Different factions having different benefits?

[Dyre Ironwill]

Someone said something in another thread that sparked this idea:

The thread title really says it all.  It's probably been mentioned before, but I haven't seen it anywhere.  I think it would be awesome if the various factions had different benefits/detriments that can also impact the player.  For example:

Swadians:  Strong localized government would provide ease of obtaining soldiers.  The militia is also heavily armed and is obviously a powerful force.  Because of this, prices tend to be quite a bit higher for army maintanence and the player is forced to pay taxes on all income (all money is automatically reduced by a percentage).

Nords:  Because of their lust for battle, they're more likely to survive a potentially fatal wound.  They also don't require as much food, and gain a higher morale bonus from good food.  They're barbaric nature has prevented them from learning to tame animals though, and they always go on foot.  (Removes horse riding skill from player).

Khergit:  They believe in striking quickly and without mercy.  The Khergit believe in speed above all else, and always ride a horse when possible.  They love ranged combat.  They prefer lighter armor because of this, and use unarmored horses as well.  They're tribal lifestyle leads to internal conflict though, and they lack organization except in small groups.  (Allied Khergit bands will attack the player if it's opportune and profitable).

Etc...  You get the idea.  Thoughts?  Suggestions?

 

[Poc]

I like this, though perhaps Khergits attacking you when allied would be a bit much. Maybe just reduce the sizes of their war parties. They're probably bound to have lower populations due to living in less hospitable areas. Medium unit cost? Possibly, there could be a movement penalty for everyone except the Khergits on snow and steppe.

Ideas for Vaegirs and Rhodoks?

Rhodoks - Large populations w/ cheap cannon fodder but double the army sizes of other factions. Maybe the least financially strong faction so they have less income on taxes or lower wages [for the player] if wages are implemented again? Less upgrades for fiefs? Since they specialize in spearmen, maybe a bonus to polearms?

Vaegirs - I have no clue here. Um... Best archers (debatable), so bonus to archery or power draw? What would one define the Vaegirs as?

 

[Dyre Ironwill]

Vaegirs:  Jack of all trades, master of none.  The Vaegirs are well suited for ranged combat, infantry, and cavalry.  Some say they spread their specializations a bit too thin though.  But because of their strong bonds of brotherhood, they learn from one another quickly and level up faster than the other factions.  (Player is unable to raise any personal skill beyond 4)

Rhodoks I'm not too sure on, don't know so much about them yet.  They seem more like a nomadic faction.  Maybe because of their nomadic nature, they're equipment is in constant disrepair?  Their main advantage could be that a camp would act as a temporary town where merchants would come to buy and sell goods with a +1 to mercantile skill.  (Player's ability to use weapons of various quality is also dependent on mercantile skill, would encourage a sort of nomadic merchant roleplay)  It would make it a good faction for players that enjoy being a merchant.

Really, everything could be as simple as a few stat boosts and a few stat degrades.  But something a little deeper would really help to make the game more interesting.

 

[The_Invincible_Knight]

Some interesting ideas... I'd certainly put my support behind them...

 

[italiano]

I say just pick a historical influence in terms of culture, arms and tactics. Eg Khergits and Mongols, Swadians and western Europe. Factions are obviously influenced, but it's not really fully fleshed out. Nords are obviously based on Scandinavians and Vaegar sound like they're meant to be vikings, they definitely feel barbarian to me. Rhodoks, no idea as I haven't really dealt with them. I'd like to see a faction with an arab influence though, seems a waste when you look at some mods which include them.

Basically:
Swadians: Western Europe,
Nords: Scandinavians, from the north obviously,
Khergit: Mongol influence, but as a steppe or desert people?
Rhodok: Arabs, arid background?
Vaegar: Viking? Feels like they should be invaders from the....

With the the Khergit being nomads, the Vaegar as invaders and the other three as established kingdoms.

 

[The_Invincible_Knight]

My summary of the five factions of Calradia:

Swadians: Disciplined fighters with emphasis placed on stong defence and attack... generally minimal emphasis placed on speed. Good for charging and breaking up enemy lines.

Rhodoks: Defensive fighters with emphasis placed heavily on polearms and strong in a group. Due to extensive use of polearms they excel at stopping a cavalry charge.

Khergits: Cunning fightes with very little emphasis based on power and strength. Mostly focused on speed, maneuverability and good for hit-and-run tactics.

Vaegirs: Maneuverable, strong, powerful and fast. The Vaegirs have it all... but not to a high degree. Due to their versatility,  fast moving cavalry, quick firing archers and tough infantry they can do anything, but not as skillfully as a faction which specialises.

Nords: Berserker fighters with emphasis placed on strength, speed and blatent power. Excellent melee fighters, but vulnerable to ranged attackers. Good for disruption.

 

[Sabin Stargem]

Personally, I feel that there are six ways of making big differences according to faction.

1)  How they start out in terms of numbers of troops, cities, villages, and wealth when the player enters the game.  For example, the Rhodakians or Khergit are new arrivals to this part of the world, thus they don't have much territory but do have rather sizable armies - but no castles and few villages.  Powers near the coast could get additional income or resources from sea merchants or fisheries, while others may possess a high number of castles.

2)  Available troop types according to trees, and having troops of different cultures could take a morale hit - say, -10 for each different culture.  Therefore, a group consisting of Swadians, Vaegir, Khergits, Rhodakians, and Nords would involve a -50 penalty to morale, which would make it important to be specific in what troops you use unless you and the companions are charismatic.

3)  Have differing wages for each faction - Swadians could be considerably more expensive than Rhodakian or Khergit troops, because of the quality of training and arms involved.  As such, there could be HUGE differences in numbers of troops and the expenditure they require.  Currently, highest-tier troops cost roughly 24 Denar each, from what I recall.  There could also be food expenditures, or rather just how much food any given faction typically consumes - for some players, getting additional food can be troublesome where time or money is concerned, so some may pick a more frugal faction.

4)  Bigger differences in the capabilities of troops that are visible - right now it is hard to know how good a soldier is without watching them on the battlefield, since there are no statistics or abilities that would make it immediately obvious they are better...except by plate mail or horses.   

5)  How helpful an king and his vassals are.  Some may give you more missions, others will help you if you ask for it, others are greedy...basically, the pecking order defines how you are treated when you come into service, and just how you fit into it all.  Some cultures may be more 'loose', while others require 'so-and-so by this date'.

5a)  Much like #5, except leaders may have requirements of the player in terms of tribute or taxes - so the King of Swadia may require 5,000 Denar a week, or Khergit Khan would appreciate horses and maidens, but it isn't required.  Still, it may get you into his good favor, while giving the King of Swadia is just 'as required of you'. 

 

[Archonsod]

I don't see the need to assign arbitrary 'special abilities' when the factions can be easily differentiated by the troops, equipment and similar available to them. Adding in such traits is likely to be unworkable too (nothing stopping you having troops from all four factions in your party should you want).

 

[Valus]

This is a very good idea imo, if it can be implemented...
Playing as the Rhodoks I tend to think of them as mountainfolks, like the swiss, and they shouldnt be able to afford that expansive troops nor any real cavalry instead their strength lies in their specialised spearmen/pikemen who would get the best equipment that they could afford, thus we have strong heavily armed pikemen that are best suited to fighting cavalry.. The Rhodoks would be poorer than other factions and perhaps somewhat less agressive, they would mostly rely on defending their own borders/fiefs instead of constantly attacking fiefs and caravans..

 

[The_Invincible_Knight]

Overall I can easily describe each of the factions with one word :

Swadians - Disciplined

Vaegirs - Versatile

Rhodoks - Defensive

Nords - Aggressive

Khergits - Cunning

 

[calandale]

Rhodoks - Defensive Awesome.

Fixed.

 

[The_Invincible_Knight]

Not against an army of Swadian sergeants 'n' sharpshooters...

 

[Valus]

I agree though that the Rhodoks are defensive, they are defending their homelands instead of pillaging others...They should be the mountainfolks of Calradia, it is there that there reliance on infantry will prove superior to the mounted knights of Swadia (insert evil laughter)..
They are the personification of awesomeness (sp?) 

 

[KON_Air]

http://forums.taleworlds.com/index.php/topic,26700.0.html

I'm doing it But I won't get into further impacts (recruiting, troop trees etc.) other then starting the game before at least the half-done/incomplete stuff gets done.