How Will Raiding Work?

[vicwiz007]

This is both a question pertaining to Bannerlord and real history. Now we know that every settlement can be upgraded to have defensive structures; walls, castles, whatever. So then how will raiding work? In Warband it made sense that you just ransacked the dumb peasants and took all their stuff, but I would think that if you go to a settlement with a castle you'd have to besiege it to get all the goodies. Maybe it will be like the peasants grab whatever they can and run into the castle, so the raiders can either try to raid the castle or just take whatever is left outside.

I'm not sure how this would even work in real life. This is just me guessing trying to use common sense.

Could it be more like Total War games where you go into a "stance" in enemy territory (similar to waiting in camp in Warband) and raid the countryside until driven out? Id be interested in some more info on how settlements work now, considering i don't think we've seen any since years ago, correct me if I'm wrong...

 

[Rabies]

Logically, if the castle is actually in the village, then whoever is inside its walls could launch projectiles at anyone trying to raid the buildings round about it.

If the castle is set apart by itself, some distance from the houses and barns and workshops, then you'd be able to raid the place of whatever the peasants left behind, unless the castle garrison came out to confront you.

But it's anyone's guess, I suppose, how the devs will choose to balance it - presumably, from a gameplay perspective, it'd be pretty annoying if you'd invested a lot of time and money into building a castle, and the village could still be raided for significant damage to your economy and income.

But perhaps it depends on how many soldiers you leave in the castle? It might be equally annoying if you are prevented from raiding somewhere with a very tiny garrison, just because gamerules. Maybe you can burn parts of the village to draw out the garrison if you fancy your chances in open battle?

 

[vicwiz007]

But it's anyone's guess, I suppose, how the devs will choose to balance it - presumably, from a gameplay perspective, it'd be pretty annoying if you'd invested a lot of time and money into building a castle, and the village could still be raided for significant damage to your economy and income.

But perhaps it depends on how many soldiers you leave in the castle? It might be equally annoying if you are prevented from raiding somewhere with a very tiny garrison, just because gamerules. Maybe you can burn parts of the village to draw out the garrison if you fancy your chances in open battle?

I agree it would be annoying but it could also be just so that its harder to take the actual town. Now that i think of it, there was an option to create militia in towns, even without a castle, so raiding might require a fight no matter what, and then, as you said, its anyone guess for how castles factor in.

Now then to add on your second part there, maybe the size of your castle garrison will determine whether you want to try to sally out and fend off the raiders, or stick to the safety of the walls to ensure you cant lose everything stored in the castle as well (thats where the valuable stuff would be no matter what) or even control of the town.

I think it will make for awesome strategic options if they flesh it out like this.

 

[NPC99]

A castle can be built in one of the four production slots surrounding a village. I doubt this converts such a village into a walled centre. Hopefully, its garrison can sally out to chase off small raiding parties or harass bigger ones with ranged fire. Maybe the raiders will only be able to sack the village’s other three production slots or villagers who retreated into the castle can rebuilt their burnt village quicker as they weren’t slaughtered in the attack.

 

[Honved]

Historically, many raiding parties either launched surprise attacks to catch the defenders unprepared, or else stole crops before they were fully ripened and grabbed whatever lower value goods had been left behind by the defenders when the retreated into the castle, keep, or mountains.

Not every village had a fortification to fall back on, but many of them had the huts and fences arranged to provide what was in effect a fairly solid wall to the outside.  Granted, it wasn't a castle, but still gave the villagers some advantage over the attackers, or at least less of a handicap.  Generally, the attackers didn't come to fight, they showed up to loot, and might not be willing to risk losing a lot of men in the assault even if the end result was inevitable.

 

[Roccoflipside]

A castle can be built in one of the four production slots surrounding a village. I doubt this converts such a village into a walled centre. Hopefully, its garrison can sally out to chase off small raiding parties or harass bigger ones with ranged fire. Maybe the raiders will only be able to sack the village’s other three production slots or villagers who retreated into the castle can rebuilt their burnt village quicker as they weren’t slaughtered in the attack.

This would make a lot of sense. You raid a village with a castle, sheep pens, stables, and wheat fields. Defenders retreat into the castle, you receive some wool, a few horses, and some wheat. You can now choose to take what you got and leave, or besiege the castle and try to take it along with all the gold and other goodies the defenders hid inside.

 

[Rabies]

A castle can be built in one of the four production slots surrounding a village. I doubt this converts such a village into a walled centre. Hopefully, its garrison can sally out to chase off small raiding parties or harass bigger ones with ranged fire. Maybe the raiders will only be able to sack the village’s other three production slots or villagers who retreated into the castle can rebuilt their burnt village quicker as they weren’t slaughtered in the attack.

This would make a lot of sense. You raid a village with a castle, sheep pens, stables, and wheat fields. Defenders retreat into the castle, you receive some wool, a few horses, and some wheat. You can now choose to take what you got and leave, or besiege the castle and try to take it along with all the gold and other goodies the defenders hid inside.

And if you're the owner of a village that's raided, what would your options be?

If you're not there in person, how do you tell the garrison whether to confront the raiders and try to stop anything at all being stolen, or to retreat into the castle and just defend the most valuable items and the population?

Maybe it'd be automatic, based on relative size/strength of the two forces? Or maybe you could give them a 'stance' to take - aggressive or defensive - in your absence?

 

[Roccoflipside]

A castle can be built in one of the four production slots surrounding a village. I doubt this converts such a village into a walled centre. Hopefully, its garrison can sally out to chase off small raiding parties or harass bigger ones with ranged fire. Maybe the raiders will only be able to sack the village’s other three production slots or villagers who retreated into the castle can rebuilt their burnt village quicker as they weren’t slaughtered in the attack.

This would make a lot of sense. You raid a village with a castle, sheep pens, stables, and wheat fields. Defenders retreat into the castle, you receive some wool, a few horses, and some wheat. You can now choose to take what you got and leave, or besiege the castle and try to take it along with all the gold and other goodies the defenders hid inside.

And if you're the owner of a village that's raided, what would your options be?

If you're not there in person, how do you tell the garrison whether to confront the raiders and try to stop anything at all being stolen, or to retreat into the castle and just defend the most valuable items and the population?

Maybe it'd be automatic, based on relative size/strength of the two forces? Or maybe you could give them a 'stance' to take - aggressive or defensive - in your absence?

Possibly some kind of combination of those two. I.e. you put the garrison on an 'aggressive' stance, they sally out as long as they are at least equal in number to the attackers, while on 'defensive' they only sally out if they're twice as big, or something like that.

 

[Lord Brutus]

You know what I think would be cool?  If TW said nothing about it, then if the game ever releases, we could figure it out on our own.

 

[Roccoflipside]

You know what I think would be cool?  If TW said nothing about it, then if the game ever releases, we could figure it out on our own.

Well seems you're in luck then! 

 

[Orion]

That's the winning strategy.

 

[vicwiz007]

You know what I think would be cool?  If TW said nothing about it, then if the game ever releases, we could figure it out on our own.

Eh well i knew there was no actual answer i just wanted something to talk about in this lull of Bannerlord info. I dont really think it matters if large features like this are spoiled at least a little bit. Not like someone is spoiling the main quest lines that unravel the mystery of the lore to the player.

 

[Rabies]

You know what I think would be cool?  If TW said nothing about it, then if the game ever releases, we could figure it out on our own.

He opens up for business when the clock strikes nine
He likes to get up early when they're feelin' fine
Everybody gets a little rise 'n shine
With the great big bundle o' joy

 

[KhergitLancer80]

For some reason there is a feeling inside me saying that we will understand the ''raiding-protection-castle'' stuff in the gamescom 2018.

But if devs ask for my suggestion(which is probably pointless to say at this point)

Lets say you just became a lord and you want to protect your first village but you cant really sit and wait since you got stuff to do.

Put men in garrison but every village shall have a limitation. For example 25 men.

You want to increase it ? Then you have to build a castle.


You say I want to protect it from higher tier lords and 25 men is not really useful but also I cant really build a castle now.

Then a third option, appoint a companion. He shall act independently from you, carry more troops, even recruit when it is needed but dont forget he will get his share from the cake(the tax of the village).


This will in fact make things very interesting, you are going to have to increase his leader skill so that he can carry more troops.

You can also tell him things like if enemy has more men than you run away and come to me.

But dont forget if you have only one village to protect and if the king finds out you left the job to a companion and he is protecting the village for you, he will get angry to you since it is your job to protect the village and thats why you are being paid with that villages' taxes.

 

[vicwiz007]

For some reason there is a feeling inside me saying that we will understand the ''raiding-protection-castle'' stuff in the gamescom 2018.
Then a third option, appoint a companion. He shall act independently from you, carry more troops, even recruit when it is needed but dont forget he will get his share from the cake(the tax of the village).
This will in fact make things very interesting, you are going to have to increase his leader skill so that he can carry more troops. You can also tell him things like if enemy has more men than you run away and come to me.
But dont forget if you have only one village to protect and if the king finds out you left the job to a companion and he is protecting the village for you, he will get angry to you since it is your job to protect the village and thats why you are being paid with that villages' taxes.

The one thing ive always wanted to see from Taleworlds is a release date the upgraded companions interactions; for example giving them troops under your command or the permadeath system for companions and players/lords (assuming its still a thing). So if there is no talk of a release date, but they say at least a few things about this, I might be satisfied.

So what you say would be a cool use for them and I hope theyve included features such as this to make them more useful and get you attached to them. However I dont know if the king would necessarily care how you protect the village, be it directly or through subordinates, as long as it's protected. Should it be raided while you had a companion in charge, then you might be in trouble.

 

[Roccoflipside]

So what you say would be a cool use for them and I hope theyve included features such as this to make them more useful and get you attached to them. However I dont know if the king would necessarily care how you protect the village, be it directly or through subordinates, as long as it's protected. Should it be raided while you had a companion in charge, then you might be in trouble.

Definitely agree here. As long as your fief is safe, the king shouldn't really care how you defend it, but if/when your fief is raided you have to worry about your king's opinion. Although, it would seem to me that losing a battle, as long as you had troops to defend your fief, wouldn't anger the king as much as if you left the place undefended.