I did it! I took the entire Map all by myself! I rule the ashes of Calradia! I learned weird stuff!

Users who are viewing this thread

Might not work for everyone...
I belong to the group of ppl who believes this heir/inheritance system along with the accelerated time is utter and complete BS and should be optional. I don't want to play with my heir's heir's heir, I want to play with my toon like we did in WB...

its already optional though, just disable death. except maybe if you get too old? never played a campaign that long. they should probably allow disabling aging as well. executions should just be disabled in a static world. there's a reason you couldn't do it in warband.
 
Real life is the answer to that equation. What would happen if America just went around executing its rival's Heads of State in broad daylight. First you would lose Honor and any allies that relied on Honor as a trait. You would be considered a rogue despot nation and would risk being assassinated even by "Honorable" factions within your own state -let alone the rest of the world ganging up on you.
 
That noble is Neretzes's son. His early death was a bug, and it's fixed with 1.4.0.beta.
Huh. How do you know it's his son tho? I just check his name is Penton. Also the encyclopedia do address this saying "He was assassinated in 1084 at the age of 51." Well, but I do think it could be a bug because it happens right at the starting day.
 
Here are some of my own ideas to make this more difficult if not impossible:
  • Bring back assassins from Warband. The more universally hated you are, the higher chance an assassin will appear any time you go to a town or village or castle. The more hated you are, the stronger the assassin, eventually getting up to max combat stat assassins. If the assassins beat you (you fight them solo or with your single companion escort), it sneaks you out of the village/castle/city, and you get captured by the lord who sent the assassin. Once imprisoned, they have the option to execute you depending on how much they hate you. Other of your clan members can also be assassinated with a low percentage when they are in a town or village.
  • When a clan starts running low on members, they will start to "adopt" a new member or pull in a "distant relative", so that the clan doesn't die, essentially generating a new random noble for the clan to make sure that there is always someone there. If you can wipe out the clan fast enough, you can prevent this, but it would be incredibly difficult to set up just the right situation to wipe out an entire clan so quickly.
  • When a clan starts running low on members, children will be "born" to the clan in order to inherit it. Even if your wipe out an entire clan's active nobles, their children are still growing and cannot be killed by the player until they become active (at which time they will marry and have more children to continue the chain). They will grow with a vendetta against the player's clan and hunt them down even if peace is somehow made or their faction is eliminated. Their stats will be much higher than their parents due to their vendetta-fueled training and lead large volunteer armies (no upkeep) if you are universally hated enough. If they beat your army, they can execute you.
+1 amazing
 
I'm not trying to be an ass, just asking... what's the point?
You're exploiting a newly introduced mechanic while the game is still in EA with missing and half-finished features. Executions atm only means others will hate you but since diplomacy is missing and incomplete that really means nothing, there's no substantial backlash.

ps1: I love the lore, immersion, the visuals, roleplaying, etc. and the kind of gameplay you described here is most certainly not something I would do...
ps2: I meant no insult
to me you are TTing over a playstyle that punishes you by itself, ruling an empire of ashes and graves isn't much fun, just like managing to conquer the entire map without any sort of Civil War mechanic, some weird Gavelkind heritage, etc. Though if such things would be implemented I imagine the game would have no end (which is good for some, bad for others, people are quite divided onto this subject itself). I'd prefer something more akin to CK2, so, if you wipe out a clan, another rises from within the lands (meaning you'll forcibly get vassals through such a mechanic if you own too much land, and said land should be granted onto the noble, but I think the player should still have some agency over such a mechanic, like chosing a preferred area to appoint new nobles, or choosing which fiefs to grant them)
That being said, internal politics should become a major part of the game to avoid map-painting dead-ends. Both this tactic the OP used, or the "honorable" one lead to the same conclusion: You become the sole ruler and has absolutely zero things to do after that. That on itself is a major issue IMO, but at least in BL it's less absurd than it used to be in WB (in WB the last faction was a nightmare to wipe out, only done the World Conquest twice, and the combination of Wack-a-Mole + pointlessness of ruling everything made it a standard for me to reach kingdom level and leave it at that by using mods that had Diplomacy on them, that way keeping each save a different RPing opportunity and denying completely the idea of creating "The Empire" in any playthrough.)

Some mods would address this differently, either by sheer amount of lands, by a combination of the former with "inefficiency" to discourage world conquest, or by adding post mono-color map "challenges". If BL doesn't adopt any of those it'll be quite a boring ride doing a second playthrough after managing map-painting once. Again, at least it is less ridiculous than WB OP "last faction" thingy, but I've already read some feedback stating they were unable to finish off the last faction due to a stream of forced peaces (impeding the player from conquering any of said remaining faction's territory, peace would be shoved down the guy's throat before he could finish a siege camp).

So, all in all we have to wait, stop going nutcase over this, just wait to see what they want to do with this feature, atm it IS pointless, a gimmick, but a gimmick that can be exploited due to the lack of complementary features. Also, you've said "I'm not trying to be an ass" but your statements sound like you did.


So many people going out of their way to passive-aggressively suggest that this is "playing the game wrong". Hilarious!

To me that's pure idiocy from them, if I wanna cheat a flying unicorn dual-wielding flails in a ****ing SP game, why tf would anyone care? It's basically the cumulus of the self-entitlement, to believe they have a say on other peoples' choices, which I interpret as idiocy, stupidity.... People like that should be in cages because they are actually quite dangerous to others IRL, that's basically the principle of fanaticism, fundamentalism, and the driving engine of any dictator or tyrant... The absurd idea that they have the right to decide how others should do or experience things. I absolutely abhor people like that.
 
To me that's pure idiocy from them, if I wanna cheat a flying unicorn dual-wielding flails in a ****ing SP game, why tf would anyone care? It's basically the cumulus of the self-entitlement, to believe they have a say on other peoples' choices, which I interpret as idiocy, stupidity.... People like that should be in cages because they are actually quite dangerous to others IRL, that's basically the principle of fanaticism, fundamentalism, and the driving engine of any dictator or tyrant... The absurd idea that they have the right to decide how others should do or experience things. I absolutely abhor people like that.
So people who overstep their opinions in a video game forum should 'be in cages' as they are displaying the same traits as dictators or tyrants....Right. Oh the delicious irony here
 
So people who overstep their opinions in a video game forum should 'be in cages' as they are displaying the same traits as dictators or tyrants....Right. Oh the delicious irony here
What, did you feel offended? If you did it's probably because you are one of them, let's suppose you are, that means you fit the profile of religions/political fanatics, and that you are highly likely to add to the worst the human kind has to offer. If you cannot respect personal choices, you should be locked up, yes. I'm not trying to intervene with others choices, but if their choices consist of intervening on 3rd parties choices then they are out of their "personal choice", you are directly affecting others, and causing trouble. If you are too stupid to understand I can make you a graphic later, when I'm bored. There's no irony or hypocrisy on what I've said, it's pretty straightforward. You can only chose for self, never for others.

I am no snowflake Buddhist SJW Woke fool, if you try to pull that on me in person I'd probably wipe the floor with your face (talking about not you, but people who try to overrule my personal choices, invade my personal space like a neanderthal) Freedom of choice and individuality are sacred to me, those who disrespect it I perceive as enemies, that's about it.
 
Last edited:
What, did you feel offended? If you did it's probably because you are one of them, let's suppose you are, that means you fit the profile of religions/political fanatics, and that you are highly likely to add to the worst the human kind has to offer. If you cannot respect personal choices, you should be locked up, yes. I'm not trying to intervene with others choices, but if their choices consist of intervening on 3rd parties choices then they are out of their "personal choice", you are directly affecting others, and causing trouble. If you are too stupid to understand I can make you a graphic later, when I'm bored. There's no irony or hypocrisy on what I've said, it's pretty straightforward. You can only chose for self, never for others.
Not offended and no i dont tell anyone how to enjoy their game so why dont you go grab a chill pill put that in your pipe and smoke it son.
 
Not offended and no i dont tell anyone how to enjoy their game so why dont you go grab a chill pill put that in your pipe and smoke it son.
I've tried to explain to the best of my ability, this is quite a serious subject to be honest, one cannot ignore or let go of such behavior, you should fight it too, everybody should. After all, it's the primary most influential profile that causes almost every single ****ing problem in our societies, since forever.
 
It's a valid playstyle, but it seems like it was way too easy. The main problem seems to be that he didn't NEED vassals. It was too easy for his single warband to beat entire armies. I don't see any issue with wiping out whole clans, but new clans should arise. Power abhors a vacuum. There should also be some issue with having every castle and city on the map and no one to administer them. There should be some rebellion or civil war mechanic if you don't have enough nobles to administer your empire. Again, Vassals should be required.

Also I think it'd be cool for some random threat to appear when you have conquered all, or a large portion of the map, or even at a specific point in time, like the black knights. This playthrough is essentially over in 1 game year when it could just be starting.
 
There should also be some issue with having every castle and city on the map and no one to administer them. There should be some rebellion or civil war mechanic if you don't have enough nobles to administer your empire. Again, Vassals should be required.
To be fair, I didn't have any fiefs for 90% of the game and only took 1 very late and then a couple more to draw out hiding lords! Then I got the lump sum of fiefs as I finished off the few remaining lords/factions.
But I absolutely agree and I think the Militias and towns folk should reject me and make me an outcast or fight me or refuse taxes and hire foreign merc armies! I mean 85K a day should get you some muscle!
 
I have not really messed around with the excution but that is one way of winning. I personally conquered the whole world by recruiting every lord to my kingdom. Its satsifying to destroy the empire then recruit the old faction leaders to your army. Poor vladians were the last to fall, marched into this lands with an army of over 30k against there 500.

Disclamer: please be advised no lords were beheaded in the making of this kingdom
 
Hope he gained the Title "Beheader" (and never loses it, no matter how many games he plays)

World conquest is NOT the ultimate goal of a strategic game.
World conquest is not necessarily the ultimate goal of a strategic game, but it can be. Sometimes it is the player's personal goal. Sometimes it is the objective the game pushes on the player.
 
Back
Top Bottom