Founding your OWN kingdom

Currently viewing this thread:

Jarl Snow

Recruit
Its getting dull to play waiting for clan level 4 then founding a kingdom. I thought why not add a possibility to form your own kingdom from scrap.

The kingdom you then create will be full of vassals that you recruit. These vassals come with different cultures and you start to conquer the world slowly starting with one kingdom. The battles you have are chaotic and full of randomly cultured troops. Unless your goal is to fully unite calradia then this makes very little logical sense.
First of the vassals are my main immersion issue. Lets say you recruit a bunch of lords that comes from various different kingdoms. Then you summon these vassals to the army and you have an army that on the campaign map resembles a good mixed bag of candy. For me this ruins immersion since i cant see why these lords would join my kingdom and not swap their traditional cultured armor sets etc. Why would a sturgian lord join an aserai culture and not resemble an aserai culture?
My suggestion here would be something entirely else. The ability to appoint a companion to lead his own clan. This would make much more logical sense since this companion has probably been playing a big part in the rebellion that you have started etc. This way you could also, if you desire to be a single cultured nation recruit more than just the few lords from that faction.

2nd and foremost for this suggestion. The ability to change culture of settlements. I know theres a mod for this to change the culture of settlements but what if this became a part of the gameplay that you can choose the culture of a captured settlement? Here the choice would obviously matter and maybe there could be a relationship negate when forcing a settlement to change culture with the village and town members.

To me this would just make the gameplay much more rich and lore friendly.

Im fine with all the empire levies following my battanian savage lord into battle but if im being honest it doesnt really make any sense they should fight for me.

This was a long text if you didnt bother read it all heres a quick summary:

Appoint Companions to lead their own clan
Culture changing lords when joining a kingdom(armor swap)
Settlement culture change option when conquered(if forced relationship decrease, if kept slight increase)
= richer kingdom story creation gameplay
 

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
Settlement culture change option when conquered(if forced relationship decrease, if kept slight increase)
How do you motivate this? It takes hundreds... sometimes thousands of years to assimilate a region. And likely the initiator whould not have been happy with that result. If cultures are to be taken that lightly, then we could do without cultures.
 

Jarl Snow

Recruit
Villages in an age like this would not have more than a few hundreds habitants at max. If a conquering faction like the empire had around 20-50 millitia in a village those villagers could easily be forced to live like the empire would. Same goes for a town except more habitants and millitia etc.

If you look at it this way. Why would the town start a rebellion if they are allowed to keep living like they normally would? Maybe they dont agree with some policies of the conquering faction but is that surely enough to start a rebellion if it really doesnt change their daily lives?
 

Apocal

Master Knight
First of the vassals are my main immersion issue. Lets say you recruit a bunch of lords that comes from various different kingdoms. Then you summon these vassals to the army and you have an army that on the campaign map resembles a good mixed bag of candy. For me this ruins immersion since i cant see why these lords would join my kingdom and not swap their traditional cultured armor sets etc. Why would a sturgian lord join an aserai culture and not resemble an aserai culture?
Are you aware that lords draw troops from their home fief, first and foremost, then any nearby allied fiefs, neutral fiefs and flipped prisoners, right? Their starter troops (the only ones guaranteed to be of their home culture) number ~12 total.

It is perfectly common to see a Sturgian lord join the Aserai and run around with mostly Aserai troops because of it. It is also perfectly common to see Khuzait armies with only Khuzait lords that are 60% or more Imperial troops because they hold Imperial towns and castles.
 

Jarl Snow

Recruit
Yes and thats what i dont like. To me it isnt lorefriendly that a khuzait warlord would prefer going into battle with Imperial troops. These troops shouldnt have any loyalty towards him. Why would they fight for a khuzait lord with imperial gear? What point is there for legionaire to run around fighting against the empire with a khuzait warlord?


In warband the AI lords would run around with their own culture troops and some recruits from fiefs within their kingdom but a nord jarl would never be fighting a battle with full on swadian knights etc.
 

Jarl Snow

Recruit
This mod does a primitive version of what i wish Taleworlds would do. This is merely my opinion and obviously a bunch of other people who would rather keep some lorefriendly combat in the game.

 

Jarl Snow

Recruit
For the lord recruitment i dont wish to steal all the AI lords of a kingdom ETC. It wouldnt make sense just to go around persuading lords to join my cause unless you are playing the main quest and the recruitment of lords leads to a common goal to destroy the empire or vise versa.

Thats why my suggestion would be to appoint companions to nobles like you could in warband and have them starting their own clan. They have been a part of your clan and experienced a great amount of battles / taken part in conquering and fought for the same cause as you.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Yes and thats what i dont like. To me it isnt lorefriendly that a khuzait warlord would prefer going into battle with Imperial troops. These troops shouldnt have any loyalty towards him. Why would they fight for a khuzait lord with imperial gear? What point is there for legionaire to run around fighting against the empire with a khuzait warlord?
The answer to your questions, in order: they are troops available for hire, they are being paid, they are being paid, they are being paid. There is nothing (lore or mechanics) that suggests troops are anything but mercenary in their commitment. They fight for money and nothing else.
 

Jarl Snow

Recruit
The answer to your questions, in order: they are troops available for hire, they are being paid, they are being paid, they are being paid. There is nothing (lore or mechanics) that suggests troops are anything but mercenary in their commitment. They fight for money and nothing else.
That wouldnt make sense. Mercenaries in towns are what you describe not the faction troops.

Imagine this scenario.
Vikings invade england. They then capture a few towns and take control over them. Now they control the town but the habitants wouldnt just instantly start training their sons to fight for the vikings unless being forced to. If that was the case they would hate their new lords and work in the shadows to escape or rebel.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
That wouldnt make sense. Mercenaries in towns are what you describe not the faction troops.
Then why do we pay them the exact same?
Imagine this scenario.
Vikings invade england. They then capture a few towns and take control over them. Now they control the town but the habitants wouldnt just instantly start training their sons to fight for the vikings unless being forced to. If that was the case they would hate their new lords and work in the shadows to escape or rebel.
I don't have to imagine: when England took over Wales, they had Welsh longbowmen included among their retinues. When Roger took Siciliy, he employed native Saracen archers alongside his other troops. Medieval armies being a culturally heterogeneous patchwork is 100% historical, so if you don't like them, don't turn to history to find support.
 

Jarl Snow

Recruit
Just because this happened in some scenarios you can't generalize it like that. When rome took over villages and enlisted recruits they wore roman armor and ranked up like a normal soldier. Rome however also made alliances with other cultures but these nation's armies alone wasn't the main units.

Often when conquering a land and forcing ways on its people would lead to rebellions. every soldier in the ages you are talking about wasnt just mercenaries. They were soldiers who also believed in causes and the nation that led them.
 

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
Just because this happened in some scenarios you can't generalize it like that. When rome took over villages and enlisted recruits they wore roman armor and ranked up like a normal soldier.
No. They were second class citizens(in best cases), not allowed to even wear a weapon. Exception is if they enlisted to the auxilia. They then joined some kind of militia in another conquered area and if serving well, they won citizenship for their family after a number of years of well done service. They did not wear roman regular gear nor weapon. They did not rank up as any roman legionarie.

Romans were a bad picked example as they had very strict processes for how their conquered areas should be put into line by more or less denying them anything unless they serve in the auxilia on the other end of the vaste empire, leaving the conquered land without any rebellious armed natives.

Its not generalisation from @Apocal. Enlisting local troops is a great idea during conquests.
 
How do you motivate this? It takes hundreds... sometimes thousands of years to assimilate a region. And likely the initiator whould not have been happy with that result. If cultures are to be taken that lightly, then we could do without cultures.
How long did it take the Roman Empire to assimilate regions? The Roman Army did not use a mash up of different fighting tactics from all the cultures they ran over. The Macedonia army did not exist after the Roman victory, there was no more Companion Calvary or adopted phalanx units. How long did the Carthaginian culture last after the sack of Carthage?
 
Last edited:

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
How long did it take the Roman Empire to assimilate regions?

What regions outside central Italy would you call Assimilated after the fall of Western Roman Empire? Or even before the fall...

RE massively repainted the cultural map and probably influenced most of the cultures in conquered territories but they didn't assimilate any regions outside the latin/italian group to my knowledge. I´m not saying there were no enclaves or exclaved with a Roman majority but over a region - "Roman Province" - I highly doubt it. They destroyed several cultures - Cathagian among them. But those rissen from the ashes was not Romans - or even close(er) to!

They spread the latin language in France and Iberia, but calling them assimilated... No.

Roman fighting styles? I´d say you are right, they did not use alot different tactics. A core of Roman legionaries(HI) and skirmishing/ranged/mounted mercenaries, and/or Auxilia upon availability.

The LI/LC Auxilia had somewhat simelar outfit and tactics whereever they came from. The reason for that is they were very mixed in origin. A band of Auxilia based in Iberia surely came from all over the empire except Iberia.
 

Jarl Snow

Recruit
What regions outside central Italy would you call Assimilated after the fall of Western Roman Empire? Or even before the fall...

RE massively repainted the cultural map and probably influenced most of the cultures in conquered territories but they didn't assimilate any regions outside the latin/italian group to my knowledge. I´m not saying there were no enclaves or exclaved with a Roman majority but over a region - "Roman Province" - I highly doubt it. They destroyed several cultures - Cathagian among them. But those rissen from the ashes was not Romans - or even close(er) to!

They spread the latin language in France and Iberia, but calling them assimilated... No.

Roman fighting styles? I´d say you are right, they did not use alot different tactics. A core of Roman legionaries(HI) and skirmishing/ranged/mounted mercenaries, and/or Auxilia upon availability.

The LI/LC Auxilia had somewhat simelar outfit and tactics whereever they came from. The reason for that is they were very mixed in origin. A band of Auxilia based in Iberia surely came from all over the empire except Iberia.

This isnt about rome at all or a history lesson. this is about not fighting 700 different cultured units when playing bannerlord.
If im fighting a battanian army that has taken over a few different parts of the world i just dont like fighting a good mixed army of sturgian / vlandia / battania / empire units. I play this game with no banner opacity to make it look realistic.To me it just ruins my immersion when i watch a battanian lord leading his army with 20 legionaires and vlandian knights. Im not fully against fighting a few but some lords just mass recruit from newly conquered territories and to me this is a core issue that breaks my immersion.

And ask yourself would a well renowned army commander ever run around without loyal faction troops in his personal retinue? NO ofc not he could be betrayed any moment? Thats my issue and thats why i want a system that kinda forces the game to play around choices. Endgame in bannerlord is just mass conquering calradia with full on empire faction troops even if you dont have any empire lords.

Ive put 1100 hours in this game since release so this isnt just something ive experienced once. Ive done this around 20 times on different versions. Nothing new in that regard and thats why i think there should be something new when conquering calradia
 

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
And ask yourself would a well renowned army commander ever run around without loyal faction troops in his personal retinue? NO ofc not he could be betrayed any moment?
I play this game with no banner opacity to make it look realistic.To me it just ruins my immersion when i watch a battanian lord leading his army with 20 legionaires and vlandian knights. Im not fully against fighting a few but some lords just mass recruit from newly conquered territories and to me this is a core issue that breaks my immersion.

What breaks your immersion is nothing I can deal with but If you think medivial armies of sizeable kingdoms were homogenous, you are wrong.

A "personal retainie" is more or less a bodyguard and not to be mixed with an conquering army. A core of loyal/cultural elites I think can both be expected and seen in all bands created by AI in Calradia. How often do you see Vlandian clans holding only non-vlandian lands though having no vlandian soldiers in their hosts?

Some realms did not use conquered troops, that´s true. But they did definatly use foreign troops, mercenaries, levies and more or less whatever trash they could muster, because manpower matters.

From a BL perspective, I´d love if conquered towns of a different culture than owner kingdom did produce assiciated(to the fief) minor faction troops instead or regulars.

An (semi) instant assimilation would break my immersion massively.
 

Jarl Snow

Recruit
Yes and we have so called mercenaries in this game "Beni zilal, foresters, company of the golden boar etc.) I have absolutely no problem meeting these lads in a battanian army because i know they are paid mercenaries. But you sir are very wrong if u think it would ever be realistic to see a battanian lord running around with a full on mixture of empire / sturgian units without a single battanian soul in his party. Those troops wasnt conquered willingly, they didn't just hand him the castle and lined up to fight his battles. Come on dude...
 

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
But you sir are very wrong if u think it would ever be realistic to see a battanian lord running around with a full on mixture of empire / sturgian units without a single battanian soul in his party.
Maybe you are right but for sure he has not drafted his Battanian core from his sturgian or empire holdings :smile: If he has only such holdings, he for sure has drafted Battanian troops from the land of other lords in Battania.
 
Top Bottom