How would you differenciate the armies of different Imperial factions?

[LuciusDomitiusAurelianus]

Making them culturally different won't work, BL is taking place only a few years (months?) after the Empire fractures anyway, so having them be too different would be a bit radical. This is not exactly a Western / Eastern Age of the Dominate where you had Strategoi in the Persian East fighting with Cataphracts and imported Frankish cav or Sarmatian & Avar light cav formations fighting with Celts & Romans in Britain.

Ideally I'd like to see a total overhaul of how the governments work along with policies, which has been talked about a lot, they all operate the same despite their flavor-text differences in government.

A cool perk per zone would be to be able to hire minors or maybe make them more likely to hire a border region. Though a full overhaul will see some disparate and unique trees with:

• Southern Empire favoring heavy cataphracts, camel riders, mace-wielders, along with a noble tier of heavy shock infantry or specialized lance cavalry a la "Kavallaroi" and the Varangian Guard
• Western Empire having more of the Vlandian (Germanic) influence with light / medium cavalry, crossbows, anti-cavalry troops (Melavitoi / pikes) and then the core of heavy shock legionnaires
• Northern Empire having a much more steppe/gothic influence with horse archers, Varanigan-influenced troops, skirmishers, and then the core heavy shock legionnaires as well

As the game progresses the cultures do end up hiring troops but I'd like to see the tactics change but what we are all really asking for are system overhauls that would be necessary to even have this.

At the very least change the ****ing colors...

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

I think at most, there is a chance for some lords to favour specific units depending on what is added to their hero.xml. But it results in stupidity like all archer armies, rather than cool sh*t like lord exclusive stuff.

They definitely have different proportions preferences but I've never seen all one type retinues except for when they're mostly recruits/volunteers.

LuciusDomitiusAurelianus:​

At the very least change the ****ing colors...

Absolutely not! Or rather, have the soldiers' colors reflect the specific shade of purple/pink of the banners but leave the chosen colors overall alone lol. It's nice to have pink, violet, and blue-purple.

It certainly wouldn't hurt to have some region-specific noble/auxiliaries though, like camelry, special heavy infantry, and more love for crossbows (Vlandian and Imperial Sharpshooters REALLY need more than a measly 20 bolts to be desirable compared to even mid-tier archers of any other faction outside of their utility in doubling as infantry in a scrum).

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Making them culturally different won't work, BL is taking place only a few years (months?) after the Empire fractures anyway, so having them be too different would be a bit radical.

Who cares about the lore? If it makes the game less interesting then change the lore, not the gameplay.

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

Making them culturally different won't work, BL is taking place only a few years (months?) after the Empire fractures anyway, so having them be too different would be a bit radical. This is not exactly a Western / Eastern Age of the Dominate where you had Strategoi in the Persian East fighting with Cataphracts and imported Frankish cav or Sarmatian & Avar light cav formations fighting with Celts & Romans in Britain.

I mean... Calradia is a big place, with all sorts of subcultures about. Just as the Roman empire was rather varied from place to place, I can't see why Calradia could be the same, depending where you go.

 

[NPC99]

I mean... Calradia is a big place, with all sorts of subcultures about. Just as the Roman empire was rather varied from place to place, I can't see why Calradia could be the same, depending where you go.

+1

 

[JunKeteer]

They're supposed to be fragments of a single whole, not 3 totally distinct cultures so I don't think they have a problem with regards to troop trees. If anything, I'd rather they had more "civil wars" by default so there more factions waging war within the same game space. How many more? Frankly, I think it'd be really cool if most factions were only 1-2 cities with a couple castles and only a rare few had ~4 cities and assorted castles since it'd create a chaotic imbalance and make things more unpredicable and politically exciting.

Would be cool if it was designed that way, start is tiny fractured kingdoms; whoever makes it 'big' in the next couple years - much more diverse than it is currently. Like TW series, it's not necessarily always the same ones that become the powerhouse (besides certain imbalance aspects) after many turns.
BL has this weird equilibrium aspect to it; and from what I can really see, it's more the map terrain/pathing issues that tends to be the only determining factor - absent player involvement.

 

[Totalgarbage]

Would be cool if it was designed that way, start is tiny fractured kingdoms; whoever makes it 'big' in the next couple years - much more diverse than it is currently. Like TW series, it's not necessarily always the same ones that become the powerhouse (besides certain imbalance aspects) after many turns.
BL has this weird equilibrium aspect to it; and from what I can really see, it's more the map terrain/pathing issues that tends to be the only determining factor - absent player involvement.

It's actually rather cool how the factions have some equilibrium but they still and and do snowball.

One of my gripes with BL is that playing different factions feel too similar. There's Battania who's only kind of the underdog, but otherwise most factions have similar power levels at the start of the game. I understand that they designed this purposefully so that the players won't have to "rush" before a faction gets eliminated (like at the start of the early access), but I would like to see some very small factions that have no realistic chance of becoming a powerhouse.

Maybe if they're planning on adding new factions into the game in the future, one of them will be a weak one by default (for example the Vakken or maybe an Armenian/Georgian/Circassian based faction between Sturgia and Khuzaits).

 

[JunKeteer]

It's actually rather cool how the factions have some equilibrium but they still and and do snowball.

One of my gripes with BL is that playing different factions feel too similar. There's Battania who's only kind of the underdog, but otherwise most factions have similar power levels at the start of the game. I understand that they designed this purposefully so that the players won't have to "rush" before a faction gets eliminated (like at the start of the early access), but I would like to see some very small factions that have no realistic chance of becoming a powerhouse.

I'm not sure they intentionally designed Battanians to be the underdog - influenced maybe, as we ourselves did from whatever context (ie Braveheart, celts/gauls/romans, 'forest bandits/rebels', 'robinhood', etc...).
The only reason they are the underdog in game (though wasn't always the case depending on patches) is most likely due to their situation in the world map. If they were the underdog, we would see them losing more often than not, be it AI scripted, or game scenarios; they are just another faction on the map with some cultural style to them with the same scripted balancing/equilibrium factors as all others.

Maybe if they're planning on adding new factions into the game in the future, one of them will be a weak one by default (for example the Vakken or maybe an Armenian/Georgian/Circassian based faction between Sturgia and Khuzaits).

TBH, I was hoping the Empires would be the 'weak' ones given the civil war - and through the game, you could predictably see the other kingdoms take swaths of their lands to whatever random degree. So that in your head, 'yeah, this is probably why WB has no 'Empire' in ~300 years given their current situation'; with the player making or breaking that storyline.

 

[Totalgarbage]

The only reason they are the underdog in game (though wasn't always the case depending on patches) is most likely due to their situation in the world map. If they were the underdog, we would see them losing more often than not, be it AI scripted, or game scenarios; they are just another faction on the map with some cultural style to them with the same scripted balancing/equilibrium factors as all others.

That's what I meant by the Battanians being kind of the underdogs, they start the game with the least amount of clans and towns (although 2 of their towns are among the best in the game) and are completely surrounded by 4 factions. The Battanians are the only faction that I can really call as being on a lower power level at the start of the game despite having the best cultural bonus. But as you're saying, they're not losing more often than other factions (well in my experiences they do actually lose roughly half of their territory within the first 5-10 years most of the time, but they usually manage to reacquire them and then some).

If anything, Sturgians are probably the stereotypical underdog in practice due to how stretched thin they are while also having a forested and snow covered (for half the year) territory.

TBH, I was hoping the Empires would be the 'weak' ones given the civil war - and through the game, you could predictably see the other kingdoms take swaths of their lands to whatever random degree. So that in your head, 'yeah, this is probably why WB has no 'Empire' in ~300 years given their current situation'; with the player making or breaking that storyline.

Yes, that also would be very logical, as the game's premise is either the empire falls or the player manages to "reunite" them as sort of an alternate timeline. Maybe the devs decided otherwise after seeing how popular the empire is or maybe that's just for fluff?

 

[JunKeteer]

That's what I meant by the Battanians being kind of the underdogs, they start the game with the least amount of clans and towns (although 2 of their towns are among the best in the game) and are completely surrounded by 4 factions. The Battanians are the only faction that I can really call as being on a lower power level at the start of the game despite having the best cultural bonus. But as you're saying, they're not losing more often than other factions (well in my experiences they do actually lose roughly half of their territory within the first 5-10 years most of the time, but they usually manage to reacquire them and then some).

Thematically may be underdogs, but nothing 'in-game' making them underdogs. They may start with less towns but it's dense. I generally see them spill out towards Lageta (and even Ortysia) and that smattering of castles by Sturgia/Omor/Epicrotea all the time in almost all my playthroughs (where I'm not involved); with some rubberbanding with Vlandia/Sargot and that castle between them there.

Again, that's just a product of the terrain pathing in game and army movement speeds and why certain kingdoms will always lose.

If anything, Sturgians are probably the stereotypical underdog in practice due to how stretched thin they are while also having a forested and snow covered (for half the year) territory.

Sturgia will always be cut in half around Omor, whether that's Khuzait taking Tyal (like they always do) or NE/Batt taking Omor and castles around there. Once two wars are dec'd on them, they lose ground on one front immediately given logistical disadvantage and lack of AI world map contrivances.

Yes, that also would be very logical, as the game's premise is either the empire falls or the player manages to "reunite" them as sort of an alternate timeline. Maybe the devs decided otherwise after seeing how popular the empire is or maybe that's just for fluff?

I don't think it was because of the popular dissuasion. Nothing in the game ever had 'elimination' factored into it - X fief will always be culture empire (no assimilation), kingdoms don't 'die', etc...they went the route of making all 8 kingdoms equal in all fronts, and they achieve that. Just so happens 2 of the 8 kingdoms is exactly the same as another one; with the only discerning difference being the hue of their skirts being slightly lighter or darker than the other. The other 5 kingdoms, sure, 'balance' them how you like, at least their colours and troops templates are unique enough to perceive some 'difference'.

 

[Reiksmarshal]

I would give each faction a unique unit or two to make each army a little different.

For example the Southern Empire Cataphracts could be armed with bows to help deal with the armies of the East and maybe make their Legionnaires lighter armored. The Western Empire would have better pikemen to help against the heavy cavalry of the Vlandians and the Northern Empire would have the heaviest armored legions out of the three. Something a subtle as this could make a big difference imo.

 

[niekdegrijze]

I would give each faction a unique unit or two to make each army a little different.

For example the Southern Empire Cataphracts could be armed with bows to help deal with the armies of the East and maybe make their Legionnaires lighter armored. The Western Empire would have better pikemen to help against the heavy cavalry of the Vlandians and the Northern Empire would have the heaviest armored legions out of the three. Something a subtle as this could make a big difference imo.

Yes for me this would be enough. Maybe add a distinct equipment piece from the referenced culture to make it distinct on the battlefield

 

[Forest-Bandit]

Most of us would agree that having 3 separate imperial factions that play mostly the same except who they're fighting, and fight exactly the same on the battlefield, a bit lame. While the best way to make these factions more discernable is to make their faction politics play different than each other according to the lore, I think their army rosters needs a bit of uniqueness as well.

My suggestions would be to :

a) Make minor clans only hireable by the factions in their nearby vicinity (e.g. Jawwal only being hireable by faction that owns the southern part of Aserai, Skolderbrotva only by the faction that controls the north etc.)

b) Give the different empire faction locations different noble troops; Northern Empire should get a shock troop based on the Varangian Guard (I think they already exist in the game's lore as Vaegir guards), give the Western Empire a crossbow & shield infantry unit based on the Rhodoks (who are based on the Genoese/northern Italian troops iirc) and make the Cataphracts exclusive to the Southern Empire.

What do you

Most of us would agree that having 3 separate imperial factions that play mostly the same except who they're fighting, and fight exactly the same on the battlefield, a bit lame. While the best way to make these factions more discernable is to make their faction politics play different than each other according to the lore, I think their army rosters needs a bit of uniqueness as well.

My suggestions would be to :

a) Make minor clans only hireable by the factions in their nearby vicinity (e.g. Jawwal only being hireable by faction that owns the southern part of Aserai, Skolderbrotva only by the faction that controls the north etc.)

b) Give the different empire faction locations different noble troops; Northern Empire should get a shock troop based on the Varangian Guard (I think they already exist in the game's lore as Vaegir guards), give the Western Empire a crossbow & shield infantry unit based on the Rhodoks (who are based on the Genoese/northern Italian troops iirc) and make the Cataphracts exclusive to the Southern Empire.

What do you think?

I think they should just let the time line run into war and era

 

[Forest-Bandit]

I think they should just let the time line run into war and era

Warband era and just outfit troops differently depending on the ages leading up to it and let u marry commoners and followers so that when the world is Concquerd u can rebel using the new crime gameplay when loyalty is low and high influence.,also the reason to marry commoners/followers is so u want have to marry whoever controls calderia

 

[Retrobarbaari]

b) Give the different empire faction locations different noble troops

What do you think?

I think all armies in Calradia look the same. They may start looking different, but after a while they are a mix of all troops in Calradia. And I do find it lame.