Kings & Vassals AI, Wars and Castle Usages

[Maneuverer]

Hello everyone!

I've been having a great experience with this game so far. Luckily for me I manage to run the game smoothly most of the time and encountered 2-3 crashes in my nearly 80h played time. Bannerlord is a lot of fun even in EA a TaleWorlds did some amazing work and the amount of effort after releasing the EA they put it is insane. Keep spoiling me with those daily patches but don't forget to rest!

I wanted to bring up a few issues that me and probably some other players have encountered. I believe some of these issues are in the backlog and the devs are aware after so many people started whining about it (along with me rn) but I wanted to post a possible suggestions that might be taken into consideration as well as to open a discussion for others to share their thoughts and feedback. I would like to talk about the AI mechanics in the campaign.

OK, lets start...

TLDR; War progress should be linear, vote system needs fixing, lords should stop jumping from faction to faction, castles could be greatly utilized.


Everyone has been making jokes about the voting system and that is an issue of itself. I might be wrong but TW mentioned civil wars to be implemented in future and if that makes it into the game this is a great opportunity to address this "faulty" mechanic. I could image it being done by having the election result (apart affecting relationships) affect king's controversy level that at some point could bring the nobles to rebel against the king. At this moment if a clan is wronged by the king they just stop liking their leader, deal with it, pack their things and join another faction without much hesitation. The noblemen AI is missing any sense of "patriotism" or desire to regain it's original state with consideration of relationship to other lords.
There are no longer individual anymore lords like in Warband but in the late game you only see clans running about, joining and leaving factions where you get to a point you find Olek as lord of Quyaz being an Imperial nobleman fighting against some southern imperial dude (forgot the lord's name) fighting for the Sultan. Much like it happened in Warband in late game. I realize this is a fictional game but the goal is to immerse an early medieval times. Through history if a ruler was controversial he got overthrown.

It would make sense if recaptured fiefs would get returned to their original owners. I guess this has something to do with the influence point system. I might be wrong but the only (or at least a good one) way to get influence is through wars and battles. If a lord has their city captured and then it gets recaptured again he/she should get it's fief back unless he/she has terrible relationships with other lords and or has a high amount of controversy. So far what the election looks like is everyone votes for their own benefit and even if the original owner gets enough support the king now decides to own the castle or give it to someone else. Of course through the history several houses fought for power and influence and that is again where the civil war would fit.
I like the voting system and it fits in the game but it could definitely be less dull and involve more factors like making their own kingdom strong with ability to defend itself against the others rather than just lords (and the king) voting for a personal gain. If that is too complicated to implement at least the amount of influence you and other noblemen needed to pass a poll against the original owner receiving the fief should be much higher as well as other lords with good relationships with the original owner should be voting for him/her (for the sake of their own allies) not for their own clans because by the simple math it more benefits them.
This leads appears as an absolute lack of sense for a feudal state. I am not historian but I am sure what did not happen was kings vassals started to swear their loyalty to their neighbor kings, ripped their own country apart and left their former settlements to be fiefs for the other lords.

Next I would like to talk about the war campaigns. In the very best scenario, an army leader AI decides to siege a nearby single castle and then marches further and lays a siege on a nearest city. I've undertaken many campaigns as well as defended against some. The best case scenario I just mentioned happened maybe twice or three times at its best through my playtime. Most of the time the AI chooses a city (often ignoring the castles) totally of limits of it's kingdom's borders (if not the most further one) and tries to capture it. This leads to multiple awkward situations like where the army gets crushed deep in enemy territory or loosing a city on their home front because of the absence of forces within their kingdom or to a ridiculous ping pong of of ownership between the armies of recruits. The solution is that factions should expand their territory linearly. Sure you might just force the AI to first focus castles next to their borders and then have them deal with the closest cities. This however won't stop the player from doing so.
I think the solution is giving the castles a real usage.

Addressing the lack of castles usages in Bannerlord... It has almost none! You can leave your companions there, yeah. Sure they can be sieged and it's hell of a fun but the only real usage right now is just they generate money. It doesn't contain item stash (but cities do for some reason), the dungeons is like leaving your dog out of the house on a fenceless garden and not even the lord NPCs are bothered about them whether they own them or could own them! Don't get me wrong even at this point I'm aware it is still "work in progress" in early release but I must say "TW you did better job in Warband here".

Like in Warband you should be able to find their lords inside their castles/cities a lot more often as right now you aren't even able to find them and do a quest for them as they never stay in one place more one a couple in-game hours.
In time of war, the lords could have their captains/companions or dispatched recruitment parties gathering recruits from nearby villages and training them. These parties could not be summoned into battle or get off the proximity of the castle.
By building higher tiers of training grounds in your castle could speed up your party XP daily gain while being stationed in the castle. This could also be potential fix the "armies of recruits" and "defeated a lord/army but they are back in hundreds in few days again" situations most of players might be already familiar with.
Having enemy caravans choosing different longer paths (leading to more danger or less profits) could be another motivation for seizing the castles first.
Last thing are feasts but I don't think that is worth a discussion as it believe TW mentioned they plan on introducing them into the game.

I understand it might be challenging to rework the overall mechanics but the current AI it ruins the immersion and introduces imbalance into the game as it is right now and by building more game features on the top of it will make the game AI dumb.


It think that's it from me now. It might look like I actually hate the game but this is as critical I can be. Tell me guys what do you think and how would you solve brought up issues. Amen.

M-er

 

[iimstevo]

Everyone has been making jokes about the voting system and that is an issue of itself. I might be wrong but TW mentioned civil wars to be implemented in future and if that makes it into the game this is a great opportunity to address this "faulty" mechanic. I could image it being done by having the election result (apart affecting relationships) affect king's controversy level that at some point could bring the nobles to rebel against the king. At this moment if a clan is wronged by the king they just stop liking their leader, deal with it, pack their things and join another faction without much hesitation. The noblemen AI is missing any sense of "patriotism" or desire to regain it's original state with consideration of relationship to other lords.

The voting system is a terrible system if I'm honest. Kings owned their own territory - that's just the way it was. Lords ruled that territory for them, on their behalf. The tax money coming in, was paid to the Lords, and the Lords paid their tax in to their King. That doesn't happen here. As King, you gain absolutely nothing from conquering additional territory, and worse, you only serve to disrupt your clan members further and push them further from you because every vote is a guarantee that you'll piss off two people, unless you are also nominated as King, in which you might only piss off one.

As King you shouldn't be penalised for making a decision as King. It should be respected, and honoured. It should be an honour to rule over a keep/settlement. It shouldn't be demanded and expected. It also shouldn't be restricted to two or three candidates. It should be open to allow the King to select whatever Lord or Lady they wish to rule over the Settlement.

There are no longer individual anymore lords like in Warband but in the late game you only see clans running about, joining and leaving factions where you get to a point you find Olek as lord of Quyaz being an Imperial nobleman fighting against some southern imperial dude (forgot the lord's name) fighting for the Sultan. Much like it happened in Warband in late game. I realize this is a fictional game but the goal is to immerse an early medieval times. Through history if a ruler was controversial he got overthrown.

This is an issue because Clans aren't accurate. A Clan is supposed to be a family essentially. Instead in Bannerlord its an amalgamation of random people serving on behalf of one family. It should be a Clan Leader (Head of a family), their spouse, their children, and their adopted children (In the player's case, a couple of companions that should be young enough to be their adopted children). That's it.
The rest of their extended family members should be in a sister-clan with a shared name, and a unique banner. The family that's crowned should have a crown upon their banner. For example, if a Clan Leader had a brother, with a spouse, and their own children. They all form the same Clan name, with a unique banner. They'd have a strong alliance with the first clan, because they're literally blood... that doesn't mean to say that bond can't be broken.

But, yes, your point also stands in that currently, Lords and Ladies continuously change sides (and sporadically at that) without any interaction from NPC Kings/Queens - which ultimately results in messed up cultures where Lords are fighting for the "wrong" sides.

It would make sense if recaptured fiefs would get returned to their original owners.

Yes, 100%. This is extremely frustrating that because you lost control of a town/castle for 1 in-game day, you all of a sudden have three Lords that feel they have more of an entitlement to owning that settlement.

Next I would like to talk about the war campaigns. In the very best scenario, an army leader AI decides to siege a nearby single castle and then marches further and lays a siege on a nearest city. I've undertaken many campaigns as well as defended against some. The best case scenario I just mentioned happened maybe twice or three times at its best through my playtime. Most of the time the AI chooses a city (often ignoring the castles) totally of limits of it's kingdom's borders (if not the most further one) and tries to capture it. This leads to multiple awkward situations like where the army gets crushed deep in enemy territory or loosing a city on their home front because of the absence of forces within their kingdom or to a ridiculous ping pong of of ownership between the armies of recruits. The solution is that factions should expand their territory linearly. Sure you might just force the AI to first focus castles next to their borders and then have them deal with the closest cities. This however won't stop the player from doing so.
I think the solution is giving the castles a real usage.

I think the solution personally is to actually define territorial lines that adjust based on settlement capture. Borders aren't a recent concept, and defending borders has always been a part of both war and diplomacy throughout history. But like you said, I think it would be nice that if you are at war with a Kingdom, your caravans won't access that territory in order to accomplish their trading.

Likewise, having established territory may make it easier for AI to suitably defend and patrol the territory looking for looters, bandits and enemy parties.

Addressing the lack of castles usages in Bannerlord... It has almost none! You can leave your companions there, yeah. Sure they can be sieged and it's hell of a fun but the only real usage right now is just they generate money. It doesn't contain item stash (but cities do for some reason), the dungeons is like leaving your dog out of the house on a fenceless garden and not even the lord NPCs are bothered about them whether they own them or could own them! Don't get me wrong even at this point I'm aware it is still "work in progress" in early release but I must say "TW you did better job in Warband here".

Agreed, Castles are kind of pointless at this stage. I don't actually understand why they exist... the one benefit of them currently is that you can actually put a garrison inside them without them immediately dying due to starvation - which you cannot do inside a town.

 

[Maneuverer]

The voting system is a terrible system if I'm honest. Kings owned their own territory - that's just the way it was. Lords ruled that territory for them, on their behalf. The tax money coming in, was paid to the Lords, and the Lords paid their tax in to their King. That doesn't happen here. As King, you gain absolutely nothing from conquering additional territory, and worse, you only serve to disrupt your clan members further and push them further from you because every vote is a guarantee that you'll piss off two people, unless you are also nominated as King, in which you might only piss off one.

As King you shouldn't be penalised for making a decision as King. It should be respected, and honoured. It should be an honour to rule over a keep/settlement. It shouldn't be demanded and expected. It also shouldn't be restricted to two or three candidates. It should be open to allow the King to select whatever Lord or Lady they wish to rule over the Settlement.

What you described is accurate for medival European cultures but I believe at several points in history there were places that had similar system in place similar to the one we currently have in game. On the other hand that might be even easier to implement and balance. I'm all for huge battles and civil conflicts but some stability across the kingdoms (especially in the early game) should be in place.

This is an issue because Clans aren't accurate. A Clan is supposed to be a family essentially. Instead in Bannerlord its an amalgamation of random people serving on behalf of one family. It should be a Clan Leader (Head of a family), their spouse, their children, and their adopted children (In the player's case, a couple of companions that should be young enough to be their adopted children). That's it.
The rest of their extended family members should be in a sister-clan with a shared name, and a unique banner. The family that's crowned should have a crown upon their banner. For example, if a Clan Leader had a brother, with a spouse, and their own children. They all form the same Clan name, with a unique banner. They'd have a strong alliance with the first clan, because they're literally blood... that doesn't mean to say that bond can't be broken.

But, yes, your point also stands in that currently, Lords and Ladies continuously change sides (and sporadically at that) without any interaction from NPC Kings/Queens - which ultimately results in messed up cultures where Lords are fighting for the "wrong" sides.

That is correct only problem is there are only a few clans/families per kingdom (is it maybe 8 per kingdom?) to reflect the historical accuracy. I think they did pretty fine job I just wish lords would plot resistance rather then giving up all their fiefs and becoming nobody in a kingdom next to them.

Peace!