(?) to be Sturgia's hallmark anyway: the best infantry. Every other faction's unique troop line already exemplifies their strengths (Battania get best archer, Khuzait best horse archer, Aserai best skirmish cavalry,...), yet Sturgia's left out for some reason. It's not the only thing they get left out on to be fair, their entire troop roster needs an overhaul if you ask me:

Hugo_Stiglitz said:

I'm waiting for an all encompassing, total overhaul mod for the Sturgians that does a full blown, proper recreation of Russ type troops with a few alternate/optional Varangian/Norse troop trees . I've seen a couple that are shaping up over at Nexus but mostly incomplete and/or buggy.

Click to expand...

This basically, only I'm hoping I won't have to rely on mods and TW will do this themselves as it's pretty crucial to the base game.

Tuco said:

Are you sure that's true? I thought that lords remembered previous efforts you made, so if you get to two circles and fail, in a few weeks when you try again they are at 2 circles again.

Click to expand...

The Lords in my game most certainly don't remember previous efforts. Then again, I can't claim I remember the amount of succesful circles with a Lord two weeks of in-game time ago. But no, the Lords I encountered this mechanic with I was definitely convincing for the first time.

The higher my relationship with them was, the more circles were added in. While correlation does not equal causation, I've yet to identify another variable that could influence this lower threshold.

Tuco said:

Wait what? Is that true??

Click to expand...

No it isn't. You can give it another go after roughly 2 weeks to a month of in-game time. Still, savescumming tends to be the more rewarding route.

Levelling up your charm however does do wonders, especially if you get the 10% critical chance perk (you get 2 little circles filled in for one succesful phrase).
Increasing your relationship with the Lord also helps a great deal as it lowers the persuasion threshold: you get filled in circles off the bat, lowering the number of succesful phrases. At one point I tried persuading a Lord I had 50 relationship with and I already had 3/4 circles before the conversation.
Finally, Lords of Kingdoms which are severely losing are also more inclined to abandon their failing liege.

As for the gold cost, the more powerful and more fiefs a Lord has the higher a tribute he'll ask. Always try to convince Lords of Kingdoms you're at war with, because if you're succesful they'll take all their fiefs with them, giving your faction a huge spike. Otherwise they'll abandon them and you'll have to conquer them yourself. Lords of Kingdoms you share a culture with also have a chance to join you without asking for any gold tribute.