SP - World Map Faction Chokepoint Castles

[XMasterology]

I have always hated Warband's marshal mechanics, the AI was very bad in that regard. And campaigns didn't make sense at all. Armies would march past chokepoint castles like Nelag and besiege Tulga etc. I think Bannerlord can improve upon this by adding castles to the entrances of the region and you have to take that castle to enter the region proper. If you ever played EU4, imagine a mechanic like that. I have seen Warband mods that did the same thing, like there were castles functioning as gates, stopping enemy armies and large parties to enter the region. An enemy army has to take the castle to enter the region, but what if a neutral party wants in? Well, it would depend on the size of the party so a big party (say around 80-100+ men) wouldn't be able to enter even if neutral, otherwise a player can go to another faction's territory and just besiege a city without ever engaging with the chokepoint castle at all.

How would you like a feature like this? I think this would add flavor to wars, they would have definite objectives because the war couldn't progress without taking a certain castle etc. and it would make snowballing harder because armies won't be able to siege multiple fiefs at the same time, they would have to take the gate-castles first. It would also make town and castle placement more strategic, and more important.

This could be improved upon with tolls from these castles when you are a neutral party and the toll paid would depend on your trade skill and party size.

What could be other features regarding this topic?

 

[Adrivan]

how would that work in practice tho, will you place walls across the map everywhere to prevent access?

 

[XMasterology]

how would that work in practice tho, will you place walls across the map everywhere to prevent access?

Some already existing castles are already near those choke points I mentioned. They can possibly move those castles to block access to the rest of the region

 

[emo_edjiboye]

I think this concept is very good and can relieve pressure off the player from babysitting their vassals.

but what if a neutral party wants in? Well, it would depend on the size of the party so a big party (say around 80-100+ men) wouldn't be able to enter even if neutral, otherwise a player can go to another faction's territory and just besiege a city without ever engaging with the chokepoint castle at all.

This could be improved upon with tolls from these castles when you are a neutral party and the toll paid would depend on your trade skill and party size.

neutral parties should be allowed to pass, otherwise the player, as well as neutral mercenaries and lords, will be essentially trapped after a certain point in the game where most players generally lead a lot of troops.

I don't think tolls would be a good idea. again, discourages movement, especially early game where I doubt the player would be able to afford it.
I think that Bannerlord already has a system for being able to enter castle: relationship. if a lord likes you, they will let you though, if they hate you, they won't. this applies for whether you are neutral to a faction, a vassal of it, or even their king!! literally, I was the ruler of the faction and I was at a bad relationship with one of my vassals (-12). I tried to enter one of their castles and they wouldn't let me though.

 

[MrGrendel]

how would that work in practice tho, will you place walls across the map everywhere to prevent access?

Make army cohesion deteriorate rapidly the farther you are from your own bases. Think of it as a "supply" situation. Then change the AI so that they prefer to siege castles closer to their own territory.

 

[niekdegrijze]

Make army cohesion deteriorate rapidly the farther you are from your own bases. Think of it as a "supply" situation. Then change the AI so that they prefer to siege castles closer to their own territory.

good idea

 

[Tryvenyal]

Make army cohesion deteriorate rapidly the farther you are from your own bases. Think of it as a "supply" situation. Then change the AI so that they prefer to siege castles closer to their own territory.

Splended! Armies "behind enemy lines" should not be a thing! @Terco_Viejo I saw you were interested in Zone control subject in another thread. What do you think of this?

This is also something AI quite easely could consider when setting up army campaign-goals. "Is the target 'Behind Enemy Lines' or not?" and end up selecting a target that is not.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Splended! Armies "behind enemy lines" should not be a thing! @Terco_Viejo I saw you were interested in Zone control subject in another thread. What do you think of this?

This is also something AI quite easely could consider when setting up army campaign-goals. "Is the target 'Behind Enemy Lines' or not?" and end up selecting a target that is not.

It's a mechanic that really appeals to me and I think it would be a great addition when complemented with a patrol-style mechanic like this mod did.

You would have to consider the pros and cons in terms of the gameplay impact... but a priori in my eyes it would be interesting to see parties of 1 commander+troop like the player or other AI controlled NPCs would have "free passage" and large armies with their respective lords+parties would be the ones that would be blocked.

The last thread where a good idea was mentioned was in niekdegrijze's one recently. It's really a pity that Taleworlds doesn't look with interest at this kind of things... ??

 

[Tryvenyal]

The last thread where a good idea was mentioned was in niekdegrijze's one recently.

That´s where I saw your comment

You would have to consider the pros and cons in terms of the gameplay impact... but a priori in my eyes it would be interesting to see parties of 1 commander+troop like the player or other AI controlled NPCs would have "free passage" and large armies with their respective lords+parties would be the ones that would be blocked.

Thats´a question of what we want to see behind enemy lines. Parties/raiders/distractions - Yes! These should be there! Armies - no!

 

[ClickForFreeBeer]

Make army cohesion deteriorate rapidly the farther you are from your own bases. Think of it as a "supply" situation. Then change the AI so that they prefer to siege castles closer to their own territory.

+1
Perhaps the penalty could be attributed similar to the attrition system in Rise of Nations (sans the unit damage)?

That and/or other reasonable attrition penalties:
- Faster food depletion outside of faction-owned borders (no village reserves to draw on?) which would encourage raiding villages as a means to resupply a starving army. Could be countered by a Steward perk, dependent on number of pack animals. The 'Spartan' perk would also become more significant.
- Morale bonus/penalty dependent on distance to faction owned territory. Soldiers get homesick too after all... (perhaps mercenary troop wouldn't suffer from this, giving you a tiny reason to consider using them for foreign incursions over regular troops). Corresponding leadership perk could address this buff/debuff, i.e. you can choose between a 'Conqueror' perk, which abolishes the penalty for an army being on foreign soil, or a 'Lord Protector' perk which increases buff received on hometurf. Could have similar affects for cohesion?
- Speed bonus/penalty for familiar/unfamiliar terrain. Defenders are generally viewed as having the advantage of knowing the area, but this isn't true in Bannerlord (hence why Khuzaits can chase down anything, anywhere). This might help the Battanian bonus in their homeland even more too. Would probably be best to limit this to clan's territory, rather than just faction territory, to help balance it and also make it more significant that a local liege lord is around to defend their lands. Scouting perks could reduce the penalty or increase the buff accordingly.