ageing and heir system

[Baltic Marauder]

What do you guys think of making a year in bannerlord equal to a week in warband time? They would have to get rid of the day/night cycle, but say if a normal warband game was 1000 days, then a normal bannerlord game would be 143 years.  That gives  you enough time for heirs, and it would also make the continent feel a lot bigger, since it would take way more time to cross.

 

[Balexander]

the yearly cycle has been shortened to twelve weeks, which adds more importance to the changing seasons and ageing of characters.

 

[vicwiz007]

I prefer the shorter years. My playthroughs are usually only a couple hundred days because i get bored of my character so Id love being able to carry on in the same with a new character and getting to see all the seasons often. This is another reason i would be fine with my characters dying. Sure i will miss them, but 99% of the time i start new games before i "finish" anyway. Being thrown into a new guy would refresh my interest.

 

[Dest45]

I don’t get the cartoon mentality, “You may have bested me this time Hero, but when we come back next week I’ll have another battle for you to fight and you might not get so lucky  MUWAHAHAHA!” What the **** is the point of that over and over and over guys? Its like living in a hell where the world has no progression, everything stays the same. Sure Swadia may control more of the Vaegirs territory but what has anybody really lost? Every episode the Vaegir lords are beaten and then the same ones just come right back with another army. You think after a while you would just kill the bastard no?

I don’t see why people are afraid of consequences and progression. It makes the world come alive, Warband was a great game but it was also extremely shallow and the only reason I have 3000 hours instead of 6000 is because its shallow and because I have fought Boyar Neldaru 500 times and I just want him dead.

 

[Do not look here]

I don’t see why people are afraid of consequences and progression. It makes the world come alive, Warband was a great game but it was also extremely shallow and the only reason I have 3000 hours instead of 6000 is because its shallow and because I have fought Boyar Neldaru 500 times and I just want him dead.

At least you know it's Boyar Neldaru, not some RNG-ed, forgettable name. If AI is vastly improved and general pace of game is slowed down (i.e. lords don't go over butting their heads against each other in senseless, one-sided skirmishes dozen times in a single war, but campaigning armies really go for couple of decisive battles followed/interrupted by some recreational sieges), then I can see dying lords really putting new breath into the game.

Otherwise it just brings nothing new to the table and paired with influence 'currency' just further discourages player from caring about any of the bro-lords and nemesis-lords. Because then, in addition to not giving a **** about building up individual relations, cause, hey, influence, the lords become expendable resource and jarl what's-his-name can die in suicide charge on some remote village in a week, so who cares about him.

In other words, you can be crushed by Richard the Lionheart's accidental death only so many times before falling into apathy, if siege is Calradia's equivalent of Taco Tuesday instead of a big event.

 

[Baltic Marauder]

I don’t see why people are afraid of consequences and progression. It makes the world come alive, Warband was a great game but it was also extremely shallow and the only reason I have 3000 hours instead of 6000 is because its shallow and because I have fought Boyar Neldaru 500 times and I just want him dead.

At least you know it's Boyar Neldaru, not some RNG-ed, forgettable name. If AI is vastly improved and general pace of game is slowed down (i.e. lords don't go over butting their heads against each other in senseless, one-sided skirmishes dozen times in a single war, but campaigning armies really go for couple of decisive battles followed/interrupted by some recreational sieges), then I can see dying lords really putting new breath into the game.

Otherwise it just brings nothing new to the table and paired with influence 'currency' just further discourages player from caring about any of the bro-lords and nemesis-lords. Because then, in addition to not giving a **** about building up individual relations, cause, hey, influence, the lords become expendable resource and jarl what's-his-name can die in suicide charge on some remote village in a week, so who cares about him.

In other words, you can be crushed by Richard the Lionheart's accidental death only so many times before falling into apathy, if siege is Calradia's equivalent of Taco Tuesday instead of a big event.

They're still gonna have individual relations with lords. If  you're buddies with a lord, it  doesn't take much influence to get them to follow you. Meanwhile if a lord hates your guts, he's not going to follow you no matter how much influence you have. Think of it less as  a replacement for relations, and more as a transparent way to determine previously frustrating mechanics like getting people to vote for you, getting lords to follow you, asking lords to join your rebellion, etc.
Also, Boyar Neldaru might as well be RNG-ed. Honestly a  mongolian name generator could easily come up with something better.

 

[Balexander]

I don’t get the cartoon mentality, “You may have bested me this time Hero, but when we come back next week I’ll have another battle for you to fight and you might not get so lucky  MUWAHAHAHA!” What the **** is the point of that over and over and over guys? Its like living in a hell where the world has no progression, everything stays the same. Sure Swadia may control more of the Vaegirs territory but what has anybody really lost? Every episode the Vaegir lords are beaten and then the same ones just come right back with another army. You think after a while you would just kill the bastard no?

I don’t see why people are afraid of consequences and progression. It makes the world come alive, Warband was a great game but it was also extremely shallow and the only reason I have 3000 hours instead of 6000 is because its shallow and because I have fought Boyar Neldaru 500 times and I just want him dead.

same   

 

[Do not look here]

Also, Boyar Neldaru might as well be RNG-ed. Honestly a  mongolian name generator could easily come up with something better.

It's more about the fact that it is one and only Boyar Neldaru, uniqueness of the name be damned, not nebulous cloud of generated dudes that died every third or fourth battle. Because the core mechanic remains the same. The wave after wave of mindless horde you have to swing your sword through remains there, you just put new label on it every now and then.

That's why I'm not really keen on the whole concept, because it seems like there's no second thoughts put in it (heck, last official word on whole thing is along the lines of 'yeah, not really decided how it will work, yet'). If it's just killable and regenerating lords put on old Warband system, then it brings nothing new. Just some irritation if the quest giver randomly offed himself in faraway land.

I sure hope they'll make a blog about it and tell about all the unique concepts they put in along this 'simple' feature, but I hardly see it happening. Feel free to prove me wrong, though, TW, I sure do hope you will.

 

[Kehlian]

Also, Boyar Neldaru might as well be RNG-ed. Honestly a  mongolian name generator could easily come up with something better.

It's more about the fact that it is one and only Boyar Neldaru, uniqueness of the name be damned, not nebulous cloud of generated dudes that died every third or fourth battle. Because the core mechanic remains the same. The wave after wave of mindless horde you have to swing your sword through remains there, you just put new label on it every now and then.

That's why I'm not really keen on the whole concept, because it seems like there's no second thoughts put in it (heck, last official word on whole thing is along the lines of 'yeah, not really decided how it will work, yet'). If it's just killable and regenerating lords put on old Warband system, then it brings nothing new. Just some irritation if the quest giver randomly offed himself in faraway land.

I sure hope they'll make a blog about it and tell about all the unique concepts they put in along this 'simple' feature, but I hardly see it happening. Feel free to prove me wrong, though, TW, I sure do hope you will.

You worded it better than I could

 

[Kortze26]

I'm guessing that if there is a system for aging you should still have a system for exporting your created character.  Maybe they can have an option to "duplicate personality between player character and heir?

 

[vicwiz007]

I don’t get the cartoon mentality, “You may have bested me this time Hero, but when we come back next week I’ll have another battle for you to fight and you might not get so lucky  MUWAHAHAHA!” What the **** is the point of that over and over and over guys? Its like living in a hell where the world has no progression, everything stays the same. Sure Swadia may control more of the Vaegirs territory but what has anybody really lost? Every episode the Vaegir lords are beaten and then the same ones just come right back with another army. You think after a while you would just kill the bastard no?

I don’t see why people are afraid of consequences and progression. It makes the world come alive, Warband was a great game but it was also extremely shallow and the only reason I have 3000 hours instead of 6000 is because its shallow and because I have fought Boyar Neldaru 500 times and I just want him dead.

Thank you! I dont get how people can play Warband, fighting the same lords over and over again, getting the same companions, seeing no consequence or variety, and then come here and say it should be the same for Bannerlord. People are worried that lords will now be generic or something, but look at the lords we have in Warband. What makes them special? Absolutely nothing except their name. His name makes him infamous and you hate him, so you keep fighting him over and over and over again... with no consequence and no sense of accomplishment. Wouldnt you love to be able to create your own rivalries with unique lords in your game, and fight them knowing you might actually get some closure from the fight?

Fights now have consequence with the way influence works, with the possibility of death, and the increased diplomatic options. In Warband, even if you capture your most hated lord, you cant od anything with them. Frank said you can execute lords you capture, so just imagine the possibilities now.

 

[Apocal]

So can I have more than one kid? It would be cool having two sons as my companions or like three brothers as allies/vassals, Ghengis Khan style.

 

[The Bowman]

I want to kill Count Grainwald, and I want to see him suffer. In my past campaign, he wasn't only annoying, due to the fact that every time I wanted to starve Uhhun Castle to death, he just came with his little army and bugged me over and over again, but also a big sellout, having joined some other faction and then the Sarranids. He probably was a submissive, yet wicked boot-licker who got to be the marshal of the faction.

Then Count Rimusk. Out of all the Rhodok lords, he is the one who tends to raid villages more than any other one. To make the matters worse, he always has a small, quick-moving party, and of course, Harlaus always gives you Yaragar, right at the border with them. He seems to be pretty loyal to his liege though.

 

[Crowcorrector]

I want to kill Count Grainwald, and I want to see him suffer.

Haha Count Grainwald was part of my bro gang, along with Klargus, Delinard, Haringoth... you know... the central Swadian Boyz.  I reckon you were just on the wrong side of the conflict.

 

[Balexander]

i think the only good Lord was Count Delinard 

 

[Baltic Marauder]

Also, Boyar Neldaru might as well be RNG-ed. Honestly a  mongolian name generator could easily come up with something better.

It's more about the fact that it is one and only Boyar Neldaru, uniqueness of the name be damned, not nebulous cloud of generated dudes that died every third or fourth battle. Because the core mechanic remains the same. The wave after wave of mindless horde you have to swing your sword through remains there, you just put new label on it every now and then.

That's why I'm not really keen on the whole concept, because it seems like there's no second thoughts put in it (heck, last official word on whole thing is along the lines of 'yeah, not really decided how it will work, yet'). If it's just killable and regenerating lords put on old Warband system, then it brings nothing new. Just some irritation if the quest giver randomly offed himself in faraway land.

I sure hope they'll make a blog about it and tell about all the unique concepts they put in along this 'simple' feature, but I hardly see it happening. Feel free to prove me wrong, though, TW, I sure do hope you will.

I don't  get the problem. Whats the difference between fighting a random, bland, randomly generated lord, and a random, bland, handmade lord? I wouldn't want them to die in battle all the time, but if they could only be killed through execution (which, from what I gather, is what's going to be implemented in bannerlord) then  you could safely say it would be a  rare occurrence. Killing lords  has so much potential for quests and for personal satisfaction, and if at worst its just "a new label", than I  don't see the risk in implementing it

 

[Do not look here]

If it is as restricted as you claim it to be, i.e. there won't be random chance of lord dying in battle, then I see even less point in this feature. As I wrote, I could see it if it was deep, intricate system that was embedded into core game mechanics, but that would mean it won't be toggleable option and that's something people want as well.

If it is just a gimmick to get rid of annoying dude every now and then, then I don't see why bother, similarly to how I don't get the big deal with mods that allow you to off lords in Warband. I like that in current system you can become dependable on certain lords. I like that you grow to resent other lords. Building up on this should be priority, if your bro-lords would become more cordial with you in time, if your neme-lords start to become real pain in the asses, really messing with your life, then yeah, please, let me mourn deaths of my friends and get bloody revenge on my enemies.

But as I said here, or maybe in the other thread, I can't see it coming, because it would require whole game to slow down - and not timescale-wise. Finding friendships should be more difficult. Saving someone's ass in battle shouldn't be opportunity you get dozen times a month. Annoying morons shouldn't just wander around waiting for someone to play hunter-killer with them. Nothing I've seen so far indicates it will be the case. At the very best, we'll get a break every 'year' for few weeks, because of winter, but I really doubt it will hamper campaigning as seriously as some suggest it will, cause quarter of the game can't be just spent sitting on your ass. Or rather it can be, but not without Steam forums going pants-on-head crazy about it.

 

[Balexander]

If it is as restricted as you claim it to be, i.e. there won't be random chance of lord dying in battle, then I see even less point in this feature. As I wrote, I could see it if it was deep, intricate system that was embedded into core game mechanics, but that would mean it won't be toggleable option and that's something people want as well.

If it is just a gimmick to get rid of annoying dude every now and then, then I don't see why bother, similarly to how I don't get the big deal with mods that allow you to off lords in Warband. I like that in current system you can become dependable on certain lords. I like that you grow to resent other lords. Building up on this should be priority, if your bro-lords would become more cordial with you in time, if your neme-lords start to become real pain in the asses, really messing with your life, then yeah, please, let me mourn deaths of my friends and get bloody revenge on my enemies.

But as I said here, or maybe in the other thread, I can't see it coming, because it would require whole game to slow down - and not timescale-wise. Finding friendships should be more difficult. Saving someone's ass in battle shouldn't be opportunity you get dozen times a month. Annoying morons shouldn't just wander around waiting for someone to play hunter-killer with them. Nothing I've seen so far indicates it will be the case. At the very best, we'll get a break every 'year' for few weeks, because of winter, but I really doubt it will hamper campaigning as seriously as some suggest it will, cause quarter of the game can't be just spent sitting on your ass. Or rather it can be, but not without Steam forums going pants-on-head crazy about it.

NPCs and Player do Age and Lords, Companions and Player can get killed in Battle by a minimal % chance "i think there will be a Heir System" and no Lord is unique "the Lords in Warband are all the same" the only Difference is their name

Edit: the only Difference is their name and look

Sry bad english

 

[Honved]

If AI lords are forced to gather troops from towns and villages, and the regeneration of those troops were highly limited to only a few per week, or if they reduced the population of the town by that amount, then your battles in the field would have some long-term meaning.  A losing faction would gradually find itself with less manpower to defend its reduced number of castles, and without the means of recruiting more quickly, rather than mass a dozen lords with maxed out parties to defend that last castle.  Its villages would be partly depleted of manpower, and its towns impoverished by the reduced trade.  The existing system has lords automatically regenerate troops at the normal rate even if they no longer have a fief, so nothing you do (aside from taking that last castle and ending the faction) has any long-term consequences.

I'm not in favor of a shortened timescale by reducing the weeks in a year, but I could see increasing the passage of time on the strategic map to represent longer travel times across a much larger world space: 4-12 hours of travel time between major towns, and a bit denser placement of small villages near the cities.

If a longer timespan (passing by much faster) and an heir system are implemented, a player character should gain Attributes for a few years, then begin to have Strength and Agility erode while the other stats still continue to progress for a couple more years (becoming more of a diplomatic leader and less of a front-line fighter), and finally all of the attributes should begin to deteriorate gradually as old age and eventually senility enter in.

An heir should have his/her initial stats affected or adjusted to partially mirror the player's current character (1/3 based on the player character's level 1 stats at the end of character creation, 1/3 based on the spouse's original stats, and 1/3 randomized).  Of course, the random aspect could lead to either an improved character over the last, or to a "bad heir day".

 

[Gurkhal]

I just want to say this. The more we can breed the better. I've had +500 living members in my CK2 dynasties and I really would love to get a huge dynasty and take it to war against all comers, be they of my own dynasty or not.