FOR TALEWORLDS: THE GAME REALLY NEEDS A FOREIGN INVASION SYSTEM (DESCRIPTION INSIDE)

DOES THE GAME NEED AN INVASION MECHANIC?

  • Yes!

  • No


Results are only viewable after voting.

Currently viewing this thread:

Gerrodot

Veteran
When people say "too much war" they really mean:
- wars are too random and without deeper logic and meaning
- there are not enough OTHER activities

So war is fine and more wars caused by invasions can be fun too, but you need meaning and other stuff to do.
Well, that's what I was talking about, we are not talking about the presence or absence of this function, but about the imperfection of the game and the risks associated with it, although this can be refined and disabled, as in the games Paradox.

By the way, you can give an example where in the global game wars really have logic? I do not troll maybe I really do not know and do not remember well, except for games from Paradox (although often there are also problems with this, but there is a cassus beli- Taleworlds talked about the introduction of something like three months ago...in general, everything is as always-slow)

By the way, I just now thought that just with these intrusions, it will be even easier for developers - invaders do not have a casu beli - Nords if you do not touch the sturgia only to rob and drink, and the Aztecs will bring down your heart lol. :iamamoron:
 

Oakenlix

Sergeant
This is when I'm glad the devs don't implement most of the suggested features on forums, some players have no idea what even makes a good game.
You'd be bored out of your mind after like the third invasion and you'd wish it was just a mod you could delete, and not the native game.
 

Gerrodot

Veteran
This is when I'm glad the devs don't implement most of the suggested features on forums, some players have no idea what even makes a good game.
You'd be bored out of your mind after like the third invasion and you'd wish it was just a mod you could delete, and not the native game.
It has long been said about the possibility of disabling this function, in games from Paradox, too, there are such functions but this does not mean that this should not be - it already looks like a parrot, you want - turn it on or not, many here, for example, stutter about sea battles - although there is just no sense in them at ALL, but for some reason this does not prevent people from asking them.
 

HugoTheFrenchMan

Master Knight
Paradox Interactive
Ah yes the chinese invasions in CK2 500k troops and no attrition a truly mind blowing mechanic

Like seriously why would you want this in no game where invasions exist are they fun or a challenge they're just a slog of free armies which bring nothing to the game other then pain and suffering for the player
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
It has long been said about the possibility of disabling this function, in games from Paradox, too, there are such functions but this does not mean that this should not be - it already looks like a parrot, you want - turn it on or not, many here, for example, stutter about sea battles - although there is just no sense in them at ALL, but for some reason this does not prevent people from asking them.
The fact that you keep on insisting on the option of disabling the feature speaks volumes about your faith in it. If it was an actually good idea, you would not have to repeat this in every message you write about it.

Every time someone pointed out a shortcoming of the ideas of invasions, you repeat the same thing, that it could be turned off. Well, then if everyone turns it off, for one of the many reasons that were brought up... Why even bother making it in the first place?
 
The fact that you keep on insisting on the option of disabling the feature speaks volume about your faith in it. If it was an actually good idea, you would not have to repeat this in every message you write about it.
Yeah, it's never a good argument - "if you don't like it, make it an option". But just in this case it might be.
Invasion is basically a DLC/mod when you get bored with the main game and are looking for the next challenge. However, that doesn't mean it should be a mandatory part of the base game.
 
I think the big problem with strategy games is that they all go on too long. When I play Hitman or Touhou or Shadow Tactics or any other game with actual pacing, the last level is always bittersweet, and then if they surprise you with an extra level you're genuinely pleased, because you get to play more.

Nobody ever thinks this for total war, or a paradox game, or warband. Having invasions is the equivalent of adding a new level in a game that practically nobody actually wants to play any longer.

What I've always preferred is to have "invasions" be dynamic by making the entire game asymmetrical. Some factions start out large and are surrounded by vassalised or subservient city states, and while they aren't world conquerers they dominate diplomacy by demanding you stop expanding if you get too big. Taking them down would mean building up trust with all the city states around them and fighting an alliance war against them.
Back before Europa Universalis 4 turned into a bloated DLC cesspit of mana mechanics, it was genuinely engaging to fight these coalition wars against hyperblobs. And by presenting the challenge right from the start and making it optional to even bother doing it, it added to the game rather than constraining or unduly prolonging it.
 

Gerrodot

Veteran
I think the big problem with strategy games is that they all go on too long. When I play Hitman or Touhou or Shadow Tactics or any other game with actual pacing, the last level is always bittersweet, and then if they surprise you with an extra level you're genuinely pleased, because you get to play more.

Nobody ever thinks this for total war, or a paradox game, or warband. Having invasions is the equivalent of adding a new level in a game that practically nobody actually wants to play any longer.

What I've always preferred is to have "invasions" be dynamic by making the entire game asymmetrical. Some factions start out large and are surrounded by vassalised or subservient city states, and while they aren't world conquerers they dominate diplomacy by demanding you stop expanding if you get too big. Taking them down would mean building up trust with all the city states around them and fighting an alliance war against them.
Back before Europa Universalis 4 turned into a bloated DLC cesspit of mana mechanics, it was genuinely engaging to fight these coalition wars against hyperblobs. And by presenting the challenge right from the start and making it optional to even bother doing it, it added to the game rather than constraining or unduly prolonging it.
It is not necessary to tie the invasion to the abstract concept of the late game - for everyone it is different, it is quite possible to implement it in the middle of the game, when almost all the kingdoms are relatively strong.
 
The factions are strong in the start of the game, but that's not my point: if the invasion happens even a second after the start of the game then it limits how people play because it forces you to consider it without being able to do anything about it, and means their appearance will happen regardless of how the accessible part of the map has developed. If they're part of the game as a whole and integrated with the mechanics in an interesting way, rather than being a detached external thing, I would be fine with it.
 

Askorti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
WB
Yeah, it's never a good argument - "if you don't like it, make it an option". But just in this case it might be.
Invasion is basically a DLC/mod when you get bored with the main game and are looking for the next challenge. However, that doesn't mean it should be a mandatory part of the base game.
Problem is that adding this to the game would divert resources. Developers, just like we do, only have 24 hours in a day, and only, well... 8-12 of that dedicated to work (or so I want to optimistically assume, for their sake).
This time is split between many things that they have to do. Working on an invasion feature would inevitably eat into time that could be spent on something that is actually worthwhile.
So while the argument of "you can just disable it" makes some very limited sense after the feature is already in place, it falls flat when it has yet to be implemented, as working on it would be detrimental to anything else they might want to work on.
 
It's a low priority feature given the current state of Bannerlord, but it's okay to discuss it in theory. It's clear Taleworlds would never do it, nor should they, because they'll make it mediocre and boring.
 

Gerrodot

Veteran
It's a low priority feature given the current state of Bannerlord, but it's okay to discuss it in theory. It's clear Taleworlds would never do it, nor should they, because they'll make it mediocre and boring.
Your pessimism is just depressing, rather the developers are terribly slow, given that we are waiting for some functions for 3 months...

well, it's better that way than not getting anything at all.
 

Medivhtratos

Sergeant at Arms
Yeah invasions are kind of brainless, and after the third playthrough you know how to deal with it. Better would be uprising lords, and random perks for them.. Fleshed out rebellions, duels with drunkjards/lords..... all in all more dynamic, more... "Oh what happens now" effects. The borders of the different kingdoms changes with every playthrough... But when you reached the endgame or even "finished" it, the ways to it and the end itself is always the same. After 17 playthroughs you don't read a single text line anymore cause it's boring. All what's interesting is the success number in dialogs and that was it. Everything else.. Peace of cake. Even more easier if you choose the right skills. And laughable when you do a long run(1. Generation=Trader(capture a rebellion town) /second generation make a kingdom(what I've got 100m denars? 1 town and every lord likes me?) yep that's it...
 

Gerrodot

Veteran
The fact that you keep on insisting on the option of disabling the feature speaks volumes about your faith in it. If it was an actually good idea, you would not have to repeat this in every message you write about it.

Every time someone pointed out a shortcoming of the ideas of invasions, you repeat the same thing, that it could be turned off. Well, then if everyone turns it off, for one of the many reasons that were brought up... Why even bother making it in the first place?
I explain. With regards to disabling this feature, I am speaking in the context of the fact that people argue their negative opinion that the intrusion function is imposed on the player, although INITIALLY the post says that the function should be disabled and-or configurable, as with the aging and birth function, or with the upcoming Ironman mode, they were introduced to the game because PEOPLE asked them so, and this wastes the developer's time. It's not my problem that almost every second person doesn't understand this, and when it should happen.


And with regard to the fact that the development of such a function takes time from developers - first - what is missing and not finished in the game, each person has their own concept, second, we all know the pace of developers, and third, not everything depends strictly on us.

And in the end, every time there are posts on the topic of adding SEA Battles and travel, although the game does not yet even have an imaginary context for adding them, why don't you spend your enthusiasm on it?
 
Can you imagine TW making it any better than that? I mean, so far with Bannerlord TW hasn't exactly been a paragon of going the extra mile with pretty much anything that matters...
Well, I could be nasty and say that they went the extra mile or two to ruin MP, but I'm not going to do that....
Perhaps but I don't see that as a reason to not want it to be part of the game. I mean you could say that about any feature that could possibly be implemented.
 

froggyluv

Grandmaster Knight
NW
Problem is that adding this to the game would divert resources. Developers, just like we do, only have 24 hours in a day, and only, well... 8-12 of that dedicated to work (or so I want to optimistically assume, for their sake).
This time is split between many things that they have to do. Working on an invasion feature would inevitably eat into time that could be spent on something that is actually worthwhile.
So while the argument of "you can just disable it" makes some very limited sense after the feature is already in place, it falls flat when it has yet to be implemented, as working on it would be detrimental to anything else they might want to work on.

Your overestimating the time it would take for a fairly basic mechanic -something that has been done since M&B 1 as well as dozens of mods after. Invasions switches are not a difficult thing at all. Matter fact many 1 man mod teams have implemented multiple invasions mechanics -all with options to turn them off. But again - its kinda silly to argue this. The real point is that the base world stage is lifeless, lacks pacing or a feeling of leading up to anything -and invasions provide the most banal of relief. Also the word Invasion has everyone thinking "ships landing at our shores" but they for all purposes encompass things like PoP's "The Hutu tribes have rallied under the Banner of a Lord Fluff'n'nStuff" type of thing. Or The Last Days "The Great War has Begun" - it simply means the scale of forces are about to be ramped up for whatever reason so get ready.

Obviously some do it well ie good and interesting mechanics and AI strategy to counter, while others just throw Doomstacks at you. With Taleworlds current status I wouldnt expect anything better than Doomstacks -but theres nothing wrong with putting the ideas and requests out there to keep them alerted that the game is boring. If we are to expect Taleworlds will always give us the worst most minimalized versions of any requests -then why ask for anything on this site?
 

Apocal

Master Knight
The factions are strong in the start of the game, but that's not my point: if the invasion happens even a second after the start of the game then it limits how people play because it forces you to consider it without being able to do anything about it, and means their appearance will happen regardless of how the accessible part of the map has developed. If they're part of the game as a whole and integrated with the mechanics in an interesting way, rather than being a detached external thing, I would be fine with it.
I asked about off-map resources on Discord (like infinity months ago) and there is apparently some kind of roadblock to having off-map mechanics. I don't know if it is a case of they can't do it (I mean, within the limits of dev time and resources they have available) or if it is just a design/vision thing. Other people suggested off-map raids as a solution for factions that get to "corner-camp" part of the map to secure their flanks but the dev in the thread didn't reply to the idea.
 

vonbalt

Knight at Arms
WBNWVCM&B
I really liked the dark knights invasion in the original M&B, they were tough but not impossible to defeat and you could even join them.

A Nord invasion in bannerlord would be awesome but it shouldn't be tied to the player at all, make it spawn randomly after x amount of days or tied to any kingdom getting hegemony in the continent or something like that to create an interesting mid-late game scenario.
 

WNxSpectre

Recruit
When people say "too much war" they really mean:
- wars are too random and without deeper logic and meaning
- there are not enough OTHER activities

So war is fine and more wars caused by invasions can be fun too, but you need meaning and other stuff to do.
It does feel that way to me. Wars and politics seem rather shallow at the moment. They seem to randomly attack at RNG determined intervals. There doesn't seem to be any diplomatic cause for them, outside of the chaos that followed Neretzes folly. The wars are still fun, but could definitely be made better.

I don't see the relationship deteriorating or have any sense that I can work to easing tensions diplomatically with them. It would be nice if there was some in game measure that made it clear which kingdoms had a score to settle with us, or were eyeing us with expansionist plans at any given time. And it would be nice if there were ways of politically reducing those tensions, with some crafty cunning, like arranging beneficial marriages that unite bloodlines to gain some trust, or via gifts, tributes or even inviting certain lords to royal events in hopes of befriending or reducing tension. The ability to forge even temporary allied relationships with other kingdoms would be interesting, or to negotiate periods of agreed upon non-aggression.
 
Currently existing mercenary clans and cultures mentioned in lore only (Palaic) already have plenty of potential to be used as destabilizing agents in Calradia. We have nord mercenaries, disgruntled former legionaries, separatist rebels, desert nomads and all they do is jump around boosting factions. Instead of bringing some novel faction from overseas, why not include a mechanic for minor clans to increase their overall presence/power in Calradia?

Take the Legion of the Betrayed and the Brotherhood of the Woods, for example, both of those clans originate from a group of people feeling betrayed by their overlords, one composed by former professional soldiers and the other by rebel peasants, both of them could have a set of goals to increase their power/presence/size, which the player can help, hinder or completely ignore, that could lead to a full rebellion, something like what we had with claimants in Warband.

I would much rather be involved in maintaining the status quo or helping minor clans become powerhouses than be stuck fighting armies that appear out of nowhere for no real reason.
 
Top Bottom