Going by the game files, the original intent was to make "bandit" mechanics much more expanded than what we got. I really hope the whole idea didn't go the way of upgradeable villages and is just not a priority (though... considering the impact it would have on overall economy and a lot of sub-systems' balance, why not?).
1. Morale - bandits should either have a much lower morale cap or have a larger negative modifier to reflect their real world tendency to bolt when things get tough. It becomes somewhat imba when a player can easily amass a huge bandit army and use it reliably.
I think you're conflating two different concepts here - "bandits" as independent parties, and "bandit-type" units in player's army.
Personally I'd rather not penalize bandits with lower morale if only because it'd make "xp-fighting" even more grindy when your opponents run away after two or three get killed. Your infantry couldn't catch any of the remaining ones because they generally have much less encumbrance, so even more "whack-a-looter" hunting just to get those T0 and T1 units turned into something halfway useful.
As for "bandit-type" units in player's party, why not? At that point they are basically mercenaries, and like any other unit type in party will be affected by overall party morale.
2. Little groups - should form into bigger groups and once they reach a certain size, maybe elect a leader because let's face it, small groups of 3-4 are just annoying and not worth the time to eliminate especially since they can kill fully armed and operational deathknights on auto. In the name of Fun, make them consolidate into bigger groups.
Absolutely. In fact, they should also at least upgrade in troop quality and equipment (at least the survivors) the more battles the group survives.
So if a lord (or faction/kingdom in general) ignores increasingly growing threat in the middle of their land in the form of a larger and larger (and more dangerous!) group of brigands, ultimately they should require at least a full lord's party to tackle that issue. All the while their peasants and caravans get killed off, something that'd also affect economy in a major way (and affect factional warfare through associated income/prosperity loss).
Hell, hideouts shouldn't be just randomly generated, for that matter. If there are enough bandits around, or they fought enough village parties/caravans (which shouldn't be a large number in the first place), why can't they establish a hideout independent of the "hard-coded" spawn points for them? One that would attract more displaced unfortunates, therefore growing the threat of both individual bandit groups as well as their saturation of a specific territory.
And all this should be tied to prosperity mechanics. High prosperity settlements (whether a village or town) are that less likely to contribute toward bandit population (people making a decent enough living aren't turning to crime that easily than less forunate ones), but should be the target of bandit activity from nearby less prosperous locations. A raided village should absolutely spawn at least a party or two of some kind of bandit types. A sacked town should seed the surrounding countryside with multiple bandit groups. They should band together, they should, if unchecked, be an increasingly larger threat to anything moving through that territory, and they should replace current "static" hard-coded hideouts spawn points.
3. Surprise loot - Surely one of them would eventually get lucky and steal something good right?
Should really be tied to "bandit-tier," imo. Looters getting something meaningful? Why aren't they using it, and where did they get it from?
On the other hand, having some kind of "veteran brigand" totting decent tier of equipment that is also included in loot tables would be hardly suprising.
4. Spawn rate - they're probably somewhere between locusts and cockroaches right now. It's a bit silly really. There ought to be some correlation between them spawning and the wealth of the surrounding area. Well looked after villagers do not resort to banditry.
It's mostly the result of ineffective passive training that Taleworlds doesn't seem to have players to have. Basically, the choice is between constant looter-type spawns to xp-pinata them in fights that won't set you back more than you're gaining from them, or trying to do player-on-lord fighting with an army largely consisting of recruits (not a winning proposition even if you win the battle itself)
5. Deserters - when a side loses, troops that rout/desert disappear. Maybe they ought to band together instead to terrorize the near by villagers, which would then lead to the deserter quest...
And not just quest, but we should have bloody well got "deserter" parties roaming the countryside (and joining up with other bandits if small enough) by now.
Yeah, banditry is pretty much a placeholder implementation, and I really, really hope TW is going to put more effort into it than just "polish" they are doing on all the other elements.
The direct interaction between prosperity, warfare events (raids, occupation, battles) should've been a no-brainer. The more hard-coded Bannerlord elements there are, the less the game is responsive to basically everything else happening in it.
But that's just, like, my opinion, maan
It would also be cool to be able to get own hideout that you can upgrade. Not anything like castle or town, not even close. But some basics fortifications like wooden palisade maybe and things like that.
Eh, we can't even get decently developed "basic" fief implementation, so player camps/hideouts are far down on my list. Though I won't disagree that it would be very, very nice to have them.
