Can we please talk about how stupid being a vassal is right now

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Dionaea

Veteran
Best answers
0
Yet i can still rebel it still does not make sense that is still a useful location and can be used
Yes you can still rebel but it should dissuade you, when really hungry you can poop on a plate and eat it but that doesn't mean it's very good idea or a positive experience
 

Itisausername

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
Yes you can still rebel but it should dissuade you, when really hungry you can poop on a plate and eat it but that doesn't mean it's very good idea or a positive experience
Oof does it mean i cant esablish a powerbase no it doesnt it also does not act in the rulers best interest to have his vassals be split up between he wants to keep its not going to dissuade its just that he basically he wasted a lot of men
 

Dionaea

Veteran
Best answers
0
Kings had unruly vassals all the time, it's a sensible thing to scatter your lands so that if you do rebel you can't defend all your holdings at the same time, it's a measure to keep you in check (or it would be in real life)

How did he waste men? And did he waste yours or his own?
 

Itisausername

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
Kings had unruly vassals all the time, it's a sensible thing to scatter your lands so that if you do rebel you can't defend all your holdings at the same time, it's a measure to keep you in check (or it would be in real life)

How did he waste men? And did he waste yours or his own?
He wasted his i did not take said town i am not going to defend why would mr king waste his men on land that will immediately be retaken
 

redmark

Veteran
Best answers
0
Yet i can still rebel it still does not make sense that is still a useful location and can be used
But rebelling is more difficult if your holdings are scattered, as you can't position an army between them and react as quickly to attacks. The point being that the king's decisions to separate your holdings is logical - for him.
 

Itisausername

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
But rebelling is more difficult if your holdings are scattered, as you can't position an army between them and react as quickly to attacks. The point being that the king's decisions to separate your holdings is logical - for him.
React for the rebels what about outside forces you lost land strength and men for no gain
 

redmark

Veteran
Best answers
0
React for the rebels what about outside forces you lost land strength and men for no gain
But it would have been a gain, if you'd been an obedient vassal and garrisoned the castle, and then helped him win the next city, which he'd give to himself.
 

Itisausername

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
But it would have been a gain, if you'd been an obedient vassal and garrisoned the castle, and then helped him win the next city, which he'd give to himself.
Yet still my point still stands i dont care about the settlement he does he knows i dont care so why give it to me
 

Itisausername

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
Because you're his vassal. That's what vassals are for.
Its what they are for but when he knows you won't defend he is not curbing my power he is curbing his own he wasted his clansmen and soldiers not mine still it should be more logical
 

redmark

Veteran
Best answers
0
Its what they are for but when he knows you won't defend he is not curbing my power he is curbing his own he wasted his clansmen and soldiers not mine still it should be more logical
He doesn't know you won't defend it, though. Either you're a loyal obedient vassal and you will defend it; or you're a thinking about revolting, in which case he's right to keep your holdings spread as far from each other as possible.

Anyway. Being a vassal means you're not making the decisions. If you want to make them, be a king/queen.
 

Itisausername

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
He doesn't know you won't defend it, though. Either you're a loyal obedient vassal and you will defend it; or you're a thinking about revolting, in which case he's right to keep your holdings spread as far from each other as possible.

Anyway. Being a vassal means you're not making the decisions. If you want to make them, be a king/queen.
Yet that misses the point i dont want the fief 8 years away from which i literally cannot defend even if i wanted to instead of keeping me where he gave me everything else
 

Blood Gryphon

Knight
WBVC
Best answers
1
Yet that misses the point i dont want the fief 8 years away from which i literally cannot defend even if i wanted to instead of keeping me where he gave me everything else
My best suggestion is to vassalize right before taking a settlement you want. I'll normally be a mercenary up until the faction im joining is about to take the settlement i want, then i vasslize. You will normally get it due to the no settlement bonus (save scum until you do or if you want different amounts of time sometimes the vote will change even to the point of whose being voted for). Hopefully you got enough influence to vote for yourself as well.

But once you get one, you're stuck to that area unless you spend a bunch of influence and even then proximity bonus is big.
 

AnandaShanti

Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
But rebelling is more difficult if your holdings are scattered, as you can't position an army between them and react as quickly to attacks. The point being that the king's decisions to separate your holdings is logical - for him.
Nope. The AI will try to attack less powerful fiefs so your un-wanted fiefs become a decoy while you attack their towns that you want.
Further more in Bannerlord you can rebel at will so you can casually collect all useful troops from un-wanted fiefs and stalk your king until a good opportunity to slam dunk him and all his friends and basically win on the spot.
 

Gambles

Sergeant at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Yet that misses the point i dont want the fief 8 years away from which i literally cannot defend even if i wanted to instead of keeping me where he gave me everything else
You should try out Crusader Kings 3. Once you've worked your way up to king (or started there) you end of having dukes under you. You're very much encouraged to give them holdings within their own duchies as they will be able to more adequately manage them thereby providing you with more taxes and levies. The whole title system in that game is a game in itself, being careful to designate duchies and holding appropriately not to give anyone too much power but to also increase your own while maintaining control.
 

Itisausername

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
You should try out Crusader Kings 3. Once you've worked your way up to king (or started there) you end of having dukes under you. You're very much encouraged to give them holdings within their own duchies as they will be able to more adequately manage them thereby providing you with more taxes and levies. The whole title system in that game is a game in itself, being careful to designate duchies and holding appropriately not to give anyone too much power but to also increase your own while maintaining control.
Yet i have played both ck3 and ck2 and i honestly have to say the paradox dlc investment fund 2 was definetly a lot more fun and no it really isnt a game on its own it actually is who can get RSI or chronic finger diseases while breaking every bone biggest improvement from ck2 all together
 
Last edited:

NLCRich

Sergeant
Best answers
0
So I'm pretty sure TW has already said that the intention is for kings to more often take lands that are closer to them. Generally they do, but every so often they do still go for a far away fief if it is particularly weak. That said, there are a lot of other problems with being a vassal.

- Allied armies use poor tactics and give the player very little opportunity to have a major influence on these battles.
- Allied armies are not smart in their food storage or knowing when to break up due to a lack of cohesion. For this reason joining any ally army is a huge food sink as you end up having to make up for it.
- Inter-Kingdom politics are overall pretty lame and there is no way for the player to influence the outcome beyond their vote. There should be a way to try and convince other nobles of your choice.

ok whiner
This comment is in poor taste. @Itisausername is trying to give feedback regarding an issue with the game, and this is what these forums are about. I do not appreciate this. If you have a problem with what they are trying to say then offer logic to support your opinion. Don't flame bait them by calling them a whiner.
 

Itisausername

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
So I'm pretty sure TW has already said that the intention is for kings to more often take lands that are closer to them. Generally they do, but every so often they do still go for a far away fief if it is particularly weak. That said, there are a lot of other problems with being a vassal.

- Allied armies use poor tactics and give the player very little opportunity to have a major influence on these battles.
- Allied armies are not smart in their food storage or knowing when to break up due to a lack of cohesion. For this reason joining any ally army is a huge food sink as you end up having to make up for it.
- Inter-Kingdom politics are overall pretty lame and there is no way for the player to influence the outcome beyond their vote. There should be a way to try and convince other nobles of your choice.


This comment is in poor taste. @Itisausername is trying to give feedback regarding an issue with the game, and this is what these forums are about. I do not appreciate this. If you have a problem with what they are trying to say then offer logic to support your opinion. Don't flame bait them by calling them a whiner.
I know that the kings in general like taking more fiefs but to me this right now is the biggest problem with kingdom managment by the ai it does not know how to do it this does not just affect the player but everyone most clans dont have enough members by the end of the game to patrol around many unlinked settlements causing the kingdom to lose said settlements and for now causing damage with no gain for something that is easily averted
 

Itisausername

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
ok whiner
I try to give criticism that is constructive and a fix that would not be too hard and would in general benefit the game and make ot more fun if you are looking for a flame war this is not the place i simply shared my opinion and you shared yours if that is what you think of me it is ok as you can think whatever you want and i simply do not care