Endless Wars in 1.5.7 How to make a faction make peace with everyone?

Currently viewing this thread:

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
im having almost the opposite problem im about a decade into the game now and no one will declare war even though there are kingdoms with barely a few thousand troops and other kingdoms with over 10k but no one makes a move
It would be nice to know what triggers that state. I think that is part of the problem. We just don't have enough information to understand what causes what. I mean the demands of war I get could be that I have too many lords for the number of fiefs I have to grant and they are pushing for war because they want more fiefs but nothing is saying, "We want war because their aren't enough fiefs" and giving me a condition that I need to meet in order for my lords to not seek war every 3 minutes. In real life, I could ask my war crazed lord why she wanted to go to war with 3 factions at once and she might tell me she was Tier 6 and hence needed more fiefs than just the three I gave her. Of course then I could tell her that I understood but lets try concentrating on just one enemy at a time and just take more from them rather than trying to take a little from everyone. Then she might say, "That makes sense" and we would be at war with only one faction. But this isn't real life and no one is telling me why they want war with three factions all at once and I can't debate how self-destructive that would be.

This is where a common sense approach to programing the AI comes in. It doesn't take a living, breathing, intelligent AI to follow the parameters of no declaring war on more than one faction at a time, no declaring war if we are not in an advantageous position, no declaring war on a faction on the other side of the map and no declaring war if you have been at war within the last 20-30 days. I think if just these four parameters were added, it would fix 90% of the issues with war frequency. Each faction would strive for being at war with no more than one faction at a time and there would be at least some times when your faction was completely at peace for maybe 30 mins to a hour of real time while playing the game. There would also be instances of being at war with two factions since declaring war on a faction already at war with another faction would clear the advantageous condition of declaring war. There also wouldn't be the silliness of wanting a war with the Khuzaits when they are on the other side of the map and already fighting against our common enemy the Aserai which we are currently fighting.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
we need peacetime features that make the nobles not want to declare war for a period of time, creating breathing room, and also give the player something to do during peace
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
we need peacetime features that make the nobles not want to declare war for a period of time, creating breathing room, and also give the player something to do during peace
Yeah honestly we need this and for the player too. It would actually be nice if at least half the game was played during times of peace, things like a extremely deep fief management system, diplomacy missions to other factions, etc
 

Emperor1997

Sergeant
It´s all about Prosperity of the Settlements of one Kingdom vs. other Kingdoms.

if the Prosperity value of one Kingdom is too high, all Kingdoms will declare war against this Kingdom, no matter if they can win this war.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
It´s all about Prosperity of the Settlements of one Kingdom vs. other Kingdoms.

if the Prosperity value of one Kingdom is too high, all Kingdoms will declare war against this Kingdom, no matter if they can win this war.
What then causes your lords to want to declare war against all other factions? It sure doesn't seem like prosperity is the trigger.
 

Sanctumm

Regular
In my current playthrough my nobles which i have gotten into my kindom is pure savages! Their lust for power is insane!
As soon as i declare war on a faction they will spam declaring war on multiple factions.... So i end up spending 600k in bribes to stop wars with those i DID NOT CHOOSE to fight - Its insane that as their leader i am not in charge on declarations on war - even tho i am almost purely running a Monarchy and not a democratic/senate

Sux :sad:
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
In my current playthrough my nobles which i have gotten into my kindom is pure savages! Their lust for power is insane!
As soon as i declare war on a faction they will spam declaring war on multiple factions.... So i end up spending 600k in bribes to stop wars with those i DID NOT CHOOSE to fight - Its insane that as their leader i am not in charge on declarations on war - even tho i am almost purely running a Monarchy and not a democratic/senate

Sux :sad:
Yeah I kind of feel like this too. I mean it is not outside the realm for a Kingdoms nobles to push for a war that a King doesn't really want and for him to have to agree to it but having them push for 2-3 wars simultaneously with 100% backing from every noble in my faction is a bit ridiculous. Also you would think that if the nobles all have good relations with the King, they would actually be more apt to side with the King when the vote occurs but nope. Despite having extremely good relation with the vast majority of my Clan and I am talking 50+ relations here, they still all vote for war even when I say no. That just seems wrong.
 

Sithrain

Sergeant
This whole dynamic of vassals demanding wars is just completely backwards to me. I can't recall reading about too many instances where unrest and rebellion (amongst the nobility) was caused by a king letting all his nobles get fat and rich off their lands, while there are plenty of examples of kings getting themselves mired in crisis because they kept the men out of the fields too long, or just got too many of them killed for some piece of real estate they were probably going to give out to their cousin anyway.

To my mind when discontent vassals decide they want a fight it should be a rebellion against their king not a war of aggression against a (usually) much stronger neighbour, and it should be determined by how prosperous the king keeps his realm, not by the fact that they have now hit clan tier 6 and obviously deserve more lands than there are in the kingdom. Then a good ruler would want to have periods of peace and would want to keep the enemy from burning every village in the realm fifteen times when wars do happen. I don't think the ai has any awareness that economic growth is actually a thing though, which would explain a lot.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
This whole dynamic of vassals demanding wars is just completely backwards to me. I can't recall reading about too many instances where unrest and rebellion (amongst the nobility) was caused by a king letting all his nobles get fat and rich off their lands, while there are plenty of examples of kings getting themselves mired in crisis because they kept the men out of the fields too long, or just got too many of them killed for some piece of real estate they were probably going to give out to their cousin anyway.

To my mind when discontent vassals decide they want a fight it should be a rebellion against their king not a war of aggression against a (usually) much stronger neighbour, and it should be determined by how prosperous the king keeps his realm, not by the fact that they have now hit clan tier 6 and obviously deserve more lands than there are in the kingdom. Then a good ruler would want to have periods of peace and would want to keep the enemy from burning every village in the realm fifteen times when wars do happen. I don't think the ai has any awareness that economic growth is actually a thing though, which would explain a lot.

I think your both right and wrong.

Where your wrong is that I am sure that if you looked at enough historical documents there would be many, many cases where a King or Emperor has been pushed into a war or peace because of internal pressure from his vassals or his governed people. Politics does happen even in the most strict totalitarian regimes. The big difference is that at the end of the day the King or Emperor ALWAYS decides and his decision in final. If he votes no, even if it makes his vassals or people unhappy, then the vote is no. No means No period. It doesn't happen that way in game though.

In game, a King has to use his influence to try to block a declaration for war but if he doesn't have enough influence, his faction will go to war despite his wishes and that leads up to where you are right. The King or Emperors decision should be final period. If he says no, then you faction doesn't go to war. Simple.

How it should work is if the Lords push for war, the King can then choose to just vote no ending the discussion there and take a relationship loss with those lords pushing for war or use his influence to mitigate the relationship loss. Either way the decision is final because he is the King after all. Obviously if the King runs out of influence and decides to keep ignoring his vassals desires, well eventually his lords will either defect or rebel.

As for influence, seriously, they have this all wrong in the game. Influence should always be considered just a numerical representation of a Lords powers of persuasion. He isn't buying shares, instead he is persuading others to agree with him. If the King spends influence to sway a decision, some of the lords opposing him should change their position or at least disagree with him less. For Example:

Lets say 5 lords want to go to war and all other lords abstain from the vote. Here are the five lords and their relations with the King.

Example A:

Lord A: Relation = 53
Lord B: Relation = 19
Lord C: Relation = -10
Lord D: Relation = -25
Lord E: Relation = 30

Vote = 100% go to war.

King votes No

Result of War Declaration:

5 Lords voted yes to war but vote overruled by King. No War Declared despite his Lords all support war because he is king and his decision is final. King loses relation with all 5 lords with the maximum loss of relation based on the lords starting relationship with King.

Relationship after vote:

Lord A: Relation = 53. Lord loses 2 = 51
Lord B: Relation = 19. Lord loses 5 = 14
Lord C: Relation = -10. Lord loses 8 = -18
Lord D: Relation = -25. Lord loses 10 = -35
Lord E: Relation = 30. Lord lose 3 = 27

Basically relationship with all the Lords go down but those more friendly to the King lose less relations than those unfriendly.

Example B:


Lord A: Relation = 53
Lord B: Relation = 19
Lord C: Relation = -10
Lord D: Relation = -25
Lord E: Relation = 30

Vote = 100% go to war.

King votes No to war but uses 100 Influence to "Sway" opposing lords to his side.

Result of War Declaration:

Influence sways the vote of Lord A and Lord E due to high relations and a high amount of influence used. Vote changes to 3 for war, 2 against war. The result is no war because King opposed the war and his decision in final. No relationship change for Lord A and Lord E because they still like the king just as much as they did before the vote and he "persuaded" them to change their minds about the war by using influence. Lord B loses 1 relation because while he sort of likes the King, he doesn't love him and the King did overrule the vote. Lord C loses 2 relations because he somewhat dislikes the King though since the king did use "persuasion" to mitigate the damage, the relation loss is not as bad as it would have been otherwise. Lord D hates the king so the fact he got overruled really pisses him off and he takes full relation lose of 10.

Relationship after vote

Lord A: Relation = 53. Lord remains unchanged. 53
Lord B: Relation = 19. Lord loses 1 relation. 18
Lord C: Relation = -10. Lord loses 2 relation -12
Lord D: Relation = -25. Lord loses 10 relation -35
Lord E: Relation = 30. Lord remains unchanged. 30

I will spare everyone the numbers for the last scenario but lets say Lord B at 30 relations instead of 19 and the King used influence. In this cause the use of influence would say the vote entirely into the Kings favor with 2 votes for and 3 against. In this case all 3 who were "Persuaded" would gain 2 Relation for being on the winning side of the vote and Lord C and D would lose a smaller amount of relationship due to the entire Kingdom being against them.

Honestly peace should be like this as well with the King always having the deciding vote. Again if his Kingdom doesn't support peace, there is unrest and he takes a relationship loss with every lord opposed to peace or he can use influence to mitigate this relationship loss but since the King decides he wants peace, it happens, period. However, just because the king wants peace doesn't mean his enemy does so after the vote the enemy ALWAYS should retain the right of refusal. Also if enough of the Kings vassals, not just one or two, that have negative relation with the King, based on the percentage of lords with negative relations there should be a real risk of a full on civil war where multiple lords unite and create their own faction, taking their fiefs with them

That is how all votes should work to be honest. Vote against your vassals too much and piss them off, even while using Influence to midigate the relationship loss, and you run the risk of half or more of your Kingdom just packing up and creating their own rebel faction. This would mean you would have to actually consider what your vassals want and would actually have to decide in their favor at times despite what you would like to do and might even find yourself in a position where your vassals have more power than you because you fear rebellion, but you as the King, ALWAYS retain the right to make the decisions and live with the consequences of that decision.

Note: This still doesn't address the frequency of demands for war which would still screw you in the long run despite having the final say in all decisions but at least you get to act like a King and ACTUALLY have the final say in all things.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
This whole dynamic of vassals demanding wars is just completely backwards to me. I can't recall reading about too many instances where unrest and rebellion (amongst the nobility) was caused by a king letting all his nobles get fat and rich off their lands, while there are plenty of examples of kings getting themselves mired in crisis because they kept the men out of the fields too long, or just got too many of them killed for some piece of real estate they were probably going to give out to their cousin anyway.

To my mind when discontent vassals decide they want a fight it should be a rebellion against their king not a war of aggression against a (usually) much stronger neighbour, and it should be determined by how prosperous the king keeps his realm, not by the fact that they have now hit clan tier 6 and obviously deserve more lands than there are in the kingdom. Then a good ruler would want to have periods of peace and would want to keep the enemy from burning every village in the realm fifteen times when wars do happen. I don't think the ai has any awareness that economic growth is actually a thing though, which would explain a lot.
We absolutely need a civil wars mechanic. Both for the reasons you listed, and also because the player runs out of enemies in longer games.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
We absolutely need a civil wars mechanic. Both for the reasons you listed, and also because the player runs out of enemies in longer games.

Yeah I agree.

I would like to see it work like this.

You piss off an individual Lord, he eventually defects. You piss off most of the Lords in your faction, they rebel taking their fiefs with them, creating a rebel faction.

Once you have a Civil War, the war would continue indefinitely unless 1 of 4 conditions we met.

1) Eradication - You capture and execute all rebel Clans but with no global faction hit since your technically executing traitorous rebels.

2) Convince rebel lords to return - Catch and Release followed by barter.

3) Capture all rebel fiefs - Once all fiefs are re-captured, any rebel lord left automatically defects with -100 relation to you.

4) Abdication - You renounce the throne and all territories basically resetting you status back to wandering clan like in the beginning.

Further they can win by capturing and executing you or taking all your territories which would just reset you back to being a wandering clan and with -100 relations to all the rebel lords.

Basically if you screw up and cause a rebellion, your kind of fracked because you not only lost half or more of your Kingdom and its clans, but you have a perpetual ongoing war until it is resolved AND other factions could also attack you to take advantage of the fact your faction is in civil war. It would be bad news but also a deeply challenging gameplay dilemma.
 
Here's a jank ass fix if you're still on 1.5.7. Install bannerlord cheats mod, got into mod settings, set kingdom vote multiplayer to 1000.

Obviously you could just use console commands too, but damn this was a lot more satisfying to finally make a vote for peace and 'it just worked'

I also eradicated all the degenerative policies and a lot of and made peace on 3 fronts. Feels good. I will lead these situationally unaware morons to 'Manifest Destiny' :')
 
Here's a jank ass fix if you're still on 1.5.7. Install bannerlord cheats mod, got into mod settings, set kingdom vote multiplayer to 1000.

Obviously you could just use console commands too, but damn this was a lot more satisfying to finally make a vote for peace and 'it just worked'

I also eradicated all the degenerative policies and a lot of and made peace on 3 fronts. Feels good. I will lead these situationally unaware morons to 'Manifest Destiny' :')
Have you noticed whether that also stops AI kingdoms from constantly declaring war only against the player faction? My problem is that once the faction I join captures a few fiefs every single other kingdom declares war only against my faction and never against one another.
 
Have you noticed whether that also stops AI kingdoms from constantly declaring war only against the player faction? My problem is that once the faction I join captures a few fiefs every single other kingdom declares war only against my faction and never against one another.
Ahh no idea man -- haven't tried. Seems to work great as a vassal though. All I know is every vote seems to pass. How does making peace work as a ruler; in 1.5.7?
 
Ahh no idea man -- haven't tried. Seems to work great as a vassal though. All I know is every vote seems to pass. How does making peace work as a ruler; in 1.5.7?
For rulers I think it's the same, you just confirm the vote of the lords or use influence to override it. But even as a vassal, when the kingdom I'm in becomes a bit more powerful than then others the other kingdoms will only declare war against my faction. Putting me off playing.
 
For rulers I think it's the same, you just confirm the vote of the lords or use influence to override it. But even as a vassal, when the kingdom I'm in becomes a bit more powerful than then others the other kingdoms will only declare war against my faction. Putting me off playing.
Same issue here but as a vassal of vlandia. We own 33% of the map and were stuck in war with battania and all three empires. The raids would never stop. It was unpleasant to say the least -- I would try to make peace but they would just dogpile nope for whatever reason. Now I can overrule anything.

I almost retired this playthrough -- am basically the king of vlandia now :smile:
 

WeiKaiXuan

Recruit
I too would like to see longer cooldowns between wars. It's way too hard to recruit troops, handle affairs, retreive companions that got captured and rebuild their parties, manage your own fiefs, etc etc etc. The game gets kinda cheesy in a way because you know the massive never ending war grind is coming, so you have to make sure you have millions in gold, kids made, etc before even attempting to take over the map.
 

Zorion_no

Recruit
Atm peace is only obtained in my plays if we are at war on 3 fronts of that we take 2-3 heavy losses.

Overall there is no peace or just too little of it imo.

Endless war, which tbh isnt all that fun.

Atleast in Warband you could have periods of peace at times, Bannerlord its really frustrating when you play the long games(2k days+) and there have been like about 14-20 days of peace(and only cause I savescummed it).

and or that its too player dependent, you leave the frontline to do something else, the whole progress you made is wiped out, cause no.. lets not defend what we got, but attack instead(the ai is really dumb).

I think that they need to add that ppl aka the soldiers literally dont grow on trees, so if you are at war for too long you'll wipe out generations of generations.

Not to mention that it gets "stale with theese endless wars".

Maybe need to add in a cap on casualties where there is a forced "truce" atleast for some time.

Sadly alot of theese mechanics is fixed by mods already(attrition etc), but I dont want to play with the mods that are outdated/dead for now(and not during EA).

Feels like you've entered WH40k, in the grim darkness.. there is only war..
Atleast in warband there was times for feasts etc, I know stuff like this is prolly in the works.. but the current system isnt "ideal" if you play the long games.
 
Top Bottom