Not always, absolutism got around that
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Here's why you're not getting that castle.
- Thread starter World's Coolest Old Guy
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I appreciate historical rational here, but that doesn't really mean satisfying gameplay. I don't believe that whoever takes a castle gets a casle.. But the system with which the ruler determines who gets said castle should be transparent and interactable... This is a game afterall.
If I have an objective to gain a certain fief.. I should be able to form a plan to do just that...Right now it feels entirely random and you don't feel like you have any real agency in what you're working towards
If I have an objective to gain a certain fief.. I should be able to form a plan to do just that...Right now it feels entirely random and you don't feel like you have any real agency in what you're working towards
Lucas Hood
Recruit
But that's the thing though, if you don't like it then you should go your own way and build your own Kingdom. With higher influence and clan tier you will get more rewards, you're going to get more fiefs and have more say, but a whoever wins it gets it rule would just make it really unbalanced I think, by the time you know it the player will probably have more fiefs than the King because assembling armies is pretty easy.
At the end of the day it's other lords troops that are also in your army, even if you're commanding it. I'm assuming that's the case, because I can amass a party of 200 troops and I can't take a castle on my own, their archers absolutely do you to pieces. For me anyway, I need at least double the men the defenders have when I'm taking a keep.
And I agree which is why I started out by saying that I don't believe that whoever takes a castle gets said castle.. And yes, the person deciding who gets the casle should be the ruler.. But it should be an entirely transparent mechanic that the player understands.
Let's say we keep the 3 candidates system.. I should be able to highlight each clan and have the game tell me why they were selected for vote lets say "Relations with ruler -15, no fiefs +50", Bribes +30" so I can understand the process behind it and work towards improving my odds.
In that kind of clearly understandable mechanic, I'd also expect the lord leading the conquring army to gain a significant boost fx, but not insure his normation if the ruler hates for or something.
Lucas Hood
Recruit
Oh I know I was agreeing with you, probably should've worded it better. Like someone else said there should be better insight on your influence and what it gives you. So if you're going to take a castle what are the chances you're going to get that castle? Right now it's random, it needs more work but I'm sure they'll get around to it, they've said they have big plans for the Kingdom Management area.
Huh, never underestimate the power of misunderstandings I guess.
I think lack of information is the bane of a lot of this game. I feel like a lot of relation loss is also hidden, or atleast not communicated clearly enough. I found out that my list of enemies was 10 times longer than my list of friends, and many of the people on that list were lords I'd shared a faction with most of the game.
Warband had major issues with telling the player what was going on aswell (right to rule anyone?)So I'm honestly skeptical at TW's ability or willingness to make clear and understandable game mechanics :/
Lucas Hood
Recruit
No it's not, I just reread my post and it should've been worded better I can see why you thought I was disagreeing with you, my bad apologies for that, English isn't my first language.
And you got that right,I had no idea how the levelling system worked in my first playthrough, so I wasn't using the learning points properly and I was making it even harder for myself to level up. The game doesn't give you much to go on.
Not always, absolutism got around that
Actually you will see this even in the oldest European kingdom of France under Clovis I. The Merovingian dynasty created the feudal system Europe used for over 1000 years. The very title of "Count" comes from "Comites", a title given to those that "defends and administers judgements and lands." Even the title "Baron" comes from "by Barony", to hold land in rule by proxy/in service to another.
The very description of feudalism is "The classic François-Louis Ganshof version of feudalism describes a set of reciprocal legal and military obligations which existed among the warrior nobility, revolving around the three key concepts of lords, vassals and fiefs. In broad terms a lord was a noble who held land, a vassal was a person who was granted possession of the land by the lord, and the land was known as a fief. In exchange for the use of the fief and protection by the lord, the vassal would provide some sort of service to the lord. There were many varieties of feudal land tenure, consisting of military and non-military service. The obligations and corresponding rights between lord and vassal concerning the fief form the basis of the feudal relationship."
The system in game needs to be re-worked some.
pmn1990
Recruit
Was gonna say i was with valandia and they were skimping me on fiefs, right after i become a vassal they decided to make peace. I started a war by raiding a village went negative 250 influence and helped them snowball the map got 3 castles all in **** condition over the course of 3 wars. Helped them take 5 cities and 10 castles.Couldnt even vote for most of them besides last couple and the king overruled my cities. I started executing all of there lords so they wouldnt win the game. I cant wait to execute there kingIn my current playthrough I was only awarded castles twice, both of them were deep in enemy territory at that time so there was absolutely 0 chance to defend them. In addition, now that I became stronger and participate in sieges or even siege alone, my name is always on the list of candidates, but I never gain a fief recently. I read that most likely those vassals will get them who have a fief closer to the recently conquered settlement. The problem is that 2 former Empire vassals (both tier 5 clan) and my "beloved" khan Monchug owes everything in the newly conquered lands, and the settlements got assigned to one of the 3, but not me despite having literally 0 fiefs.
In addition, Monchug started to act like an Emperor, every time when there is a council which would strengthen his positions or the positions of the tier 5 clans, the outcome will be in his favour and in the favour of tier 5 clans. Since I always vote against his crazy ideas, I reached the point where I have -30 relationship with his clan...now the idea of defecting his khanate seems pretty attractive to me, heck I am even thinking about joining another faction just to be the enemy of Monchug... in case I get lucky, I could capture and execute this greedy despot
Weeeeeeeell... The sheer amount of rebellions that ended with reconciliation instead of death penalty is so damn high that it makes the law, as you say later, just a game of pretend.
Feudalism made, effectively, every lord a state in himself (or herself). The lord makes laws, the lord administers justice, the lord raises taxes, the lord has a monopoly on violence, the lord was recognised by other lords and engaged in diplomacy with them to advance his own interests... which is what we today classify as a state. The king (even if he was, in theory, the summit of the loyalty pyramid) had the ultimate authority, but this was in fact a useful fiction, a unifying protector in times of foreign invasion. It was true wheh the king was charismatic, strong and had the support of most nobles. When he didn't, his power dissolved, and, best case scenario, he ruled his own demesne at most (Philip I of France). Worst case, Richard II of England). As the oaths of Aragon stated, the King was as important as any other noble, and together, the nobility was greater than the king himself.
Yes, but as we've seen in many of the different wars of conquest, after a war there's a period in wich the ruler gives what's been taken to his worthy followers in the war. Not giving a specific house a town they took was usually something to avoid. The two examples I know best, the Repartiments of Valencia and Mallorca by king James of Aragon, are mostly whast you'd expect: the Urrea took this castle, the Urrea got this castle. The Montcada took that one, they keep it. Very few times did the king not give a castle to someone who took a stake in its taking. The big towns were left usually under the King's protection, though.
You may see the way the game works as reasonable and fair; I say that, if the game's humans are humans like us, the political systems in Sturgia or other places with greedy lords would not last. Raganvad is the picture of a bad king according to all Medieval traditions. I love it, and ideally, Raganvad would be facing rebellions left and right. Fishy arrival to power, suspicion of having killed the previous monarch, greedy, foul-tempered... I'm surprised he lasted that long. Who supports him? His Nord mercenaries?
I would actually add a new sort of town in Bannerlord; big towns. Places like Pravend, Lycaron, Varcheg or Ortysia should be bigger than other towns.
Still, I don't know why my relationship with Rhagaea whent from +10 to -100 in a couple of months...
pmn1990
Recruit
I put in maybe 40 hours before i realized leadership is a complete waste of time until you can lead an army. But then its free candy take them with you trading
I'm akwardly getting castles and towns I don't want even when I abstain. We're Aserai, **** do I want a North Empire town for? I hate snow. I hate you Uqaid.
I have the same but i'm getting desert all the time and it's so far away from Vlandia ;/
True.
But it also a little buggy, because everytime we get the castle or city, the vote for own is always going only for 3 vassals or 2 vassals and a king, and this vassals everytime are same
But it also a little buggy, because everytime we get the castle or city, the vote for own is always going only for 3 vassals or 2 vassals and a king, and this vassals everytime are same
pmn1990
Recruit
You also have to realize that there have been many selfish rulers throught history as well. Look at most roman empire rulers for instance. Also in the game when the king is not giving you fiefs hes giving them to his buddy. The people complaining about not getting them i guarantee are not puting in the time building relationships with all the lords. Its a little harder to do with armys because your not getting as many chances to help other lords fights. I wanna know how many times THEY voted for another lord. The amount of relation you get by voting for another lord to get a fief is 10 i believe and you lose 2 with the one you didnt vote for. It can also raise your votes voting for someone else. If a mercanary army did most of the work taking a castle or a lower end noble in history do you think they would get it? Thats a hard no its going to the kings inner circle cause not all politicians are created equal.
I really hope they bring back the 3 tiered sieges that they had in warband cause this 1 fight for a city has been getting stale. The city to the far right maybe ortysia? is basically Constantinople controling all east trade. It has like 10 goods at all times cheaper than other cities. It should also be a basically unsiegable castle.
I also had a relationship with my king randomly go to negative 100 it may be starting a war or something
pmn1990
Recruit
Are you voting for other lords to get it? Warband had the same thing were the king punishes you for always asking for castles. Also popularity contest.
I tried to vote for nobody, for the king and the rest of contenders, but every time I've got the same list of lords
pmn1990
Recruit
The influence you use to earn favor with other lords not to bet on yourself. If you want fiefs spend your influence voting for the king or other high ruling lords. You get a positive 8 not voting for yourself.
Thats because those lords spend influence so other lords like them and vote for them.Those 3 lords are spending influence voting for each other vote for them then they will vote for you
But you're supporting my point. Roman Emperors, selfish? Sure, and most of the selfish Roman Emperors (the ones who didn't pay their troops enough, the ones who didn't give their geneals or aristocrats enough of what they wanted) got killed. Few exceptions exist, and they exist in extraordinary times.
The list of Roman Emperors and other rulers who showed greediness and were not generous, and got killed for that, is long and goes on and on.
If the king only gives stuff to his buddies, he better be ready for some opposition, cause not only his buddies have wealth and armies.
Yeah this is my issue as well. It is very frustrating to have your sights set on a specific castle or town but have no way to ensure you could own it. One of the cool things about Warband was being able to set your sights on a specific castle or town and work toward conquering it so you could own it. In Bannerlord there is absolutely nothing you can do to influence if your name even goes up on the candidate list and it is frustrating. I proposed adding in a way to use influence to "buy" your way onto the candidate list and you even then might have to use more influence to buy the vote so to speak. It wouldn't be 100% that you would get what you wanted but at least if you had enough influence, you would have a good chance of being able to.
I will also go so far as saying that the new system kills any sort of strategic kingdom planning as well. In Warband, if I intended to start my own Kingdom, I would conquer specific towns and castles, grouped near each other so that I would have a nice, compact territory to once I betrayed and started my own kingdom. In Bannerlord, you end up with fiefs scattered all over the map so if you ever wanted to start your own kingdom you would have to choose one location and let the others wither on the vine because there is no way you could defend 3 separate fiefs all in different locations.
Similar threads
