SP - General Army Mechanic Changes

Users who are viewing this thread

Techerakh

Recruit
Hey all!

I posted this idea over on reddit, and was encouraged to post it here as well. It's an idea to fix some of the annoying issues around clan parties and armies as a vassal.

Basically, right now, any vassal with enough influence can summon a gigantic army. If you have a kingdom with enough clans, this means you can have a ton of huge, equally sized armies roaming around, and the AI can kind of spam armies when you are fighting them.

Clan parties are also kind of a mess. I've found that I really can't leave them alone for a second and trust them to stay alive. As soon as I let them loose in the world, they wander off to the other side of the map, or deep into enemy territory, and end up dead. I think some of the time that they are doing this is because they have been called into an army elsewhere in the realm. I am left to defend my holdings alone; if an enemy army comes to siege, I am often unable to call my own clan's parties into my army, because they are already serving in a different vassal's army. I basically end up ignoring clan parties until I am a vassal and able to call an army myself, and then I make the clan party and immediately force it into my army so that they don't wander off on their own and die (and if I ever have to disband my army, I also disband the parties and put them into a garrison because, again, I can't leave them alone or they'll wander away and die).

This basically turns clan parties into... just extensions of my own party (with companion leaders that I annoyingly can't level up / choose perks for, because they are technically in a different party even though they're literally sitting across the lord's hall from me in my army).

My fix is this:

Instead of being able to call ANY vassal into an army (and being able to call your clan parties for free), you (and the AI lords) should ONLY be able to call their own clan parties to their armies. Calling your clan parties should cost influence, depending on the size of the party. Kings would be able to call any vassal into their army (or any of their vassal's parties).

This means that instead of having 3-4 equally sized armies that constantly reform under different vassals after being defeated, each kingdom would have 1 "main" army (the King's) that would represent the largest military force of the kingdom and then a increasingly smaller armies as you go down the pecking order of vassals.

Powerful, high level vassals would still have larger armies compared to lower lords (because they can have more clan parties). My personal clan parties would stop leaving my territory to go join someone else's army (if they could also be set to only recruit from my own holdings, even when part of a larger kingdom, that would be EVEN BETTER - that way they actually stay near my stuff and contribute instead of dying in the middle of nowhere). And a decisive battle that crushes the enemy king's army would ACTUALLY derail their war effort (since if the king is captured, they won't be able to raise a single large army anymore - if YOUR main army is still up, they will need multiple smaller vassal armies to defeat you, assuming the two kingdoms are fairly evenly matched). After all, these are MY clan's parties; MY clan's troops. I am still paying the maintenance on those troops even when they are fighting in someone else's army; it seems weird that some nobody clan tier 2 lord with a couple small holdings can steal my clan's parties when I am clan tier 4 and have twice as much land to defend (and cities to boot); who is this nobody who can order my troops around? This change would also make being King feel a bit more special, since you would have an additional army capability that your lower lords don't have (the ability to call them, or their parties, into your army).

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
I like this idea very much, i don't know how much it aligns with the designers' choice, but i think something like this would actually bring a bit of balance and roleplaying into the campaign.

I would perhaps leave a possibility to call non-clan party leaders into your army (maybe just for the player) only if you are friends with that leader (over certain positive relationship treshold).
I must stress once more that i don't really like the way clan feature is implemented at the moment, your personal relations with a non leader of any clan being pretty much unimportant, and clan members are just a number as is, no personality and individuality, same goes for player's clan and player himself.

You lose the feeling of being a soli hero-warrior if you wished, and are instead chained to a "family" or a "clan" that you are forced to represent in whole.

Hence i think the clan feature needs be readjusted first in order to have the freedom to tweak army mechanics.
 
It’s good idea with some potential but also presents some fundamental challenges.

AI clans would be incapable of sieging even moderately defended Castles and Settlements.

The “1 main army” puts a lot of eggs in one basket. It could make waging war too simplistic, with the best strategy being find then AI main army and kill it. Then snowball.

Players already complain of snowballing. Imagine what happens when your capture Raganvad and put him in a dungeon. It will be open season on Sturgia, and they will be wiped out. The player can repeat this tactic on every Kingdom.

One main Army puts the AI at further disadvantage. The AI led armies are stupid enough, it’s better to disperse that stupidity over multiple armies. The player would have an easier time out maneuvering 1 AI army compared to 3 or 4.

All these challenges could probably be addressed but there would be some sweeping changes to the gameplay.

But it would be nice if the King’s Army got some bonuses. There should be greater risk and reward for having your Monarch on the field.

It may also be nice to have some more structure around who can call which vassals. I think TW are trying to use influence as the resource to implement these mechanics.

For example, I assumed it would cost much more influence to call your enemies with low or negative relation, and much less influence for calling your besties. Similarly if you are a lower clan rank Vs. a higher clan rank (some kingdom polices already address this). Maybe the influence values can be adjusted to put in some of the structure you suggested.

Maybe other rules can be put in place as well. I would worry that too many restrictions on forming armies could over penalize smaller Kingdoms.

Having more control over are parties will be a welcome change. Currently it seems they want to hit max party capacity and then make a beeline for the nearest enemy village and raid. This gets them killed constantly.

I’ve seen some discussion posts, some of which the devs commented on to give options for setting clan parties to patrol, defense, no raid, yes raid, etc.
 
I agree that the principle of the idea is great. It would not only stop the unrealistic scenario of low tier lords leading masive armies but the cost still being carried by the respective clan leaders.

One amendment I would suggest is that when creating an army and choosing the members to join your own clan member would cost influence but should you want/need members from another Clan you can select them and a negotiation window opens in which you must offer payment to the respective Clan for the use of there vassal in your army. Likewise you would receive a message that another Lord wants to use one of your parties in their army and when clicked a negotiation window would open for you to set an appropriate price/compensation. This could be subject to your Charm skill for a better deal as well.

The result would be Kings are able to recruit a large armies from all Clans at the cost of only influence (perks of ruling) and high tier Clans could have good sized armies of their own Clan at the cost of influence, topped up by a party from another Clan at a cost. Lower tier Clans could have a good sized army, but it would require spreading the wealth to other Clans and paying for it. This would also offset the cost of high tier Clans having many large parties as you would effectively rent them out when you wanted/opportunity arose.
 
I like this idea! Should at least be tested imo. Anything that minimises the appeared random actions of the AI actions is a good thing in my book at least.
 
It’s good idea with some potential but also presents some fundamental challenges.

AI clans would be incapable of sieging even moderately defended Castles and Settlements.

The “1 main army” puts a lot of eggs in one basket. It could make waging war too simplistic, with the best strategy being find then AI main army and kill it. Then snowball.

Players already complain of snowballing. Imagine what happens when your capture Raganvad and put him in a dungeon. It will be open season on Sturgia, and they will be wiped out. The player can repeat this tactic on every Kingdom.

One main Army puts the AI at further disadvantage. The AI led armies are stupid enough, it’s better to disperse that stupidity over multiple armies. The player would have an easier time out maneuvering 1 AI army compared to 3 or 4.

All these challenges could probably be addressed but there would be some sweeping changes to the gameplay.

But it would be nice if the King’s Army got some bonuses. There should be greater risk and reward for having your Monarch on the field.

It may also be nice to have some more structure around who can call which vassals. I think TW are trying to use influence as the resource to implement these mechanics.

For example, I assumed it would cost much more influence to call your enemies with low or negative relation, and much less influence for calling your besties. Similarly if you are a lower clan rank Vs. a higher clan rank (some kingdom polices already address this). Maybe the influence values can be adjusted to put in some of the structure you suggested.

Maybe other rules can be put in place as well. I would worry that too many restrictions on forming armies could over penalize smaller Kingdoms.

Having more control over are parties will be a welcome change. Currently it seems they want to hit max party capacity and then make a beeline for the nearest enemy village and raid. This gets them killed constantly.

I’ve seen some discussion posts, some of which the devs commented on to give options for setting clan parties to patrol, defense, no raid, yes raid, etc.
Yeah that's what I was thinking. The player can easily hunt down an enemy king and put that faction out of action.
I was thinking more of limiting them by clan tier. Lower teir clans cannot summon higher tier clan members to form an army. No one would follow someone who was lower than them realistically. Billy no clan is leading an army of the most renowned clans, yeah ok.
Maybe even have a cool down. Once an army has been disbanded or defeated then that same lord cannot summon an army for x amount of days.

The main thing I don't like about the army system is that AI lords can summon way too many and their army ends up starving before they even do anything. Do they really need to be rolling around with 2000+ troops? I think not. It's over kill.

Also the AI gets no choice. If a lord summons them then they will go to that army. They could hate the lord summoning them but they will still go. Lords should be able refuse an army summon depending on the circumstance.

It needs to be balanced between the AI and the player, since the player plays by different rules to the AI.
 
When I started playing this game, I figured the influence I needed to summon another party to my army depended on my relations with the leader; now my thought is that the amount relates to the strength of the army (a large party can be cheap, if it's rebuilding and is mainly Recruits.) I like the idea of it costing more to summon unfriendly leaders than my friends. I also like making the cost representative of the power of the party. It wouldn't be hard to algorithmically mix the two.

Your proposal to pay denars as well is striking. I like it. Why should the borrowed lord pay his troops to be in your army? Trouble is - the economy has been a sore point since the beginning, and inserting transfer payments for army-building would throw balance out of whack even more.

The AI led armies are stupid enough, it’s better to disperse that stupidity over multiple armies.
You're right, there!

I was freakin' awestruck at that stupidity when I saw this situation. My team's army of 1143 trudged by an enemy army of 620 besieging a castle I'd taken a couple days before. They probably waved as they passed! "Hey! No time for you now! We're going to Epicrotea!"
EphSZWn.jpg
 
You're right, there!

I was freakin' awestruck at that stupidity when I saw this situation. My team's army of 1143 trudged by an enemy army of 620 besieging a castle I'd taken a couple days before. They probably waved as they passed! "Hey! No time for you now! We're going to Epicrotea!"
EphSZWn.jpg

Oh man....
 
You're right, there!

I was freakin' awestruck at that stupidity when I saw this situation. My team's army of 1143 trudged by an enemy army of 620 besieging a castle I'd taken a couple days before. They probably waved as they passed! "Hey! No time for you now! We're going to Epicrotea!"
EphSZWn.jpg

haha know that feeling...watched this poor chap getting slaughtered while his friends said nope were heading elsewhere. To bad because i was stoked and ready to record an epic fight with my specialized hoplites
 
And a decisive battle that crushes the enemy king's army would ACTUALLY derail their war effort (since if the king is captured, they won't be able to raise a single large army anymore - if YOUR main army is still up, they will need multiple smaller vassal armies to defeat you, assuming the two kingdoms are fairly evenly matched).

Hello snowballing, my old friend...


You're right, there!

I was freakin' awestruck at that stupidity when I saw this situation. My team's army of 1143 trudged by an enemy army of 620 besieging a castle I'd taken a couple days before. They probably waved as they passed! "Hey! No time for you now! We're going to Epicrotea!"

Yeah, that's a deliberate design decision:
People complained about the previous implementation, where armies would stop en route to easy sieges (or worse, pull up stakes from a town already invested) to trudge across the world in defense of a random castle with 500 prosperity. So now we have this.
 
I am continually perplexed how they get word of easy pickin's from so far off. Even with a good Scout along, I need to get in sight of a castle or town before I know I have the strength to besiege it. Or - hello - going to relieve a siege across the continent. Whatta they gots? Homing pigeons to get these alerts??

But on the other hand... my scout can see a Hideout anywhere on the map! (And the bandits thought they were camping there in secret!)
 
Back
Top Bottom