Can you overthrow the ruling clan of one of the factions in the game and became ruler yourself,I have been wondering about this feature but I haven't touched the game for a while,can you exactly tell me how it happens,
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
I Have No Control Over My Vassals - I accidently started an Oligarchy
Users who are viewing this thread
If ruler dies, his vassals can elect someone else who's not in current ruling house. Thus, the ruling clan gets overthrowed and becomes a regular clan.
However, this only happens in certain kingdoms:
-Aserai
-Southern Empire
-Sturgia
Then how did you overthrow urkhunait and became the khuzait ruler then
@mexxico there is one big question. Will those mechanics be applied to all characters or Player only? Because in first case there may be considerable change in gamę balance, due to one leader having huge impact on war politics. In the other hand, granting such specific orders only to player will make him too much powerful.
I agree with the idea of orders and commands, just wanted to ask for this, because I would like to think about game as a system, not individual mechanics out of context.
I agree with the idea of orders and commands, just wanted to ask for this, because I would like to think about game as a system, not individual mechanics out of context.
I defeated them in numerous battles and captured their settlements and his vassals defected to me. I didn't overthrow him as his vassal but his enemy.
I misunderstood you then,I thought you somehow became the khuzait khan,but it seems that you destroyed the khuzaits and took their lands to your own faction,thanks for the information
MPJesus
Recruit
Suggestions:
As a Leader clan:
• I want it to be possible to exchange castles or cities (castle for castle, city for city) with other members of the clans of the kingdom, even if paying an extra amount, either in cash or in reputation or both (this option would eliminate for me the need to grind until trade 300, just to be able to buy a castle away from the constantly attacked borders).
• Asking my troops to leave the army of an ally lord, even paying the cost in Influence/relation.
• Having a network of messengers (using one of my companions, creating a party only for that, with the cost of a regular party), and that serve as a link between me and my vassal companions. They could send messages like:
"Companion A, Find Me."
"King/Fellow Vassal/, wait for me in this place" (be noble of another clan, for a price or reputation cost).
So that I can find them easier and interact with them.
Its all i can think for now.
As a Clan leader:
- I want to be able to automate recruitment and training, for example via a marshall NPC. This goes for my party (let the recruits catch up to me as a party when I am on the go) and my fiefs ( let me choose how big the garrison should be). Fief projects could offer bonuses(eg higher tier recruits) and additional options (eg more cavalry recruits)
- let me automate patrols around my fiefs
- let me choose where my clans parties attack/ defend (area/ city/castle- one or multiple selectable, like defened this area and those two castles)
As a king:
- let me give a fief to whomever I want (with appropriate relationship consequences)
- let me take a fief from whoemever I want (with appropriate relationship consequences)
- let me choose where my kingdoms armies should attack/ defend (area/ city/castle - one or multiple selectable, like defend this area and those two castles)
Will add more if I think of more.
- I want to be able to automate recruitment and training, for example via a marshall NPC. This goes for my party (let the recruits catch up to me as a party when I am on the go) and my fiefs ( let me choose how big the garrison should be). Fief projects could offer bonuses(eg higher tier recruits) and additional options (eg more cavalry recruits)
- let me automate patrols around my fiefs
- let me choose where my clans parties attack/ defend (area/ city/castle- one or multiple selectable, like defened this area and those two castles)
As a king:
- let me give a fief to whomever I want (with appropriate relationship consequences)
- let me take a fief from whoemever I want (with appropriate relationship consequences)
- let me choose where my kingdoms armies should attack/ defend (area/ city/castle - one or multiple selectable, like defend this area and those two castles)
Will add more if I think of more.
It can be good to apply these changes for all clans including npc clans but I think at first we will apply most to only player clan. Maybe financial options can be applied to all clans easily (something like for party X do not upgrade troops beyond tier-Y, so it will stop upgrading troops at some tier, this option can be applied to all npc clans and can make gameplay better with reducing bankrupt npc clans ratio at world)
I wich to add:
- I want to prioritize the Army of [Enemy Lord X] to be destroyed
One step further is to connect in
On each individual clanparty, clan leaders can set:
- I want this party join following armies only:
- Only Clanleader-led armies
- Only Defensive armies(With goal to defend a settlement of the clan)
- Only Offensive armies(With goal to siege a settlement of the enemy)
- Any army(default)
For Clan
- Create army with clan parties as independent clan. It's important for raising leadership.
- Tell clan parties to disband into a specific garrison
- Tell clan parties to patrol a fief or region (town + fiefs)
- set limit on clan party wage budget
- set limit on clan party troop tier
- select a preference for recruit types/regions
- Allow or forbid raiding enemy settlements
- Clan parties can resolve some common quests/issues autonomously
- Clan parties send a messages of problems such as issue they can't solve, intimidating enemy party, new food/Loyalty/Security warning of town
- Transparent break down of the fief ownership election
- Changes to fief election/fief obtaining to make it more possible for a player to get fiefs through effort and performance or new features
- Player can become the King's advisor or marshal and can set siege targets and order patrols and have more sway in war votes
- Player Clan parties can be allowed/forbid to join other clan's armies
- Transparent breakdown of clan leader's reasons and requirements to become a vassal, guidance for meeting these requirements
- For the purposes of enemy war declarations, you are not a Kingdom until you have 4 vassal clans or hired mercs employed
- Transparent breakdown of enemy war declarations and means to prevent them
- Player gets the last say always, no matter what and has transparent consequences for disagreeing with votes
- Options to resolve or prevent the consequences of vetoing votes
- Veto also blocks the same vote form being raised for a significant amount of time
- Options and information as to why vassals are proposing votes and a way to change their desires
- Ruler can set priorities for siege and order patrols and garrison reinforcements
- Ruler clan has new options for solving issues and basic functions like recruitment sending food to fiefs and such.
- *Vassal Clan members personalities effect their votes/actions, player has a means to change
the clan ruler and thus the behavior - *Ruler can slowly replace notables in owned fiefs with different culture or bandit notables
- *Ruler can create a new clan if total family is large enough and enough fiefs and wealth is owned, vassal Clan is not more loyal or different from normal
- *Ruler clan create a new clan if a town has met high requirements/prosperity and has been owned long enough, like an anti-rebellion
- *Ruler can abandon a kingdom either giving it over to another clan, or ousting all clans causing a war
- *Ruler can be a warlord and turn fiefs in to bandit camps (Bandits form massive parties) and build special prisons to hold lords without ransoms and other evil options
@AnandaShanti
Here below I checked what I agree with and support those petitions:
Now, for the rest:
Yes, I know it sounds that I am negative about everything, but I agree with some points, I just pointed out what I disagree with and why. So @AnandaShanti don't take it too personal.
Here below I checked what I agree with and support those petitions:
For Clan
For Vassal
- Create army with clan parties as independent clan. It's important for raising leadership.
- Tell clan parties to disband into a specific garrison
- Tell clan parties to patrol a fief or region (town + fiefs)
- set limit on clan party wage budget
- set limit on clan party troop tier
- select a preference for recruit types/regions
- Allow or forbid raiding enemy settlements
- Clan parties can resolve some common quests/issues autonomously
- Clan parties send a messages of problems such as issue they can't solve, intimidating enemy party, new food/Loyalty/Security warning of town
For Ruler
- Transparent break down of the fief ownership election
- Changes to fief election/fief obtaining to make it more possible for a player to get fiefs through effort and performance or new features
- Player can become the King's advisor or marshal and can set siege targets and order patrols and have more sway in war votes
- Player Clan parties can be allowed/forbid to join other clan's armies
*I know these last few are more just wishes and probably too complicated or different from devs vision
- Transparent breakdown of clan leader's reasons and requirements to become a vassal, guidance for meeting these requirements
- For the purposes of enemy war declarations, you are not a Kingdom until you have 4 vassal clans or hired mercs employed
- Transparent breakdown of enemy war declarations and means to prevent them
- Player gets the last say always, no matter what and has transparent consequences for disagreeing with votes
- Options to resolve or prevent the consequences of vetoing votes
- Veto also blocks the same vote form being raised for a significant amount of time
- Options and information as to why vassals are proposing votes and a way to change their desires
- Ruler can set priorities for siege and order patrols and garrison reinforcements
- Ruler clan has new options for solving issues and basic functions like recruitment sending food to fiefs and such.
- *Vassal Clan members personalities effect their votes/actions, player has a means to change
- *Ruler can slowly replace notables in owned fiefs with different culture or bandit notables
- *Ruler can create a new clan if total family is large enough and enough fiefs and wealth is owned, vassal Clan is not more loyal or different from normal
- *Ruler clan create a new clan if a town has met high requirements/prosperity and has been owned long enough, like an anti-rebellion
- *Ruler can abandon a kingdom either giving it over to another clan, or ousting all clans causing a war
- *Ruler can be a warlord and turn fiefs in to bandit camps (Bandits form massive parties) and build special prisons to hold lords without ransoms and other evil options
Now, for the rest:
I get that it is to maximise army efficiency in set budget mentioned in point above (limit of party wages), but I think it gives too much control and player's clan parties will be too much of a killers, especially if you would set type/culture restrictions mentioned in a point below. I guess you can set max tier as 3, culture to Khuzait and then after a while you have large pool of cheap Khuzait raiders with their overpowered bow that are never upgraded by party leader. Hard nope.
As I mentioned above, too much of a power to wield for a player, this way you would always have sea of trained horse archers even if you are in Vlandia. You just find your companion, take his troops and then he goes to recruit it all over again, when those troops are muuuch more deadly in your hands than they are in any other noble's. Too much power in player's hands.
This I agree with, only if they would take time they normally do, when you delegate them to do tasks, so 8 days or so per quest. That is if you would see that in a way that they disappear when they are completing quest. If you want them to do them as player does, I thing it would shake relations' economy of the game, as best tactic would be to recruit bunch of companions, tell them to complete quests and make yourself some tea, as relations grow on itself. Also, what choices would they make e.g. in Manual Laborers quest, when poked by headhunter?
You see this as player exclusive position? This would be sooo unfair and would make player too much of a cheater. And even if it would be for everyone, I do not see any gameplay implementation, that would allow for a player to have one advisor on his side - we all know we would never listen to them. So this is not applicable, I think.
Only if any other clan leader could do the same, not player only. This would add to the quarellness of the lords.
Wouldn't it make all this kingdom creation too easy?
And before 4 mercs you are what? Not a part of existing kingdom, but not a kingdom yourself? This breaks logic of a game.
This would be not possible, because of level of randomness of leaders' decisions, I guess. Besides, this still would add too much power for the player's kingdom.
You mean cheating the system of voting?
You mean the vote of the one who veto'ed or the voting on the veto'ed topic?
Again, too much of a power to the player, this would enable steering the whole kingdom yourself, manipulating those requirements of clans.
And this way kill any kind of challenge in the game? Hard disagree, being able to create e.g. Khuzait village in the middle of Aserai territory just kills the point of different cultures being located in different parts of the world.
This can overpopulate the world with clans, as player can recruit companions in unlimited numbers, make them clan and forget about them, all of those clans then would later migrate, making whole OG clans' histories and relationships a white noise.
While interesting, this would also kill any challenge that gaining bandit troops gives to the player. So no.
Yes, I know it sounds that I am negative about everything, but I agree with some points, I just pointed out what I disagree with and why. So @AnandaShanti don't take it too personal.
Okay you got me! But actually my main point is just the limit of how much money or size their parties are, so you can just have a looter patrol during peace.
- Transparent breakdown of enemy war declarations and means to prevent them
Why, you'd still have to do it. We should know why Clan doesn't want to join, they're too content $, not safe in you faction, not enough relation, other thing,
this will help players understand how to build their kingdom, right now people constantly rage quit or cheat because lords want 10 MILLION DOLLARS
and they have zero information from the game what to do.- For the purposes of enemy war declarations, you are not a Kingdom until you have 4 vassal clans or hired mercs employed
"Getting ready to declare kingdom" yes it would be a new phase, but it's very needed from reading peoples frequent complaints. It's just too much running around to get vassals and mercs. They could do other things to help this, but this works. You could be required to pay for peace with any ongoing wars you have and have a period to get things settled before you actually are a full kingdom.
"war on sturgia" is proposed and supported, Player vetos it(consequences), no body can propose war on sturgia for 50 days. I don't know what you games are like but but for me it's a major game killer that once you have enough vassals they will constantly try to have maximum wars and vote for for the same ones over and over until you're out influence.
If vassals have reasons for wanting something, then those reasons should be able to be satisfied by the player instead. "clan wants war" why? Clan needs money? Clan hates enemy? "clan wants fief" why? Basically a way to control them without just saying no and getting a bad consequence. IMO the player should have control but here should be a trade off and work to maintain control(or lose clans) I don't need them, they need me. If building a kingdom is just like being a vassal, what's the point?
Sry if I forgot and something was already suggested, but here are some of my suggestions:
1. Being able to message lords and companions and having a response in maybe a third of what the travel would take
1a. Message lords with no negative relation about wanting to meet them having they answer maybe what are they going to or going to do soon.
1b. Message companions and family with orders of getting closer or travel to another place (would work well with the new charm ability)
1c. msg vassals with orders of defense, attack or maybe (suggesting them?) the creation of an army
1. Being able to message lords and companions and having a response in maybe a third of what the travel would take
1a. Message lords with no negative relation about wanting to meet them having they answer maybe what are they going to or going to do soon.
1b. Message companions and family with orders of getting closer or travel to another place (would work well with the new charm ability)
1c. msg vassals with orders of defense, attack or maybe (suggesting them?) the creation of an army
Okay, got the idea. Still, this is quite explotiable mechanic, the safest is setting just the money cap. This way you still have of what your want (limit of the wages) but cannot overuse it that much. Other modifications of this idea may be too picky and may make it too much of a game breaker.
The idea itself has its point and reason, but I guess it should be more of a hinting of the requirements (and maybe suggestions what to do to meet them) that plainly stating what they need. E.g. Noble says "I do not feel safe in your kingdom" meaning that kingdom strength is lower than his required value (3000 in this example). I interpreted your post that you want lords to say "I cannot join you, your strength is 2500 and I want 3000" which is just too straightforward. Other case being that such requirements should be interchangable, so when you just cannot provide such strength of the armies, good relations should improve this, still hinting what is particulary lacking. I know, that it sounds complex, but I want to avoid game being pure numbers game.
- Transparent breakdown of enemy war declarations and means to prevent them
Why, you'd still have to do it. We should know why Clan doesn't want to join, they're too content $, not safe in you faction, not enough relation, other thing,
this will help players understand how to build their kingdom, right now people constantly rage quit or cheat because lords want 10 MILLION DOLLARS
You mean just asking nobles if they would join you in a case of kingdom creation, and if you have their positive feedback (from 4 I gues) then you can declare yourself an independent one? Because that would be fair, especially if there was small chance of one of lords defecting during the declaration, due to the fear or other factors. But those are just my thoughts.
Okay I agree on this, but maybe not 50 days, but 2 weeks.
Okay, that is a fair one.
i really doubt that is necessary. at the current state of the economy, with 3-4 workshops running and a single caravan clan should make sufficient money per day to have some income or to lose a certain amount of money, which can be covered by quests and/or war actions and/or trade.
Not to mention that clan parties should run 150-170 units, which is not the case for several reasons
1) our older brother is useless. the number of troops he can deploy is rather limited because that character has very little room for development.
2) husbando/waifu would probably have steward around 100-120, so it is even lower than steward of our useless brother in the best case scenario.
3) hired companions with a high steward in most cases would serve better if assigned to roles that do not involve them fighting. they better of running caravans. all other types of companions have low steward and they depend on a clan tier when it comes to the number of troops.
4) steward is subjectively the easiest skill to level in the game, 'price of loyalty' is not something players can't reach. so this perk helps a lot.
so in general, limitation by the number of troops is not needed, after all, it comes down to the player to decide can he afford another party or not under given circumstances.
emm, this is abusable. it will also turn clan parties from a fighting force to a moving conscription office for the main party. i really doubt it's healthy behavior. Also, a party that consists of let say Fians only? nah.
what? like, if a party can engage an enemy it will do that, if it can't it will flee. what do you mean always defend or always attack? no Khorne Berserkers allowed in my Bannerlord, they are yaky. please.
But that kinda undermines the RP element of the game is it not? I mean it can be implemented if the player rules a kingdom i guess.
---
Now, look. To have total control is nice and all, but it also can have a very negative impact. I really don't want drones, i want a simulation of the intelligent behavior of characters as if they are actual persons. Bannelord is already a more difficult game than a Warband, and it would be nice if it would stay that way.
---
Waiting 1.6.0 for
>_> If clan parties would patrol around fiefs, generate influence by one way or another like in peacetime it would be nice to order them to clear this nest of bandits or that one, that would be sufficient.
Just add some time between war declaration and army gathering, so we could react.
Last edited:
Mikal Manfriedson
Veteran
Disagree!
Everything can be turned and distorted until something unwelcome comes out of it. Want to abuse a useful tool? Go on, have fun. With that mindset, mankind never would have opened tool shops. Think of what marvelous things you can to with an axe, a crowbar, inflammable chemicals. Hamper improvement just because a diffuse, unnamed 'someone' could abuse it is just an unimaginative and paranoid argument to block development.
Ban school education - someone could abuse it (to use your argument sarkastically). And yes - why not a party of fian? I have a main party of 15 khan guard for my trading main character so what? Let that party of fian meet a party of kataphractoi and have fun with it. Frankly, if I, the clan leader decide: I want 25 archers on patrol I can GIVE them to my companion's party because I trained/captured/hired them already and if I see something shiny in said party. I can even now use the "let me inspect your troops" and take them. The only thing you are forcing me to do with your argumentation is "do more grind, fetch your fianns yourself because if your clanmates could do this the game would be broken. That it WILL happen eventually with or without the proposal just differs in how fun will the game be? Grind 2-3 hours and do errands and legwork as noble or let some NPC finally have its use and do it for you.
(ofc the answer to my question above is: chop wood, remove large nails and open crates and remove paint - what did YOU think? Shame!)
caledoni
Sergeant
I've had this happen to be as Battania also and maybe even Vlandia but I can't remember for certain. I've also seen Penton replace Lucon when he dies but but I wasn't part of the Northern Empire at the time so didn't see a vote.
Can anyone confirm how this mechanic works and how it is for all factions?
A really nice list of suggestions!
I just don't agree with the quoted above. Sounds like fixing a non- issue.
Make cheaper/understundable to get vassals instead.
If you are not a Kingdom, then you are a rebel and usurper. I could argue all factions should be hostile to rebels.
that will not happen. ever. because AI gathers their armies dividing them into several types of troops based on the percentage set for a certain kingdom.
it will happen only if you will command each and every army of your kingdom and manually fight each and every battle on the map, including looters. and even then you will lose a certain number of troops even with 275+ medicine, which you most likely would never have.
-
And yes, such a feature will allow you to skip a lot of game mechanics such as building relationships, getting supporters etc.
Similar threads
