Civil Wars in Bannerlord

[TehRalph]

I think it might be possible for one clan to choose to defect, but unlikely. I think the more likely scenario is that similar to the Empire situation, but on a smaller scale. Say the king of Vlandia dies without an heir, and clans 1-4 want X leader to be crowned, and clans 4-8 want Z leader to be crowned, so they split into different forces and a civil war starts. I very highly doubt you will see entire clans defect to entirely different factions. Maybe a lesser noble of a clan defecting to a different clan or faction for more status and power, but not entire clans.

 

[John the Roleplayer]

[...]

What's more interesting to me is what you describe as a problem, but which is actually a more accurate representation of feudal society and a dramatic shift from Warband.

It stops being a war about Sturgia and Vlandia. Its a war brtween Clan Brugyudol and Clan Barthhearts being defeated by Clan Ulfru, they just happen to carry their faction banners.

This reduces faction identity too much as kings don't have much power and can't keep factions together especially if Clans are as greedy and backstabby as the blogs imply.

This is precisely what happened throughout history. Kings and emperors had to compel their vassals to cooperate with the crown, either subtly or overtly. Several kingdoms fell apart because of in-fighting of vassals which were selfishly trying to increase their own wealth, power, and influence. It is the king or emperor's responsibility to police their vassals, and the amount of authority each faction sovereign has in Bannerlord has been described. The Battanians, for instance, have a king with very little authority over the clans. The Imperials, on the other hand, fractured when there was no clear successor to their very powerful figurehead. The Battanian culture places very little importance on centralized power, while the Empire successor states consider it paramount.

Hopefully we will see these cultural differences at play in Bannerlord, where Battanians are effectively dependent on the whims of the most powerful clans (which are allowed to grow practically unchecked because the crown can't or won't stop them), while the Empire will have weaker individual clans but much greater cooperation in times of need.

Well said. I also believe this is a huge improvement.

It is unlikely that entire clans will defect completely from their faction. That would mean a number of nobles and their fiefs switching sides. One such event could potentially destroy a faction. I don't believe something that drastic will be included in the game.
Such an act would also dramatically uproot the clan, whose whole identity and culture would have to be redefined. A Vlandian clan could never truly become an equal among the Khuzaits, for example. The empire is a different story, as they share a culture, so clans switching sides in an ongoing civil war (the different sides being considered different factions in the empire) seems possible.

 

[NPC99]

A number of factions have opposing minor factions of the same culture. In civil war terms, they may replace the function of Warbands pretenders. If so, it is entirely logical for an angry faction clan to defect en masse to the renegades of their own culture. For Kuzaits, a clan could abandon their faction leader and revert to the old cultural ways in alliance with the Karakhuzaits. I doubt clans will defect to different cultures. Factions are already able to employ whole minor factions from a different culture who hire themselves out as mercenary companies - Company of the Golden Boar, Legion of the Betrayed & the unemployed Nord guard of the dead Emperor (possibly they are the Skolderbrotva). Hopefully, factions could also ally with the minor faction opposing their enemies - Battania allied with the Brotherhood of the Woods vs Vlandia when at war with them. Rather than degenerating into chaos, I see this as enhancing immersion & improving Bannerlord’s replayability.

 

[ArnulfFloyd]

Interesting and good as they remove senseless and boring claimants, but civil wars will make game more intense and more harder

 

[Lord Engineer (Castor)]

In previous iterations of Mount & Blade it kind of bugged me that there was only one claimant for each faction, especially the Rhodoks who supposedly had an elective monarchy.

I would like there to be multiple pretenders from each faction, possibly from clans considering that the current Aserai ruler comes from clan Banu Hulyan, maybe each claimant could have different ideas and policies.
One claimant might have a weak right to rule but good policies. Sort of ties in with how I would like rulers to have actual personalities, or at least unique scripts instead of what we got in the previous games.

 

[NPC99]

In previous iterations of Mount & Blade it kind of bugged me that there was only one claimant for each faction, especially the Rhodoks who supposedly had an elective monarchy.

I would like there to be multiple pretenders from each faction, possibly from clans considering that the current Aserai ruler comes from clan Banu Hulyan, maybe each claimant could have different ideas and policies.
One claimant might have a weak right to rule but good policies. Sort of ties in with how I would like rulers to have actual personalities, or at least unique scripts instead of what we got in the previous games.

I’m sure each faction clan leader will seek to improve their clan’s standing. Hopefully, they will be able to replace the faction leader by ‘legitimate’ means short of outright civil war. After all, the central civil war in the Empire needed the opponents to be separate Empire factions to work within Bannerlord’s game code. ‘Legitimate’ means might include:

1. Succession following the death of a faction leader.
2. Deposing a weak leader - i.e. if the level of faction influence of the faction leader consistently drops significantly below that of one of his clan leaders for a long game time.
3. Assassination

 

[TehRalph]

After all, the central civil war in the Empire needed the opponents to be separate Empire factions to work within Bannerlord’s game code.

We don't know this. That's a very large assumption you're making. Unless you have a reference from a dev blog or interview statement?

 

[RoboSenshi]

I'm very happy with this as long as one side can surrender after a time and unify the faction on the leadership of the Victor. You shouldn't have to retake each an every settlement for the war to end imo.

 

[Do not look here]

Hopefully this is where that brand new, shiny diplomacy thing they introduced comes in.

 

[NPC99]

After all, the central civil war in the Empire needed the opponents to be separate Empire factions to work within Bannerlord’s game code.

We don't know this. That's a very large assumption you're making. Unless you have a reference from a dev blog or interview statement?

Yes it's an assumption, but one I'm happy with. In Warband, wars were fought between factions - it's code (module_factions.py) included a player faction, a player's supporters faction, outlaw/bandit factions, a merchant faction etc. in addition to the six kingdom factions. I'd be surprised if Bannerlord has fundamentally changed the game reasons for what is and what is not designated a faction.

 

[TehRalph]

After all, the central civil war in the Empire needed the opponents to be separate Empire factions to work within Bannerlord’s game code.

We don't know this. That's a very large assumption you're making. Unless you have a reference from a dev blog or interview statement?

Yes it's an assumption, but one I'm happy with. In Warband, wars were fought between factions - it's code (module_factions.py) included a player faction, a player's supporters faction, outlaw/bandit factions, a merchant faction etc. in addition to the six kingdom factions. I'd be surprised if Bannerlord has fundamentally changed the game reasons for what is and what is not designated a faction.

But we already know minor factions are a thing, and from the gamescom footage we can see that minor factions can be at war with the base faction. Notably, the Karakhergit are a minor faction of the Khuzait Khanate, and also at war with them. Knowing this it is perfectly safe to assume that yet another minor faction can develop, possibly including multiple clans, and cause a civil war.

 

[Rabies]

It is the king or emperor's responsibility to police their vassals, and the amount of authority each faction sovereign has in Bannerlord has been described. The Battanians, for instance, have a king with very little authority over the clans. The Imperials, on the other hand, fractured when there was no clear successor to their very powerful figurehead. The Battanian culture places very little importance on centralized power, while the Empire successor states consider it paramount.

Hopefully we will see these cultural differences at play in Bannerlord, where Battanians are effectively dependent on the whims of the most powerful clans (which are allowed to grow practically unchecked because the crown can't or won't stop them), while the Empire will have weaker individual clans but much greater cooperation in times of need.

It seems that the starting points of how the different factions are governed are not necessarily fixed, though. If what's described here isn't just scene-setting fluff and actually translates into game mechanics, then it looks like you're going to be able to agitate within a faction to reduce the power of the monarch and move it further towards where your own support-base is (merchants? the mob?). Will you be able to overthrow a ruler without a civil war (maybe in a democracy?)? Will a very centralized government cause the clans to become resentful and rebellious? It's getting into Crusader Kings territory here.

There promises to be quite a lot of strategic depth, but the detail of how it works in practice is not at all clear yet, I don't think. Not to me, anyway.

 

[Caps]

imo civil wars are great because they prevent you to become super overpowered thats was like the only feature i rly liked in rome tw2, like the only thing they ****ed up in warhammer 2 or made it even worse with the merges

 

[NPC99]

After all, the central civil war in the Empire needed the opponents to be separate Empire factions to work within Bannerlord’s game code.

We don't know this. That's a very large assumption you're making. Unless you have a reference from a dev blog or interview statement?

Yes it's an assumption, but one I'm happy with. In Warband, wars were fought between factions - it's code (module_factions.py) included a player faction, a player's supporters faction, outlaw/bandit factions, a merchant faction etc. in addition to the six kingdom factions. I'd be surprised if Bannerlord has fundamentally changed the game reasons for what is and what is not designated a faction.

But we already know minor factions are a thing, and from the gamescom footage we can see that minor factions can be at war with the base faction. Notably, the Karakhergit are a minor faction of the Khuzait Khanate, and also at war with them. Knowing this it is perfectly safe to assume that yet another minor faction can develop, possibly including multiple clans, and cause a civil war.

Player faction and player's supporters faction are minor factions in Warband. Minor factions aren't new, it's clans that are new.

 

[TehRalph]

After all, the central civil war in the Empire needed the opponents to be separate Empire factions to work within Bannerlord’s game code.

We don't know this. That's a very large assumption you're making. Unless you have a reference from a dev blog or interview statement?

Yes it's an assumption, but one I'm happy with. In Warband, wars were fought between factions - it's code (module_factions.py) included a player faction, a player's supporters faction, outlaw/bandit factions, a merchant faction etc. in addition to the six kingdom factions. I'd be surprised if Bannerlord has fundamentally changed the game reasons for what is and what is not designated a faction.

But we already know minor factions are a thing, and from the gamescom footage we can see that minor factions can be at war with the base faction. Notably, the Karakhergit are a minor faction of the Khuzait Khanate, and also at war with them. Knowing this it is perfectly safe to assume that yet another minor faction can develop, possibly including multiple clans, and cause a civil war.

Player faction and player's supporters faction are minor factions in Warband. Minor factions aren't new, it's clans that are new.

Nope, I'd definitely say they are completely separate factions. But you're free to believe whatever you like.

 

[jamoecw]

when there is chaos opportunity arises for those that seize it. since you have these clans, then one can build themselves up into a noble (like WB), then into a clan, then into a king instead of jumping straight to king and having everyone try and kill you. this also means that you have to be careful about the internal politics when you are king or else your kingdom will collapse.

as for your fears, well i guess realism=fun. in real life when a war breaks out between kingdoms all are expected to put their grievances aside and unite against the common enemy. this means in your example when the other kingdom attacks the existing civil war will be put on hold or forced to an end. the kingdoms will fight united against each other (at least as much as in WB, if you would remember nobles that really didn't like you would not participate and do their own thing). this means that during times of peace their will be minor wars going on. this allows their to be constant conflict without there being major wars going on all the time. it allows for more politics as well. this means that part of a kingdom can be at peace and able to focus on recovering from bad times, instead of always being sacked and crushed over and over. so this allows for more war and at the same time more peace, all based on the circumstances and player choices.