Cost of War in Calradia

Users who are viewing this thread

Meshkinas

Recruit
WBVC
Maybe I just haven't played the games long enough, but I haven't noticed any kind of effect of prolonged warfare on a faction's economy and populace. And I thought - wouldn't it be more interesting to have wars take a toll on entire faction's economy, as well as the morale of the populace? Realistically, wars were always a hugely expensive affair, and the people themselves also shouldn't just be content with having their villages/towns/castles be constantly raided and robbed.

And so - why not add a faction attribute "Economy/Prosperity" and a settlement (village/castle/town) attribute "Morale". The longer a faction is at war, the heavier losses it takes (even if it later reclaims it's lost fiefs), the lower the economy/prosperity of a faction will fall. And also - the lower the morale of the populace will fall. And a very low economy/prosperity and morale faction couldn't wage war anymore (in extreme cases, some settlements may even revolt). That is, unless the faction ruler decided to raise whatever he could muster and send them to fight (usually to certain defeat) out of desperation or malice. Which could potentially cause revolts by peasants and lords alike.

Now, what would this serve? It would give a reason for NPCs and the player to actually stay in peace for a longer amount of time. It would prevent both NPCs and the players from going to war incessantly.
Also, personally I believe it would make the governing of a faction more interesting, as well as make the dynamics of NPCs within a faction more interesting.

EDIT:
Why not expand this a little further, taking some mechanics of Bannerlord in mind:
On top of the previous, the supply of weapons, armour, horses and food could be finite. Making all of these more important, precious and also making blacksmithing and other professions more important. Maybe companions could also take professions? Or maybe, the player could hire/train/deploy in settlements blacksmiths (and other craftsmen), as well as command villages on what kind of supplies they must create.

In this way, supply of various war resources could be controlled, to an extent, though it would never be infinite, and the war would always drain resources and morale of the populace a lot faster than peace time.
 
Last edited:

Julio-Claudian

Knight at Arms
Totally agree, it would make it feel as though you are achieving something in war when destroying enemy armies. Devs and people seem to be against anything like this though because it could weaken kingdoms which might increase 'snowballing' - something which must be avoided at all costs apparently.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
Maybe I just haven't played the games long enough, but I haven't noticed any kind of effect of prolonged warfare on a faction's economy and populace. And I thought - wouldn't it be more interesting to have wars take a toll on entire faction's economy, as well as the morale of the populace? Realistically, wars were always a hugely expensive affair, and the people themselves also shouldn't just be content with having their villages/towns/castles be constantly raided and robbed.

And so - why not add a faction attribute "Economy/Prosperity" and a settlement (village/castle/town) attribute "Morale". The longer a faction is at war, the heavier losses it takes (even if it later reclaims it's lost fiefs), the lower the economy/prosperity of a faction will fall. And also - the lower the morale of the populace will fall. And a very low economy/prosperity and morale faction couldn't wage war anymore (in extreme cases, some settlements may even revolt). That is, unless the faction ruler decided to raise whatever he could muster and send them to fight (usually to certain defeat) out of desperation or malice. Which could potentially cause revolts by peasants and lords alike.

Now, what would this serve? It would give a reason for NPCs and the player to actually stay in peace for a longer amount of time. It would prevent both NPCs and the players from going to war incessantly.
Also, personally I believe it would make the governing of a faction more interesting, as well as make the dynamics of NPCs within a faction more interesting.

EDIT:
Why not expand this a little further, taking some mechanics of Bannerlord in mind:
On top of the previous, the supply of weapons, armour, horses and food could be finite. Making all of these more important, precious and also making blacksmithing and other professions more important. Maybe companions could also take professions? Or maybe, the player could hire/train/deploy in settlements blacksmiths (and other craftsmen), as well as command villages on what kind of supplies they must create.

In this way, supply of various war resources could be controlled, to an extent, though it would never be infinite, and the war would always drain resources and morale of the populace a lot faster than peace time.
In a sense this does happen, but there is no easy metric to look at to see your status. But as a war goes on your villages will get raided more which over time does have a big impact on the economy and ability to field forces. Now does the AI give a ****? Only in the sense that it will eventually impact their strength level which significantly influences whether they want peace or not.

So in a round about way what your asking for does happen, its just hard to see like so many things in Bannerlord.

Devs and people seem to be against anything like this though because it could weaken kingdoms which might increase 'snowballing' - something which must be avoided at all costs apparently.
This is a gross mischaracterization, the people involved in the snowballing discussion wanted more than a single faction (khuzait) to win the map in less than 10 years. That was boring because the game always ended up with the same results. The fun for the player is being the person who can make a major impact in the world, to be the snowball. No one asked for the factions to be indestructible, which is definitely an issue right now.
 

Julio-Claudian

Knight at Arms
In a sense this does happen, but there is no easy metric to look at to see your status. But as a war goes on your villages will get raided more which over time does have a big impact on the economy and ability to field forces. Now does the AI give a ****? Only in the sense that it will eventually impact their strength level which significantly influences whether they want peace or not.

So in a round about way what your asking for does happen, its just hard to see like so many things in Bannerlord.


This is a gross mischaracterization, the people involved in the snowballing discussion wanted more than a single faction (khuzait) to win the map in less than 10 years. That was boring because the game always ended up with the same results. The fun for the player is being the person who can make a major impact in the world, to be the snowball. No one asked for the factions to be indestructible, which is definitely an issue right now.
Yeah when it was just the Khuzaits dominating every single time it was a problem. Now that only the player faction can 'snowball', nothing really ever happens. No other kingdom really grows to rival the player's so once your faction takes over a larger portion of the map there isn't much to worry about and it's just war against everyone else endlessly, or until the whole map is taken.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
Yeah when it was just the Khuzaits dominating every single time it was a problem. Now that only the player faction can 'snowball', nothing really ever happens.
By 20 years you can see a faction or two lose the majority of their land to other AI factions without player interaction. So snowballing can still happen it just takes a long time now.
Here is the map from my previous two 20 year snowball tests (no player interaction).
You can clearly see Battania has been reduced to 1 town and Southern empire has been reduced to 2 towns. Vlandia and Aseria are the powerhouses.
aeiDI.jpg
You can see that both the northern empire and khuzaits have been reduced to three town. Western Empire and Aseria are the powerhouses
mj72N.jpg
The beautiful thing about these two examples is it shows how the world can end up in completely different states as far as which factions win and lose. No more khuzait dominance.
No other kingdom really grows to rival the player's so once your faction takes over a larger portion of the map there isn't much to worry about and it's just war against everyone else endlessly, or until the whole map is taken.
Honestly its the same thing in Warband. These games have always been more about the journey then the end game.
 
This game works the opposite of reality - you make $$$$$ with war but lose $$$$$ when in peace, because of military costs. If you reduce military that encourages neighbours to go to war with you. Militia is the counter to this but they are only weak archers and spearmen.

.
 

Lesbosisles

Knight
This game works the opposite of reality - you make $$$$$ with war but lose $$$$$ when in peace, because of military costs. If you reduce military that encourages neighbours to go to war with you. Militia is the counter to this but they are only weak archers and spearmen.

.
Moreover, your ally clans lose influence because they gather armies for no reason hence losing infl. points but having no opportunity to gain them.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
In a sense this does happen, but there is no easy metric to look at to see your status. But as a war goes on your villages will get raided more which over time does have a big impact on the economy and ability to field forces. Now does the AI give a ****? Only in the sense that it will eventually impact their strength level which significantly influences whether they want peace or not.

So in a round about way what your asking for does happen, its just hard to see like so many things in Bannerlord.


This is a gross mischaracterization, the people involved in the snowballing discussion wanted more than a single faction (khuzait) to win the map in less than 10 years. That was boring because the game always ended up with the same results. The fun for the player is being the person who can make a major impact in the world, to be the snowball. No one asked for the factions to be indestructible, which is definitely an issue right now.

I know next to nothing about politics and world dynamics in this game because i could just tell from a very surface level it wasnt going to be rewarding or intriguing in any way. Anyways -to say they dont "want the Khuzait to just win everytime in 10 years" -shows a complete lack of any interesting world dynamics and politics. Lets look at World War 2 - Germany should be The Juggernaut in ANY game you play no matter how sandbox-y. What would make interesting counters to the strongest faction? An interesting coalition of forces that unite to stop it - on many fronts be it militarily, guerilla warfare, economically, sabotage, infiltration, subterfuge the list goes on and on. Just adding some of these would make the gameworld FAR more interesting but everything just feels paper thin so I have no motivation to even install the game. Dont get me wrong the graphics and Battles are nice but with no context or world intrigue to play against they just feel like empty battles after a while
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
I know next to nothing about politics and world dynamics in this game because i could just tell from a very surface level it wasnt going to be rewarding or intriguing in any way. Anyways -to say they dont "want the Khuzait to just win everytime in 10 years" -shows a complete lack of any interesting world dynamics and politics. Lets look at World War 2 - Germany should be The Juggernaut in ANY game you play no matter how sandbox-y. What would make interesting counters to the strongest faction? An interesting coalition of forces that unite to stop it - on many fronts be it militarily, guerilla warfare, economically, sabotage, infiltration, subterfuge the list goes on and on. Just adding some of these would make the gameworld FAR more interesting but everything just feels paper thin so I have no motivation to even install the game. Dont get me wrong the graphics and Battles are nice but with no context or world intrigue to play against they just feel like empty battles after a while
It really is disappointing. Even in the campaign mode we have now they could implemented something like an alliance with whichever side you choose and have a cool global Empire vs Non-Empire world war. They also could have easily implemented a Empire civil war quest/story where you choose a side in the empire and attempt to reunite the empire. Or if the non-empire wins, they start their civil wars (vlandia split into Rhodoks and butterboys and sturgia splits into nords and vaegir).

So many choices even within the framework they've built themselves into.
 
Last edited:

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
That finally got fixed this patch
OH... but they seem to still do it... well I'll keep an eye on it, maybe they just stayed in armies after a war ended. Do you happen to know if they changed the amount of money needed for a clan to let try to persuade them? I thought it was supposed to be something like they would refuse unless you money was like 3X plus what they wanted. However in 1.6.4 I have been able to pay them all my money (down to like 5k) to recruit a clan. I didn't see it in the patch notes but maybe it was on an older one. Or does it also count property in the wealth needed, like items in storage?
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
OH... but they seem to still do it... well I'll keep an eye on it, maybe they just stayed in armies after a war ended.
That’s what I would bet. An auto disband at the end of a war would be nice as well. @Duh_TaleWorlds
Do you happen to know if they changed the amount of money needed for a clan to let try to persuade them? I thought it was supposed to be something like they would refuse unless you money was like 3X plus what they wanted. However in 1.6.4 I have been able to pay them all my money (down to like 5k) to recruit a clan. I didn't see it in the patch notes but maybe it was on an older one. Or does it also count property in the wealth needed, like items in storage?
Like you I didn’t see anything in the patch notes and haven’t tried it out in 1.6.4 myself. It kinda sounds like a bug but if those lords had no fiefs and you were strong then maybe it’s not? I do not think it considers your assets as wealth, I think it’s straight up denars
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
That’s what I would bet. An auto disband at the end of a war would be nice as well. @Duh_TaleWorlds

Like you I didn’t see anything in the patch notes and haven’t tried it out in 1.6.4 myself. It kinda sounds like a bug but if those lords had no fiefs and you were strong then maybe it’s not? I do not think it considers your assets as wealth, I think it’s straight up denars
Oh I'm strong and they had no fief and high relations with me, but for instance I had 300k and this Khuzait guy asks me for 294K, which in my understanding shouldn't happen, like I should need 900K or so for him to let me persuade him, but maybe I'm missing part of that explanation.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
Oh I'm strong and they had no fief and high relations with me, but for instance I had 300k and this Khuzait guy asks me for 294K, which in my understanding shouldn't happen, like I should need 900K or so for him to let me persuade him, but maybe I'm missing part of that explanation.
That was my general understanding as well. Maybe they got rid of the limitation if you can pay for it?
 

Ananda_The_Destroyer

Master Knight
That was my general understanding as well. Maybe they got rid of the limitation if you can pay for it?
I think maybe they changed it so you just need the actual payment or something because they still can give the refusal line.
Here's Mesui being a greedy old hag, talking 1/2 my money to join me despite good relation and she's homeless and poor.

A short while latter, Nicasor refuses me with the old line

Even though poor and homeless.

Does this greedy guy really want more then 366K? Or is it just a more complicated system? BTW, yes I spend all my money on vassals, I feel it's a great accomplishment to actually use all my resources ASAP.
 
Top Bottom