Independent City States

[Tulag]

That's sorta the idea. The snowballing faction has a town rebel, those rebels join a weaker faction to help counter them.

The weakened factions should make their own last stands. Why would a king elected by the people give up his crown an serve a foreigner ruler instead? Those people struggled and fought for their independence. Would be really unrealistic if they'd pledge themselves to foreigner kings.

They only have four total nobles to lead those parties and I haven't yet to see any more than two active parties. I admit that I assumed three was possible, because that is the cap for non-rebel AI clans. Six would be pretty wild, tbh.

Yes, I know that newborn clans starts with tier 3 clan, and 4 nobles including the king. I'm just saying that rich cities can fund and maintain more war-parties.

This is why we need to be able to ally our selves with other factions. This would let a new state get a more powerfull ally and I would love to be able to defend smaller factions and see them grow and play with the dynamics of it.

Exactly, would be very fun to see kingdoms rise and fall.

 

[Apocal]

The weakened factions should make their own last stands. Why would a king elected by the people give up his crown an serve a foreigner ruler instead?

Because he doesn't want to get smashed flat by massively superior enemies? Any unruly vassal or belligerent sovereign scurrying under another king's or emperor's protection when threatened was a pretty common occurrence in the medieval era.

Yes, I know that newborn clans starts with tier 3 clan, and 4 nobles including the king. I'm just saying that rich cities can fund and maintain more war-parties.

I don't think money really limits them though; it is just having enough troops. Their initial garrisons aren't much to write home about then get ransacked for troops every time one of their parties gets wiped out and raised again. Or at least that seems to happen in my playthrough.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

The only independent city must be ZENDAR!

Tears apart, as I understand it; a rebellious city is not the same as the creation of factions, that is to say rebellion ≠ independence.
The creation of a new kingdom / faction should be by conquest, not by militia / peasant revolt.

In my eyes, a Vlandian city that rebels and then allies itself with Khuzait while remaining in the middle of Vlandian territory, is quite debatable.

If the mechanics should be rebellion = independence then I see a proposal like the one that offers total war more logical. First a rebel army is created and it will take over the settlement. After a successful rebellion by means of a siege then it would be considered "independent" BUT with the culture inherited from the oppressor as an independent city-state.

 

[Tulag]

Because he doesn't want to get smashed flat by massively superior enemies? Any unruly vassal or belligerent sovereign scurrying under another king's or emperor's protection when threatened was a pretty common occurrence in the medieval era.

I know but these kings installed by the people to lead them to glory and prosperity. They shouldn't care about being threatened. If it is, they should defend their cities to last. If city is lost, they should rebel and rebel again until they become successful and expand into a kingdom.

I don't think money really limits them though; it is just having enough troops.

Money has a significant importance. Yes, you can raise an army with much less money but quality of that army would be low. They're paying their troops as well as players do.

Tears apart, as I understand it; a rebellious city is not the same as the creation of factions, that is to say rebellion ≠ independence.
The creation of a new kingdom / faction should be by conquest, not by militia / peasant revolt.

Flemish got their independence and seperated from France by organizing a peasant revolt. Resource:

隐藏: Resource

https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-the-Golden-Spurs

 

[Terco_Viejo]

Flemish got their independence and seperated from France by organizing a peasant revolt. Resource:

隐藏: Resource

Battle of the Golden Spurs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Either I have not explained myself well or you have not understood me correctly. When I say militia / peasant revolt,

[...] a rebellious city is not the same as the creation of factions, that is to say rebellion ≠ independence.
The creation of a new kingdom / faction should be by conquest, not by militia / peasant revolt. [...]

I mean the magic act that currently occurs in the game Ta dahhh a rebellion has occurred and the city is magically transformed into a rebel. If you read my commentary in its entirety you will see that I subsequently specify primarily a genesis of an "army/warband" that later takes up by raising arms in the settlement by seeking independence.

 

[Julio-Claudian]

I would literally do nothing but snipe independent city-states if they didn't join a faction. It is way too easy since they only ever field three parties and run out of manpower so quickly.

So give them another clan or two.
Honestly I feel like this sort of perspective on gameplay is why so many modern games are boring. Limiting the possibilities of what can happen and how players can interact with mechanics because some players will 'exploit' them. It's a singleplayer game anyway. A city struggling to hold its freedom against great powers trying to "snipe" it is more realistic than rebelling against one power to join another when there is virtually no difference between the way they'll be treated by either, and especially when they leave their own countrymen to go over to a barbarian enemy. There aren't even enough rebellions for "sniping" them to be that much of a big deal.

 

[Grizvill08]

but they whould get whiped of the map very quik i think the devs did the rigt thing sometimes they join bad faction and make them better but it rigt they should not join he khuzait if ther not close or have they cultar. but i have never seen that only imparils join the empires and khuzait

 

[Grizvill08]

The weakened factions should make their own last stands. Why would a king elected by the people give up his crown an serve a foreigner ruler instead? Those people struggled and fought for their independence. Would be really unrealistic if they'd pledge themselves to foreigner kings.


Yes, I know that newborn clans starts with tier 3 clan, and 4 nobles including the king. I'm just saying that rich cities can fund and maintain more war-parties.


Exactly, would be very fun to see kingdoms rise and fall.

well if hr want to keep the city it whould be wise to join a weak kingdom andif the kingdom is weak he has more powar

 

[Tulag]

well if hr want to keep the city it whould be wise to join a weak kingdom andif the kingdom is weak he has more powar

It's not about surviving. These people revolted for their freedom. Thus, they're a city state not some people seeking refuge from other kingdoms.

 

[Apocal]

Honestly I feel like this sort of perspective on gameplay is why so many modern games are boring. Limiting the possibilities of what can happen and how players can interact with mechanics because some players will 'exploit' them. It's a singleplayer game anyway. A city struggling to hold it's freedom against great powers trying to "snipe" it is more realistic than rebelling against one power to join another when there is virtually no difference between the way they'll be treated by either, and especially when they leave their own countrymen to go over to a barbarian enemy.

I mean, the end result is you'd end up with a map full of one town factions that can get bullied by anyone with enough parties to keep their villages raided and occasionally siege their capital. I'm in favor of more small factions but single town factions are just terrible because of the way the wars play out.

My preference is for Bannerlord to retain some challenge on the campaign map, because frankly, this game is too easy already. Most of the difficulty isn't even interesting, just stuff like snowballing making it almost impossible to win late game wars and even that has been curtailed recently.

There aren't even enough rebellions for "sniping" them to be that much of a big deal.

I can't speak to what you do in your playthroughs or what you'd consider enough to be an issue, but in mine there were rebellions in about nine different towns over a ten year period.

 

[Grizvill08]

It's not about surviving. These people revolted for their freedom. Thus, they're a city state not some people seeking refuge from other kingdoms.

well if they want keep thery freedom they will have to join a new faction only if the city have a 1000 men to defend it will it be posseble and one clan does not get that much manpowar

 

[Tulag]

well if they want keep thery freedom they will have to join a new faction

You can't call that independent they join a kingdom. For Example, Vlandia is free but cities under them is not free, they're bound to the king, House de Meroc and the kingdom.

 

[Grizvill08]

I mean, the end result is you'd end up with a map full of one town factions that can get bullied by anyone with enough parties to keep their villages raided and occasionally siege their capital. I'm in favor of more small factions but single town factions are just terrible because of the way the wars play out.

My preference is for Bannerlord to retain some challenge on the campaign map, because frankly, this game is too easy already. Most of the difficulty isn't even interesting, just stuff like snowballing making it almost impossible to win late game wars and even that has been curtailed recently.



I can't speak to what you do in your playthroughs or what you'd consider enough to be an issue, but in mine there were rebellions in about nine different towns over a ten year period.

so you want snowballing the devs is having a hard time knowing what the community want

 

[Tulag]

I mean, the end result is you'd end up with a map full of one town factions that can get bullied by anyone with enough parties to keep their villages raided and occasionally siege their capital. I'm in favor of more small factions but single town factions are just terrible because of the way the wars play out.

And they even should be expanding into a kingdom if they manage to capture some settlements and convince some lords to join their ranks.

 

[Julio-Claudian]

I mean, the end result is you'd end up with a map full of one town factions that can get bullied by anyone with enough parties to keep their villages raided and occasionally siege their capital. I'm in favor of more small factions but single town factions are just terrible because of the way the wars play out.

My preference is for Bannerlord to retain some challenge on the campaign map, because frankly, this game is too easy already. Most of the difficulty isn't even interesting, just stuff like snowballing making it almost impossible to win late game wars and even that has been curtailed recently.



I can't speak to what you do in your playthroughs or what you'd consider enough to be an issue, but in mine there were rebellions in about nine different towns over a ten year period.

How many of those were successful and made it past 30 days?
You wouldn't end up with a map full of one town factions if the vast majority are being conquered. And so what if a one town faction could be bullied, wars are not perpetual. They migth also expand.

It should be possible for a city to rebel and either join a new faction or try to preserve its independence, even if the latter is unlikely to be successful. A rebel city joining a new faction should also trigger a war between the former and new masters.

 

[Tulag]

A rebel city joining a new faction should also trigger a war between the former and new masters.

We will never have this kind of diplomacy AI, will we?

 

[Julio-Claudian]

We will never have this kind of diplomacy AI, will we?

I don't think that triggering a war would even require diplomacy AI.

But yes it's so weird to me how much resistance there seems to be to the idea of implementing diplomacy. Non-aggression pacts, alliances, trade treaties are just some of the most basic things you take for granted in a strategy game.

 

[Grizvill08]

I don't think that triggering a war would even require diplomacy AI.

But yes it's so weird to me how much resistance there seems to be to the idea of implementing diplomacy. Non-aggression pacts, alliances, trade treaties are just some of the most basic things you take for granted in a strategy game.

i really wish they whould be more dipomecy but i think bannerlord is more of an rpg then a strategy game. but they should still add diplomecy and if that coaltion feutare will be add in the futar you should be abl to have lord from difrent factions in your army as long as he is a part of your coaltion

 

[Apocal]

so you want snowballing the devs is having a hard time knowing what the community want

What?

How many of those were successful and made it past 30 days?

I'm not sure; right now there isn't an easy way to keep track unless you're actively watching, AFAIK.

quoted post

The way the game plays out, currently, prevents single town factions from conquering much. They have (at most) a manpower generation rate of something ~80 (with lots of notables) per week, divided among however many parties, before raiders hit the villages. That isn't really enough to put together an army big enough to take down a mid-game or later settlement, unless they get stupidly lucky -- and don't get smashed flat in the attempt by a larger faction.

 

[Julio-Claudian]

i really wish they whould be more dipomecy but i think bannerlord is more of an rpg then a strategy game. but they should still add diplomecy and if that coaltion feutare will be add in the futar you should be abl to have lord from difrent factions in your army as long as he is a part of your coaltion

Well the unique selling point of Bannerlord is that it is both an RPG and a strategy game. It wouldn't even need to be as complicated as Total War diplomacy, which isn't complicated at all.

What?



I'm not sure; right now there isn't an easy way to keep track unless you're actively watching, AFAIK.

Yeah, I haven't seen one successful rebellion as far as I can tell. I know they're happening because I see their rebel clans joining factions or sitting in keeps.