Becomeing Emporer?

Users who are viewing this thread

Don't you get bored once you own 2/3 of the continent and have more Lords on your side than your enemies (given there's more than once side left alive) combined?
So no, never had the patience to play this long. But there should be plenty o' guys (and gals) around who own M&B longer than me and did this before.
 
I did, and like the poster above said after you defeat 2-3 factions it really gets boring for the wars no longer have any fun even in full dificulty.
 
Totally agree with you guys, after beating 2 factions it becomes a siege grind. Not much fun in it anymore...

Perhaps a system that scales with our power would keep us interested?

What about after you killed 2 factions the other 3 will see you us their biggest thread and they form an alliance against you, and they would get huge garisson/army generation? Should make them quite agressive  :smile:
 
Well no... I would like a chance that a faction might instead kiss up to you, and proclaim you emperor if you sign a peace treaty based on your power VS theirs, and your feats.

IE Bullying other factions into making you emperor.
 
I tried to go that route, finish the game and become the ruler of every town, castle and village. It is surprisingly difficullt, Nobody can stand up to me but as i grow larger my lords are more likely tio rebell against me.

Anybody knowing what exactly makes them angry, is it the number of lords in my kingdon? the size of the kingdowm? How much does it affect then if I do not visit them regulary?
 
Bump, Anybody?

Whats a good tactic to keep the lords from rebellion?

The next time I probably switch of the companion fighting and make only thise guys to lords.

 
Turning the option off?  :wink:
Nay, you have to run errands for them day and night. When you own a town you can hire.. eh.. one of those guys you can hire will tell you whom you haven't visited in prior weeks. Or you maybe you might try to keep them near you in constant campaigns. (<- haven't tried this, just came to my mind)
But I think we all know how this would turn out, hehe
 
Maegfaer said:
Totally agree with you guys, after beating 2 factions it becomes a siege grind. Not much fun in it anymore...

Perhaps a system that scales with our power would keep us interested?

What about after you killed 2 factions the other 3 will see you us their biggest thread and they form an alliance against you, and they would get huge garisson/army generation? Should make them quite agressive  :smile:
DamienZharkoff said:
Well no... I would like a chance that a faction might instead kiss up to you, and proclaim you emperor if you sign a peace treaty based on your power VS theirs, and your feats.

IE Bullying other factions into making you emperor.
:smile:
I don't know why you, DamienZharkoff, are so hostile to the simple idea of a 'Reputation' system for each faction.
I.e: every time your faction declares war, attacks, loot a village, raid a caravan, take a castle... your faction's reputation takes a hit, making every other factions dislike you a little more, as they perceive you as dangerously aggressive, and making them more likely to declare war against you.
And anyway, this would be a good opportunity for them to attack when you are already at war on multiple fronts.

You would have to work hard to prevent those preventive wars.

This National reputation system ('BadBoy') is a very good feature in the Europa Universalis (and Crusader Kings) games series.
Of course, this would require some work to adapt it to M&B, but this would generate a lot more fun (if not more realistic ) diplomacy system, in my opinion.
 
It would be cool if after you have a few towns and are thus a real kingdom that some sort of new world would open up that would have been to big for you to consider attacking a few towns ago. Like if you control the khergits and vaegir, then suddenly a previously impassable area opens up which is a new world to conquer. I think Sword of Damocles is doing something like this...

A real world parallel would be American/African colonization (by Europe)
 
kgable10 said:
It would be cool if after you have a few towns and are thus a real kingdom that some sort of new world would open up that would have been to big for you to consider attacking a few towns ago. Like if you control the khergits and vaegir, then suddenly a previously impassable area opens up which is a new world to conquer. I think Sword of Damocles is doing something like this...

A real world parallel would be American/African colonization (by Europe)
We have repeating crossbows, but wheres the chinese?
 
DZ, we got your point 3 months ago. We may or may not add a Chinese faction. If we did, we'd need new leather armour and chainmail models and new swords and bows.
 
Saracens or some other dudes from middle east would fit better in medieval europe setting than some from far east, i've never understand why there are huns/Khergits because they came 700-800 years earlier -.-
 
MrFloppy said:
Saracens or some other dudes from middle east would fit better in medieval europe setting than some from far east, i've never understand why there are huns/Khergits because they came 700-800 years earlier -.-
Norsemen didnt beat the **** out of the europeans, it didn't prevent someone from writing the "What If" realm if such a thing happened while keeping to a realistic medieval setting. (The book btw is "The Hammer & The Cross")

So I don't see why we couldn't even have african tribesmen attacking caravans as long as theres a decent enough explanation.
 
Ok you're right with the nords but let's say guys from Middle East and North Africa fit much better than thoese from far East. :smile:
 
MrFloppy said:
Saracens or some other dudes from middle east would fit better in medieval europe setting than some from far east, i've never understand why there are huns/Khergits because they came 700-800 years earlier -.-

Well, you've got Alan and Cuman tribesmen on the borders of Russia for centuries after the Huns turn up (and other ethnically Turkish tribes, and Magyar before them, and the Mongols afterwards).  I think of the Khergits as roughly analogous to the Cumans; they're not organized enough to be 13/14th century Mongols - fortunately, or else they'd sweep through Calradia in short order -  but they're a pain in the ass to conquer.  Saracens would certainly be a welcome addition (although that term covers a lot of ground, from the Ummayyads to the Turks), but I don't think the Khergits are an anachronism. 
 
Khergit clans are headed by Khans, sort of warrior kings of society, who are the main controllers and directors of the rest of the tribe. Hence the 'Khannate', an allegiance of Khans under a Great Khan. They aren't an anachorism, just a base form of dictatorship.
Khergits are fine by me. Horse archer vs horse archer :smile:
 
I saved the Khergs for last, because fighting against them is.. a pain, to say the least. Had to defend Distar castle against about a thousand of them yesterday, but had an game-ending error during the third wave. I was pissed, to say the least.

Though it has become a grind, like people say. At least the Khergs are dangerous, in comparison to the other factions. Getting hit by fourteen arrows at the same time can have a negative effect on your health.
 
Back
Top Bottom