Election system still ruins the game. Please delete, let player run own faction, please make strategy game!

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Agreed.

So, you had a bad gaming session in Bannerlord ... and something really annoying and frustrating happened. Yeah well - welcome to early access Bannerlord!

There are SO many fundamental things in this game that need fixing. This needs a few tweaks and adjustments... but it's not major. Not in comparison to so many other Bannerlord problems.

I disagree, I don't think this system can be tweaked into being good. I think in a game where the main gameplay feature is the combat, having a war suddenly get ripped from under you is the worst feeling ever. It takes a while to get invested in them, and even though they're grindy as hell, you want there to be a satisfying conclusion where you remove all their fighting capability for a while. Having the AI decide that on a whim whether to stop all the player momentum is counter to the entire premise of the game.
It's different in something like EU4 because you play as the country and aren't forced to be part of an alliance, but in Bannerlord you have no choice.

 

[Jella]

I don't want to see peace votes when I'm in the middle of a siege. I don't want to be forced to vote before I can send troops to finish a siege or to sell my ENTIRE FACTION OF PRISONERS. I don't want to waste influence to block peace. I JUST WANT TO PROGRESS THE GAME MY WAY, with my plan,
MY WAY! ME, THE PLAYER! THE CUSTOMER! I don't want to use the stupid, nonsense logic you programed the AI to use for voting!

It doesn't matter what the power/fief ratio is if I have the entire enemy faction poisoner, the vassals can do whatever they need to to build up with no threat, but they want to vote for peace because they don't know that. You should just delete this system, they don't need to vote for peace!

You made them stupid on purpose to prevent them from snowballing, but you need to make the PLAYER's system 100% separate because we DO NO WANT to use the same stupid reasoning the AI bots do! I don't need to be artificially sandbagged! I do not want it!

Have any Devs ever even played an actual game this far?

u bought this game. now u suffer. enjoy

 

[Ser Jon]

Honestly, there ought be other types of government and you should be able to decide what yours is. In fact, all AI should be able to do that as well. This would create very interesting factions. Imagine Bannerlord with Stellaris like randomization for AI when it comes to rulership types...it would be so much better.

 

[RitoDurito]

I'd like to see the king have control over peace/war however if you have a powerful vassal and they have negative relations with you I'd like to see them still raid enemies they want war with to naturally cause a war or act in their own interests rather than just vote, such as refusing to join armies ect.

There's just so much more ai Lords could do to simulate politics rather than just vote but I'd say having full control over Lords with war and such wouldn't fit right.

 

[niekdegrijze]

I disagree, I don't think this system can be tweaked into being good. I think in a game where the main gameplay feature is the combat, having a war suddenly get ripped from under you is the worst feeling ever. It takes a while to get invested in them, and even though they're grindy as hell, you want there to be a satisfying conclusion where you remove all their fighting capability for a while. Having the AI decide that on a whim whether to stop all the player momentum is counter to the entire premise of the game.
It's different in something like EU4 because you play as the country and aren't forced to be part of an alliance, but in Bannerlord you have no choice.

I like the current system for a democratic kingdom like a senate, but not for an absolute monarchy. Both systems should have benefits and negatives like a higher chance of rebellion in a absolute monarchy

 

[Death Knell]

All you guise are doing things like this and I am stuck killing looters for table scraps.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I like the current system for a democratic kingdom like a senate, but not for an absolute monarchy. Both systems should have benefits and negatives like a higher chance of rebellion in a absolute monarchy

I think an absolute monarchy should be something you create through consensus. If your lords all like you, then you get the option to formally become absolutist. Then you can do whatever you want with no downsides, no influence system, no elections, nothing like that. I dont like the idea of penalising the player for being more efficient and making decisions themselves.

Similarly I think you should be able to placate lords by devolving power to them. So if you have a bunch of unruly clans, you can give them more of a say in the foreign policy by creating a senate system.

 

[julijs]

i am king, my word is law.

but i am surrounded by idiots in my court

 

[darksoulshin]

I agree with the initiator of the thread.
The player's choices must be independent of his decisions made within the faction.
The player's decisions may be in line with what the faction decides or not.
If the player and faction agree, then nothing happens and things go as everyone wants.
But in case the player wants to go against the faction's choices, then he will have to answer for his actions.

But in the case of ananda, the problem that arises is not so much "what should have decided" but "how much should have decided".

That "when" is the key to act.
When does the notification arrive to make a decision ???

If I'm not mistaken, that's when the faction (who promotes that kind of request) starts the vote.
But if a lord is on the other side of the world ... when did he get the notification that he should vote?
Normally the notification should arrive NOT INSTANTLY, but after a time equal to the distance traveled by the person carrying the message divided by the average speed of the messenger.

Imagine the messenger system:

ananda wants to take over the city and the vassals decide the war must end.
So one of them spends his authority points and calls a vote.
N messengers depart from where this lord is, directed to all the other lords with the right to vote.
One of them will be headed for ananda the destroyer.

3 things can happen:
1) ananda receives the messenger BEFORE his siege begins and according to the type of law system:
A (iron law) => votes and is forced to wait for the outcome of the vote before deciding whether to launch the assault or not.
Doing so before the voting is over would mean going against the principle behind the voting.
B (soft laws) => ananda votes to continue the war knowing full well that others vote for peace, but until all votes return to the leader to draw conclusions, she has time and legitimacy to conquer the besieged settlement.
C)(absolute law):
The king is an absolute monarch and does not vote for anyone, only him.
He has decided that you have to make peace. The messengers leave.
-If the messenger bound for ananda arrives in time, then ananda is forced to accept peace and stop the siege.
-if the messenger does not arrive in time and ananda conquers the settlement, then the king will decide whether he will have the messenger executed or not.
D) (requires: empire of crime) ananda had spies among the various lords and her spies run much faster than the messengers, and report that a messenger with a request for a vote for peace is directed towards her.
Then ananda hires bandits or mercenaries or assassins to have the messenger assassinated and prevent the message from getting, so that he can say: I didn't know anything about the peace request.
He may also blurt out the departure of such a messenger to an opposing faction other than the one ananda is besieging but WANTS the ananda faction and the one ananda is besieging to be at war (to weaken each other), thus such third faction / clan could eliminate the messenger, so that ananda can keep saying: I didn't know anything about the request for peace, if it weren't for that third faction that killed our messenger, I might have known.

2) the message does not arrive in time and ananda has already stormed the besieged settlement.

3) the message arrives before the assault, ananda votes for war but everyone else votes for peace, so the faction decides for peace.
But ananda attacks anyway.
All lords will have to decide what to do with ananda (relationship worsening) and there are several possibilities:
-Everyone returns to the war but social relations with ananda have deteriorated a lot.
-ananda is expelled from the faction and goes to war alone against the faction she was besieging.
- other.

 

[Poddicus]

 

[Lesbosisles]

The game desperately needs a set of policies which would determine the way a Kingdom is ruled - is the King's word has the priority or should the Senate have a chance to ban whatever King wants to implement.

But this will also require such a thing as the civil war, because (as I believe) you will not always be able to change the Kingdom's course via voting. And here we may stumble upon the infamous "too complex" problem...

 

[R1919]

The European kings in the early Medieval ages were usually the biggest feudal lords, "first among the equals". Don't confuse it with the Absolutism of the Renaissance.

 

[archaicwarrior]

Wha?
I doubt you know what either of those terms mean old chap, either that or you're an american who thinks any word can mean anything you want it to.

Progressivism is ALL about "morals" - I'm righteous - I'm correct - you're wrong - you're EVIL - you do what I say or i'll verbally abuse you, and get you sacked, and get you attacked by ANTIFA tuggers etc etc etc


.

 

[Mad Vader]

Progressivism is ALL about "morals" - I'm righteous - I'm correct - you're wrong - you're EVIL - you do what I say or i'll verbally abuse you, and get you sacked, and get you attacked by ANTIFA tuggers etc etc etc

Wow, someone was racist somewhere and had suffered consequences. But it's not his fault.

 

[archaicwarrior]

Wow, someone was racist somewhere and had suffered consequences. But it's not his fault.

"Racist" ??? Yeah, that's what progressives always claim ..

.
.

 

[TengriBless]

Progressivism is ALL about "morals" - I'm righteous - I'm correct - you're wrong - you're EVIL - you do what I say or i'll verbally abuse you, and get you sacked, and get you attacked by ANTIFA tuggers etc etc etc


.

Who the hell are you to redefine an extraordinarily vague "philosophy" to mere moralization? The example you gave has little if anything to do with "progressivism", that's just moral grandstanding (there other dozens of other names for it). I can see how an unread <snip> could come to that conclusion though, since the vast majority who name themselves "progressive" believe progress to be change for the hell of it, which is a sure way to undo thousands of years of human societal evolution. That doesn't change the fact that their say so, does not make them so BECAUSE WORDS HAVE CERTAIN MEANINGS that don't change to whichever purpose any old sod needs. The communist party of USSR exercised no communism, and hardly anyone would call the democratic people's republic of korea a "democratic state".

 

[archaicwarrior]

Yes, we definitely need a Progressive government type. screeching "RACIST" at everyone ... LOL

triggered yes. lol

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

You guys are ruining my complaint thread with.... discussion! go to college or something to talk about that stuff!

This here is the Horror of Bannerlord midgame! ????

After they made peace with S Empire I go beat down the sturgians and they ask for peace and I give it to them! Less then a week after peace with S empire, S. Empire declares war, of course because of the banana time clown world recruitment , the Aserai declares war, okay, the western Empire declares war, okay..... so after beating down about 6 armies I'm heading to the other front to see what going on a epicratia and I get this pop up to declare war on THE BATTANIANS!

Am I going to spend all my influence to stop them? NO!

I understand the mechanics, I understand why they made them, but I think it's awful gameplay and shouldn't be used for the player's faction.

And of course they also only target the weakest too, so I can't just order them to siege Phycoan and Vostrum, they'll go all across the map sieging dum things!

 

[Apocal]

You guys are ruining my complaint thread with.... discussion! go to college or something to talk about that stuff!

This here is the Horror of Bannerlord midgame! ????

After they made peace with S Empire I go beat down the sturgians and they ask for peace and I give it to them! Less then a week after peace with S empire, S. Empire declares war, of course because of the banana time clown world recruitment , the Aserai declares war, okay, the western Empire declares war, okay..... so after beating down about 6 armies I'm heading to the other front to see what going on a epicratia and I get this pop up to declare war on THE BATTANIANS!

Am I going to spend all my influence to stop them? NO!

I understand the mechanics, I understand why they made them, but I think it's awful gameplay and shouldn't be used for the player's faction.

And of course they also only target the weakest too, so I can't just order them to siege Phycoan and Vostrum, they'll go all across the map sieging dum things!

Why is your influence always so low that late in the game?

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Why is your influence always so low that late in the game?

I spend it all ASAP to make more clans.