Ok, so the point is fiefs take FOREVER to max out and armies take a few days, my point is that even if they are not top tier an enemy faction has no problem sending 3k troops at you every few days.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
How would you change the passage of time in the sandbox/campaign?
- Thread starter Totalgarbage
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
Yeah, the latter has been a problem for 3 years at this point, the devs should reeeeeeeeeeally fix it because it makes the late game hellishly tedious. Sure, the remade armies have 75% tier 1-2-3 soldiers, but that doesn't really matter if they can throw body after body to the player and if the AI doesn't reinforce newly captured settlements.
The last thing you said is the worst part, because of the crappy voting system you are forced to hand over prime real estate on the front line to another clan that won't protect it, even if you garrison it they will empty it out!
They should give the ruler the ability to take fiefs to themselves for a high influence cost and some relation cost (5 to 10) with every clan for doing so. This would improve the kingdom phase so much, since we can also give fiefs to specific clans or even make a new clan with our companions.
Yoshioki Ouchi
Sergeant
Eh, they're paper tigers. I'd say the real issue is A.I. since it should be very easy to counter these armies with coordinated efforts and appropriate monitoring of vulnerable zones. Frankly, I wish the enemy armies more commonly had better quality troops since it's usually just me auto-winning everything after one or two proper battles per war in the unification phase (and that statement applies even for enemy countries spanning nearly half the continent, never mind minor nothings barely holding onto whatever they've got left).
Yoshioki Ouchi
Sergeant
Indirectly, you can already do so by expelling vassals (which, weirdly enough, seemed to cost about the same amount of Influence to force (~500 at the time I tested it) as seizing a land and putting its transfer to another vote) which could theoretically be exploited, although I'm not sure how viable a game strategy it'd be since I'm not sure what the practical consequences are of a handful of former vassals hating you and, presumably, joining another faction.
I think spending Influence for the ruler to grant a newly acquired fief for themselves is sensible (you could do it in Warband after all) and perhaps scale the negative consequences proportional to how much territory the ruler already has (so they're more and more irate based on the percentage of territory the ruler owns relative to the whole country, basically fearing a greedy power-monger and having an increasing chance to secede/defect/rebel as you do it, perhaps similar to how a player could rebel from a fief they took in Warband).
Sure I guess, I just would like it to be more direct and consistent, but at a cost.
Yes, I like it, it could scale with the number of the fiefs a ruler has, or maybe with the amount of fiefs vassal clans have (-15 for vassals with 0 fiefs, -10 for 1 fief, -5 for 2 fiefs, no change for 3+ fiefs). Also like the idea of secession, and it should also increase with the amount of fiefs that clan has, so more fiefs = higher chance of secession.
Yoshioki Ouchi
Sergeant
I think proportions are an important factor, since owning half the country basically means you're equal in power to everybody else combined--and that ought to scare the other half to the point where they'd seriously want to depose you and seize big chunks of your land.
The way I'd do it, if I could, would be to have an interpersonal relationship penalty of -10 to -40 (varying based on personality) for ignoring noble democracy plus a hidden game mechanic where nobles form political factions based on common interests (including fear of the ruling clan/desire for oligarchy over autocracy) and have that league posses a hidden "faction leader." Then, having a percentage chance of secession or rebellion (to depose the ruling clan) based on several factors (including personal dislike of the monarch and relative strength of the "hidden faction" versus the ruling clan) with, ideally, a serious possibility of arranging for alliances with other/enemy states. For example, perhaps the seceding/rebelling league's leadership has close ties to Sturgia and so, upon deciding to rebel or secede (the difference being their political end goal and, I suppose, "sense of patriotism" if that were a mechanic) from Epicrotea (say you're the King of Vlandia in this example), there's a high chance Sturiga will be considered their ally and actively support them militarily and financially against you (and a chance they WON'T do so, leaving them relatively vulnerable with fragmented territories and enemies on multiple sides).
But... for this idea to come to pass, there'd have to be some new game mechanics both playable/visible and hidden.
The monarch should have the ABILITY to do what they want, and what I would do is implement a feast mechanic and when you provided enough butter all your vassals would shutup, also giving one of your female clan members to another clan should be something like +1 rep per month because right now they are too valuable to consider lettting go of. (30 rep is absolutely nothing)
RozBritanicus
Sergeant
I like the idea of the next generation of the player npc's carrying on the fight or rivalries. So i personally would increase the rate of aging by around 30% to 40%. But exp and skill would need speeding up too. The clan stuff at the moment is pretty pointless and is just fluff and mirrors warband the one character playthrough. Which is what some people like but i would like the clan system to come into play. Maybe TW could add a slider you set at he start like deaths on or off to adjust game years.
Similar threads
