How can castles be made important in your opinion?

Users who are viewing this thread

Yeah, I support raising fief income. If battle loot has to be reduced a bit to make it balanced, that's fine too.
I fund my army and clan parties mainly on loot income. I don’t do blacksmithing.
I think it is a necessity to increase fief income and reduce loot income. This would give th player a logical advancement path.
 
I think the way it works currently is all right. Castles and their towns are basically underdeveloped cities unless located in particularly special terrain (like a mountainside or mountain pass) anyway. In terms of stuff suggested that I read...

I think it's actually good that noble troops can be recruited by anybody, since it leads to more diverse enemies rather than broadly the same enemy groups like in Warband. It's really something else to be fighting Empress Rhagaea and her army of Khan's Guads, Elite Cataphracts, and other mixed Imperial/Khuzait troops and it'd not have been possible if she couldn't recruit Noble Sons from the Duzeg Steppe. However, I can see an argument for reducing their number so that non-noble cavalry (like in Vlandia) and non-noble Khuzait bow cavalry is actually worth raising from scratch, but I'm uncertain it'd really change much on a fundamental level...

I do think something akin to Manhunters should patrol the lands and hunt bandits (including remnants of fallen kingdoms), and I could see NPC knightly orders being formed for the purpose from both cities and castles. A mixed assortment of ~30-50 troops based on the local culture (perhaps all noble, or mixed noble/commoner) just going around hunting and pursuing the little guys would make the fallen kingdom remnants in particular less of a nuisance.

EDIT: I forgot to mention battle loot.

I actually think it's good as it is because battles are risky business whereas economic activity (generally) isn't by comparison. People live and die on the battlefield and your losses can be far more severe than any gained loot so it really has to be worth it to justify it, especially since you're likely to fight (or auto-fight) numerous battles. If it isn't paying the bills, it's just an economic drain. Granted--that's more realistic, but the game would have to be changed to accommodate that realism, so war would generally be rarer, battles fewer, and peacetime economic building far more integral to gameplay. Since battles are what this game focuses on far more than economic simulation, all roads lead to war one way or another and so war might as well be profitable in and of itself (not factoring in war profiteering through selling goods to those with high demand due to scarcities resulting in war).
 
Last edited:
Battles are risky for the AI, not the player. You can breeze through 100s of battles without ever making a net loss, and the AI is too stupid to pose any danger.
If I'm good lol. :razz: I don't know how much is because I'm a newb or if the deployment limitations on PS4 actually make the game harder, but I can't say I've never been in danger even during the later stages of the game. Perhaps after I've put in another couple hundred hours I'll be at that point where I'm actively looking for ways to make the game harder lol.

But even so, that's just normal for video games since a single defeat for the player, even if objectively very recoverable or very minor to their bottom line, can feel very devastating while the A.I. never thinks about giving up or save scumming; they just get back on their feet, and try, try again even if repeatedly defeated and legitimately in a hopeless position. Not that many people have it in them to accept their losses and persevere, especially if they're at a high point at their time of defeat, either in battle or strategically (like losing a valuable city fief) so most games are designed with the intent to give the A.I. kid gloves to make it probable for the average player to win 99% of the time. While I think Bannerlord was designed to cater to that minority that actually like it when they're really threatened and like to create their own comeback stories (etc.), they can only do so much to make the game difficult "fairly" because a sufficiently competent human player will always defeat a computer player. Perhaps they ought to add harder difficulties in which the A.I. basically benefits from cheats while the player suffers handicaps, varying from taking more damage and having to pay higher party wages to all hidden player-biases being removed or something else that'd make the game harder in some form or another without requiring a smarter A.I. than they can develop.

However, I did see an argument suggesting the A.I. lords need battle loot for money for something, which makes me wonder if they can't just apply a player-specific nerf to loot gains in order to make war less profitable for the player or somethng.
 
I fund my army and clan parties mainly on loot income. I don’t do blacksmithing.
I think it is a necessity to increase fief income and reduce loot income. This would give th player a logical advancement path.
Yeah loot income is just ridiculous. Like after a few battles you'll have more loot value then a city has gold. This would be like Hernán Cortés getting more gold from stripping all the natives they killed along the way then actually plundering Tenochtitlán.

No wonder everyone wants to wage war in Calradia 24/7, looting enemies is the best way to make money! Why everyone isn't a mercenary then is beyond me.


Fiefs should without question be your biggest source of income. If not, what else are they really good for other than a place to store spare troops? IMO the most lucrative sources of income should be as follows:

  1. Towns (daily income should be equivalent to prosperity if you ask me, makes prosperity really important then)
  2. Castles (same deal as towns, obviously lesser extent)
  3. Villages (income should be equivalent of Hearths)
  4. Battle Loot*
  5. Caravans
  6. Workshops
  7. Alleys/Hideouts
*Weapons/Armor, especially on high end need to be drastically reduced. It's absurd that a chainmail headpiece is like 900 denars, but some steel helmets are like 100,000+. You know it's fine I think to have some rare spiffy looking "royal" items that are worth tons of money for the player to try and get. But your typical Legionary is running around with like 500,000 denars worth of equipment. You know it's kind of just like WTH? Again basic weapons, shield, and armor should be 100-900 denars. Mid tier equipment maybe 1000-4000 denars. And then high end gear is like maybe 5K or 10K at the most per item. (A single helmet should not be worth 3x times an Ironsmith Workshop that effectively makes it LOL)

The fact the economy is still so wack after almost 3 years, and trading being a complete waste of time other than for roleplay, cements this. Also smithing is still pretty broken. It should be a decent side hustle - but a lone Smith should not be richer than a Governor.


Anyways I think Castles have enough wage reduction as is. What Castles really need is to provide a lot more training XP. It sort of makes sense, since you know it's mostly a military building and what else is there to do? Like if take a Recruit and leave them in a Castle Garrison, in 2-3 game years they should be at least Tier 4, if not Tier 5 or 6. All I know is in vanilla you put a Tier 1 Recruit in a Garrison at age 25, you'll be lucky if they are Tier 5 by the time you're dead. The training XP is non-existent.


Finally I think you need to get a lot more denars from raiding villages and pillaging towns/castles. I think you're typical village raid should net you somewhere between 5,000-25,000 denars. Pillaging a Castle somewhere 50,000-100,000 denars (which will be split amongst army typically). And then pillaging a Town should be quite the event netting you somewhere between 250,000-900,000 denars depending on its prosperity of course. Then even if sieges are chore, at least they are profitable ones!
 
they also need to make the penalties for owning a castle or town of another culture less as - 3 loyalty a day from diffrent culture is to much. it also means you cant build anything as you have to sit the town or castle on festivail and games to try and negate it
 
I think it's actually good that noble troops can be recruited by anybody, since it leads to more diverse enemies rather than broadly the same enemy groups like in Warband. It's really something else to be fighting Empress Rhagaea and her army of Khan's Guads, Elite Cataphracts, and other mixed Imperial/Khuzait troops and it'd not have been possible if she couldn't recruit Noble Sons from the Duzeg Steppe. However, I can see an argument for reducing their number so that non-noble cavalry (like in Vlandia) and non-noble Khuzait bow cavalry is actually worth raising from scratch, but I'm uncertain it'd really change much on a fundamental level...
Yeah, but why are the Khan's Guard protecting the Empress who's going to subjugate their people? Now if by some chance the Southern Empire does conquer the Khuzait land's - okay that makes sense at that point because then the Empress is effectively the Khan.

I do think something akin to Manhunters should patrol the lands and hunt bandits (including remnants of fallen kingdoms), and I could see NPC knightly orders being formed for the purpose from both cities and castles. A mixed assortment of ~30-50 troops based on the local culture (perhaps all noble, or mixed noble/commoner) just going around hunting and pursuing the little guys would make the fallen kingdom remnants in particular less of a nuisance.
Some kind of patrol party wouldn't be bad.

But honestly Kingdom parties should hunt down bandits much more aggressively. Especially during any peace time. In theory the layman pays taxes not just so they are protected from rival nations, but you know bandits that try to rob them on the way to market.

However, I did see an argument suggesting the A.I. lords need battle loot for money for something, which makes me wonder if they can't just apply a player-specific nerf to loot gains in order to make war less profitable for the player or somethng.

That's the problem. Battle Loot is the main source of income in this game, when it should absolutely not be. If a Clan has no fiefs it should either have to turn bandit, raiding to survive, or essentially stop existing to where it's only a small warband of like maybe 20-50. And when a Clan is fief-less, Kingdom-less, it should cease to exist as a threat and effectively find a new home or leave Calradia.

I also believe when a Kingdom loses its last fief, it should revert into some kind of "Minor Kingdom". No longer able to declare war or receive tribute, but it remains at permanent war with whoever took their last fief, kind of like Minor Clans. That could be good reason for player/A.I. to not outright destroy rival Kingdoms... because you risk having to deal with a bunch of freedom fighters til you kill em all.

With multiple parties able to siege now, it should not be necessary for A.I. to form armies to take a castle/town and reform their Kingdom proper.


Ah if only the player could give real commands to their parties! Then just imagine as King/Queen you could like actually order your armies! Take this Town/Castle, defend this fief, follow my party, etc. Coming SOON in 2025! :roll:

they also need to make the penalties for owning a castle or town of another culture less as - 3 loyalty a day from diffrent culture is to much. it also means you cant build anything as you have to sit the town or castle on festivail and games to try and negate it

I think that's right, otherwise Towns will never rebel. Best way I've found to deal with it is just build one project at a time, set daily default to Festivals. That way when 1 project completes and you come back Loyalty will be back up again.

What TW really needs to do is introduce Cultural Conversion (would give better reasoning for war if there's actual threat of losing one's culture). I'd probably make it a new Daily Default. This gives you choice of continuing projects or attempting to convert the settlement.

Conversion should be a slow process and you should need to keep said settlement in good order (it can't be on verge of revolt); in order to flip a settlement you need to reach a score of 100. The daily default would give you 1 point a day times the Loyalty (which should generally be about 50). This means typically it will take 200 in-game days to convert a settlement, shorter if Loyalty is high somehow, and longer if Loyalty is low. So if you've got a foreign Castle at like a lousy 20 Loyalty, going to take 500 in-game days to convert.

What I imagine:
KlruZCp.png
 
Yeah, but why are the Khan's Guard protecting the Empress who's going to subjugate their people? Now if by some chance the Southern Empire does conquer the Khuzait land's - okay that makes sense at that point because then the Empress is effectively the Khan.
She did; besides, aside from linguistic differences, it really makes no difference if the khan's a native of the steppe, a descendant of Urkun Khan, or whoever to qualify as a "khan's guard" in the literal sense and simply being so good that they ought to be guarding royalty would qualify in a figurative sense. I don't know about you, but I find it much more fun to fight enemy armies comprised of the best of multiple cultures because it's a lot harder to counter them whereas when they're all of one it's easier to identify their weaknesses relative to your own army and exploit it accordingly.

It was a pretty crazy map at the time; I think the "Western" Empire had conquered most of Eastern Calradia (everything from Lageta and Ortysia in their home territories to Chaikhand and whatever's around it that I cannot name off the top of my head) while the Southern Empire only had Onira and Danustica in Imperial territory proper and was mostly migrated into the southern half of the Khuzait territory. The actual Khuzait Khanate comprised only Baltakhand and maybe a couple castles, if I recall correctly.


Some kind of patrol party wouldn't be bad.

But honestly Kingdom parties should hunt down bandits much more aggressively. Especially during any peace time. In theory the layman pays taxes not just so they are protected from rival nations, but you know bandits that try to rob them on the way to market.
Don't they already? Usually it's more tidy during peacetime, but when war's going on bandits and remnants have free reign to terrorize unless there's some odd nobles hanging out in the hinterlands for some reason. I don't know how much A.I. behavior differs due to traits, so I can't say if some lords actually do hang back like they did in Warband or not, especially not if overall kingdom policy ("Aggressive/Neutral/Defensive") overrides this innate behavior.
That's the problem. Battle Loot is the main source of income in this game, when it should absolutely not be. If a Clan has no fiefs it should either have to turn bandit, raiding to survive, or essentially stop existing to where it's only a small warband of like maybe 20-50. And when a Clan is fief-less, Kingdom-less, it should cease to exist as a threat and effectively find a new home or leave Calradia.
Yes, I definitely think destroyed kingdoms ought to cease as kingdoms after a certain period of time and only reconstitute should, for example, a rebel city emerge (ideally of any culture, just for the funzies of seeing the Aserai take over a rebellious Tyal lol) otherwise they're worse than bandits since they actually deveastate local economies (peasant parties can overwhelm bandits if their hearths have grown enough after all).

I also believe when a Kingdom loses its last fief, it should revert into some kind of "Minor Kingdom". No longer able to declare war or receive tribute, but it remains at permanent war with whoever took their last fief, kind of like Minor Clans. That could be good reason for player/A.I. to not outright destroy rival Kingdoms... because you risk having to deal with a bunch of freedom fighters til you kill em all.

Don't they almost already function like this? When a faction's destroyed, they're effectively in a permanent state of war with the faction that destroyed them with only brief periods of "peace" to rebuild before resuming their "freedom fighting." I'd say them ceasing and turning into neutral clans would be an ideal solution to this nuisance, or at least some dedicated measure specifically designed to crush remnants (like patrol parties of some kind). I like the idea that factions can be restored through happenstance, however, but not that they'll be spending forever setting fires in people's backyards around their former capital city until/unless it happens.
With multiple parties able to siege now, it should not be necessary for A.I. to form armies to take a castle/town and reform their Kingdom proper.
I'm confused; was it not possible for parties to join together in previous versions? And why shouldn't A.I. need to organize an army to take a castle/town to restore their kingdom? If it's too easy, you'll/other A.I. will need a permanent staff of 1-2,000 Militia + Soldiers to make it effectively impossible. I'd prefer it if it were not a financial drain to own and maintain territory and, with things as they are, a fully staffed city is an economic drain unless its prosperity is very high.
Ah if only the player could give real commands to their parties! Then just imagine as King/Queen you could like actually order your armies! Take this Town/Castle, defend this fief, follow my party, etc. Coming SOON in 2025! :roll:
I certainly wouldn't mind being able to at least "suggest" people go do this or that like in Warband lol, never mind set a more strict war goal with rewards and punishments for obedience (I don't want them to just do whatever I say; I think Bannerlord's appeal is the illusion that every A.I. actor has a mind of their own, so I think it'd be ideal to achieve this effect by offering rewards that not everybody will accept while reserving punishments that not everybody will tolerate).
I think that's right, otherwise Towns will never rebel. Best way I've found to deal with it is just build one project at a time, set daily default to Festivals. That way when 1 project completes and you come back Loyalty will be back up again.
Yes, I think it's necessary to keep it as it is for cities to have a probable chance of rebelling, and as a way of maintaining the current unification rate. I think what needs working on is the A.I.'s intelligence in handling this mechanic so that they aren't shooting themselves in the foot.

Would you suggest "Cultural Conversion" go so far as to change the local troops to match the new culture? I like the idea as a means of voiding the loyalty penalties in the long term but NOT if it means homogenizing army compositions, especially among A.I. opponents.
 
Ah if only the player could give real commands to their parties! Then just imagine as King/Queen you could like actually order your armies! Take this Town/Castle, defend this fief, follow my party, etc. Coming SOON in 2025! :roll:
I'm probably in the minority saying this but I really really don't want to be able to order armies and lords. It would probably make the late game completely trivial. I would however like the AI decision making getting improved overall and be able to suggest lords to attack/defend a specific settlement by chat checks à la Warband.

I remember the devs discussing the ruler offering "bounties" on settlements with gold and/or influence rewards similar to Majesty some time ago, and this suggestion got declined because it would make the game too easy (and more lifeless probably). Don't get me wrong, I would still like the late game to be made "easier" by cutting down on the grind and making it so that factions get destroyed much more easily.
 
Last edited:
And the fact that 90% of the players receive 90% of the income from blacksmithing and the fact that AI lords cannot maintain garrisons of castles is not clear to developers ...
I don't think that's the case. You can fund an endgame party just by selling loot from all the battles you win.
 
I'm probably in the minority saying this but I really really don't want to be able to order armies and lords. It would probably make the late game completely trivial. I would however like the AI decision making getting improved overall and be able to suggest lords to attack/defend a specific settlement by chat checks à la Warband.

I remember the devs discussing the ruler offering "bounties" on settlements with gold and/or influence rewards similar to Majesty some time ago, and this suggestion got declined because it would make the game too easy (and more lifeless probably). Don't get me wrong, I would still like the late game to be made "easier" by cutting down on the grind and making it so that factions get destroyed much more easily.
If that's the case, then perhaps it's best we cannot for the time being. I really enjoyed the mid to late game strategic challenges during my first/unification playthrough so it'd be a shame if it ended up becoming a fast/easy snowball rather than the sweaty push and pull with a chance of disaster it was for me. I'd like to be able to chat and "suggest" lords do this or that, but I don't want to be the only smart ruler coordinating vassals or otherwise have an easy time too soon. It's never fun when it just becomes an easy clean-up phase.
 
If that's the case, then perhaps it's best we cannot for the time being. I really enjoyed the mid to late game strategic challenges during my first/unification playthrough so it'd be a shame if it ended up becoming a fast/easy snowball rather than the sweaty push and pull with a chance of disaster it was for me. I'd like to be able to chat and "suggest" lords do this or that, but I don't want to be the only smart ruler coordinating vassals or otherwise have an easy time too soon. It's never fun when it just becomes an easy clean-up phase.
Exactly, even if other rulers could do this, the player would be the only smart one. It would also make lords into glorified grunts rather than npcs with some semblance of personality if we needed to convince them by chat checks.
 
Exactly, even if other rulers could do this, the player would be the only smart one. It would also make lords into glorified grunts rather than npcs with some semblance of personality if we needed to convince them by chat checks.
Yes, ultimately, I think one of the core appeals of Bannerlord is the simulation side of it, so I'd also prefer it if we have to (perhaps use the persuasion minigame?) kindly ask people to do stuff rather than boss them like robots, so that character traits, personal motives, etc. can remain factors (and ideally be expanded in importance going forward). Basically, not just for balance's sake but also the sake of simulating a fictional world populated by hundreds or thousands of independent actors, it ought to be something we negotiate with rather than make do XYZ.
 
I'm probably in the minority saying this but I really really don't want to be able to order armies and lords. It would probably make the late game completely trivial. I would however like the AI decision making getting improved overall and be able to suggest lords to attack/defend a specific settlement by chat checks à la Warband.
The only way to make ordering work is if they also added them in as 'forced' quests for the player to if they aren't the king. Ie. join this army, attack this town, raid this village, defend area, target X lord, etc..., and a heavy consequence (relations, influence, renown, or money even) for not obeying. So going up the ladder/relation/influence, you may have to do 'cruel' trait quest/objectives, whether the player wants to (gain trait, etc...) or not (get negative influence, etc...) that may either accelerate or slow down their RP in that kingdom. That, and needing more things to utilize influence currency.

Which, in the end, is probably not fun for a sandbox game (ie conspiracy quests in campaign); and they also have to make it very, very hard to become king due to players being able to abuse said mechanic.
 
The only way to make ordering work is if they also added them in as 'forced' quests for the player to if they aren't the king. Ie. join this army, attack this town, raid this village, defend area, target X lord, etc..., and a heavy consequence (relations, influence, renown, or money even) for not obeying. So going up the ladder/relation/influence, you may have to do 'cruel' trait quest/objectives, whether the player wants to (gain trait, etc...) or not (get negative influence, etc...) that may either accelerate or slow down their RP in that kingdom. That, and needing more things to utilize influence currency.

Which, in the end, is probably not fun for a sandbox game (ie conspiracy quests in campaign); and they also have to make it very, very hard to become king due to players being able to abuse said mechanic.
Yes, I just can't see how that would be fun. Granted, vassals should have some obligation to the throne, but I don't know what. As for becoming king being harder, apparently 1.1 fixed it so we're not the first choice of every lord anymore.
 
Yes, I just can't see how that would be fun. Granted, vassals should have some obligation to the throne, but I don't know what. As for becoming king being harder, apparently 1.1 fixed it so we're not the first choice of every lord anymore.
It wouldn't be, which was probably the right decision from TW given the amount of added depth/work needed otherwise. But it would be nice to be able to use that influence bucks to maybe utilize it in a form of a vote for targeting an objective or not.
 
It wouldn't be, which was probably the right decision from TW given the amount of added depth/work needed otherwise. But it would be nice to be able to use that influence bucks to maybe utilize it in a form of a vote for targeting an objective or not.
That's why I prefer to have influence buxx & relation/charm be used as "suggestions" for lords.
 
That's why I prefer to have influence buxx & relation/charm be used as "suggestions" for lords.
Influence, and how TW does (or doesn't) use it well is probably one the biggest issues with this game imo. It had the potential as a second 'currency' for so many possible politicking features that are sorely absent.
 
Back
Top Bottom