A serious question for the developers

[black_bulldog]

If you wanna go down this route, then lets just add in the hideout/camp/base thing from VC that is player only.

Yes please let's do, the more options to play the way you want the better.

 

[takatoo]

The game is about restoring a fallen empire, wouldn't it make sense to restore the old capital?
It would be a great late-game money sink to build/restore large defensive works.

 

[Apocal]

The game is about restoring a fallen empire, wouldn't it make sense to restore the old capital?
It would be a great late-game money sink to build/restore large defensive works.

Baravenos is the name of the old capital, which was lost to Vlandians. It isn't on the map that I've seen and none of the Vlandians towns have a similar name... so maybe that's part of the whole Imperial legitimacy deal?

 

[markp27]

The lore describes Emperor Arencios as largely fighting on the border, against one enemy at a time and only for short campaigns. Apparently, nobody was both willing and able to move against the Empire in serious force after Pendraic and so they were just minor border dust-ups. At least until Arencios' assassination that split the Empire into three factions.

And that makes sense, because the unified Empire is big enough to casually gut any other faction in a few months' time.

Baravenos is the name of the old capital, which was lost to Vlandians. It isn't on the map that I've seen and none of the Vlandians towns have a similar name... so maybe that's part of the whole Imperial legitimacy deal?

This kind of makes my point which I brought up in another thread. Half the story is missing, and it has only been 7 years since Neretzes Folly. So the time old saying of it was lost in the annals of time makes no sense. We need more depth to the story for it to make any sense. I cannot imagine Caladog after being called a coward would go meekly home, nor do I see Dethert leading so many barons into battle when according to the lore most of them felt he got their troops killed.

If you are going to write a story then you need depth to explain the current situation, cities missing and no explanation etc does not help add to that depth.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

This kind of makes my point which I brought up in another thread. Half the story is missing, and it has only been 7 years since Neretzes Folly. So the time old saying of it was lost in the annals of time makes no sense. We need more depth to the story for it to make any sense. I cannot imagine Caladog after being called a coward would go meekly home, nor do I see Dethert leading so many barons into battle when according to the lore most of them felt he got their troops killed.

If you are going to write a story then you need depth to explain the current situation, cities missing and no explanation etc does not help add to that depth.

mark you need to go actually read the story before commenting on it. Dethert commanded from the back because he did not want to betray the empire, but his greedy barons did. They mad at him for that and the fact there was major loses which he wanted to avoid in the first place. "He learned that day to always lead and not follow" lol

They have also commented that the story isnt over yet and its still a work in progress.

 

[markp27]

mark you need to go actually read the story before commenting on it. Dethert commanded from the back because he did not want to betray the empire, but his greedy barons did. They mad at him for that and the fact there was major loses which he wanted to avoid in the first place. "He learned that day to always lead and not follow" lol

They have also commented that the story isnt over yet and its still a work in progress.

Actually I did read up on it the parts I was missing. As to him leading, he may well of decided that, however there is nothing in the lore that states that they would follow him. Again a lack of depth of story, as the part where he convinces them to follow him is missing.Deciding something and enacting it are two different things.

 

[Blood Gryphon]

"It was a victory, of the kind almost as bad as a defeat. We had given an oath to the Empire, to join them if attacked. It seemed clear to me that we should have honored our oath, that Battanians and Sturgians were aggressors, but, there is always room to argue details. Ultimately our barons did not wish to fight with the Empire, so they resisted coming to its help. Neretzes, when he heard we were hesitating, sent us a message calling us cowards and traitors. And you say that to a Vlandian noble at your peril. Neretzes should have known what he was doing. We joined the Sturgians. I did not fight in the battle. I stood on a hill telling my commanders where to go and who to attack. And I think we did rather well, I think you've heard. Still, we took losses - heavy losses, and gained little. And for this the barons blamed me, even though it was their idea to fight. I learned this day that a king should always lead, never follow. But it was a bitter lesson."

Here is a reddit post with all story line blerbs

r/mountandblade - Full Story of Neretzes' Folly (All 18 lords)

2,772 votes and 182 comments so far on Reddit

www.reddit.com

 

[markp27]

"It was a victory, of the kind almost as bad as a defeat. We had given an oath to the Empire, to join them if attacked. It seemed clear to me that we should have honored our oath, that Battanians and Sturgians were aggressors, but, there is always room to argue details. Ultimately our barons did not wish to fight with the Empire, so they resisted coming to its help. Neretzes, when he heard we were hesitating, sent us a message calling us cowards and traitors. And you say that to a Vlandian noble at your peril. Neretzes should have known what he was doing. We joined the Sturgians. I did not fight in the battle. I stood on a hill telling my commanders where to go and who to attack. And I think we did rather well, I think you've heard. Still, we took losses - heavy losses, and gained little. And for this the barons blamed me, even though it was their idea to fight. I learned this day that a king should always lead, never follow. But it was a bitter lesson."

Here is a reddit post with all story line blerbs

r/mountandblade - Full Story of Neretzes' Folly (All 18 lords)

2,772 votes and 182 comments so far on Reddit

www.reddit.com

That was the same place I read the missing parts I had not read in the game

It still does not explain how he enacted his leading. As I said before, deciding something is not the same as enacting it. If I say I am now the Prime Minister of the UK it does not make me the Prime Minister.There has to be a backstory to how I would become the Prime Minister.

 

[Julio-Claudian]

"It was a victory, of the kind almost as bad as a defeat. We had given an oath to the Empire, to join them if attacked. It seemed clear to me that we should have honored our oath, that Battanians and Sturgians were aggressors, but, there is always room to argue details. Ultimately our barons did not wish to fight with the Empire, so they resisted coming to its help. Neretzes, when he heard we were hesitating, sent us a message calling us cowards and traitors. And you say that to a Vlandian noble at your peril. Neretzes should have known what he was doing. We joined the Sturgians. I did not fight in the battle. I stood on a hill telling my commanders where to go and who to attack. And I think we did rather well, I think you've heard. Still, we took losses - heavy losses, and gained little. And for this the barons blamed me, even though it was their idea to fight. I learned this day that a king should always lead, never follow. But it was a bitter lesson."

Here is a reddit post with all story line blerbs

r/mountandblade - Full Story of Neretzes' Folly (All 18 lords)

2,772 votes and 182 comments so far on Reddit

www.reddit.com

I'd love it if there were history books in the game adding to the lore like this.

 

[Moton]

Yeah it is, it has whats left of a faction protecting it? Are you suggesting they add in giant parties of bandits to protect bandit castles?

Thats the problem, TW wants the player and AI to be allowed to do the exact same things, this would be limiting the AI in way that makes no sense. "OH you know im a giant kingdom and im just going to ignore this bandit castle to go fight another giant kingdom"? It makes no sense.

If you guys really need that much help getting a fief, become a vassal of a kingdom, win a few fiefs and then leave the kingdom with the fiefs and ask for peace from that faction.

Maybe it's just not interesting for the AI to capture a ruin. It's the same with bandit camps as it is now, how can they even exist? Why dont the AI just terminate them all together?

 

[Blood Gryphon]

Maybe it's just not interesting for the AI to capture a ruin. It's the same with bandit camps as it is now, how can they even exist? Why dont the AI just terminate them all together?

There is no territorial gain with the bandit camps like there would be with a player only ruined castle somewhere on the map. The AI ignore them so that the player can actually interact with them. That choice was made for the players benefit in a quest like way, but it does not reward the player with a territorial advantage like people are suggesting they want here. So who cares if the AI don't attack them they have nothing to gain, they would have lots to gain with a castle/villages.

 

[Moton]

There is no territorial gain with the bandit camps like there would be with a player only ruined castle somewhere on the map. The AI ignore them so that the player can actually interact with them. That choice was made for the players benefit in a quest like way, but it does not reward the player with a territorial advantage like people are suggesting they want here. So who cares if the AI don't attack them they have nothing to gain, they would have lots to gain with a castle/villages.

Yeah you're right. There is probably no way to do this without telling the AI to leave it alone wich would be pretty bad game design considering wich direction the devs are taking.