• Please note that we've updated the Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord save file system which requires you to take certain steps in order for your save files to be compatible with e1.7.1 and any later updates. You can find the instructions here.

Kingdom Policy Settings

Users who are viewing this thread

Shaxx

Squire
I am curious to know what degree exactly would most of you determine certain extreme policies to represent? As in my opinion no country is or can ever be entirely plutocratic or aristocratic, entirely mercantilist or entirely free and so on. A slider, even a maxed one, can really only mean a nation leans one way, or favors that way over others. Especially in this era, a maxed 'free-subjects' policy certainly does not represent a modern free-society as we know it today. Instead it would have to represent a relatively free society for the time period... no?

Take for example a Brytenwalda Kingdom with maxed Plutocracy and maxed Free Subjects, would/could you call this realm a republic? Or is it more likely just a primitive Constitutional Monarchy of sorts?

Discuss...
 

Mooncabbage

Sergeant
I would suggest that maxed out policy sliders can infact describe an extreme political situation in a given nation state. I'm pretty sure none of the non-player nations in the game use the sliders, so it's moot, but I think it allows for alternative history. Want to create a Democratic Republic of Canteware? Why not? Just because you're playing a historical setting doesn't mean you have to be bound by it's rules. Follow that logic to it's conclusion and you're no longer playing a game, you're watching a documentary.
 

Shaxx

Squire
Mooncabbage said:
I would suggest that maxed out policy sliders can infact describe an extreme political situation in a given nation state. I'm pretty sure none of the non-player nations in the game use the sliders, so it's moot, but I think it allows for alternative history. Want to create a Democratic Republic of Canteware? Why not? Just because you're playing a historical setting doesn't mean you have to be bound by it's rules. Follow that logic to it's conclusion and you're no longer playing a game, you're watching a documentary.

Actually, each nation has a set of these sliders, and they all have wide-ranging effects, including AI King only effects (which even they player cannot have, since whilst a king, he is not the AI).

But some things, in regards to republics, are hard-coded, predominantly in leadership (heavily aristocratic no matter the slider) and of-course succession which is alluded to always being by birth-right and not election, with note of events pertaining to it and the ability to 'make your heir'.

In-addition your lords will hate you for a plutocracy no matter who they are, because they are en-nobled, and are disfavored under this setting.

And I play most games like they are documentaries, just ones without fixed endings. But as for rules, it just comes back to 'realistic expectations' for both the time period and governmental structure all in all. I can after-all imagine my character is a moon-invader, and that would be my right, but would make for silliness all around.

Addendum:

As for the extreme, I should note I meant totality, which I still feel no maxed slider could truly claim to represent.
 

Mooncabbage

Sergeant
I would argue that if a player wanted to roleplay a moonman trapped in 8th century Britain (or atleast someone who thinks he is), that would be perfectly acceptable. The point is to create a framework, in this case a historical and realistic one, in which a player can tell their own story. The more freedom afforded the player, the better. That's the basis of emergent gameplay. Just because a player CAN do silly things, doesn't mean they will. It doesn't even mean you can't punish them for it. It just means you shouldn't try to stop them. I don't see how choosing to play out the story of Bjork the Hunter is any less valid than playing the story of Eadmund Washington, and founding a democratic state somewhere in Wales. It might be silly, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen, and it might be a lot of fun to find out what might happen if you did. Afterall, the Greeks invented democracy, and the Romans had the Senate. It's not like other political structures hadn't existed up to this point.

You did say:
Shaxx said:
Discuss...
:razz:
 

Mooncabbage

Sergeant
I'm not sure you can have "negative" freedom :razz: But yeah, thats the basic idea. Pretty sure the sliders are taken from a similar design in Europa Universalis III. The problem with those sliders was there was really no benefit to being anywhere in the middle (although mods definately added benefits, and infact made being on an extreme end of a slider fairly undesirable). Having no kingdom to manage, I have no idea how it plays out in BW. Is the system balanced in the middle? Is there a good gameplay reason to stick towards the middle?
 

Untitled.

Count
Positive freedom, or positive liberty, is the possibility to do something without the interference from society.
I.E. in Scandinavia you have to attend to school, because someone says it's good for you. Negative freedom is often defined as "being able to do something, but not allowed to".
In other countries, with minimal interference from society (I.E. USA) people might not be able to do everything they want, but they are allowed to. That's positive freedom.

One guy works as an insurance guy on a tropical island. Another guy works as an insurance guy in a bustling city. Who has more freedom? Naturally, the guy who works in the city, because he has most likely a larger client base and, thus, more money. He may travel to a tropical island when he wants to while the other guy might not be able to travel to a large city.

That being said, I haven't come to the point of creating an own kingdom as of yet, so I don't really know :razz:
 

Untitled.

Count
I'm too tired to check that. Did I screw it all up? :razz: It's been some time since I had that in school philosophy.
 

Shaxx

Squire
Mooncabbage said:
I would argue that if a player wanted to roleplay a moonman trapped in 8th century Britain (or atleast someone who thinks he is), that would be perfectly acceptable. The point is to create a framework, in this case a historical and realistic one, in which a player can tell their own story. The more freedom afforded the player, the better. That's the basis of emergent gameplay. Just because a player CAN do silly things, doesn't mean they will. It doesn't even mean you can't punish them for it. It just means you shouldn't try to stop them. I don't see how choosing to play out the story of Bjork the Hunter is any less valid than playing the story of Eadmund Washington, and founding a democratic state somewhere in Wales. It might be silly, but that doesn't mean it couldn't happen, and it might be a lot of fun to find out what might happen if you did. Afterall, the Greeks invented democracy, and the Romans had the Senate. It's not like other political structures hadn't existed up to this point.

You did say:
Shaxx said:
Discuss...
:razz:

And discuss we shall. I will note however, that Rome was far from a free society even as a Republic, and that Greek Democracy was invariably elitist, relatively short-lived and has never been revived in any Government, ever, not in America or anywhere else. This is the west in the dark-ages, where ideas and men are small-minded. People were objects, indentured servants at birth, their only release in death. This was their pact, if the masses worked hard and without complaint of hunger and poverty, they got to go to heaven when they died. That was their health-care. Eadmund Washington would indeed be a moon-invader in this period.

Even then though, Washington himself was not big on principles... just an ambitious rebel. Which brings me to my point that even today, one would call the United States of America as an example a: 'Free Country,' which would seem to imply Free Subjects and Plutocracy. These are indeed present in 'extremes', but not in totality, even in that modern society citizens can have a black bag put over their heads while walking down the street and be held in detention by their government indefinitely without breaking any laws. They just have to utter 'for national security' and all rights, privileges and humanity are no longer of import.

In the United Kingdom they still have hereditary monarchs, though powerless they may be are still represented by a number of un-elected and hereditary officials (though they are doing their best to get rid of it).

Etcetera, etcetera. Freedom and plutocracy are emphasized, leaned towards... but the otherside is still present.
 

Mooncabbage

Sergeant
Whilst not an expert on british politics (or politics anywhere frankly), I thought the House of Lords still wielded considerable power?

Anyway you're asking the wrong question. It's not "why?", it's "why not?". Just because an event is highly improbable, doesn't mean it's impossible. Unifying the entire british isles in this period I would say is extremely improbable, but noone is going to say you can't try to do that :razz: Even the ability to create your own kingdom is an anachronism.
 

Shaxx

Squire
Mooncabbage said:
Whilst not an expert on british politics (or politics anywhere frankly), I thought the House of Lords still wielded considerable power?

Anyway you're asking the wrong question. It's not "why?", it's "why not?". Just because an event is highly improbable, doesn't mean it's impossible. Unifying the entire british isles in this period I would say is extremely improbable, but noone is going to say you can't try to do that :razz: Even the ability to create your own kingdom is an anachronism.

As for the House of Lords, they do, hence the un-elected officials. However, there have been sanctions in the past on them, and to my knowledge intense debate still rages as to whether they should be appointed, elected or hereditary officials.

I think 'why' is a better position, since most go the route of 'why not', this is why! :twisted: That is, why, 'in my opinion', anyway. I feel no need to be fun police but rather spark some debate on the subject (like this) and just to see the opinions of others on the matter.

However the creation of Kingdoms would not be an anachronism at this point, the dark ages were the settling board where all the nobles of the Middle Ages made themselves noble, for the most part. When Roman rule left, something needed to fill that role, strong and powerful people stood up, had some success and then decided their strength was not a personal matter, but a matter of their blood and thus the Western Nobles were born. Future generations were then not allowed to rise above their ranks like the nobles above them had at some point, because they had not this blood that distinguished them from others. In-reality, they did not want the competition, the system needed regulation, the make-believe power of blood was it.

A good example of this is the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms of Britain... these were not direct extensions of the Kingdoms/Tribes in Germany that they came from, but new ones brought about by the rise of strong individuals who brought men together and carved out something for themselves, apart from whatever tribe or kingdom they came from.

Even outside of the dark ages there are plenty of examples of a single person more or less creating his own realm from meager beginnings (mainly because the Dark Ages are just a term for a period in Western Europe), Genghis Khan springs to mind. Even Oliver Cromwell can fit this description, considering his radical changes to England and the radical reversion after his death.
 

Mooncabbage

Sergeant
And unifying the british isles?

My point was, a man named Shaxx McGee never rose from slave origins to become king of all england :razz:

It's degrees of anachronism. It might be fun to be Arthur, Beowulf or Robin Hood for a while, but sooner or later you're going to get bored of those. At that point emergent gameplay in truly great games extends gameplay by letting you do things a different way, or set your own goals. Maybe you want to be a non-violent merchant prince? Maybe you want to convert the entire British isles to Germanic Paganism. Maybe you'd like to unite Britannia as a collectivist communist state. The more ways you CAN do it, the more gameplay you can get out of it, at relatively little cost to the developer (since all the other systems are already in place for the other gameplay styles). A classic example of a game that takes this approach is the first Deus Ex. The developers spent a lot of time creating environments and scripted happenings where the player could do ANYTHING. They tried to account for every crazy trick a player might try, and incorporate it into the game. People played through that game time and time again, just to see what might happen if they did it a different way. That's where the magic is.
 

Shaxx

Squire
Mooncabbage said:
And unifying the british isles?

My point was, a man named Shaxx McGee never rose from slave origins to become king of all england :razz:

It's degrees of anachronism. It might be fun to be Arthur, Beowulf or Robin Hood for a while, but sooner or later you're going to get bored of those. At that point emergent gameplay in truly great games extends gameplay by letting you do things a different way, or set your own goals. Maybe you want to be a non-violent merchant prince? Maybe you want to convert the entire British isles to Germanic Paganism. Maybe you'd like to unite Britannia as a collectivist communist state. The more ways you CAN do it, the more gameplay you can get out of it, at relatively little cost to the developer (since all the other systems are already in place for the other gameplay styles). A classic example of a game that takes this approach is the first Deus Ex. The developers spent a lot of time creating environments and scripted happenings where the player could do ANYTHING. They tried to account for every crazy trick a player might try, and incorporate it into the game. People played through that game time and time again, just to see what might happen if they did it a different way. That's where the magic is.

It's degrees of moderation. You can be as silly as you want or as restricted, the best in my opinion is usually a mixture. You can have whatever goals you like, and for me, whatever they might be, I prefer a challenge, and that usually involves putting realistic features in my path that would have been there. For example I increase javelin damage greatly and reduce shield durability, making battle a very chaotic place (shields melt like butter and everyone has javelins). I also mod each castle to have an extra 500 men, towns 750, capitols 1000. Increasing Bernician troop numbers by 50% (and pitting myself against them), and the West Saxons a notable increase in Heavy Infantry to make them more of a factor and a challenge. Giving all lords the use of mercenaries to pad their numbers and a dozen or so other small things along these lines.

Yin and Yang, and all that.
 

jelf

Sergeant
WBWF&SNWVC
I choose free trade when I only have a city or two. I switch to mercantilism after I have a large kingdom.
This is simply for gameplay perspective. As for the other policies, I usually choose those which give me more relation points with lords or villages/towns.
 

AlxGvr

Veteran
I have 1 city, 2 castles, 6 villages, and no lords.
Which settings I need to chose to gen maximum income?
 

Untitled.

Count
AlxGvr said:
I have 1 city, 2 castles, 6 villages, and no lords.
Which settings I need to chose to gen maximum income?
Centralization/Decentralization:

3 - very centralized. Tax Inefficiency for the ruler is reduced by 15%, and increased by 15% to his vassals  .Ruler's relations with his vassals should suffer a -3 hit every month. Kings armies get 30% percent increase, lords armies get 9% decrease.
2 - quite centralized. Tax Inefficiency for the ruler is reduced by 10%,and increased by 10% to his vassals . Ruler's relations with his vassals fiefs should suffer a -2 hit every month. Kings armies get 20% percent increase, lords armies get 6% decrease.
1 - little centralized. Tax inefficiency for the ruler is reduced by 5%, and increased by 5% to his vassals. Ruler's relations with his vassals fiefs should suffer a -1 hit every month. Kings armies get 10% percent increase, lords armies get 3% decrease.
0 - neither too centralized, nor decentralized.
-1 - little decentralized. Tax Inefficiency for the ruler is increased by 5%. Ruler's relations with his vassals increasy +1 every month. Kings armies get 10% percent decrease, lords armies get 3% increase.
-2 - quite decentralized. Tax Inefficiency for the ruler is increased by 10%. Ruler's relations with his vassals increasy +2 every month. Kings armies get 20% percent decrease, lords armies get 6% increase.
-3 - very decentralized. Tax Inefficiency for the ruler is increased by 15%. Ruler's relations with his vassals increasy +3 every month. Kings armies get 30% percent decrease, lords armies get 9% increase.

Aristocracy/Plutocracy:

3 - very aristocratic.  Trade decreased by 15%. Kings relations with their lords increased by 3 every month. Vassals armies increased by 9%.
2 - quite aristocratic. Trade decreased by 10%. Kings relations with their lords increased by 2 every month. Vassals armies increased by 6%.
1 - little aristocratic. Trade decreased by 5%. Kings relations with their lords increased by 1 every month. Vassals armies increased by 3%.
0 - a mixture of aristocracy and plutocracy.
-1 - little plutocratic. Trade increased by 10%. Kings relations with their lords decreased by 1 every month. Vassals armies decreased by 3%.
-2 - quite plutocratic. Trade increased by 15%. Kings relations with their lords decreased by 2 every month. Vassals armies decreased by 6%.
-3 - very plutocratic. Trade increased by 20%. Kings relations with their lords decreased by 3 every month. Vassals armies decreased by 9%.

Serfdom/Free subjects:

3 - almost all serfs.  Tax inefficiency decreased by 9% for both king and his vassals. Troops of the faction suffer a 6% strength malus in ai fights, kings and lords armies increased by 3%.
2 - mostly serfs.  Tax inefficiency decreased by 6% for both king and his vassals. Troops of the faction suffer a 4% strength malus in ai fights, kings and lords armies increased by 2%.
1 - usually serfs.  Tax inefficiency decreased by 3% for both king and his vassals. Troops of the faction suffer a 2% strength malus in ai fights, kings and lords armies increased by 1%.
0 - a mixture of serfs and free subjects.
-1 - usually free subjects. Tax inefficiency increased by 3% for both king and his vassals. Troops of the faction get a 2% strength bonus in ai fights, kings and lords armies decreased by 1%.
-2 - mostly free subjects. Tax inefficiency increased by 6% for both king and his vassals. Troops of the faction get a 4% strength bonus in ai fights, kings and lords armies decreased by 2%.
-3 - all free subjects. Tax inefficiency increased by 9% for both king and his vassals. Troops of the faction get a 6% strength bonus in ai fights, kings and lords armies decreased by 3%.

Quality/Quantity:

3 - of legendary bravery. ai strength of troops increased by 12%, lords armies decreased by 12%.
2 - of great bravery. ai strength of troops increased by 8%, lords armies decreased by 8%.
1 - of good bravery. ai strength of troops increased by 4%, lords armies decreased by 4%.
0 - of mediocre bravery and quantity.
-1 - of good quanity. ai strength of troops decreased by 4%, lords armies increased by 4%.
-2 - of great quantity. ai strength of troops decreased by 8%, lords armies increased by 8%.
-3 - of legendary quantity. ai strength of troops decreased by 12%, lords armies increased by 12%.
 
Top Bottom