Every faction is at war with me...

[hexdoctor]

Currently playing M&B:Warband and took over Shariz and Weyyah Castle. Within a week, every faction went to war with me. I'm obviously gonna turn on cheats and destroy them. But it's not cheating though, it's just balancing the game. This shouldn't happen. It's just not funny, it's a completly pointless and disappointing experience. Can't believe I have to manually modify the game to balance it. 

The reason I post this in Bannerlord Discussion is to request that stuff like this doesn't make it into the new game. You shouldn't have to turn on cheats to balance the game. Obviously the faction you attacked should go to war with you and maybe after some time the next closest faction (Rhodok in my case) should go to war with you but not all of them at the same time. That's just an impossible situation.

EDIT: I should add this info since it's pretty relevant. Supposedly things like RTR, Renown and Honor should dictate whether people go to war with you. Well it doesn't. Here's my current standing:
RTR: 199
Renown: 2893
Honor: 129
I have twice as high renown as the kings themselves... People say you shouldn't start a kingdom without atleast 50 RTR so I'm assuming 199 is very high.
After I made this post I really stopped giving a damn about cheats and really went all out. I let nearly a year go in'game, crushed enemies and conquered castles and towns. Now I'm the 4th biggest kingdom. Still other kingdoms that recently lost lots of land, like the Nords who have no towns and only a couple castles declared war with me a day after the truce expired. That's just the way things usually go. I mean what the heck? Am I supposed to be able to beat that without cheats? Even kings that I have 50+ relation to doesn't give a damn and attack once the truce is finished. Screw this, the game was quite fun untill now and suddenly it's the dumbest game I've played.

 

[Hernanxd16]

Did you send companions to gain Right to Rule?

 

[Huggles]

Did you send companions to gain Right to Rule?

Doesn't matter, it's pretty ridic and unrealistic.

If factions are warring they'd probably encourage the terrorism lmao. It only makes sense for people to start going to war with you if everyone is at peace and there are no diplomatic tensions...which is never the case. Even then it makes no sense for factions across the continent several factions separated to care. Realistically it only makes sense for the kingdom you aggro and their close allies to attack in war time. Following that, all factions you share a border with. After that it makes no **** sense and shouldn't happen.

Even after all of this it should really be proportional and depend on the size of your fighting force and what exactly you took out of the blue. If you took a castle or a village it shouldn't nearly be as big of a deal. Even the faction that you stole from should probably only send one or two lords considering they probably have more pressing issues. If it was a capital you took it'd obviously be different. They should just try to get AI to act more like how real people would react instead of how bots would.

 

[Feragorn]

Not really. Newly independent warlords threaten to upset the balance of power, so it makes sense that all the established factions would want to get rid of you. As the old adage goes: "Obey thine masters".

 

[Oxtocoatl]

I had basically the same situation when I sided with the Sarranid claimant and started a revolution. I would guess the AI calculates that your new faction is easy pickings, helped by your lack of right to rule.
It is really annoying.
I started my uprising in the east, by taking Bariyye, and it kinda made sense that the Khergits attacked me. But hordes of Swadians and Rhodoks doesn't really, not anymore.
I've noticed the AI will often go for weakly defended targets even if they make no sense geographically.

Realistically the usual enemies of the Sarranids, like Rhodoks and Khergits, should be inclined to offer you support if you weaken the Sarranid state. WB diplomacy isn't advanced enough for that, but I'm hoping that BL with it's more sophisticated political system will be better equipped to deal with this.

 

[xdj1nn]

Not really. Newly independent warlords threaten to upset the balance of power, so it makes sense that all the established factions would want to get rid of you. As the old adage goes: "Obey thine masters".

not really, no...
The game is poorly designed in that regard and the AI never takes action that makes sense regarding narrative or even immersive logic. WB is a very simple game with very simple mechanics, all created to give challenge towards the players but never aimed at creating a virtual setting for a simulated world.

Go fool with Crusader Kings 2 (which's basically a medieval simulator sandbox) and see if illegitimate lords from different religious groups (which were by all means false rulers in the eyes of other religions) are waging war with everyone...

Any slightly intelligent king would take advantage of civil war to reach his own goals instead of knocking at the rebels door like a fool only to strengthen their enemies. Rtr mechanics are pretty lame and kind of absurd when you think of it, yet it's a way to keep players from the boring very late-game where you have 99 rtr and nothing to do but siege enemies like you were playing with sand garden... The most logical thing they could do regarding not legitimately recognizing the player's kingdom would be to offer vassalage instead of declaring war (look at Normandy's History), and not even that happens in WB... 

 

[Orion]

By allowing one upstart rebel to punch above his weight and declare himself landed nobility, a king sends the message that anyone who is strong enough is entitled to do so. This has the potential to destabilize his lands, and it would certainly upset his legitimate vassals.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Doesn't matter, it's pretty ridic and unrealistic.

It's not though, they all want land to make their nobles happy and you're the easiest target. If you get a kingdom started properly you'll know the feeling of wanting to land and castle your good friends.

I do hope there's some effects if you have had good relations with factions or kings in Bannerlord though. It would be nice to keep positive relations with factions I've merced for and have that weigh in on if they attack me when I'm easy picking. Same with high relations with leaders and lords in the faction.

But let's be honest, do you have any relation to speak of with any of those kings? You're a glorified brigant that didn't bother to raise 7 Swadian knights or deliver the letters, collect the taxes, kill the outlaw....ect

Did you send companions to gain Right to Rule
Won't help him avoid wars, only effects getting lords.

You have to be able to beat LARGE armies in the field. If you can't do that, you can't have a kingdom. You need to personally take responsibility for dealing with much larger numbers. If you can hold you guys back and kill a 150 man army yourself, then you handle kings but otherwise you're better of being a vassal.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

There are plenty of cases historically where conventional geopolitics would be postponed because there was the threat of rebellion or social upheaval. States typically don't pose an existential threat to each other, but rebellions or "different" governments do.
If a random person without a noble background decides to declare himself an independent ruler, if goes against the entire feudal order and nobody is going to want to deal with you. Consider how the first appearance of liberalism in france (the french revolution) was relentlessly attacked by just about every monarchy in europe for a generation, because liberalism was a genuine threat to the existence of Great Britain whereas the grand duchy of Wuttemberg-Kessel-Hanover or whatever was not.

 

[xdj1nn]

There are plenty of cases historically where conventional geopolitics would be postponed because there was the threat of rebellion or social upheaval. States typically don't pose an existential threat to each other, but rebellions or "different" governments do.
If a random person without a noble background decides to declare himself an independent ruler, if goes against the entire feudal order and nobody is going to want to deal with you. Consider how the first appearance of liberalism in france (the french revolution) was relentlessly attacked by just about every monarchy in europe for a generation, because liberalism was a genuine threat to the existence of Great Britain whereas the grand duchy of Wuttemberg-Kessel-Hanover or whatever was not.

That didn't happen in Normandy, the king simply gave Rollo titles and officially given him lands (which were already occupied). Nobody really cared, the idea behind that was so that he would defend the shores against raiders from his own cultural background.

Thing is, you are trying to explain in a very complex way why the game did things like that when the truth is that it was done simply because it was easier. Programming a whole complex system where the AI takes account of N factors to decide if waging war, vassalize or do nothing are the best course of action is highly complex and difficult, and Warband, and original M&B, are simplistic sandboxes with no complexity attached to them regarding politics or AI.
It's like searching hair on eggs, you won't find any....

All I'm saying is that it could be different, it could be more interesting, it could be more "realistic" in a way, or if you think that's unrealistic, it could be more fun, it's a game after all... Instead you prefer to recreate the wheel to explain why something is less than it could be, and to me that's not a very intelligent thing to do... Wouldn't you prefer more over less?
"hey man, look you could have 10 bananas!" "No! 2 bananas is better!" "Why?" "because, because!"

EDIT: Not to mention that the AI does that even if you are already a noble...

 

[Gurkhal]

There are plenty of cases historically where conventional geopolitics would be postponed because there was the threat of rebellion or social upheaval. States typically don't pose an existential threat to each other, but rebellions or "different" governments do.
If a random person without a noble background decides to declare himself an independent ruler, if goes against the entire feudal order and nobody is going to want to deal with you. Consider how the first appearance of liberalism in france (the french revolution) was relentlessly attacked by just about every monarchy in europe for a generation, because liberalism was a genuine threat to the existence of Great Britain whereas the grand duchy of Wuttemberg-Kessel-Hanover or whatever was not.

That didn't happen in Normandy, the king simply gave Rollo titles and officially given him lands (which were already occupied). Nobody really cared, the idea behind that was so that he would defend the shores against raiders from his own cultural background.

Thing is, you are trying to explain in a very complex way why the game did things like that when the truth is that it was done simply because it was easier. Programming a whole complex system where the AI takes account of N factors to decide if waging war, vassalize or do nothing are the best course of action is highly complex and difficult, and Warband, and original M&B, are simplistic sandboxes with no complexity attached to them regarding politics or AI.
It's like searching hair on eggs, you won't find any....

All I'm saying is that it could be different, it could be more interesting, it could be more "realistic" in a way, or if you think that's unrealistic, it could be more fun, it's a game after all... Instead you prefer to recreate the wheel to explain why something is less than it could be, and to me that's not a very intelligent thing to do... Wouldn't you prefer more over less?
"hey man, look you could have 10 bananas!" "No! 2 bananas is better!" "Why?" "because, because!"

EDIT: Not to mention that the AI does that even if you are already a noble...

Well, Rollo and this other thing is kind of apples and oranges. Rollo wasn't declaring himself king. The legitimate French/Frankish king appointed Rollo to be a vassal of the French/Frankish crown. At no point did Rollo go for an independent kingdom so that scenario makes little sense in this discussion about upstarts forming kingdoms of their own.

 

[NPC99]

TW’s financial position dictated that Warband & M&B had to be released without fully realising the underlying game’s full potential. TW have certainly invested sufficient time, effort and money in Bannerlord to make a better sandbox game. We can’t expect more than that - Bannerlord’s a game not a historical simulator. Hopefully, in upgrading Warband’s campaign ai, Bannerlord will have more geographically sensible targeting of strategic objectives. However, in my opinion, the game should still penalise players who attempt to hi-jack its mechanics for an unfair advantage.

 

[Oxtocoatl]

There are plenty of cases historically where conventional geopolitics would be postponed because there was the threat of rebellion or social upheaval. States typically don't pose an existential threat to each other, but rebellions or "different" governments do.
If a random person without a noble background decides to declare himself an independent ruler, if goes against the entire feudal order and nobody is going to want to deal with you. Consider how the first appearance of liberalism in france (the french revolution) was relentlessly attacked by just about every monarchy in europe for a generation, because liberalism was a genuine threat to the existence of Great Britain whereas the grand duchy of Wuttemberg-Kessel-Hanover or whatever was not.

That would make sense if you could actually set up a different kind of government, but WB mechanics don't allow for anything except feudal monarchy. There's been some indication that BL kingdoms will have more internal variety, though.
There were very few uprisings in the middle ages that sought to radically transform society. Usually it was more about who is the top dog.

Hopefully, in upgrading Warband’s campaign ai, Bannerlord will have more geographically sensible targeting of strategic objectives. However, in my opinion, the game should still penalise players who attempt to hi-jack its mechanics for an unfair advantage.

I get your point, founding your own kingdom should be difficult but I would like to see more complex potential reactions from other factions than ignore or invade. It wouldn't be difficult to write in things like secret or open support.

If another monarch declares that they support you for the throne, it would increase your right to rule among other kings but some of your own people might come to view you as a foreign puppet, causing you to lose support.
Or maybe another ruler wants to give you clandestine support in the form of money, arms or even mercenaries that would join your army?
These sorts of things would make rebellion and usurpation more interesting and implementing them should not be too difficult.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

By "different" governments I mean anyone who wasn't a noble trying to seize power. When military leaders tried to take over they would basically have to invent a noble heritage just to prove to everyone that they were willing to play the "feudal game" like any other monarch. Anyone who didn't comply was essentially a rebel and was fair game for indiscriminate attack. Even in the Islamic world and China, ignoble leaders were only allowed to seize power as long as the previous ruler was crappy enough. Legitimacy was a big deal in feudal societies and was one of the main checks on secular power.

 

[Oxtocoatl]

By "different" governments I mean anyone who wasn't a noble trying to seize power. When military leaders tried to take over they would basically have to invent a noble heritage just to prove to everyone that they were willing to play the "feudal game" like any other monarch. Anyone who didn't comply was essentially a rebel and was fair game for indiscriminate attack. Even in the Islamic world and China, ignoble leaders were only allowed to seize power as long as the previous ruler was crappy enough. Legitimacy was a big deal in feudal societies and was one of the main checks on secular power.

Sure, the established order would defend itself against outsiders (though I must point out that there was considerable social mobility among professional soldiers in the earlier middle ages, more in the period of BL than in the period of WB), but I can't really think of pre-French revolution examples of the old monarchies immediately banding together to fight an uprising or usurpation that's only affecting one of them.
-The Romans didn't co-operate with the Sasanians against the Muslim conquest, even though it could've made a huge difference.
-The Civil War period in Norway (c.1130-1230) saw a number of pretenders who essentially just showed up, claiming to be bastards of dead kings. Rather than collectively resist these princes, many of whom were likely charlatans, the nobility split and some wound up supporting them.
-William Wallace toured France as an official diplomat despite being of low birth and in English eyes a dangerous revolutionary.
-When the American colonies revolted, France took advantage of the revolution and supported it rather than join the Brits in defeating it.
-Even more often the rest of the world just didn't care and let the local elites deal with the problem.

To me it seems that the French revolution started the practice of international interventions against revolutionaries. In WB, it would probably make more strategic sense for the kings to attack the king whose authority was being questioned, not the rebels.

 

[Huggles]

There are plenty of cases historically where conventional geopolitics would be postponed because there was the threat of rebellion or social upheaval. States typically don't pose an existential threat to each other, but rebellions or "different" governments do.
If a random person without a noble background decides to declare himself an independent ruler, if goes against the entire feudal order and nobody is going to want to deal with you. Consider how the first appearance of liberalism in france (the french revolution) was relentlessly attacked by just about every monarchy in europe for a generation, because liberalism was a genuine threat to the existence of Great Britain whereas the grand duchy of Wuttemberg-Kessel-Hanover or whatever was not.

The difference is liberalism spread through pretty much all of France and took over the entire country. If Napoleon took over some **** ranch and said "hue, am liberal" I'm sure the French king would be very upset. I think you would be hard pressed to find any other nation that would give a **** unless they already had an established agreement with France to give a ****. The other difference is that liberalism is a completely new idea and a different style of government. I don't think you can change the feudal system in this game.

The idea that all the warlords of calradia drop everything to invade a castle with all their combined armies is absolutely **** stupid. It makes much more sense if you were to take over the capital of city and displace the monarch, maybe (still probably no). Some random castle given to the lowest lord? No.

Realistically, the other great powers would just keep a close eye on what the new regime does. If they hate it enough, they will restore the previous regime.

By "different" governments I mean anyone who wasn't a noble trying to seize power. When military leaders tried to take over they would basically have to invent a noble heritage just to prove to everyone that they were willing to play the "feudal game" like any other monarch. Anyone who didn't comply was essentially a rebel and was fair game for indiscriminate attack. Even in the Islamic world and China, ignoble leaders were only allowed to seize power as long as the previous ruler was crappy enough. Legitimacy was a big deal in feudal societies and was one of the main checks on secular power.

You drastically overestimate the role of traditions on geopolitics. These things are used more often as the excuse for starting war that tension was already pushing towards for prolonged periods as opposed to the original reason for the war. They occupy the same role as religion in this regard. It's the same **** in Viking conquest.

Do you really think the kings in Viking conquest are going to war with each other because someone **** tipped another guy's cow or some ****? No, they want land, power, and money and their neighbors are their competitors in this zero-sum game. Traditions matter for their practical purpose of keeping order

-- Don't double post, please. I know you know about the modify button, so please use that to add to your previous post if you want to say more & no-one else has posted after you. Thanks. -Orion