Adding strategy and politics to Calradia

Users who are viewing this thread

Damnas

Regular
Hello,

Below is a list of suggestions that can stand alone but are all supposed to fit together in order to create a more dynamic political landscape. Included are suggestions regarding Warfare, Nobility, Marriage, Inheritance and succession, Gender roles, Trade, and Diplomacy.

Starting with Warfare...

Though the battles may be the meat of the game, they tend to quickly become repetitive and meaningless - the AI declares wars with no clear objective in mind and just wanders around aimlessly, not to mention peace agreements being made at the most idiotic moments anyone could ever pick.

To fix that, I would recommend two mechanics that will no doubt be familiar to many CK players.

- First, divide the world map into 'Baronies', 'Counties', and 'Duchies'. With whatever appropriate cultural names for every faction, like Sheikdom, Emirate, and Sultanate for the Aserai, and Chiefdom, Jarldom, and Principality for the Sturgians.

- Baronies are the Castles and their attached Villages.
- Counties are the Towns and their attached Villages.
- Duchies are the combined County (Town+Villages) and Baronies (Castles+Villages) that have Villages using that Town's market.

The Duchies should be hardcoded from the start of the game and never change regardless of faction ownership. If a faction controls all the Fiefs in a particular Duchy, it is considered Pacified and yields a small prosperity bonus, with an additional bonus if the same culture. However, if two or more factions control Fiefs within the same Duchy, it is considered Disputed and increases bandit activity in the area.

- Second, make three main options for 'wars'. Those being, Raids, Conquests, and Invasions. Each have a different Influence cost upon declaring war, and have clear, achievable objectives.

- Raiding War :
No war target. Clan Leaders can form armies, but only Faction Leader can form army that combines different Clans. Castles and Towns can be besieged and taken for loot and prisoners, but will be returned after peace is declared. Noble prisoners can be kept for ransom even after peace agreement. Bonus to yields from raiding villages and caravans. Unlikely for mercenary clans to be hired.
The objective is to raid and capture prisoners. Sieges are more difficult to carry out due to smaller armies. Higher rewards from raiding and opportunity to keep prisoners. Lowest influence cost to declare war, but higher cost if against the same culture.
Kingdom Policy, Raiding Culture, increases raiding profits.

- Conquest War :
A target is decided on upon declaring war. Eligible war targets are any NEIGHBOURING Barony (Castle) or County (Town). Armies can be formed normally. Any other Castle or Town that is besieged and taken will be returned along with all noble prisoners after peace is declared. No bonuses to raiding. Mercenary clans likely to be contracted. Objective is to conquer only 1 Fief.
Influence cost is medium, but cheaper for Castles and more expensive for Towns. Reduced influence cost if the target is of the same culture. Reduced influence cost for targets in a Disputed Duchy where the Faction declaring war has a Fief.
Kingdom Policy, Conqueror People, reduces influence cost to declare war.

- Invasion War :
An entire Duchy is targeted. Eligible war targets are any NEIGHBOURING Duchy (Town+Castles with market Villages), or any Disputed Duchy where the Faction declaring war already possesses a Fief. Armies can be formed normally. Any other Castle of Town taken will be returned along with noble prisoners. No bonuses to raiding. Mercenary clans highly likely to be contracted. Objective is every single Fief in the target Duchy.
Highest Influence cost, but reduced if target is the same culture, and also if the target Duchy is Disputed. If peace is declared before every Fief could be taken by one side or the other, the opposing factions keep whatever they're holding onto at the time peace is declared, and the Duchy remains Disputed.
Kingdom Policy, Imperial Ambitions, reduces Influence cost to declare war.

Additionally, there could be other types of war that are dependent on circumstances and events...

- Liberation War :
Every Fief belonging to the aggressor faction's culture is targeted, but only applicable if those Fiefs are under the control of another Culture. So, Imperials can't declare Liberation Wars on each other, but if another culture, such as the Aserai, were to take holdings of Imperial culture, then any Imperial faction NEIGHBOURING those Fiefs, can declare a Liberation War targeting those Fiefs.

- Rescue War :
Target is a specific castle or town known to be holding prisoners. Does not have to be a neighbouring settlement. The AI tries to negotiate peace after the rescue has been completed, or has resulted in a failed siege. Any conquered settlement is returned after peace is declared.

- Revenge War :
Results from a lord having been executed by a rival faction. The kingdom of the now defunct lord can choose to avenge him and declare war, with the settlements belonging to the executioner lord becoming a viable target for conquest.
Very low influence cost, but can only happen after an execution.

- Vassalization War :
Kingdoms can vassalize individual Clans into their own faction, IF the aggressor's kingdom, and the target Clan, are of the same culture, but not the culture of the target kingdom. So, if a Northern Imperial Lord were to leave his faction and join the Southern Empire, then nothing changes. But, if that same lord were to join the Khuzait, all Imperial factions bordering the Fiefs of that Imperial-Khuzait lord, would be able to declare a Vassalization War, and bring his clan into their faction by force.

- Rival War :
Two NEIGHBOURING faction leaders hate each other. They're not targeting any settlements in particular - they're just trying to beat the **** out of the other. Completely pointless war with nothing to gain, and lowers relations with all vassals the longer it lasts.

I believe that these two systems of territorial division and targeted wars put together would allow for a slower pace of conquests overall, would lead to more sensible and meaningful wars with opportunities for decisive battles, and allow to streamline the AI's logic to apply strategies adapted to their current objective in a limited geographic area, rather than going off to siege god knows what on the other side of the map. And again, these mechanics can be built on, or combined with other things.

For example...


STRATEGIC VILLAGES

- Make Clan Leaders have the ability appoint a Clan Member to a particular village owned by that clan. That appointed Clansperson will go to that village and stay there, recruiting troops and training them, patrolling around the village, escort its villagers to and from their market town, increase relations with local notables, and generally protect the surrounding lands. Depending on their personality traits, they may be better or worst at certain tasks, such as Generous Clansmen who will increase the prosperity of the village, whereas Greedy ones will lower it, and Cautious Clansmen are more likely to avoid engagements, whereas a Daring one will go after anything that moves. Etc...

- In that vein, add the ability for Clan Leaders to send Clan Members to a Castle, not as a Governor, but as a Commander, where they will spend their time patrolling around their castle and attached villages, recruiting and training troops, and essentially guard your holdings in the same manner described above.

- Add the ability to send limited garrisons to villages, albeit at the cost of that village's prosperity. It will allow for border regions to be reinforced and for villages that produce important resources to be protected. Results in a high relations penalty with the local notables, but reduced if a) currently at war, b) located in a Disputed Duchy, c) troops are of the same culture, d) owning Clan is of the same culture, e) faction is of the same culture.

Players will do what they want, but the AI could prioritize sending Clansmen and garrisons to villages and castles on the border or in disputed territories only, so as to defend their frontier provinces but not cripple their economy at the same time.


DOMESTIC POLITICS

Noble relations need to be reworked completely. It makes no sense that Vlandian lords would be best buddies with Khuzaits at game start, when they're probably never going to meet, and the only time they may possibly have met in the past was at the Battle of Pendraic, during which they were supposed to be stabbing each other in the face. Their friends and enemies should be limited to their Kingdom, and maybe a couple nobles in neighbouring kingdoms, but they should be in the minority.

But most importantly they can be partly linked to the Barony, County, Duchy system described above.

In order to have a Duke title, a Clan needs to control the entire Duchy, meaning the County (Town) and the attached Baronies (Castles), so if one Clan controls the Town, but another controls the Castles, no one is the Duke, and we just have a Count and a Baron.

And yes, I realize that's not how titles of nobility work, but I'm trying to adapt to the game...

Becoming Duke could be an ingrained ambition in every Clan Leader, and therefore it would make sense for AI Clans to have relations penalties if sharing Fiefs in the same Duchy, and for them to actively plot to evict the other and take their place for the prestigious Duke title, which would come with an increase in Influence gain, and whatever else...

Several quest chains could be included and be given by lords to attempt to discredit, weaken, and blackmail their rivals, or even push the local populace to revolt, maybe even work with foreign kingdoms. Imagine...

...the devious and greedy Baron of Mecalovea Castle wants to become the Duke of the Epicrotean Province, but before he can satisfy his ambitions, he must find a way to kick out the Count of Epicrotea and take his city from him! So he sends the player to bring a deal to the Sturgian Prince of Omor, asking him to convince his liege, Raganvad, to attack Epicrotea in exchange of gold. The Sturgians declare a War of Conquest on the Northern Empire and besiege Epicrotea, but just after having taken the city, the Baron of Mecalovea, who had maintained his army in his castle along with a force of mercenaries, now springs into action and attacks the exhausted Sturgians, seizing the city for himself to the thunderous applause of the Senate who declare him the Saviour of Epicrotea!
Meanwhile the former Count of Epicrotea, now landless and discredited in the Northern Empire, attempts to use what is left of his influence with the other Clans to pressure Lucon into removing the usurper and return the city to its rightful owner, while the Prince of Omor, having been charmed by the player and paid handsomely to do so, had withdrawn his troops and marched them back home to Omor just before the Baron's attack, and now finds himself the most powerful and wealthiest Prince in Sturgia!


These kinds of questlines could also include Clans that are rivals in lore. Such as the Khergit and the Arkit with the Khuzaits, or the Sarrans and the Qilds for the Aserais. It would also make sense for Kings to try and weaken their most powerful rivals through these kind of underhanded tactics that could also be made to include the criminal elements found in the cities.

Which brings us to...


CLAN INHERITANCE AND SUCCESSION

These two are the cornerstones of the feudal system, and without them, I would be tempted to argue the entire Clans and Dynastic mechanics are utterly useless and serve as little more than a gimmick to give the world a little flavour by adding names to otherwise cosmetic clans. At the same time, going the full Crusader Kings route is even more pointless, since there's no way Bannerlord playthroughs will ever last that long. But some form of inheritance and succession still needs to be added into the game for those particular mechanics to have any weight.

My suggestions would be to add a 'Designated Heir' position somewhere in the Clan tab. How that Heir is designated, depends on the succession method, which would be set to Hereditary as default for the AI clans, but which would give the player the option to change methods. Keep in mind this is about Clan inheritance and succession, and not Factions.

- Hereditary : The Heir is the eldest son of the leader. Must be a member of the clan. Daughters can be Heir if no elligible son is available (ie, there are no sons, or they're all in another clan). Defaults to Seniority if leader has no elligible children.

- Seniority : The Heir is eldest male relative of the leader. Must be a member of the clan. Women can be Heir if no elligible male is available. Defaults to Regency if no family members, or Hereditary if the Clan Leader has children. (Useless to the player in Sandox games since they would need to wait for the third generation before this Succession method came into effect, but could be useful in campaign mode with siblings. Mostly intended for the AI clans)

- Regency : The Heir is the Clan Member with the highest level and highest stats, regardless of family membership. Women can be Heir if no elligible males are present. Defaults to Hereditary if the Clan Leader has children. (Not much use for the player, but intended for AI clans)

- Appointment : Essentially for the player to have the ability to select their own heir. Will cost relations with all members of the Clan, and other Clan Leaders, if Appointed Heir is not related by blood, and even more if female.

The Kingdom Policy, Equal Inheritance, allows for women to maintain their place in the line of succession, but costs a lot of influence, and costs a lot of relations amongst male nobles who don't have traits like merciful or open-handed, though raises relations with all women vassals, especially those who stand to inherit.

The Heir gains a significant relations boost with the Clan Leader, and could be given a bonus to morale when leading parties, or a boost to the amount of Leadership skills gained over time.

They should also be off-limits for marriage if it means leaving the Clan, unless certain requirements are met. In order to steal an Heir away from their destiny as the future leader of their Clan, and maybe even the Kingdom, you must...

a) have HIGH relations with the Clan Leader
b) have high relations with the Heir in question
c) be ready to spend a fortune
d) be a LANDED vassal in the same kingdom
e.1) be of at least equal rank (Baron, Count, Duke. Doesn't apply to Faction Heirs)

Clan Heirs who are also Faction Heirs have additional requirements.

e.2) must be at least of Duke rank
f) be ready to spend an even bigger fortune
g) have the highest influence score in the kingdom
h) be of the same culture as well as a vassal

In the case of marriages where the spouse joins into the Heir's Clan, most of those requirements are waived, but they will never marry outside of their realm or culture unless in an Alliance (more on that below).


KINGDOM INHERITANCE AND SUCCESSION

The above describes Clan inheritance and succession, and with some kingdoms like the Southern Empire and Vlandia, it should remain largely the same. But in the case of other kingdoms, other forms of succession could be used.

- Dictatorship : Standard for Western Empire and Khuzait
Two values are looked at: army size (including garrisons), and army strength. Quantity vs quality. If the lord with the highest value is one and the same, the succession runs smoothly, and a new Faction Leader is chosen. But if they are different nobles, Influence is used to break the tie, and whoever has the most wins the Kingdom... BUT... the runner-up Clan can choose to challenge the results and revolt, at which time every other Clan in the kingdom will do a relations check with both the King and the Claimant (also affected by culture, distance to ruling and rebel clans, whether either faction holds territory in a contested Duchy, etc...) and will pledge to whomever they favour most, resulting in a civil war for the throne during which no peace can be declared until the kingdom is reunited. The winning clan then claims the throne, the losing clan is banished, but every other loyalist remains.
All Clan Leaders are elligible, including female Clan Leaders, since if they've got the biggest or most powerful army, it's not like anyone can do anything about it. But they will suffer from a malus during succession crisises when time comes for clans to pick a side.

- Elective : Standard for Northern Empire and Battania
The two values looked at are relations with nobles, and relations with notables in the kingdom. The aristocracy vs the people. A lord that has the highest relations count with both the nobles and notables in the kingdom is the clear winner of the election and becomes the next, uncontested faction leader. In the case of these being seperate lords, Influence is again used to break the tie, with the loser able to challenge the results, at which time every other clan in the kingdom must pick a side, and which will result in the banishment of the losing clan.
All Clan Leaders are elligible, but can be limited to only those of the kingdom's culture with the Kingdom Policy, Aristocratic Representation. Women are usually not elligible, unless with the Kingdom Policy, Equal Representation. Both Kingdom Policies only available to factions using the Elective form of succession. The Battanians could start with Equal Representation from game start, and Northern Empire with Aristocratic Representation.

- Oligarchy : Standard for Sturgians and Aserai
The two values looked at are number of holdings (with towns being worth more than castles, which are in turn worth more than villages), compared to the prosperity of holdings. Or perhaps existing wealth, against the prosperity of holdings. Either way, if the same lord, the succession is smooth. If not, Influence to break the tie, and potentially, civil war.
All Clan Leaders are elligible, but can be limited to only town holders using the Kingdom Policy, Urban Monopoly. Women are usually not elligible, unless with the Kingdom Policy, Meritocratic Ladder. Both Kingdom Policies only available to factions using the Oligarchy form of succession. The Sturgians could start with Meritocratic Ladder from game start, and Aserai with Urban Monopoly.

- Dynastic : Standard for Southern Empire and Vlandia
This one works differently. In some ways, it's the simplest since it's basically the same as Clan inheritance and succession, but... when applied to Factions, it also has the potential to create the messiest situations, and the most potential for civil wars.
Unlike kingdoms with the previously mentioned forms of succession, Dynastic kingdoms have a Designated Heir, who is the same Designated Heir as that of the ruling Clan.
If that Heir were to marry outside of their Clan (see the conditions discussed above for that to happen), their old clan would simply pick a new Heir. But they will remain the Faction Heir, just for a new dynasty. When the time comes for the crown to be passed on, the new dynasty take its place as the ruling clan, with the former royal clan having the option to challenge and revolt to place their clan leader on the throne. So, for example, you marry Ira and have her join your clan, Rhagaea dies, and your Clan is now in charge, but the new Clan Leader of the Pethros Clan may very well attempt to make a grab for the throne.
That's the most drastic example, and will rarely happen due to the AI's actions, but should provide plenty for players to do, and should definitely make marrying the daughter of everyone's favourite milf a whole lot more fun! However, civil wars can erupt in other ways too...

- When the son of a monarch takes over after his father's death, the succession is usually smooth... unless he's a little ****head with terrible personality traits and low relations with everyone.
- If a daughter succeeds to the throne, nobles with low relations may revolt under the most powerful amongst them if they perceive the ruling clan as militarily weak. The Kingdom Policy, Equal Inheritance, reduces or outright negates the risk of that happening. Maybe some factions like Battanians, Sturgians, and Khuzait could have that policy from gamestart.
- If the Inheritance laws are forced to shift from Hereditary to Seniority (ie, no elligible children, succession defaults to Seniority), and nobles don't like the new king, those with low relations may revolt.
- If inheritance laws are forced to shift from Seniority to Regency (ie, no more members of the ruling family), nobles will most certainly revolt unless they really like the new guy.
- The first child of a new dynasty inherits the throne, and nobles have low relations with the new ruling family
- New ruler is of different culture than the faction culture

The above can only happen during succession, but provides lots of opportunities for coups and civil wars. In every case, the strongest of the opposing Clan is picked as the leader of the rebellion, and will become the new ruling dynasty if victorious.

And then there's another way the Dynastic succession system can throw a curveball. If a Clan Leader is married to a sibling of the new ruler, they might try to press a claim to the throne if relation is low enough. But most importantly, they can do it at any time so long as they're married to their royal spouse, and even from outside the faction. So, if you marry King Derthert's daughter, you can wait for her brother to inherit the throne, and then press a claim for Vlandia at a moment of your choosing.


A brief note on gender... Many of the above suggestions include mechanics that would involve discrimination against women. I'm not sure why such mechanics weren't transferred from Warband to Bannerlord, though, considering the... progress of modern thought on gender issues, I suspect it's a market decision intended to avoid rubbing the wrong people the wrong way.
Which is ridiculous. In game terms, it made playing female characters more interesting and different from playing male characters. This new line of thought where men and women must be exactly identical in all aspects is idiotic. Controversies be damned. And in real world terms, it does a great disservice to actual social justice to try and sweep all that stuff under the rug and pretend it never happened.
Not to mention that a game built around mass murder, looting corpses, and selling the survivors into slavery, should probably refrain from giving lessons on morality and virtue.
So, for the sake of a more immersive gaming experience, and in honour of all those who actually fought and sacrificed for equality in the eyes of the law... bring back sexism and discrimination against women!


FOREIGN POLITICS

Add Diplomatic 'stances' that kingdoms are holding with one another and that last for the duration of about 3 in-game weeks. These could cost Influence to pass, or could be voted on by the nobles in a kingdom. An example could be:

- Neutral :
Default state. Trade caravans between kingdoms are rare. Inter-kingdom marriages are forbidden. No recruiting outside of the kingdom.

- Non-Aggression Pact :
No difference from Neutral, other than the assurance not to be attacked on that front, though the pact can be broken for a high influence cost and relations penalty. Dishonourable Faction Leaders could use it for sneak attacks, whereas Honorable Faction Leaders would never betray their word.
Reverts to Neutral upon expiry.

- Defensive Treaty :
Requires for a Non-Aggression Pact to have been previously negotiated, and not broken. Both kingdoms pledge to defend the other in case of an attack, but will not join offensive wars, or on-going wars. Inter-faction marriages possible, but infrequent, and not for Faction Leaders and their children, or Clan Leaders and their children. Enable recruitment in each other's lands, but only during wartime.
Replaces Non-Aggression Pact. Can be broken by refusing to honour the treaty when the other kingdom is attacked. Reverts to Non-Aggression Pact upon expiry.

- Alliance :
Requires for a Defensive Treaty to have been previously negotiated, and not broken. Both kingdoms pledge to join each other's wars, defensive and offensive both, as well as join any on-going wars. Inter-faction marriages more likely. Faction/Clan Leaders and their children can agree to inter-faction marriages, but only if it means bringing the spouse into their clan. Invite each other's nobles to tournaments and feasts, should they ever be added. Enable recruitment in each other's lands at any time.
Replaces Defensive Treaty. Can be broken by refusing to join the ally's war. Reverts to Non-Aggression Pact upon expiry, but allows to renogiate Alliance without going through Defensive Treaty if all commitments were honoured.

- Hostile :
Not outright war, but AI more likely to declare war, if not already occupied on other fronts. No inter-faction marriages. No inter-kingdom trade caravans. Nobles will be denied entry into each other's settlements. Bias against characters and nobles of the hostile culture, even when vassal. Certainly no recruiting allowed. Slightly decreased Influence cost to declare war. Can come as a result of three things:

1. One of the above-mentioned treaties was broken by one party or the other. In which case, the only thing to do is wait for the Hostile Stance to expire, at which time it will revert back to Neutral.
2. Kingdoms share Fiefs in a Disputed Duchy. In which case, it will remain Hostile for as long as the Duchy is disputed.
3. A kingdom is enforcing an embargo (more on that below).

The AI would build up troops and defenses in any Barony and County neighbouring the kingdom they're 'Hostile' to. Lords could give out quests to conduct special operations to liberate and demilitari- *cough* I mean, secret raids and attacks to weaken the rival kingdom. Maybe quests to sneak into a town, contact the local criminal element and hire them to cause some mayhem behind enemy lines. At the sime time, notables could offer quest to smuggle goods across the border since trade is closed off.

- War :
War can be declared according to previously mentioned rules; Raiding War, Conquest War, Invasion War.
Reverts to Truce once the war ends, unless sharing a Disputed Duchy, in which case it reverts to Hostile.

- Truce :
Default state after a war. No inter-faction trade or marriages. Can't declare war against the kingdom with whom the truce is held. Duration of the truce dependent on type of war fought. Longest for Invasion Wars, very brief for Raiding Wars.
Reverts to Neutral upon expiry.



TRADE

Using a similar system as above, reduce inter-kingdom trade and make caravans more likely to stay within their own kingdom. Then introduce Trade Agreements that work in a similar fashion to the diplomatic stances. For example:

- Neutral :
Same as above.

- Border Trade Agreement :
Requires for at least a Non-Aggression Pact to be in effect. Trade caravans travel to any town of the partner kingdom, so long as it's ducal territory is bordering their own kingdom. This can be a good deal, or a bad one depending on the political situation of the moment and how long your border is with the partner faction.

- Trade Route Agreement :
Requires for at least a Non-Aggression Pact to be in effect. Opens a trade route connecting any two specific towns, regardless of location, chosen by the party offering the deal. Cities with villages possessing strategic resources will be an obvious choice for these trade routes and the AI should try and prioritize them, both for securing deals, and raiding.

- Open Trade Agreement :
Requires for at least a Non-Aggression Pact AND either a Border Trade or a Trade Route Agreement with the partner kingdom. Trade Caravans now travel to any town in either kingdom freely. Does not replace the Border Trade or Trade Route Agreements, but stands alongside.

- Embargo :
Shut down trade completely with the target faction. Will shift Diplomatic Stance to Hostile. Allies may also enforce the trade embargo if, a) has a higher relations with the ally than with the embargo target, b) does not have a diplomatic or trade treaty with the embargo target. In the case of the player, a simple choice asking if you will agree to enforce your ally's embargo or not would be sufficient.
Reverts back to Neutral upon expiry, but can be lifted at any time prior to that.


The number of Trade Agreements, or Embargoes, would be dependent on the Faction Leader's Trade score. Furthermore, these Trade Agreements can be broken if enough trade caravans are destroyed by either bandits or foreign kingdoms, in which case all other Trade Agreements with that particular kingdom may be cancelled, and trade relations will revert back to Neutral.

Additionally, these agreements could spawn quests, both from notables and lords of the partner kingdoms asking you to escort their caravans and protect the trade routes, as well as quests handed out by nobles in hostile kingdoms, or just greedy neighbours, to rob and disrupt trade between kingdoms, not to mention gangs smuggling during embargoes, or even purposefully sour relations between them to cause a diplomatic incident. Something along the lines of a quest where you're tasked with recruiting soldiers from one of the two trading kingdoms, only to then attack one of their caravans and place the blame on one of the trading partners, resulting in not only the Trade Agreements being cancelled, but also in Diplomatic relations dropping to Hostile between the former partners, opening the way for an opportune invasion by a scheming neighbour...

-----

Well, that ended up being a tad more than I thought it would...

Anyways, I really love this game. Thank you for all the hard work you've put into it.
 
Last edited:

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
Quite an entertaining and interesting read.

Broadly speaking, you are commenting on what has been commented on practically since 2016... and there is nothing wrong with that; it is entirely licit of you to open this thread and express this honest feedback.

However...the problem... this is all a far cry from the design concept/vision Taleworlds has planned for Bannerlord. It is what it is... unfortunately.
 

Damnas

Regular
And here I thought I was being all original :smile:

I'm not very active on forums in general so I must have missed those discussions.

Is this design concept/vision detailed anywhere? I've seen lots of posts on the forums and the website with updates and patches and so on, but nothing resembling a long-term roadmap for the game, and I wouldn't mind seeing what the devs have planned for the politics aspect of the game because right now it's just too bare bones...
 

Veith

Sergeant
M&BWB
As M&B was first released the main focus was on the possibility of being able to fight on horseback! That was something really new. And factly it is in this way curiously still unique.
Because M&B or Warband is/was a good possibility for modding during really many years (not only few months) interesting mods were developed with features Talesworld never planned.
I think it is the same today. Folks want (clear finally also 'i') :wink:) a vanilla version with all and more possible content even Warband with mods never had.
But for me it is more important mods will be possible to implement all possible (and impossible ^^) stuff and bannerlord can be a good foundation for that. But if i understand many mod teams right the problem is not that bannerlord has 'few' content, more that it is not in the stable stage of well thought and developed modding. That would be the Talesworld M&B style from past til today...
But the wish that Talesworld shall develope all gameplay and content every single interested gamer wants will never happen.
Hopes i have anyway.. :wink:
(from my viewing point better fewer content (functioning) but the possibility of fine modding than a non-modable vanilla version with tasty common gameplay, also it would be more than momentary)
 

Damnas

Regular
Inappropriate language
No offense, but this whole "just wait for mods, dude" attitude is beyond me. And I kind of resent the implied notion that the above suggestions are an impossible wish-list stemming from a frustrated player who just greedily wants the whole arm when he's offered a hand by the benevolent company that is after all, only a poor victim of its own success...

That's like paying full market price for a car that ends up being a carcass without even wheels, but telling yourself that you can just go to a garage later on because the poor car salesman never expected to actually make a sale and asking for a functioning car would be unreasonable.

Perhaps the wall of text is what makes the ideas detailed above seem more complex than they actually are. Let me summarize:

1.1 - Giving a dynamic "Baron" title to lords owning castles.
1.2 - Giving a dynamic "Count" title to lords owning towns.
1.3 - Giving a dynamic "Duke" title to lords who own both the town, and the attached castl- (Okay, fine. This one might be far too complex for an experienced coder to pull off. Maybe we should start a crowdfunding campaign to recruit a NASA engineer...)
2.1 - Wars that aren't snip..
[edit: insert politically correct term to depict something of excruciatingly low intellect. Even though typing the previously used term in the search engine results in 20 pages of posts where it's being used without issue, sometimes even as a personal insult at someone, but that seems to be acceptable, apparently.]
2.2 - Adding actual objectives to wars [...to make them less snip.]
[edit: insert politically correct term to depict something of excruciatingly low intellect. Even though typing the previously used term in the search engine results in 20 pages of posts where it's being used without issue, sometimes even as a personal insult at someone, but that seems to be acceptable, apparently.]
3 - Adding the possibility of assigning clan members to a village.
4 - Giving nobles relationships that aren't... you guessed it, snip..
[edit: insert politically correct term to depict something of excruciatingly low intellect. Even though typing the previously used term in the search engine results in 20 pages of posts where it's being used without issue, sometimes even as a personal insult at someone, but that seems to be acceptable, apparently.]
5 - Adding restrictions to marriages. Because I'm tired of seeing Ira getting married off to Caladog or the random thrice-removed distant cousin of some insignificant, landless lordling in the middle of nowhere. Which is... snip..
[edit: insert politically correct term to depict something of excruciatingly low intellect. Even though typing the previously used term in the search engine results in 20 pages of posts where it's being used without issue, sometimes even as a personal insult at someone, but that seems to be acceptable, apparently.]
6 - Adding a succession system to the already existing dynastic system. Because not having included it in the first place was... say it with me, snip..
[edit: insert politically correct term to depict something of excruciatingly low intellect. Even though typing the previously used term in the search engine results in 20 pages of posts where it's being used without issue, sometimes even as a personal insult at someone, but that seems to be acceptable, apparently.]
6.1 - Adding a succession system to factions. Which I actually wouldn't care about if TW hadn't made such a fuss about the entire Calradic civil war being a succession crisis. snip..
[edit: insert politically correct term to depict something of excruciatingly low intellect. Even though typing the previously used term in the search engine results in 20 pages of posts where it's being used without issue, sometimes even as a personal insult at someone, but that seems to be acceptable, apparently.]
7 - Gender roles. Again. Don't really care. Except it seems to me TW has made the decision to bend the knee to woke interests so as to stay under the radar. And when even a Turkish video game company bends to the hordes of wokistan, it's a sign the world is well and truly ****ed. Therefore I'm against. I'm a simple guy like that. And an ***hole.
[edit: no snip. The mod presumably agrees with my premise that I'm an ***hole. It's important to find common ground during a dispute. One more and I'll buy him a beer.]
No defense, your honour. But hey, maybe Anita Sarkeesian will give you guys a trophy.
[edit: You didn't remove this one, but we both know you consider it... what's the word? Oh yeah, 'problematic.' And fine, this one is out of place. Might be worth mentioning that arguments of that nature, ie, exaggerated and overflowing with irony and sarcasm, are usually tongue in cheek. But maybe that doesn't come across very well via text. I'm willing to recognize that, and therefore take my share of responsibility. Nonetheless, to equate that particular comment as "right-wing hate speech against women" is... reta... false. I mean, in the first post, I made a comment about "special operations to liberate and demilitari-" which is an obvious tongue in cheek reference to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, but no one was foolish enough to interpret it as a statement of support for Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, were they?]
8 - Diplomatic relations. Diplomacy was seen as an essential Warband mod. Why on earth would you not include its functionality? I mean... jesus... c'mon... seriously?
9 - Trade. Fine. I'll be the first to admit that the proposed changes to trading might be balance breaking and really screw with the economy.

The very first reply in this thread mentions some of these features have been discussed since 2016. Mods that include these features have been created. And then abandoned because the game structure kept changing.

Regarding your claim that players just want a vanilla version with all and more possible content than even Warband with mods never had... well... broadly speaking, yes. That's the point of a sequel - to expand on the original product. And to include the functionality from mods that players enjoyed the most (ie, Diplomacy, Freelancer, VC systems, amongst others...). That would seem like a sound business strategy.
snip.
[edit: insert politically correct way of describing the act of the no-pants-dance with a person possessing a predatory attitude and who favours a particular part of the human anatomy located between the upper thighs and the lower back, and has no qualms about taking advantage of others in vulnerable positions regardless of their comfort, along with the implication that it is the attitude being taken towards the customers who bought the game. But yeah, okay, fine. This one was over the line. And the wording could lend to confusion. Mea culpa maxima.
That said, there was not one mention of the LGBT community. Not one. There was however, a mention of "fluffy handcuffs" which I suspect is why the offended parties made the assumption that I was referring to homosexual men. Thereby projecting their own stereotypes regarding gender identity onto me, and accusing me of intolerance and discrimination, when in fact, I was the more open-minded one since I don't equate "fluffy handcuffs" as automatically having to belong to gay men. Women are not allowed to possess fluffy handcuffs? Straight men can't have fluffy handcuffs? How am I the one who's discriminating against people, when in fact, I'm the one who's not sticking labels on them? However, the comment was unnecessarily vulgar and rude, for which I take full responsibility and will accept the warning points.
But I will not accept being publicly accused as a homophobe by a moderator who's communications with me were essentially limited to an automated-response email bot.]

Otherwise just remake Warband's graphics, expand the map, and voila. It's not like Taleworlds could have ****ed it up any worst than Blizzard did with Wc3.

That's besides the point anyway. I'm, for the most part, not proposing to add new systems to the game. I'm proposing to expand actually finish existing systems. Or systems that were advertised by the company. And even then, I thought I was being relatively reasonable. Notice how I didn't make a single mention of the criminal enterprises players were supposed to be able to- oh... wait... oops... it just slipped out. Then again, perhaps they've been added to the game, but the Calradic Mafia is just so secretive and good at what they do that no one's noticed.

It's not like I'm asking for a technological progress bar that goes from the stone age to gunpowder. Or to add naval combat. Or zeppelins, for that matter. Or mages able to raise zombie hordes. Or dragons. Or whatever.

But an empire locked in civil war over a succession crisis... with no succession?

A political system that is reduced to the binary interactions of war and peace? That only works if your name is Tolstoy.

A dynastic system with no inheritance? How is that complete or even workable? Why should we wait for modders to fix what is obviously a gaping hole in the game's... logic? And since I'm not into sloppy seconds, I'd prefer the hole in question be filled by the person who made it rather than having to stick it in myself. And yes, I'm aware the analogy is completely tasteless. I trust it conveys the point effectively.
[edit: ...okay, how on earth did this part escape the snipping? I mean... it's litterally the most graphic and the worst of every other comment I made! Good god! The standards!
Although it is a perfect example of what the confusion was. The only way this comment could have slipped through the scrutiny of a moderator, is if they're not familiar enough with the English language to understand certain terms in that comment. Because, let's face it, anyone who's a native English speaker understands exactly what this is a reference to. What that tells me, is that the moderator in question did not understand the nuance of the English language in what I wrote in the previous comments, and due to linguistic differences, translated it... wrong. Which explains why he would be mistakenly offended, even though it was without cause.
And yet I'm the one who has to apologize and justify himself, while the people who falsely accused me don't. That's BS. Being accused of misogyny and homophobia is serious, and yet, the onus of proof should have been on them. Not me. It should have been them who make a case to defend their premise that I am what they accuse me of. Not me who is forced in a position where I must publicly defend myself.
If you want to throw in another warning point over this particular comment, or even an outright ban on account of my unapologetic insolence towards the powers that be, go ahead (which is only a result of your actions, it might be worth mentioning). The whole point that I'm making, is that I stand by what I say, largely on account of the fact that I said nothing wrong, though
I apologized for those comments that I recognized could have been misunderstood, and I take responsibility for my actions, and I accept the consequences. Because I did nothing wrong.
It seems clear to me that the mod in question has no intentions of taking their own responsibilities, standing by what they said, or recognizing that they were wrong. Notice how I'm not even asking for an apology. Just an aknowledgement that they were wrong. Can't even do that. It's pathetic. Between us, it seems I'm the only one with some sense of honour. But hey, he's the sheriff, so... yeah.]
 
Last edited:

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
No offense, but this whole "just wait for mods, dude" attitude is beyond me. And I kind of resent the implied notion that the above suggestions are an impossible wish-list stemming from a frustrated player who just greedily wants the whole arm when he's offered a hand by the benevolent company that is after all, only a poor victim of its own success...

That's like paying full market price for a car that ends up being a carcass without even wheels, but telling yourself that you can just go to a garage later on because the poor car salesman never expected to actually make a sale and asking for a functioning car would be unreasonable.

Perhaps the wall of text is what makes the ideas detailed above seem more complex than they actually are. Let me summarize:

1.1 - Giving a dynamic "Baron" title to lords owning castles.
1.2 - Giving a dynamic "Count" title to lords owning towns.
1.3 - Giving a dynamic "Duke" title to lords who own both the town, and the attached castl- (Okay, fine. This one might be far too complex for an experienced coder to pull off. Maybe we should start a crowdfunding campaign to recruit a NASA engineer...)
2.1 - Wars that aren't snip..
2.2 - Adding actual objectives to wars [...to make them less snip.]
3 - Adding the possibility of assigning clan members to a village.
4 - Giving nobles relationships that aren't... you guessed it, snip..
5 - Adding restrictions to marriages. Because I'm tired of seeing Ira getting married off to Caladog or the random thrice-removed distant cousin of some insignificant, landless lordling in the middle of nowhere. Which is... snip..
6 - Adding a succession system to the already existing dynastic system. Because not having included it in the first place was... say it with me, snip..
6.1 - Adding a succession system to factions. Which I actually wouldn't care about if TW hadn't made such a fuss about the entire Calradic civil war being a succession crisis. snip..
7 - Gender roles. Again. Don't really care. Except it seems to me TW has made the decision to bend the knee to woke interests so as to stay under the radar. And when even a Turkish video game company bends to the hordes of wokistan, it's a sign the world is well and truly ****ed. Therefore I'm against. I'm a simple guy like that. And an ***hole. No defense, your honour. But hey, maybe Anita Sarkeesian will give you guys a trophy.
8 - Diplomatic relations. Diplomacy was seen as an essential Warband mod. Why on earth would you not include its functionality? I mean... jesus... c'mon... seriously?
9 - Trade. Fine. I'll be the first to admit that the proposed changes to trading might be balance breaking and really screw with the economy.

The very first reply in this thread mentions some of these features have been discussed since 2016. Mods that include these features have been created. And then abandoned because the game structure kept changing.

Regarding your claim that players just want a vanilla version with all and more possible content than even Warband with mods never had... well... broadly speaking, yes. That's the point of a sequel - to expand on the original product. And to include the functionality from mods that players enjoyed the most (ie, Diplomacy, Freelancer, VC systems, amongst others...). That would seem like a sound business strategy.
snip.

Otherwise just remake Warband's graphics, expand the map, and voila. It's not like Taleworlds could have ****ed it up any worst than Blizzard did with Wc3.

That's besides the point anyway. I'm, for the most part, not proposing to add new systems to the game. I'm proposing to expand actually finish existing systems. Or systems that were advertised by the company. And even then, I thought I was being relatively reasonable. Notice how I didn't make a single mention of the criminal enterprises players were supposed to be able to- oh... wait... oops... it just slipped out. Then again, perhaps they've been added to the game, but the Calradic Mafia is just so secretive and good at what they do that no one's noticed.

It's not like I'm asking for a technological progress bar that goes from the stone age to gunpowder. Or to add naval combat. Or zeppelins, for that matter. Or mages able to raise zombie hordes. Or dragons. Or whatever.

But an empire locked in civil war over a succession crisis... with no succession?

A political system that is reduced to the binary interactions of war and peace? That only works if your name is Tolstoy.

A dynastic system with no inheritance? How is that complete or even workable? Why should we wait for modders to fix what is obviously a gaping hole in the game's... logic? And since I'm not into sloppy seconds, I'd prefer the hole in question be filled by the person who made it rather than having to stick it in myself. And yes, I'm aware the analogy is completely tasteless. I trust it conveys the point effectively.
Absolutely, You're not alone...
Damnas , Your relation with Terco_Viejo has increased from 15 to 55.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Damnas

Regular
--Edit: this post was a response to another post which has since been deleted. Feel free to skip it. Really ain't very interesting. But I will be leaving it on here as my defense, because it seems at least one moderator has decided I am an evil fascist with a particular hatred for rainbows.

I live in one of the five remaining communist countries in the world. I'm mixed race, and a minority where I live. My sexual preferences are none of your business. As yours are none of mine. My first job was for the ANC in South Africa after apartheid where I was part of a team opening and operating a free clinic against HIV/AIDS in Soweto. Point being, I can think of better when it comes to... "right wing."

If you read the first post, it should be abundantly clear that I'm not "venting my frustrations" on women. In fact, I'm the one calling for the liberation and equality movements to be honoured by not sweeping their achievements under the rug and pretend like discrimination was never there. And it was a mechanic in Warband. And look me in the eye, and tell me you wouldn't feel a sense of achievement playing a female character in a misoginystic world, and ending up on the throne after having lead the struggle to ensure actual equality by passing one kingdom policy after the other to ensure women have a place in the sun...

That said, I have no sympathy for woke stuff. I'll own that. Living in a country where entire villages get wiped out over the monsoon season, where diseases go untreated, and people have barely had anything to eat for the past two years means that I have zero tolerance for the delicate sensibilities of woke, college students with three meals a day whining about injustice. Again, I'll own that.

As for the 'homophobic comment'... my bad. I understand how you thought I was referring to LGBT people. But I actually wasn't. It was simply a reference to taking it up the... you get the point. But again, I can see where the confusion came from. Apologies if you were offended by that particular comment, though I insist on the fact that it was not intended as you understood it.

If there are any other particularly horrendous comments that trouble you, do let me know and I'll do my best to reassure you.

Edit: Might I also recommend you remove the quote from your post? The moderator who edited my post, didn't do it with your quote of it. Which means everything he *snipped* away, can still be seen in your quote of my post. Which, obviously, doesn't bother me, but if the purpose was to remove the offending comments from existence...
 
Last edited:

AxiosXiphos

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
I live in one of the five remaining communist countries in the world. I'm mixed race, and a minority where I live. My sexual preferences are none of your business. As yours are none of mine. My first job was for the ANC in South Africa after apartheid where I was part of a team opening and operating a free clinic against HIV/AIDS in Soweto. Point being, I can think of better when it comes to... "right wing."

If you read the first post, it should be abundantly clear that I'm not "venting my frustrations" on women. In fact, I'm the one calling for the liberation and equality movements to be honoured by not sweeping their achievements under the rug and pretend like discrimination was never there. And it was a mechanic in Warband. And look me in the eye, and tell me you wouldn't feel a sense of achievement playing a female character in a misoginystic world, and ending up on the throne after having lead the struggle to ensure actual equality by passing one kingdom policy after the other to ensure women have a place in the sun...

That said, I have no sympathy for woke stuff. I'll own that. Living in a country where entire villages get wiped out over the monsoon season, where diseases go untreated, and people have barely had anything to eat for the past two years means that I have zero tolerance for the delicate sensibilities of woke, college students with three meals a day whining about injustice. Again, I'll own that.

As for the 'homophobic comment'... my bad. I understand how you thought I was referring to LGBT people. But I actually wasn't. It was simply a reference to taking it up the... you get the point. But again, I can see where the confusion came from. Apologies if you were offended by that particular comment, though I insist on the fact that it was not intended as you understood it.

If there are any other particularly horrendous comments that trouble you, do let me know and I'll do my best to reassure you.

Edit: Might I also recommend you remove the quote from your post? The moderator who edited my post, didn't do it with your quote of it. Which means everything he *snipped* away, can still be seen in your quote of my post. Which, obviously, doesn't bother me, but if the purpose was to remove the offending comments from existence...
It was easier to delete then edit my comment. Thank you for taking the time to explain yourself.

Not many people would; and it's an extremely admirable quality.
 

Damnas

Regular
Understood. And I hope you'll understand, but I won't delete my own post. Considering that the whole point I'm making is that I haven't *actually* said anything that warrants offense, it's important for me not to delete so much as a word from my posts :smile:
 

Orion

Still Not Worthy
Global Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNW
The only way this comment could have slipped through the scrutiny of a moderator, is if they're not familiar enough with the English language to understand certain terms in that comment. Because, let's face it, anyone who's a native English speaker understands exactly what this is a reference to. What that tells me, is that the moderator in question did not understand the nuance of the English language in what I wrote in the previous comments, and due to linguistic differences, translated it... wrong. Which explains why he would be mistakenly offended, even though it was without cause.
I will personally vouch for that moderator's skill with the English language, and refer you to our forum's rules. Specifically, sections 1.1 (flaming, personal insults and attacks) and 1.6 (discrimination). The term "retarded" hasn't been politically correct for decades, and this fact is so widely known that it has been the focus for comedic bits about political correctness for many years. Consider expanding your own vocabulary before questioning someone else's literacy.

I'll give you a heads up by letting you know "autistic" is also off the table. That seems to be a common second choice for others.
 

Goyyyio

Veteran
Nice thread! This is like the other at least 60 other suggestions to add any form of complexity that will be forgotten forever in the suggestion tab
 

Mallard

Recruit
Pretty much everything in this thread. +1 it needs more attention and will give the game the character that it needs.
 
Top Bottom