SP - General An idea on how to better handle Lords beaten in Battle

[Dhargo]

Currently, if you beat a Lord in Battle and he does not escape, you have two choices.
Choice 1: You set him free with barely any benefit for yourself but actual damage to yourself because that Lord will just be around to attack your Village again sooner.
Choice 2: You take them Prisoner. However, this is unreliable as they usually very quickly escape without any benefit to yourself if you did not ransom them before.

However, in both scenarios you choose, the enemy you just beat will be back to attack the same Village he tried to loot earlier. It bares no logic whatsoever, but he will come back time and time again. "I have not beaten that Village defended by Lord Dhargo with my initial army of 80 well-trained men. Let me try again, with an even smaller and weaker army, what could go wrong?" and repeat this ad infinitum.
This turns any immersion off in my humble opinion. Not only does it make absolutely zero sense for a Lord to constantly try and loot a Village that cost him an army just recently - perhaps even multiple armies - but it also makes this Lord feel irrelevant. He just comes back to try and try again, when there is no point in doing so. So it does not feel like a worthy opponent, a General just like myself, but like a mindless drone just coming to bring me some units to slaugther.

And while it can be fun for 1-2 battles to eradicate a weakling that willingly rides into his demise, it gets incredibly frustrating incredibly quickly.You are stuck in an endless cycle, especially if there are multiple Lords that are stuck in their "must. attack. player village." behaviour we already know from M&B Warband back in the day.
You can either stay that your settlement and defend it for basically ever, fighting off 4 different Lords that come back every 5 minutes just to try and loot your Village with 30 men, or you abandon your Settlement and see it razed within a day, ending in a starving Town or Castle and decreasing Wealth for yourself. Both outcomes just do not feel rewarding at all.


Two things I personally would like see:
So, in my opinion, the following change would improve immersion and decrease frustration:

1. A Lord you take Prisoner should be unable to escape for 7 days in your party and 14 days in a Dungeon. After the set duration is over, the chance for him to escape should rise exponentially.The starting value should be determined by his Clan's influence, wealth and honour.
   His escape should happen by bribing a Guard, which is why the wealth and influence are important, and the Guard is more likely to believe their offer if their honour is higher.
   Once the Guard accepts the bribing, you should receive a notification (that pops up, so you do not miss it) that informs about the escape and about a decrease in that cities' loyalty to you (-1, -2, -3. Something minor).
   
   Of course there can always be a notification about a Ransom offer by the Prisoner's Clan that you can either accept or reject. This would mean you kept an enemy Lord unable to raise a new army and attack you for quite some time and also benefit financially.
   
   
2. A Lord you release after Battle without taking him Prisoner should have to follow some terms you can set as a requirement for him to be allowed to leave freely.
   The menu could be the same we get when we Trade/Banter with other Lords.
   
   Instead of filling a Bar that signals when the Lord is willing to accept the Offer, the Bar should reflect how likely the Lord will stick to his word and uphold the terms put on him. An empty Bar means he will keep his word 100%. A full Bar means he will break his word with a chance of 90%.
   
   You should have multiple options to choose from, and should be able to choose more than just one and combine them.
   
   A) "Do not attack my party for X days." You set the days freely (max 45 days). This should be a term the beaten Lord would very likely uphold, so just slightly increase the Bar.
   A,a) "Do not attack my party or my settlements for X days". You set the days freely (max 28 days). This should also only slightly increase the Bar.
   B) "Do not attack my Clan for X days". You set the days freely (max 45 days). This would increase the Bar more than A).
   B,a) "Do not attack my Clan or their settlements for X days". You set the days freely (max 28 days). This would increase the Bar more than A,a).
   C) "Do not attack my faction for X days". You set the days freely (max 45 days). This would increase the Bar by much more than B).
   C,a) "Do not attack my faction or their settlements for X days". You set the days freely (max 28 days). This would increase the Bar by much more than B,a).
   
   In any case, a Lord should uphold these Terms for at least 7 days before having the chance to break it; also breaking their word should result in Penalties to his influence, reputation, honour.
   
   Of course there could also be more demands possible, like asking for X Denars every day/week for X days/weeks, changing allegiance and joining your faction (or perhaps your Clan even)., giving you ownership of a Settlement, etc.
   Also, you could maybe add an "argument" like "If you do not agree to the Terms, I will take you Prisoner and have you Executed - to force Terms like "Give up your Settlement and transfer ownership to me instead" onto a defeated Lord. But those are much more delicate to balance, so I'd be happy just seeing A) - C,a)

In my opinion this would give much more depth and value to actually decide between releasing someone or taking them prisoner.

Will I take him out of the entire war for guaranteed 14 days if I got a Dungeon nearby, or will I set him free and tell him to not attack my faction for 14 days, even tho that could result in him breaking his word after just 7 days? Will I instead be egoistic and demand him to just not attack me for 25 days with a pretty high chance of him actually keeping his word, but having him still interfere with my faction?

Surely not a polished system, but I think it could be worked into something that I'd prefer over whatever mess we have currently with Lords attacking your village literally 3 minutes after you just defeated them decisively in Battle.

 

[Because]

I like the idea in principle, but I think you would have trouble enforcing many of those rules as it may play havok with armies. The only one I think that would work without doing weird things or making trouble with Lords not following their kings orders is getting them to stop attacking villages.

 

[Dhargo]

I see the point, but it should not be a problem to just forbid these Lords to enter battles that go against the terms they accepted. So if an army of 7 Lords attacks your party, and one of them was set free by you just 3 days ago, instead of a 800 vs you battle it would simply be 700 vs you if that Lord in question has 100 Troops under his command. If they agreed to not attack your faction, same applies. They can join an army to supply food and help in defense, but as soon as its an offensive act they just do not take part. Obviously the AI has to be tweaked in a manner to "understand" this and calculate their decision based on the actual number of units that will take part in the battle given that a part of their army will stay back because of their set terms.
But if it ends up too difficult to make a reality (which really it should not if their code is not absolute spaghetti or their engine incredibly limiting) I would be happy with Lords just not raiding my Villages after I beat them 39 times already.

 

[Rik Halderman]

I too like the idea in principle, but at this point I think simplicity should be the priority.

I'm not sure if the algorithm is working properly at the moment but I believe the escape likelihood is already tied to where the prisoner is, whether in your army, on the move, or in your dungeon. I think this just needs fixing, or tweaking.

I posted elsewhere about a mandatory parole period for ransoms. I like your ideas but I think for now, until the game's current design plans are implemented and we leave EA, a more involved ransom process should wait. It would have to go through a balancing process anyway. In simplified terms though, i believe there should always be a minimum parole term following a ransom agreement. If it's possible from a programming aspect , and it doesn't break anything else, then there's no reason why the lord can't go back to their own castle/town (or a friendly castle/town) after release and wait for a set parole period. They could recruit from their settlement but not venture forth on aggressive actions until the parole period is up. Call it recovering from wounds and weariness, salvaging pride, or honouring their agreement. This may already be part of the game plan but if so, it's way too short a time as is and needs extending a fair bit, keeping in mind game balance. As it is now, I think most of us are tired of these dishonorable bastards popping up in the fight again after next to no time has passed. There's also the consideration of honourable lords doing the right thing and deceitful dishonourable lords flaunting this, as well as penalties, but once again I think simplicity first, then improvement later.