SP - General Give player ruling options in kingdoms

[saittam]

The sole task of being a king/ruler seem to be chasing down new clans to join. Will it stop there?
We can choose war stands. It´s something.

We should be able to give our clans objektives during wars.
Something that is a pain is when you are in a war and your clans have formed 3-5 armys with 300-1000 troops. And a new kingdom declares war against you. They walk in with a force of 2500 men. Unstoppable. Because one of my armys do a suicide attack to defend a siege. 2 others walk in to besige some castles. One army is just randomly chasing some raiding party.
One should have as a ruler certain orders to give. One being. All clans to me (that includes armys).
Fucus the war effort in a certain region.
An option to defend certain areas to keep raiding bands away. Like patrol here.
An option to give feif owners the ability to help raided villages recover.
Give certain nobles a rejection for creating armys. One should be able to see given the nobles traits and skills what he or she will be like as an army leader.

 

[Crisagon]

+1

 

[kyle_usmc]

+1 this is true. Also it's to easy for the AI to bully you into stupid wars due to the influence costs of overruling them

 

[Alexandersson]

+1 as a ruler of the faction you can select the strategy against a specific kingdom (balance, aggressive or defensive), but that does nothing!
the AI is stupid in every game, but here in bannerlord the Artificial Incompetence have extra skills in stupidity. Sometimes i had multiple settlements under siege, and even on "Defensive" strategy ... the armies decided to go siege some castles instead of defend.

"Also it's too easy for the AI to bully you into stupid wars due to the influence costs of overruling them"

i don't have that problem (when you are in the late game), after 4000+ ingame days, i have 189k influence, i override every stupid decision they make.

 

[Dodgy]

I have recently finished conquering the whole map self imposing myself not to execute every lord I would capture.

Such a pain and such a needless grind because of the terrible AI as you mentioned, where defending fiefs rely entirely on you, and conquering them as well to be honest, as the AI will always go with numbers that are not enough to handle most siege, ending up in a situation where they try, have to retreat, wait for their wounded army to heal up and try again, only to be more often than not attacked and obliterated once their numbers get low.

The terrible voting system is also to blame for forcing you into signing peace when you are dominating or declaring extra wars you can't afford at random times, again forcing you to sign for peace with the other faction you were dominating.

I don't mind when it's the other factions that declare war on you to exploit the situation, but your own lords randomly making things harder for you is just too dumb to be acceptable.
You might be able to overrule them very late in the game, but it's unbearable while you are just a vassal yourself (if you decided not to create your own kingdom but join a preexisting one while waiting to be elected as next king) or at the early stages of your own kingdom when your influence is low.

 

[Anthony Stevens]

Yeah, unfortunately, Bannerlord has such a monotonous reliance upon the player to siege every single castle/town themselves, because even if the AI does siege down a town/castle, they end up losing it ten minutes later. I made a suggestion based on something I remembered from Warband, and, if added, I believe it could help out a lot, not only with this, but would breathe in a lot of life to the entirety of Kingdom Management. The forum thread can be found by clicking here. I'd love to hear any opinions.

 

[Earth Dragon]

Ah yes…..all the things done to stop AI factions from snowballing now causing different headaches.

I mostly bring this up as some suggestions end up asking for things the community was declaring a “good change” when something similar to it was adjusted/done away with

 

[wzh]

The campaign as a ruler does seem a bit nonsensical. Borders mean nothing to the AI. Fortresses are not defensive points to protect your land - its just a low income settlement to siege. It would make more sense in terms of being a campaign if you give your lords (clans) assignments such as: "protect against intrusions around <settlement>". The clan would have to spend its money and influence to fulfill that commitment. A fortress would be perfect in terms of controlling chokepoints and to clog armies in costly sieges, but now any army can simply pass by them and the defensive power of a fort has no influence on a war.

I realize that this has never been a thing in Mount&Blade, but Bannerlord has obvious chokepoints on the map, but they are not used for any kind of tactical advantage. Supply lines should probably be a thing to make this kind of tactical idea work though. Defend the border!!

This kind of tactical setup would give the king something to do, and more reason to give power to lords, which in turns risks turning them into powerful rivals for power. Imagine the struggle

 

[cptRogue445]

+1