Just realized how disappointed I was in the lack of strategic gameplay.

Currently viewing this thread:

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
I don't usually do a player kingdom but decided to give it a shot for once and it really shocked me how abjectly absent any sort of strategic gameplay there was available. I mean I always knew this but it didn't hit me until I wanted to actually wipe out an enemy faction and couldn't actually coordinate anything. My armies just did random things. I even had them abandon a siege that was already in progress in one area of the map only to go siege another castle on the other side of the map only to end up getting caught by an larger enemy army half way through the move.

Honestly I don't know how to fix this. I mean I would love to be able to assign 'War Targets" or maybe assign specific tasks like raid, attack a specific target or even a just a specific area, defend, etc. but I also realize that having those abilities as a faction leader would be overpowering since the AI is too dumb to even remotely counter a player having the capability to command his Faction on a strategic level. I also know Taleworlds doesn't have the technical capability, time and/or probably even inclination to design an deep, strategically proficient AI that can do this at this late in the game development cycle but I am surprised at just how disappointing being your own faction is without having any sort of control over wars on a strategic level.

If only Total War and Bannerlord had a child I guess.
 

MakinTorf

Veteran
just 2 things:

1. the enemy AI is exactly the same dump and
2. have more clans than the enemy and you will win the war
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
just 2 things:

1. the enemy AI is exactly the same dump and
2. have more clans than the enemy and you will win the war
1. Yes exactly which is why the game would be complete Ez-Mode if you as the player actually had any sort of strategic control.

2. Sort of. The game does its best to balance this out by having the weaker AI faction hire ALL the mercenary units and also by forcing you into wars on multiple fronts. Also it is a pain in the butt to try to hire mercs of your own because as far as I know, you have to find them running around on the map AND can only hire from the clan leader. Also they tend to just up and quit randomly and usually rather quickly if your the stronger faction, probably due to that whole balancing thing.

But totally agree, these two things are all there is to the strategic aspect of the campaign. Its a real disappointment and one I honestly hadn't thought of at all due to the fact I typically play as a vassal.
 

AnandaShanti

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Yeah. This is why is many ways it's actually easier to play as lone Clan (non-ruler), you can make peace and it will last until you attack somebody. This Not having vassal barely matter since you can't really control them or even set targets/priorities. Having a solid party of 150+ is all you need, the AI vassal parties wouldn't be much help to you even in live battle. The only reason to be vassal is to lead armies solely for Leadership gains. The only reason to press "Make Kingdom" is when you're kinda 'done' with that playthrough and don't mind if it get permanently derailed by vassals declaring 3+ wars forever and not really helping.

I also hate being vassal too because of the massive disparity in how it goes. If I choose Khuzait, they shower me with fiefs and it's easy street forever until I leave. If I chose a underdog faction who actually needs help, they constantly lose a fief and it's impossible to get a second one for myself because 1 or more clans ALWAYS need them.
I mean I always knew this but it didn't hit me until I wanted to actually wipe out an enemy faction and couldn't actually coordinate anything.
The worst part is, even if you do it all yourself, your vassals will start passing peace with the faction you're focusing down and ruin your plans anyways.
I think at a minimum we should always be able to say NO to votes for war/peace, otherwise we're not the ruler and there's like no point to it.

1. Yes exactly which is why the game would be complete Ez-Mode if you as the player actually had any sort of strategic control.
I'd rather have that then the complete sucky-mode that we have. Of course the AI should be doing smarter things too and have some concept of priority and value in it's targets. It's a tuff thing to balance but I'd rather have player choices and strategy and then other challenges added to compensate, rather then endless zombie loop war.
 

Gandamula

Sergeant
If you have a kingdom and everybody is in a war against you, u must start choping heads, or they will come, again and again and again, no matter how weak they are, even a faction without fiefs are able to raise armies against you
 

Nalgasucia507

Sergeant at Arms
Somewhere here: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...t-developments-at-snowballing-problem.434547/ (me thinks around page 40 to 50, couldn't find it, but its there) Mexxico suggested such feature or something similar. It would have been tied in to the influence system. It got denied by TW leadership (also called the council of Nay). Reasons: unknown.

What is common thought reason is TW wants this game to be really dumb down, and there are some console limitations, specifically, lords calculations per second, etc. that prevents "complex systems" like the one you are mentioned.
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
The worst part is, even if you do it all yourself, your vassals will start passing peace with the faction you're focusing down and ruin your plans anyways.
I think at a minimum we should always be able to say NO to votes for war/peace, otherwise we're not the ruler and there's like no point to it.

This is something I totally agree with you on. It boggles my mind that in a complete monarchy where all the power rests in the King, that my vassals can "overrule" me and declare war and peace. Hell it boggles my mind that they can overrule me on points of Kingdom policy. That shouldn't happen, ever. I also feel I should have complete control over whom I give fiefs to. I was also completely shocked when I took an enemy city and before the vote even happened, I decided I would keep in for my own as a base of operations closer to the enemy and awarding it to myself wasn't even an option. I was like "What the F...?" We apparently don't have monarchies in this game, instead we have at best constitutional monarchies.

What should happen is I should be able to do whatever the hell I want and if my faction doesn't like it, well they can just rebel or defect, including taking their fiefs with them in extreme cases. Basically all voting against my vassals should do is cause relationship loss while I still retain the right to rule at least unless they added a more complex systems of government feature where we might decide on accepting the aforementioned constitutional monarchy or something.

However this would be something to be addressed in a diplomacy discussion, not a strategic campaign feature discussion.

Somewhere here: https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...t-developments-at-snowballing-problem.434547/ (me thinks around page 40 to 50, couldn't find it, but its there) Mexxico suggested such feature or something similar. It would have been tied in to the influence system. It got denied by TW leadership (also called the council of Nay). Reasons: unknown.

What is common thought reason is TW wants this game to be really dumb down, and there are some console limitations, specifically, lords calculations per second, etc. that prevents "complex systems" like the one you are mentioned.

Well let me tell you my feeling on the whole dumbing the game down for consoles. THAT IS TOTAL BS. Seriously, if they want a console version of the game, make a separate version for consoles. I could literally buy 7 brand new PS/5s for the cost of my gaming PC that I bought so I wouldn't have to play dumbed down console versions of games.

Now, if it is a game engine related thing which it might very well be, I can understand that. This game is already CPU hungry and even with my beefy rig, the game sometimes gets laggy or drops frames due to the CPU requirements.

Personally it seems kind of stupid that Taleworlds would want to dumb down the game just for the sake of dumbing it down. I mean this game could have sold twice as many copies if it actually had things like a strong strategic campaign game play loop among other things. However, if they are doing this, I really hope Taleworlds adds a way for it to be made "smarter" through mods. I mean I am already 100% convinced that modders can add 1000% more to this game than the devs ever will.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
This is something I totally agree with you on. It boggles my mind that in a complete monarchy where all the power rests in the King, that my vassals can "overrule" me and declare war and peace. Hell it boggles my mind that they can overrule me on points of Kingdom policy. That shouldn't happen, ever. I also feel I should have complete control over whom I give fiefs to. I was also completely shocked when I took an enemy city and before the vote even happened, I decided I would keep in for my own as a base of operations closer to the enemy and awarding it to myself wasn't even an option. I was like "What the F...?" We apparently don't have monarchies in this game, instead we have at best constitutional monarchies.
That's pretty realistic actually. Kings as absolute monarchs was mostly a post-medieval thing.
Personally it seems kind of stupid that Taleworlds would want to dumb down the game just for the sake of dumbing it down. I mean this game could have sold twice as many copies if it actually had things like a strong strategic campaign game play loop among other things.
I seriously doubt that.
 

Nalgasucia507

Sergeant at Arms
Well let me tell you my feeling on the whole dumbing the game down for consoles. THAT IS TOTAL BS. Seriously, if they want a console version of the game, make a separate version for consoles. I could literally buy 7 brand new PS/5s for the cost of my gaming PC that I bought so I wouldn't have to play dumbed down console versions of games.

Now, if it is a game engine related thing which it might very well be, I can understand that. This game is already CPU hungry and even with my beefy rig, the game sometimes gets laggy or drops frames due to the CPU requirements.

Personally it seems kind of stupid that Taleworlds would want to dumb down the game just for the sake of dumbing it down. I mean this game could have sold twice as many copies if it actually had things like a strong strategic campaign game play loop among other things. However, if they are doing this, I really hope Taleworlds adds a way for it to be made "smarter" through mods. I mean I am already 100% convinced that modders can add 1000% more to this game than the devs ever will.
Thanks for sharing that. I completely agree with you. I also agree with Apocal, if I am understanding him right, in that TW is deliberately trying to dumb down the game for the sake of dumbing it down, because TW leadership has demonstrated to be that incompetent in thinking that dumbing down is good and that players shouldn't be bothered with "complex" decision making opportunities.
 

Magello

Sergeant
Are they going for the most basic they can then letting modders add the extras they want? Or really feels kind they are taking "the modders will fix it" approach to game design.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
I don't usually do a player kingdom but decided to give it a shot for once and it really shocked me how abjectly absent any sort of strategic gameplay there was available. I mean I always knew this but it didn't hit me until I wanted to actually wipe out an enemy faction and couldn't actually coordinate anything. My armies just did random things. I even had them abandon a siege that was already in progress in one area of the map only to go siege another castle on the other side of the map only to end up getting caught by an larger enemy army half way through the move.

Honestly I don't know how to fix this. I mean I would love to be able to assign 'War Targets" or maybe assign specific tasks like raid, attack a specific target or even a just a specific area, defend, etc. but I also realize that having those abilities as a faction leader would be overpowering since the AI is too dumb to even remotely counter a player having the capability to command his Faction on a strategic level. I also know Taleworlds doesn't have the technical capability, time and/or probably even inclination to design an deep, strategically proficient AI that can do this at this late in the game development cycle but I am surprised at just how disappointing being your own faction is without having any sort of control over wars on a strategic level.

If only Total War and Bannerlord had a child I guess.
Warband had a great feature where you could recommend a place to attack or defend to other lords, and if they liked you, they would do it. That's something that really needs to come back in Bannerlord as it would allow the player to make up for the strategic stupidity of their vassals.

Mexxico has changed the AI calculations so that they attack very far away locations less often, so you should find the AI being a bit smarter in that regard in newer versions. If the strategic AI gets just a bit smarter I don't think it will be a problem for the player to be able to directly order their lords to out-strategize the enemy, since the player is (usually) smarter than the AI in most strategy games out there anyway.

I also think that alliances should be a thing, so that rather than the player being able to pick off enemy factions piece by piece, once your kingdom starts controlling ~1/2 of the map, enemy factions are likely to form an alliance against you. This would make them present a genuine challenge.
 
That's pretty realistic actually. Kings as absolute monarchs was mostly a post-medieval thing.
I'm too sure about that, but regardless I'm not playing as a king so I can be in charge of a democracy. I don't have a problem with lords having a say, but if I'm king I should have the final say.
 

daxiapi777

Veteran
That's pretty realistic actually. Kings as absolute monarchs was mostly a post-medieval thing.
No, this is by no means realistic. Feudal monarchy is still a monarchy. What we have now in the game is more like a tribal confederation, like what the Franks would do in their early days. This voting system remotely resembles the Estate General of France and the English Parliament. But the predominant role of those institutions is deciding taxation issues, not war declaration or fief management. Feudal monarchs usually had councils, but most of them did not work like the voting system in Bannerlord. For most feudal kingdoms, war and fief, especially the fief management, were considered the main privileges of the monarchs. The system of feudal vassalage could not exist without this very foundation. The disputes between liege and vassals usually revolved around the financial, judicial, and military duties of the vassals AFTER they received their fiefs. In the late medieval period, It was usually the balance of power between liege and vassals that would decide if a feudal monarchy would lean towards absolute monarchy or constitutional monarchy.

If you really want realism, you should have different political systems for different in-game factions. The current system probably works better for Battania, but Valandia should have a more feudal system, and the imperial factions should more Byzantine-inspired political structure.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
I'm too sure about that, but regardless I'm not playing as a king so I can be in charge of a democracy. I don't have a problem with lords having a say, but if I'm king I should have the final say.
Oh yeah, if you're saying it isn't fun for you, that's fine. And yeah, I agree they just need to dumb it down -- not because it reflects history (it doesn't) but because people aren't playing Bannerlord for that.
No, this is by no means realistic. Feudal monarchy is still a monarchy.
And medieval monarchs were far from being absolute in their power to enforce their will. That's the whole "overmighty vassal" thing that kept coming up. I'll certainly agree it doesn't make for a fun game to have the AI constantly telling you to go **** yourself.
 
If you have a kingdom and everybody is in a war against you, u must start choping heads, or they will come, again and again and again, no matter how weak they are, even a faction without fiefs are able to raise armies against you
Yea, it turns into a game of "whack a mole" in this case.

50h1mr.jpg
 

daxiapi777

Veteran
And medieval monarchs were far from being absolute in their power to enforce their will. That's the whole "overmighty vassal" thing that kept coming up. I'll certainly agree it doesn't make for a fun game to have the AI constantly telling you to go **** yourself.
Different realms had different variations of feudalism. Norman English monarchy and early German (HRE) monarchy were both very powerful. The popular recognition of limited power for medieval monarchy is a result of a mixture of overgeneralization and oversimplification, like almost everything history related. Generally speaking, war declaration and fief management were the main responsibilities of the Kings. The 'overmighty vassal' thing you mentioned refers to a different dimension of autonomy.
When we were doing graduate degree, the professor suggested the works of Marc Bloch as a start. Instead of listening to me, you could spend some time reading those. They are very good read, I suggest start with Feudal Society.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
When we were doing graduate degree, the professor suggested the works of Marc Bloch as a start. Instead of listening to me, you could spend some time reading those. They are very good read, I suggest start with Feudal Society.
In fact, I've read Bloch's Feudal Society and it is, in part, where I draw my position on the matter from. Taking from Vol.2, Part XXX:
But let us not picture a régime of personal absolutism either in law or in fact. According to the code of good government universally accepted at that time, no chief, whatever his rank, could make any serious decision without first taking counsel. This did not mean, of course, taking counsel with the people, which no one considered it necessary to consult either directly or through its elected representatives: were not the rich and the powerful its natural representatives, according to the divine plan? The king or the prince had therefore merely to seek the advice of his principal subjects and personal vassals—in a word, his court, in the feudal sense of the term. The proudest monarchs never failed to recall this necessary consultation in their charters. The Emperor Otto I admitted that a law whose promulgation had been arranged for a particular assembly could not be published there ‘on account of the absence of some great men’. How strictly the rule was applied depended on the balance of forces. But it would never have been prudent to violate it too openly; for the sole orders which subjects of a certain social standing believed themselves really bound to respect were those which had been given, if not with their consent, at least in their presence. In this inability to conceive of the political tie otherwise than in terms of personal contact we recognize once again one of the deep-seated causes of feudal disintegration.

(He goes on to add more in later chapters, but that brick of a paragraph gets the main thrust across, I hope.)

But like I said before, it makes for a **** game unless you've set out to make a medieval politicking simulator from the get-go and Bannerlord very clearly is not that game, has never been intended to be that game and most of the players are thoroughly disinterested in being told off by vassals regardless of historicity or gameplay depth it might provide.
 

daxiapi777

Veteran
In fact, I've read Bloch's Feudal Society and it is, in part, where I draw my position on the matter from. Taking from Vol.2, Part XXX:
But let us not picture a régime of personal absolutism either in law or in fact. According to the code of good government universally accepted at that time, no chief, whatever his rank, could make any serious decision without first taking counsel. This did not mean, of course, taking counsel with the people, which no one considered it necessary to consult either directly or through its elected representatives: were not the rich and the powerful its natural representatives, according to the divine plan? The king or the prince had therefore merely to seek the advice of his principal subjects and personal vassals—in a word, his court, in the feudal sense of the term. The proudest monarchs never failed to recall this necessary consultation in their charters. The Emperor Otto I admitted that a law whose promulgation had been arranged for a particular assembly could not be published there ‘on account of the absence of some great men’. How strictly the rule was applied depended on the balance of forces. But it would never have been prudent to violate it too openly; for the sole orders which subjects of a certain social standing believed themselves really bound to respect were those which had been given, if not with their consent, at least in their presence. In this inability to conceive of the political tie otherwise than in terms of personal contact we recognize once again one of the deep-seated causes of feudal disintegration.

(He goes on to add more in later chapters, but that brick of a paragraph gets the main thrust across, I hope.)

But like I said before, it makes for a **** game unless you've set out to make a medieval politicking simulator from the get-go and Bannerlord very clearly is not that game, has never been intended to be that game and most of the players are thoroughly disinterested in being told off by vassals regardless of historicity or gameplay depth it might provide.
I read this book in Chinese translation, so it took me some time to find the English version. This is from earlier that chapter:

For the king or the great baron there were virtually only three funda mental duties. He had to ensure the spiritual salvation of his people by pious foundations and by the protection of the true faith; to defend them from foreign foes (a tutelary function to which, when possible, was added conquest, prompted as much by considerations of honour as the desire lor power); and lastly to maintain justice and internal peace. Therefore, since his mission required him above all to smite the invader or the evil doer, he was engaged in making war, meting out punishment, and re pressing disorder rather than in the administration of his realm. And this was a sufficiently heavy task.

Bloch established that making war was one of the major responsibilites of a King. And in Chapter 11 and 12 of Volume 1, Bloch argued that fief was the essential tie in a feudal contract that defined vassalage and how a man could be of another man. Therefore, you could say that the grant of fief is the foundation of feudalism and reflects the essence of a feudal liege in feudalism.

Of course, I agree, like any reasonable historian, that personal absolutism was hardly practised in medieval Europe. However, as any reasonable historian, I would also argue that real medieval politics usually rested between the two extremes, namely absolutism and total disintegration. Different realms at different time could sit at different places on the spectrum. I would argue that not even Louis XIV's France and late Imperial China had achieved personal absolutism for the king or emperor. I must say that the voting system in Bannerlord represents the other extreme that resembles some kind of tribal/feudal democracy, which is simply not realistic for most medieval settings.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
I must say that the voting system in Bannerlord represents the other extreme that resembles some kind of tribal/feudal democracy, which is simply not realistic for most medieval settings.
I see it as representing various political factors coming into play to check the ruler's power. That's why vassals can weigh them or abstain entirely without penalty. Rulers can still overrule their vassals, assuming they have enough influence. It will piss them off somewhat, but rulers can do it. So it isn't like any form democracy where the ruler is compelled by the votes.
 

daxiapi777

Veteran
I see it as representing various political factors coming into play to check the ruler's power. That's why vassals can weigh them or abstain entirely without penalty. Rulers can still overrule their vassals, assuming they have enough influence. It will piss them off somewhat, but rulers can do it. So it isn't like any form democracy where the ruler is compelled by the votes.
If only this system works as you describe here. My biggest problem is the voting for fief when, as a ruler, you are presented with only three candidates, and it is quite possible that neither you nor the clan who took the settlement would be included. Therefore, it is impossible to grant the fief to your most trusted vassal or simply take the land for yourself regardless of the amount of influence you have. Now, this is a structural problem that failed to capture how feudalism worked in most European realms.
And I still think it is a really bad idea to give all factions the same political structure, and the political structure should be modifiable with policies.
 
Top Bottom