AI lords must execute each other

Users who are viewing this thread

AxiosXiphos

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
there should be no execution penalty if you are currently at war with them. its fine to kill them in battle but not after? lol wut?
It sounds odd but killing prisoners (specifically nobles) was seen as a very bad thing during the high-medieval age. For multiple reasons; however the primary one is ransoms. Ransoming enemy nobles was big-business and the main reason knights were so keen to get into battle. A relatively poor land-owner could make a fortune by capturing a rich opponent.

After the battle of Agincourt the English King demanded the French nobles be executed as there was simply too many to hold. Nor did he much wish to profit from them. The English Knights refused to do it and eventually it fell on the longbowmen to perform the executions. It didn't do him any favours with the 'relationships' of the English or French nobility.
 

LichTale

Recruit
First of all I'm all for more executions including AI ones, of course depending on many factors, overall what we need is that there is some way to prevent clan exterminations without new blood.

So... here is what I would propose: Generate new parties that work as the player in the sense of starting unafiliated with any kingdom, develop slowly by doing missions in zones and achieving objectives then finally be able to serve a king, increased chances of it happening in zones that multiple clans have been exterminated..

Of course as others said we want a "balanced execution system" not unused or overused so it would need quite a bit of work to balance it. I think something like this would be fine:

Chance to execute:

-Lord is dishonourable (+5%)
-Captured lord is dishonourable (+5%)
-Negative relationship with the captured lord clan (+10%)
-Very negative relationship with captured lord clan (+25%)
-The clan of the captured lord did execute a member of his clan (+15%)
-He raided a village of the lord (+10%)
-Lord is honourable (-5%)
-Captured lord is honourable (-5%)
-Positive relationship with captured lord (-10%)
-Very positive relationship with captured lord (-25%)

I feel like the relationship, the characteristics and past actions should be what determines if they prefer the ransom or to simply execute the lord. It's nice to get a ransom but if the enemy is hateful for you then you may as well just kill him to save you future problems.
 
It sounds odd but killing prisoners (specifically nobles) was seen as a very bad thing during the high-medieval age. For multiple reasons; however the primary one is ransoms. Ransoming enemy nobles was big-business and the main reason knights were so keen to get into battle. A relatively poor land-owner could make a fortune by capturing a rich opponent.

After the battle of Agincourt the English King demanded the French nobles be executed as there was simply too many to hold. Nor did he much wish to profit from them. The English Knights refused to do it and eventually it fell on the longbowmen to perform the executions. It didn't do him any favours with the 'relationships' of the English or French nobility.
this is what happens:

me and Lord asshat is at war with each other.
we engage in combat in the field
2 days later Lord asshat's family receives news of his death

how on earth would they possibly know that i killed him outside of combat after taking him prisoner?
 

AxiosXiphos

Sergeant Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
this is what happens:

me and Lord asshat is at war with each other.
we engage in combat in the field
2 days later Lord asshat's family receives news of his death

how on earth would they possibly know that i killed him outside of combat after taking him prisoner?
Your nobles and knights (disgusted with your actions) spread rumours about the dishonourable way he was slain.

However in reality - it's a game mechanic. If executing was easy you would empty the game world.
 

VikingTiger

Recruit
I feel like the relationship, the characteristics and past actions should be what determines if they prefer the ransom or to simply execute the lord. It's nice to get a ransom but if the enemy is hateful for you then you may as well just kill him to save you future problems.


Yes. In addition, the characteristics of the lord (honor, mercy, cruelty) should be the biggest factor
 
Last edited:

Cornelis

Regular
this isn't the final product of the execution system anyways i'm sure the devs have something planned but haven't implemented cause it would break the game right now like you have all explained be good if a dev could comment on it if they have the time
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
there should be no execution penalty if you are currently at war with them. its fine to kill them in battle but not after? lol wut?
That actually makes perfect sense. If you kill someone in battle, they died honorably, fighting you, being on equal grounds. if you execute them after capture, they died while being harmless and at your mercy. So I completely disagree with your opinion.
 
That actually makes perfect sense. If you kill someone in battle, they died honorably, fighting you, being on equal grounds. if you execute them after capture, they died while being harmless and at your mercy. So I completely disagree with your opinion.
this is medieval warfare. most deaths are not the result of straight up murdering during battles but from wounds, and infections, and diseases, and starvation.
lets imagine i didn't have enough food after the war to feed my prisoners, or their wounds worsen and despite the best medical technology at the time, they still died. i could have treated them better than my own kids and not have prevented their eventual death after battle. and there would be no witnesses other than my men to testify, and they are loyal to me... the point is, nobody knows how they died, the only thing is did they die or not.
your idea scenario of chivalry probably only existed in the minds of fanboys i'm afraid. they had a chance to fight me on equal grounds, and lets be frank, all is fair in war.
Bannerlord already removed most of the strategic things you could do in a war, like night raid of their encampment, cutting off their food/supplies or ambushing enemy during their march. and all field battles are just straight up frontal assaults. what more do you want lol.
 
That actually makes perfect sense. If you kill someone in battle, they died honorably, fighting you, being on equal grounds. if you execute them after capture, they died while being harmless and at your mercy. So I completely disagree with your opinion.
Harmless? I think not.
When they raid my villages or try to besiege my towns and castles, they are no longer "harmless", they are hostile and a danger to my population.
And a lord must protect his villages and towns.

And killing villagers is more dishonorable, then killing a single lord.

In war you only allowed to besiege castles or towns and not to kill villagers.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
Harmless? I think not.
When they raid my villages or try to besiege my towns and castles, they are no longer "harmless", they are hostile and a danger to my population.
And a lord must protect his villages and towns.

And killing villagers is more dishonorable, then killing a single lord.

In war you only allowed to besiege castles or towns and not to kill villagers.
This is the modern way of thinking. They thought the exact opposite "back in the day". Peasants were essentially property. Killing a lord that has been captured, and thus at your mercy carried a much harsher repercussions than raiding some village.
 
This is the modern way of thinking. They thought the exact opposite "back in the day". Peasants were essentially property. Killing a lord that has been captured, and thus at your mercy carried a much harsher repercussions than raiding some village.
Not just property but also the only means of economic opportunity. Who shall work tuh fields of we kill all the lowly peasants?
 

T3CHET

Recruit
Capture of Hidden Hand and other factions like that should have their leaders executed. Have the scale ramp up -1 to -100 relation. Depending on the Lord that is pissed they could simply execute immediately or wait.

Perhaps have a Senate vote on a public execution.
 

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
there should be no execution penalty if you are currently at war with them. its fine to kill them in battle but not after? lol wut?
First there's a difference between killing someone who can fight back and someone whose unarmed. I'm not sure what you don't get about that. Second if they're were real implications for doing this like you or anyone in your clan have a very high chance of being executed in retaliation then I'd be fine with it. But currently it's just an easy button with only a loss in reputation.
 
First there's a difference between killing someone who can fight back and someone whose unarmed. I'm not sure what you don't get about that. Second if they're were real implications for doing this like you or anyone in your clan have a very high chance of being executed in retaliation then I'd be fine with it. But currently it's just an easy button with only a loss in reputation.
I'm at war with someone, we fought a battle, he died. I mean if i released prisoners or something. sure. but nah, I killed everyone. in fact i already "killed" him in combat, but his RNGesus saved him from "death" so i gotta do it again while he's tied up.

how can anyone possibly prove how he died? what killed him? or why? I could have tried to save him from his wounds as best as the medical technology allowed in 1200. but his wounds got infected and still died.
do you understand arguing semantics is futile when people are already dead? lol

and here's another thought maybe foreign to you. but as someone who understands honour. I totally understand how a knight would rather be executed after combat than ransomed back proving his failure to the world. in fact, many defeated Japanese warriors used to commit ritual suicide for losing if they weren't executed by their enemies. and i'm sure they weren't the only ones ever to do that in history.
 

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
I'm at war with someone, we fought a battle, he died. I mean if i released prisoners or something. sure. but nah, I killed everyone. in fact i already "killed" him in combat, but his RNGesus saved him from "death" so i gotta do it again while he's tied up.

how can anyone possibly prove how he died? what killed him? or why? I could have tried to save him from his wounds as best as the medical technology allowed in 1200. but his wounds got infected and still died.
do you understand arguing semantics is futile when people are already dead? lol
Ok you're trying to justify to yourself eliminating enemies, no need to explain further.

and here's another thought maybe foreign to you. but as someone who understands honour. I totally understand how a knight would rather be executed after combat than ransomed back proving his failure to the world. in fact, many defeated Japanese warriors used to commit ritual suicide for losing if they weren't executed by their enemies. and i'm sure they weren't the only ones ever to do that in history.
If this is your argument then it's pointless discussing this with you so I'll bow out. Peace, and have fun killing everyone in game. 👍
 
Top Bottom