LuciusDomitiusAurelianus
Sergeant
TL;DR = If I am at war with an enemy, and I kill their leader in Battle, they should immediately want to sue for peace. Regardless of war status, when a faction leader dies, all settlements within the Kingdom should take a time-boxed -20 Loyalty to simulate potential civil wars / unrest that historically happened during the change of a government head.
EDIT: While not 100% tied to make a faction leader dying meaningful, this Succession Mod adds a lot of flavor I outline in the body of this post.
---
One gameplay element that bothers me a lot is the fact that when the leader of a faction is killed, nothing really happens. The AI immediately picks a new leader, usually a family member, sometimes not and continues on. There is not any unique world dialogue options from civilians ("Hey, I heard that Monchug was killed in battle, great - I hate that guy") and no tying to the "real world" meta in-game of certain Lords hating one another. If you are at war, it does not seem to have an effect on a faction desiring peace, historically if a leader of a kingdom died (or the leader of an important formation/defense) would die - the appetite for continuing the war would quickly end as military leaders jockeyed for political power. Right now, nothing happens.
Ideally, when the leader of a faction dies, there should be a form of Interregnum or Regency of sorts (similar to EU4) where the Kingdom will immediately seek a peace with whomever they were at war with, and have to wait a to-be-determined amount of time to pick someone to succeed. It almost seems like it automatically picks a family member, but Lord's relationships should be weighted more heavily (and have more reasons to be volatile) and there is a chance that the succession is not dynastic. And nor should it be, right now we have a Feudal Kingdom (Vlandians), 3 forms of Roman/Byzantine-esque government (Senatorial Republic, Monarchy, Military Oligarchy/Dictatorship), a Khanate (Khuzaits), what would likely be Tribal Confederacies (Aserai, Sturgia and Battania) with various flavors (i.e., Sturgia is similar to a Grand Principality with dynastic succession going to the elder sons, and if they all died then the senior-most boyar or druzhina). So outside of Sturgia and Vlandia - the current succession doesn't really "fit". Long term I'd like to see the style of Kingdom mean a little bit more when it comes to succession, raising armies, passing policies, and titles.
Small follow-on regarding Interregnum, this would also serve as a preservation mechanic for the Kingdom, so instead of immediately rolling a new King and them dying causing stacking unrest, it would add some time to recovery. While other AI kingdoms should look to exploit this, I think having inter-Kingdom relationship factor into war decisions should be more impactful. While adding diplomatic actions like Non-Aggression Pacts would be the optimal outcome, maybe maintaining some friendly relationships should help an AI kingdom not snipe you. This also brings about the need to expand the Traits System, if you declare on a kingdom in the middle of a Interregnum you should immediately become Devious and lose tons of relationship with neutral powers, since it's a bit of a **** move. Of course, that's another suggestion, and more reasons to expand meaningfulness of relationships and Traits for the AI.
Besides a period of Interregnum where the Kingdom cannot declare war or take any other diplomatic action (they can be declared on, though) there should also be unrest that lasts as long as the Interregnum. This should come in the form of a hefty Loyalty penalty of -10 or -20, pretty much any new Clans / territories should become immediately rebellious and territories that are "crown land" or have been held should become a bit rocky, so those that have been raided due to war should also rebel. There is ton of historical precedence to it, but aside from that, would fit in with the meta of Bannerlord being a time immediately following the fracturing of a huge Empire - I get there is already of "Civil War" but this plays into that due to the disloyalty that would be sown after the current faction leader (who has rivals, according to the main quest) dies. Ideally, the "hard coded" rivalries will also mean something - for instance, Ingalther should have a high likelihood of breaking away (building on the Rebellion mechanic) with other Nobles in Vlandia should likely break-away into their own Rebellion, or at least be highly likely to desert (more mini-suggestions: Lords looking to jump ship should reach out to other AI Lords / the Player if they have the right relationship + traits).
To temper this, Faction leaders should be less likely to form Armies and also be set to "Defensive" posture or at least a little less aggressive, depending on their Traits. So if I have a Valorous and Hard-headed (whatever that Trait is) they should still be pretty aggressive, where other faction leaders are not. This serves as a bit of a counter to this mechanic (which will become important when AI vs AI death is enabled) so the AI doesn't just suicide itself like it currently does. This would also incentivize the Player to stick with the faction leader's army / retinue (maybe add a new Issue similar to Escort Caravan, except it's Royal Guard Duty?) to ensure they don't meet an untimely end. Of course, given the propensity of the AI Lords to suicide themselves during battle, this may end up being worse.
While there were a lot of suggestions in here, at the very least I want the fact a ruler dies to be meaningful and at least debuff Loyalty.
EDIT: While not 100% tied to make a faction leader dying meaningful, this Succession Mod adds a lot of flavor I outline in the body of this post.
---
One gameplay element that bothers me a lot is the fact that when the leader of a faction is killed, nothing really happens. The AI immediately picks a new leader, usually a family member, sometimes not and continues on. There is not any unique world dialogue options from civilians ("Hey, I heard that Monchug was killed in battle, great - I hate that guy") and no tying to the "real world" meta in-game of certain Lords hating one another. If you are at war, it does not seem to have an effect on a faction desiring peace, historically if a leader of a kingdom died (or the leader of an important formation/defense) would die - the appetite for continuing the war would quickly end as military leaders jockeyed for political power. Right now, nothing happens.
Ideally, when the leader of a faction dies, there should be a form of Interregnum or Regency of sorts (similar to EU4) where the Kingdom will immediately seek a peace with whomever they were at war with, and have to wait a to-be-determined amount of time to pick someone to succeed. It almost seems like it automatically picks a family member, but Lord's relationships should be weighted more heavily (and have more reasons to be volatile) and there is a chance that the succession is not dynastic. And nor should it be, right now we have a Feudal Kingdom (Vlandians), 3 forms of Roman/Byzantine-esque government (Senatorial Republic, Monarchy, Military Oligarchy/Dictatorship), a Khanate (Khuzaits), what would likely be Tribal Confederacies (Aserai, Sturgia and Battania) with various flavors (i.e., Sturgia is similar to a Grand Principality with dynastic succession going to the elder sons, and if they all died then the senior-most boyar or druzhina). So outside of Sturgia and Vlandia - the current succession doesn't really "fit". Long term I'd like to see the style of Kingdom mean a little bit more when it comes to succession, raising armies, passing policies, and titles.
Small follow-on regarding Interregnum, this would also serve as a preservation mechanic for the Kingdom, so instead of immediately rolling a new King and them dying causing stacking unrest, it would add some time to recovery. While other AI kingdoms should look to exploit this, I think having inter-Kingdom relationship factor into war decisions should be more impactful. While adding diplomatic actions like Non-Aggression Pacts would be the optimal outcome, maybe maintaining some friendly relationships should help an AI kingdom not snipe you. This also brings about the need to expand the Traits System, if you declare on a kingdom in the middle of a Interregnum you should immediately become Devious and lose tons of relationship with neutral powers, since it's a bit of a **** move. Of course, that's another suggestion, and more reasons to expand meaningfulness of relationships and Traits for the AI.
Besides a period of Interregnum where the Kingdom cannot declare war or take any other diplomatic action (they can be declared on, though) there should also be unrest that lasts as long as the Interregnum. This should come in the form of a hefty Loyalty penalty of -10 or -20, pretty much any new Clans / territories should become immediately rebellious and territories that are "crown land" or have been held should become a bit rocky, so those that have been raided due to war should also rebel. There is ton of historical precedence to it, but aside from that, would fit in with the meta of Bannerlord being a time immediately following the fracturing of a huge Empire - I get there is already of "Civil War" but this plays into that due to the disloyalty that would be sown after the current faction leader (who has rivals, according to the main quest) dies. Ideally, the "hard coded" rivalries will also mean something - for instance, Ingalther should have a high likelihood of breaking away (building on the Rebellion mechanic) with other Nobles in Vlandia should likely break-away into their own Rebellion, or at least be highly likely to desert (more mini-suggestions: Lords looking to jump ship should reach out to other AI Lords / the Player if they have the right relationship + traits).
To temper this, Faction leaders should be less likely to form Armies and also be set to "Defensive" posture or at least a little less aggressive, depending on their Traits. So if I have a Valorous and Hard-headed (whatever that Trait is) they should still be pretty aggressive, where other faction leaders are not. This serves as a bit of a counter to this mechanic (which will become important when AI vs AI death is enabled) so the AI doesn't just suicide itself like it currently does. This would also incentivize the Player to stick with the faction leader's army / retinue (maybe add a new Issue similar to Escort Caravan, except it's Royal Guard Duty?) to ensure they don't meet an untimely end. Of course, given the propensity of the AI Lords to suicide themselves during battle, this may end up being worse.
While there were a lot of suggestions in here, at the very least I want the fact a ruler dies to be meaningful and at least debuff Loyalty.
Last edited:
