I Have No Control Over My Vassals - I accidently started an Oligarchy

[Nalgasucia507]

No matter what you do (policies, influence, relations) a successful kingdom ends up this way.
Too many vassals doing too well for themselves and they always have enough influence to run you out and gets multiple wars going.
You can't do anything useful with them. You can get them more fiefs but you also have to defend them all too and now you can't upgrade or stock them
There's really no point in creating a kingdom over just being a powerful single clan, except just to do it because you can.
I guess you could call them all to an army and hold them until enemies take all their fiefs away, then maybe they'll leave

That's where a space should be made for rulers to bring them down, with consequences of course.

 

[Julio-Claudian]

I have "Royal Guard" policy and my own contingent has like 250 troops. Lords has like 180-170 (only heads of the clans though, other nobles got like 120-100)

I mean individual parties. Every party that joins an army, apart from the party leading the army, adds a lot of influence to the clan they belong to every day that the army exists.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

That's where a space should be made for rulers to bring them down, with consequences of course.

I think we should have full control: set targets, give orders, give fiefs.
I don't want to play a badly designed braindead zombie simulator, and that is what bannerlord AI and elections are.

 

[Tulag]

I think we should have full control: set targets, give orders, give fiefs.
I don't want to play a badly designed braindead zombie simulator, and that is what bannerlord AI and elections are.

Exactly. Like I want to give a fief to another Lord but he's not amongst the 3 candidates.

I mean individual parties. Every party that joins an army, apart from the party leading the army, adds a lot of influence to the clan they belong to every day that the army exists.

Yes, my nobles have considerable amount of forces. Especially Khuzait and Arkit clans. They alone have 1200-1000 men.

 

[Nalgasucia507]

I think we should have full control: set targets, give orders, give fiefs.
I don't want to play a badly designed braindead zombie simulator, and that is what bannerlord AI and elections are.

I disagree. You can have the option to do certain things, but it should cost you (influence, gold, etc), and there should be consequences (positive or negative relationship loss, etc). As you noticed OP mentioned he can veto, but needs more influence. That is not bad design, you gota earn it. Now is the best currently, thats a different question.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I disagree. You can have the option to do certain things, but it should cost you (influence, gold, etc), and there should be consequences (positive or negative relationship loss, etc). As you noticed OP mentioned he can veto, but needs more influence. That is not bad design, you gota earn it. Now is the best currently, thats a different question.

You're right that there should costs but have you made a kingdom and recruited many vassals? Even with massive influence and all relevant policies, your vassals will keep proposing war until they get it (you will eventually run out of influence) and you have zero ability to make them do anything productive. It isn't a good game design and I've yet to see anyone who made a kingdom say they enjoyed it or felt it interesting. It become exactly the same as being a vassal and the AI has horrible decision making, based only on (bad) numbers.

 

[Julio-Claudian]

You're right that there should costs but have you made a kingdom and recruited many vassals? Even with massive influence and all relevant policies, your vassals will keep proposing war until they get it (you will eventually run out of influence) and you have zero ability to make them do anything productive. It isn't a good game design and I've yet to see anyone who made a kingdom say they enjoyed it or felt it interesting. It become exactly the same as being a vassal and the AI has horrible decision making, based only on (bad) numbers.

A good way to deal with this would be to allow the player to try and influence what choices lords are supporting. Maybe prior to the confirmation of the decision have the Ruler select which choice they want lords to support, causing many of those with good relations to change their minds or abstain.

 

[mexxico]

We will start working on this issue next week. Probably you will see this feature after mid February. I will post this thread to office communication channel so design team will see what you posted. Please add which options you want to have over your clan parties & kingdom parties (when king). We will examine all ideas and try to come up with a solution by selecting some of them.

For example :
As Clan Leader :

• I want to be able to limit party's recruitment at X. (Stop recruiting when reached X men)
• I want to priotize which troop types my party will recruit (infantry / archer / cavalry)
• I want to change agressiveness of my party so it will always defend or always attack
• I want my parties to not join armies led by other lords

As King :

• I want to prioritize a target settlement for hostile actions.
• I want to prioritize a settlement to defend

If you add what you want to see as list shown in example it can be better but all formats are ok of course.

 

[sniparsexe]

this is really cool

We will start working on this issue next week. Probably you will see this feature after mid February. I will post this thread to office communication channel so design team will see what you posted. Please add which options you want to have over your clan parties & kingdom parties (when king). We will examine all ideas and try to come up with a solution by selecting some of them.

For example :
As Clan Leader :

• I want to be able to limit party's recruitment at X. (Stop recruiting when reached X men)
• I want to priotize which troop types my party will recruit (infantry / archer / cavalry)
• I want to change agressiveness of my party so it will always defend or always attack
• I want my parties to not join armies led by other lords

As King :

• I want to prioritize a target settlement for hostile actions.
• I want to prioritize a settlement to defend

If you add what you want to see as list shown in example it can be better but all formats are ok of course.

I don't think this is an issue. This looks like a positive thread, they gave lots of lands to their vassals and now their vassals are basically controlling them, which is really good and what should happen imo.

 

[ElCrisp]

I want to priotize which troop types my party will recruit (infantry / archer / cavalry)

This will have problems inherit to the overpowered nature of cavalry on the campaign map. (Not in live battle's where cavalry may arguably be underperforming) Given cavalry cost no additional resources to maintain, or for the AI to recruit (as they dont consume horses) the only optimal choice is to prioritise cavalry.

 

[mexxico]

This will have problems inherit to the overpowered nature of cavalry on the campaign map. (Not in live battle's where cavalry may arguably be underperforming) Given cavalry cost no additional resources to maintain, or for the AI to recruit (as they dont consume horses) the only optimal choice is to prioritise cavalry.

They are only basic examples. We will think about their details and if we cannot solve its problems we will not apply.

 

[sniparsexe]

-snip-

do not open the link, this dude shared the same link to one completely irrelevant post. Totally suspicious

unless, it is some kind of shortcut I don't know

 

[Ferisko]

Good news!

I want my parties to not join armies led by other lords

That should work both ways, if my parties don't join others armies why would others lords join you? Like people demanding that their parties don't give soldiers to settlements while they recive them from other lords.

 

[ElCrisp]

Actually I meant prioritising there.

I understood what you meant.

My point is that it is always best to prioritize cavalry for all of your clans armies. Because cavalry is better in autocalculation, and grants movement advantages on the map with no downsides, for all contexts except when your AI clan fights in live simulated battles with you, in which case the advantage or disadvantage of cavalry becomes more subjective or tactic specific.

 

[mexxico]

I understood what you meant.

My point is that it is always best to prioritize cavalry for all of your clans armies. Because cavalry is better in autocalculation, and grants movement advantages on the map with no downsides, for all contexts except when your AI clan fights in live simulated battles with you, in which case the advantage or disadvantage of cavalry becomes more subjective or tactic specific.

Yes if this is added it will force player to choose prioritize cavalry always. It was just an example. Need to go over all and think about pros & cons.

First we should collect which abilities players want to have then we can discuss one by one.

 

[Dabos37]

We will start working on this issue next week. Probably you will see this feature after mid February. I will post this thread to office communication channel so design team will see what you posted. Please add which options you want to have over your clan parties & kingdom parties (when king). We will examine all ideas and try to come up with a solution by selecting some of them.

For example :
As Clan Leader :

• I want to be able to limit party's recruitment at X. (Stop recruiting when reached X men)
• I want to priotize which troop types my party will recruit (infantry / archer / cavalry)
• I want to change agressiveness of my party so it will always defend or always attack
• I want my parties to not join armies led by other lords

As King :

• I want to prioritize a target settlement for hostile actions.
• I want to prioritize a settlement to defend

If you add what you want to see as list shown in example it can be better but all formats are ok of course.

Probably included in the aggressiveness behavior, but I think that most of player are missing an option to avoid clan parties raiding enemy villages and getting relationship penalties.

Your examples cover almost every aspect I would like to see. Some additions:

As clan leader:

- Just recruit troops from X culture.
- Focus on patrol and defend clan settlements and villages.

 

[Tulag]

Probably included in the aggressiveness behavior, but I think that most of player are missing an option to avoid clan parties raiding enemy villages and getting relationship penalties.

Your examples cover almost every aspect I would like to see. Some additions:

As clan leader:

- Just recruit troops from X culture.
- Focus on patrol and defend clan settlements and villages.

I agree

 

[Nalgasucia507]

Thanks for your response Mexxico. I can't think of many examples at the moment, but I do know some excellent folk that would contribute positively in this post, like @Terco_Viejo @Flesson19 @Blood Gryphon @WhiteEyedSh4rk

Please guys, chip in good suggestion regarding adding which options you want to have over your clan parties & kingdom parties (when king).

 

[Blood Gryphon]

This was from a previous conversation that I want to make sure stays at the forefront of this discussion.

Yes this solution suits better to game’s other elements. However then you will have only 3-5 different options. Otherwise enable/disable solution has 2^n different options. (n is number of checkboxes)

Probably we will do something similar to your suggestion because checkbox solution does not fit with game’s other elements. I personally prefer 2^n choices to control everything but to keep things simple your suggestion is better.

We can do this via clan menu or dialog. If we do via dialog you need to find your clan member and talk to change his/her behavior (negative) but we can add more adjustments via dialog (positive).

So final decision is not mine. I examined mod shared here also. Taking notes.

I would prefer 2^n options compared to 5, I think it would simplify it too much. But what I think could be a good middle ground is 5 (whatever number works) presets AND the ability to customize the behaviors if you so choose.

If we go down the dialog route, can we please have a way to send a messenger to clan members and AI lord to initiate a dialog from afar (even if it takes a companion and group of men). This is something i mentioned before but in regards for recruiting lords. This could allow you to manage these things like choose your clan members behaviors and hopefully as a ruler give suggestions to your vassals without having to chase them around the map.

Communication in the past was mainly done through messengers.

I still feel that same about wanting enable/disable solution for 2^n options.

Mex has hit the most important things.

One thing I may add for player parties that is non-combat related is to set them to trade. While peace may be rare, you can get brief periods of it when you are the strongest faction, it would be nice to let my parties have another way to earn income when they don't have the choice to fight. I would give the choice to have them trade only in your kingdom (best incase you need them quickly, but lower profits) or let them roam the map (best profits, could be far away when you need them to fight).

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Thanks for your response Mexxico. I can't think of many examples at the moment, but I do know some excellent folk that would contribute positively in this post, like @Terco_Viejo @Flesson19 @Blood Gryphon @WhiteEyedSh4rk

Please guys, chip in good suggestion regarding adding which options you want to have over your clan parties & kingdom parties (when king).

As far as I'm concerned, I thank you for mentioning it . However we are a small part from a long list of users who have contributed enormously; there are tons of feedback available for Bannerlord.