300 trading

[Midnitewolf]

It needs to be faster exp when playing with death and birth enabled OR need to make game modes like

Newbie with death OFF - 1.0 x EXP

Extreme with death ON - 3.0 x EXP

Reasoning is to faster unlock stuff but with death it will all be lost and you have to start over
Just a thought

If 300 trading take 1000/1500 days+ it could be nerfed to 400ish/500ish days - You would get a more immersive gameplay which got your character´s life on stake

Could die of :
Execution
Assasination
Wounds from Battle
Diseases
Old age (ofc)
Stumpled in a banana (is there BANANAS in Calradia?!?!)

Imagine getting that 300 trading and only having 100k in your pockets - The Fief you like cost 3.000.000 - You can get around 20-50k from each trade

When u reach 2.900.000 Gold u stumble in a Banana! and dies - Your new king got 8 in vigor and 6 in control and only 1 in social - Now you need to start trading to get to that dang FIEF - BUT you just cant stand trading - SO you just go to war and ZERG the FIEF - Ruining your reputation - U GO BANANAS - and after taking it you reach heureka - The enemy comes - you storm out to meet them and bribe them - costs you 20k - You start to think... Did i just spend 500 days trading - 500 days to get gold - Just to get off with 20k in a bribe!? Could ive just had done that from the start?! You go BANANAS and this time ALL WILL DIE

I think we just need more levels of time compression and more reason to be out on the campaign map while time compression is on. Another solutions is that instead of time stopping while we are in a city, some level of time compression is still happening. It doesn't have to be as fast as if we were on the campaign map but as long as time was progressing while in a city, perhaps 2-3 days might pass while we are buying and selling good, recruiting, selling prisoners, managing the castle or whatever. Also more peace would help as you spend a lot more time on the campaign map during peace than war because during war you are spending huge amounts of real time in battles with time suspended. All this would allow the game to be multi-generational.

Speaking of the skills of your heirs, honestly if it is a son or daughter, their skills should be reflective of yours to a large degree. I mean think about it, if you were some great merchant with 300 trade skill, I am 100% certain your children would be educated in trading. Same goes for everything. If you knew medicine really well, you would probably instruct them in medicine or if you knew the bow well, you would show them how to shoot a bow. Therefore if you died, your heir shouldn't have to climb from 0 to 300 in trading rather depending on how old they are when they take over, it would be 100 or 200 or 250 skill in trade. That is how is should work anyway.

 

[tlowey]

I think we just need more levels of time compression and more reason to be out on the campaign map while time compression is on. Another solutions is that instead of time stopping while we are in a city, some level of time compression is still happening. It doesn't have to be as fast as if we were on the campaign map but as long as time was progressing while in a city, perhaps 2-3 days might pass while we are buying and selling good, recruiting, selling prisoners, managing the castle or whatever. Also more peace would help as you spend a lot more time on the campaign map during peace than war because during war you are spending huge amounts of real time in battles with time suspended. All this would allow the game to be multi-generational.

Speaking of the skills of your heirs, honestly if it is a son or daughter, their skills should be reflective of yours to a large degree. I mean think about it, if you were some great merchant with 300 trade skill, I am 100% certain your children would be educated in trading. Same goes for everything. If you knew medicine really well, you would probably instruct them in medicine or if you knew the bow well, you would show them how to shoot a bow. Therefore if you died, your heir shouldn't have to climb from 0 to 300 in trading rather depending on how old they are when they take over, it would be 100 or 200 or 250 skill in trade. That is how is should work anyway.

Speaking of Heir`s skills that makes complete sense. Would love to see it implemented.

 

[Sanctumm]

Ya couldnt agree more - Would make sense your family members reflects what you are - since its your playstyle - and schould be leveling those skillz while growing up - No need to start all over - But then again Kids tend to not follow their parents

 

[Midnitewolf]

Ya couldnt agree more - Would make sense your family members reflects what you are - since its your playstyle - and schould be leveling those skillz while growing up - No need to start all over - But then again Kids tend to not follow their parents

You could introduce some randomness but I think what is more important would be being able to slip right back into the playstyle you enjoy would having to start over. Also as is, your heir can have a lot of wasted points in things you will never use. I mean if you don't like using crossbows, even if your heir had 300 crossbow from the start, you probably still wouldn't use a crossbow.

 

[Berzerker Jay]

Wohaa just tried to do market manipulation and it actually WORKS!!! this is vital news!

My example now.

I use Askar and Sanala - I buy every shop there that is not a brewer and make them all brewing as they got tons and tons of grain. Also making sure there is no tanner nearby - This way the prices on horses drop so i can buy them cheaper. After the brewer workshops starts to make money i sell them to 1/2 price BUT this is the interesting part - They stay Brewers

Next i go to Ortysia -> Lageta -> Marunath .> Seanon -> Car Benseth -> Dunglanys -> Pen Cannoc -> Sargot . Here i buy the brewer workshops and turn them into tannery - Also making sure each tow got atleast 1 tanner - This will increse the demand for Horses and remove any competition from Beer trading After workshops makes money i sell them - They stay what i choose

This is the holy grail of trading - You get to manipulate the market to make the leveling of trading much more effecient good evening all

This definitely does work, though I haven't applied it this expansively. I've wondered about the potential to manipulate the entire map this way, and how much I could drive up the price of grain.

I do hope it gets addressed, with merchant AI assessing the economic opportunities available and potentially changing production the same as the player can. I would like to mess around with this in the game, but as it currently sits I feel like I'm exploiting the system -- if the system had some response to it instead of just being completely pliable for the player, then it could become an interesting strategy to try and play. I'd especially like to use this tactically against enemy kingdoms when more direct military attacks aren't available.

 

[Sanctumm]

I did close down all the brewers on the map and heureka can sell beer for 100gold+ and making it for 18-25g

THen i also did it with al other mats and now i cant remember what is doing what... But i did make each Kingdom have their own productions - Selling jewelry for 700g+ is interesting

 

[CrazyElf]

It seems to me that we have 2 fixes we need.

1. Much faster levelling of trading skills
2. Ability to buy settlements sooner (maybe as low as 250 trading)

 

[Sanctumm]

WOuld only make sense ^^

 

[Midnitewolf]

It seems to me that we have 2 fixes we need.

1. Much faster levelling of trading skills
2. Ability to buy settlements sooner (maybe as low as 250 trading)

Buying settlements is kind of game breaking in my opinion and as cool as it sounds, I kind of think it needs to be removed. I mean if you have enough gold you can easily buy a factions capitol directly from its King. That is just so immersion breaking it isn't even funny. I mean would you give up your Towns and Castles if an NPC lord came to you with 1 million gold and offered it to you in exchange? I think not and I doubt ANY lord would give up lands just for money. I mean if you aren't "Landed" your pretty much not a noble.

 

[Kyias]

Buying settlements is kind of game breaking in my opinion and as cool as it sounds, I kind of think it needs to be removed. I mean if you have enough gold you can easily buy a factions capitol directly from its King. That is just so immersion breaking it isn't even funny. I mean would you give up your Towns and Castles if an NPC lord came to you with 1 million gold and offered it to you in exchange? I think not and I doubt ANY lord would give up lands just for money. I mean if you aren't "Landed" your pretty much not a noble.

The thing is, this is a single player game and some of us enjoy getting fiefs as a reward for investing nearly everything into trade.

Also, yes Lords did sell their holdings for massive sums of money, and it is only as game breaking as you allow it to be.

Uponn reaching 300 trade I had 4.5M denars which bought a city and 2 castles; I hardly find that game breaking

Also for reference on buying and selling of Fiefs:

Quia Emptores - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[tlowey]

The thing is, this is a single player game and some of us enjoy getting fiefs as a reward for investing nearly everything into trade.

Also, yes Lords did sell their holdings for massive sums of money, and it is only as game breaking as you allow it to be.

Uponn reaching 300 trade I had 4.5M denars which bought a city and 2 castles; I hardly find that game breaking

Also for reference on buying and selling of Fiefs:

Quia Emptores - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Exactly that is how it is. It is not game breaking. The only people who seem to be against this are the people who have never traded to this level. They think you can just buy everything which is not the case. It is just a different way to start your kingdom.

 

[CrazyElf]

Buying settlements is kind of game breaking in my opinion and as cool as it sounds, I kind of think it needs to be removed. I mean if you have enough gold you can easily buy a factions capitol directly from its King. That is just so immersion breaking it isn't even funny. I mean would you give up your Towns and Castles if an NPC lord came to you with 1 million gold and offered it to you in exchange? I think not and I doubt ANY lord would give up lands just for money. I mean if you aren't "Landed" your pretty much not a noble.

How is it game breaking? It costs millions of denars.


Buying a settlement is something that takes years and years in game. It's not something overnight - unless of course you use the console.

 

[Antaeus]

At the moment, the trade tree plays as an end game goal.

I.e. you spend significant game time getting there, and once you're there, you will have enough money to utilise the final perk to buy most of the map.

But what people want, is to have access to being able to trade cities and castles earlier? Is this correct? wouldn't having that much trade power and that ability would be game breaking if you could get it before late game?

 

[Because]

At the moment, the trade tree plays as an end game goal.

I.e. you spend significant game time getting there, and once you're there, you will have enough money to utilise the final perk to buy most of the map.

But what people want, is to have access to being able to trade cities and castles earlier? Is this correct? wouldn't having that much trade power and that ability would be game breaking if you could get it before late game?

A few of thoughts on the above.
Yes it's an end game goal, although money to buy most of the map is ridiculous without smithing exploits (cheating). 2 towns and a castle is as good as it gets. So it's really not game breaking compared to knocking over rebel cities which is way easier than getting trading to 300.
I'm personally very against pulling that perk down the tree or making it significantly easier to level the skill though as the balance feels right you do have to work for it so it isn't a game breaking thing that is easily acquired by players who don't put the effort into it.

The change that I think should happen is that all players automatically get to trade their fiefs (to help you bribe lords to join you etc) as that shouldn't be locked behind a perk. Being able to trade for other Lords on the other hand should be exclusive to this perk.

 

[Sanctumm]

Im my current playthrough i did trading up until 175 - joined Aserai and got a Castle - Left the Aserai and kept the castle - made peace with Aserai (paying 100k gold) and made my own kingdom - Went around the map smithing and collecting gold - made 1 million selling crafted stuff - Got 2 clans to join me (costed around 800k) - made an army and went to war and took 2 castles - made peace with gold (costed 70k) and got now 3 castles and 2 clans in my kingdom all on day 500 - am nearly on day 1000 now and got all of South/westen empire castles/fiefs and 14 clans in my kingdom

If that was with trading only it wold be day 1000-2500? And i would only have 2-3 catsles and 0 clans
Trading seems like a huge time waste - even with the 300 in trading you still need tons of gold to buy castles - which can be lost in wars - Trading doesnt feel good to use time on - Moving sliders for a couple weeks in real life - Not engaging and not fun - It needs a boost - People come to play and to have fun - not to get into chores - The fun stuff in this game is the fighing imo good epic battles - While doing some management/politics etc. on the side - not the other way around

 

[Antaeus]

The change that I think should happen is that all players automatically get to trade their fiefs (to help you bribe lords to join you etc) as that shouldn't be locked behind a perk. Being able to trade for other Lords on the other hand should be exclusive to this perk.

Imagine for a moment... if you're a great earl, count, duke or boyar and you went up to your King and said "Sorry boss, I sold your land to the neighbour, but it's ok, he gave me plenty of gold for it and he'll join your army"

Your king would likely take your remaining land if not your head for trading land you hold in homage or vassalage to them. You might find yourself attainted or your new land confiscated to the crown.

Put simply, in a feudal system, your ability to buy and sell land only goes as far as is allowed by the lord you swore fealty to. "Private" property doesn't exist in the way we understand it now. In game, you should not be able to trade land that has been entrusted to you to hold in the King's name. That would be a betrayal of the trust you have been given.

 

[Because]

Imagine for a moment... if you're a great earl, count, duke or boyar and you went up to your King and said "Sorry boss, I sold your land to the neighbour, but it's ok, he gave me plenty of gold for it and he'll join your army"

Your king would likely take your remaining land if not your head for trading land you hold in homage or vassalage to them. You might find yourself attainted or your new land confiscated to the crown.

Put simply, in a feudal system, your ability to buy and sell land only goes as far as is allowed by the lord you swore fealty to. "Private" property doesn't exist in the way we understand it now. In game, you should not be able to trade land that has been entrusted to you to hold in the King's name. That would be a betrayal of the trust you have been given.

I get that. In game I buy land off the ruler either direct or when his faction has just taken something and hasn't allocated it. Or swap with a lord where we get both get towns better suited to our location. The only exception I make to this are rubbish castles bought from invading factions that are doomed to change hands again, because as a player I'd sell them in a flash and take the relationship hit for doing so and get some money rather than lose it and take a relationship hit anyway.

In terms of ability to sell I think it also depends on the factions rulership method, in a senate style where the rulers are puppets to landowners, or even one with a very weak ruler and strong Barons, the ruler either lacks the power to regulate what his powerful subjects do (like in game where a ruler lacks the influence to overall his subjects). Therefore while maybe not strictly feudal there are examples in the Bannerlord setting where nobles have more power and could get a way with this behaviour. How you determine if it's actually in the nobles interest to sell in this game is a whole new can of worms admittedly though.

At the end of the day though it's a hard to get perk in a single player game, but one that can actually change how you play the game. Most perks add a few % to something this one actually does something so I'd fight tooth and nail for it as it adds variety regardless of how broken players who don't want to play that style of game think it is. To me it makes an end goal for a whole way of playing a game and I would love there to be similar options for roguery as well.

Finally I love being able to start a kingdom by not having to butcher the militia of my intended capital. Combat comes as soon as you declare a kingdom, but at least that is brought to you rather than you being the aggressor. I really value the chance to play a comparatively pacifistic faction, essentially becoming a city state (which did exist and on occasion would have bought that freedom) and expanding from there. I've no intention of buying the map as without cheats it would take forever and be pretty dull anyway, but if that floats someone's boat then it's a single player game what do I care how someone else enjoys it.

 

[Midnitewolf]

How is it game breaking? It costs millions of denars.


Buying a settlement is something that takes years and years in game. It's not something overnight - unless of course you use the console.

I thought I had explained that but maybe not in enough detail.

First this game is based on a Feudal system of government. All the land your faction possesses actually belongs to the Kingdom, not you personally. Your King grants you the right to oversee the land and collect taxes from it but theoretically he can revoke that right and take back those lands at any time. If you were to turn over your lands to an opposing faction, you would be branded a traitor and stripped of your rank if not also stripped of your head. Also a King would never "Sell" his factions capitol ever. Being able to do so is very immersion breaking.

However, you did ask for how it is gamebreaking.

First, millions of Denars are relatively easy to acquire. I have some play throughs that I am sitting on 25-30 million Denars. Currently in one of my playthroughs I own 4 cities and between them, my workshops and caravans, I make around 20k Denars a day passively after expenses. Eventually with enough time you could theoretically earn enough money that you could actually bypass having to ever siege a single fief in game and the more you buy, the more income you make so with each acquisition you make, the faster the next actuation will happen. That is pretty game breaking if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of buying fiefs in theory at least but like I mentioned it is massively immersion breaking with even a King will sell you his capitol city and it just gets too easy to just buy fiefs. Ideally I would like to see some restrictions of some type like maybe you can only buy fiefs from impoverish lords/Kingdoms or only Kings could buy and sell territory with the cavate that if a King sold off territory he would take faction hits with his lords and a huge faction hit with the clan he displaced from their property or the sums to buy fiefs would be so astronomically high that even with year and years of gameplay you might only be able to buy one such fief or some combo of all of the above. I would also like to see faction capitols as off limits for buying and selling.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

First this game is based on a Feudal system of government. All the land your faction possesses actually belongs to the Kingdom

That's a fair point. Why do they get mad when you leave them with fiefs and not when you sell them?

First, millions of Denars are relatively easy to acquire.

Yeah but so are towns. Lots of towns. All towns and castles.
If you just want to clear the map all you have to do is just start chopping heads off and you can be done probably before the trade guys beak 250 trade. I don't actually know how long they take to get 250 trade, but it's pretty fast to just start executing ASAP. You only have take one fief by siege (to make kingdom) and you will be given all others when all clans are eliminated.

If you want to play a traditional game, just join the Khuzait, they always give me tunz of towns and fiefs, yes eventually they will stop, but you can don't even have to help with sieges.

Or just pick a fight (as a free clan), save up 200k for peace money, siege the town you want and pay for peace so you take your sweet time setting it up, then do it again and again! Yes it cost more money now days but it's a lot less then millions if you do the trading game and you don't have to spend all that time leveling trading! This is my favorite way to play as you are in full control of your game.

Of course now you can even take rebel towns and stay at peace with all main factions. Eventually there might not be much rebellions anymore, I don't know, but I racked up about 10 towns in about 300 days or so.

Anyways my point is of course, it's not breaking the game to allow the player to get and use a perk to buy towns. The player can easily just take them in all shorter amount of time already.
Of course you might think "Shirly that's all going to be changed so the player can't brutalize the AI?! "
Well any day now TW, go ahead, make the AI able to stop me.

 

[CrazyElf]

First, millions of Denars are relatively easy to acquire. I have some play throughs that I am sitting on 25-30 million Denars. Currently in one of my playthroughs I own 4 cities and between them, my workshops and caravans, I make around 20k Denars a day passively after expenses. Eventually with enough time you could theoretically earn enough money that you could actually bypass having to ever siege a single fief in game and the more you buy, the more income you make so with each acquisition you make, the faster the next actuation will happen. That is pretty game breaking if you ask me.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of buying fiefs in theory at least but like I mentioned it is massively immersion breaking with even a King will sell you his capitol city and it just gets too easy to just buy fiefs. Ideally I would like to see some restrictions of some type like maybe you can only buy fiefs from impoverish lords/Kingdoms or only Kings could buy and sell territory with the cavate that if a King sold off territory he would take faction hits with his lords and a huge faction hit with the clan he displaced from their property or the sums to buy fiefs would be so astronomically high that even with year and years of gameplay you might only be able to buy one such fief or some combo of all of the above. I would also like to see faction capitols as off limits for buying and selling.

My question to you is, was that easier than building a kingdom and trying to use a combination of smithing and starting wars?

You are going to have to amass your trading skill to 300 (that can take around 2000 in game days before you buy any realm because you need the right perk to do it).



What I am trying to say is that trading should be a possible way to win, but it should not be any easier than trying to conquer a kingdom through military force. It should not take less time. Where I disagree with you is that trading should be an option - not an easy option, but an option.

You mentioned that you had milliions of denars, but that was because you had 4 towns to begin with. To get more money, you have to start with a lot of money to begin with. Starting from ground 0 is time consuming and difficult - regardless of whether your goal is to win via military force and smithing or via trading. Getting the first town is the hardest by far and it takes a lot longer with trading than military force right now.