Making Personality Traits, Noble Relations and Political Stances relevant

[five bucks]

Bannerlord has systems like Personality Traits and Political Stances which sound great, like they could make characters feel unique and add depth to politics, strategy and roleplaying... but actually, they barely do anything.
For example, "cautious" lords will never surrender, even if outnumbered 10v1000; "merciful" lords still raid villages. All lords usually vote the same way on every issue, like a hivemind.
Some traits are also insanely difficult to get for the player.

Here are my suggestions on how these systems could be made more fun and useful, or how (in some cases) the existing trait gain rates could be tweaked to be more realistically attainable.


Honorable/Dishonorable
Noble Trait effects:
* Honorable nobles put high value on relation - with you and their liege - when deciding whether to defect.
* Dishonorable nobles will totally ignore relations, and freely defect if they think it makes financial/strategic sense.

Companion Trait effects:
* Honourable companions become angry when the player fails to complete a quest properly. If done 3 times, they will quit.
* A Dishonorable companion lowers party morale by -1 per day.

Player Trait gain/loss:
* +2% Honor each time you complete a quest as you agreed to with the quest-giver.
* -5% Honor every time you fail a quest, or choose an option which breaks your agreement with the quest-giver.
* -5% Honor when you leave troops behind to cover your retreat.
* -20% Honor when you break an oath to your liege by leaving a kingdom with your fiefs.


Brave/Cautious
Noble Trait effects:
* Brave nobles like voting for war, and against peace.
* Cautious ones like peace, and dislike war.
* Cautious nobles agree to surrender if your party strength is 3x higher than theirs. In battle, they retreat when their army's strength value is 3x lower than the enemy's.
* Nobles with no trait agree to surrender if your party strength is 5x higher than theirs. In battle, they retreat when their army's strength value is 5x lower than the enemy's.
* Brave nobles never surrender, and never retreat.

Companion Trait effects:
* Brave companions get angry if the player retreats from battle. If done 3 times, they will quit.
* Cautious companions will retreat in battle when your strength value is 3x lower than the enemy's.
* Companions with no trait will retreat in battle when your strength value is 5x lower than the enemy's.
* Brave companions will never retreat.

Player Trait gain/loss:
* +2% Bravery when you win or lose a battle where you had lower strength than the enemy.
* -5% Bravery when you retreat from a battle where you have lower strength than the enemy.


Generous/Closefisted
Noble Trait effects:
* Closefisted nobles put high value on money/fiefs when deciding whether to defect.
* Closefisted rulers give themselves fiefs more often.
* Generous rulers give others fiefs more often.
* Generous nobles vote for others to get fiefs more often.

Companion Trait effects:
* A Generous companion raises party morale by +1 per day.
* Closefisted companions get angry when the player fails to pay their daily wage. If done 3 times, they will quit.

Player Trait gain/loss:
* +2% Generosity for each day you have more than 7 food types in your inventory and 50+ troops.
* +2% Generosity for each fief you award to a vassal.
* +2% Generosity each time you give money to a beggar in towns, or buy a meal at a tavern for your troops.
* +2% Generosity when you choose a "generous" quest option, e.g. sharing profits with villagers.
* -10% Generosity for each day you do not pay troop wages.
* -5% Generosity for each fief you give to yourself against your council's approval.
* -5% Generosity for any quest option where you cause someone to lose money.


Merciful/Cruel
Noble Trait effects:
* Merciful nobles never raid villages.
* Merciful nobles never execute prisoners.
* Nobles without traits have a base 1% chance to execute prisoners, which increases by 1% for every negative relation point with the prisoner.
* Cruel nobles have a base 10% chance to execute prisoners, which increases by 1% for every negative relation point with that prisoner.
* Merciful nobles have a base 10% chance to set the player free after battle, which increases by 1% for every positive relation point with the player.

Companion Trait effects:
* A Merciful companion raises party morale by +1 per day.

Player Trait gain:
* +2% Mercy when you release a noble prisoner after battle.
* +2% Mercy when you give money to a beggar in a town.
* +5% Mercy when you choose a "merciful" quest option, e.g. not executing Radagos in the main quest.
* -10% Mercy when you execute a noble who does not have the Cruel trait. If they have the Cruel trait, you do not lose Mercy.



Calculating/Impulsive
Noble Trait effects:
* Calculating nobles are less influenced by their Personality Traits and political preferences when voting or defecting.
* Impulsive nobles are highly influenced by their Personality Traits and political preferences when voting or defecting.
* Calculating nobles are always willing to negotiate. Impulsive nobles are never willing to negotiate.
* Calculating rulers are more influenced by their councils when making decisions. Impulsive rulers will mostly ignore their councils.

Companion Trait effects:
* Each Impulsive companion lowers your party's daily morale by 1.

Player Trait gain:
* +2% Calculating when you win a battle where your strength rating is lower.
* -10% Calculating when you lose a battle where your strength rating is lower.
* +2% Calculating when you leave troops behind to retreat.
* +2% Calculating when you successfully negotiate with the enemy.
* +2% Calculating when you choose a quest option where you "talk your way out".

Political preferences
There is a system in Bannerlord's code for nobles to have political preferences that are Authoritarian, Oligarchic or Egalitarian, and for it to influence their policy votes. However, it currently has almost no effect. Here is how it could work better.

"Authoritarian" nobles vote for policies that benefit the ruling clan. Rhagaea, Raganvad, Monchug, and Derthert are Authoritarian.
"Oligarchic" nobles vote for policies that benefit the vassal clans. Lucon and Unqid are Oligarchic.
"Egalitarian" nobles vote for policies that benefit the common people and soldiers. Garios and Caladog are Egalitarian.
If they have enough influence, nobles will always vote on policies based on their political preference.

Spoiler: Full list of political preferences for policies

Feudal Inheritance: Oligarchs support, Authoritarians oppose.
Castle Charters: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Senate: Oligarchs support, Authoritarians oppose.
Grazing Rights: Egalitarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Sacred Majesty: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Land Grants for Veterans: Egalitarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Cantons: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Lawspeakers: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Royal Privilege: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Council of the Commons: Egalitarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Precarial Land Tenure: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Land Tax: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
State Monopolies: Authoritarians support, Egalitarians oppose.
Magistrates: Authoritarians support, Egalitarians oppose.
Debasement of the Currency: Authoritarians support, Egalitarians oppose.
Crown Duty: Authoritarians support, Egalitarians oppose.
Imperial Towns: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Royal Commissions: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Royal Guard: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
War Tax: Authoritarians support, Egalitarians oppose.
King's Mercenaries: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Lords' Privy Council: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Military Coronae: Egalitarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Serfdom: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Noble Retinues: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Bailiffs: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Hunting Rights: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Road Tolls: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Peerage: Oligarchs support, Authoritarians oppose.
Marshals: Oligarchs support, Authoritarians oppose.
Citizenship: Egalitarians support, Authoritarians oppose.
Forgiveness of Debts: Egalitarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Tribunes of the People: Egalitarians support, Authoritarians oppose.
Trial by Jury: Egalitarians support, Authoritarians oppose.

The system is already there in the game's code - but it is such a low impact that I have only ever seen it change a lord's vote a few times.

 

[LuciusDomitiusAurelianus]

I like this a lot. Even if they only stay as minor preferences and small buffs / debuffs - at least it'll give utility to Traits.

Right now Traits have maybe less than half a dozen types of scenarios they matter in. Only ones I remember off the top of my head are being Dishonorable makes it more likely to get executed, and you cannot be Merciful for Alleyways. Which is lame.

 

[Count_Morfetico]

Bravo!
I would also add that merciful or honorable npc's should have a percentage for letting the player go after defeat and not take prisoners, something like that.
It's nice that these are already into the code, maybe they'll tweak it more in the future (more like, soon™)

 

[five bucks]

I like this a lot. Even if they only stay as minor preferences and small buffs / debuffs - at least it'll give utility to Traits.

Right now Traits have maybe less than half a dozen types of scenarios they matter in. Only ones I remember off the top of my head are being Dishonorable makes it more likely to get executed, and you cannot be Merciful for Alleyways. Which is lame.

Yeah, that's my thinking too. I tried to keep my suggestions basic.

Bravo!
I would also add that merciful or honorable npc's should have a percentage for letting the player go after defeat and not take prisoners, something like that.
It's nice that these are already into the code, maybe they'll tweak it more in the future (more like, soon™)

That's a great point, I'll add it.

 

[STcloz]

You really love this game.

 

[Life_Erikson]

Good points! Characters with more personality is exactly what is missing in Bannerlord.

 

[Goyyyio]

Personality has no use in Bannerlord as of now. Why did they added a feature they're not even going to use

 

[black_bulldog]

Personality has no use in Bannerlord as of now. Why did they added a feature they're not even going to use

Why do half of the features in this game exist? Seriously there are plenty of things in this game that are pure fluff and add nothing. The only reason they're included is because Taleworlds wants to check another box off of features in the game. It's why the game is as wide as an ocean but deep as a puddle.

 

[Ningauble]

Why do half of the features in this game exist? Seriously there are plenty of things in this game that are pure fluff and add nothing. The only reason they're included is because Taleworlds wants to check another box off of features in the game. It's why the game is as wide as an ocean but deep as a puddle.

Somewhere along the line someone at TW penned interesting, colourful, " headline " descriptions of NPCs, like " friendly but manipulative", "profligate ", " dishonourable in every way ", " ruthless "......... we have seen them all, in passing.
But why ?
It is false advertising, I believe, as there is evidently no behind - the - scene writing backing up such NPC behaviour.
Are they still working on a yet - to - be - implemented complex behaviour package for interesting NPC personalities ?
I hope so, but realistically I doubt it.
So ........ back to just empty false advertising. Just ....... junk.
Deception, in fact.
Why even pretend, TW ?

The more I contemplate this BL game, the more insulted ( taken for a ride ) I feel.

 

[froggyluv]

Somewhere along the line someone at TW penned interesting, colourful, " headline " descriptions of NPCs, like " friendly but manipulative", "profligate ", " dishonourable in every way ", " ruthless "......... we have seen them all, in passing.
But why ?
It is false advertising, I believe, as there is evidently no behind - the - scene writing backing up such NPC behaviour.
Are they still working on a yet - to - be - implemented complex behaviour package for interesting NPC personalities ?
I hope so, but realistically I doubt it.
So ........ back to just empty false advertising. Just ....... junk.
Deception, in fact.
Why even pretend, TW ?

The more I contemplate this BL game, the more insulted ( taken for a ride ) I feel.

No offense mate but what an absolute murderous piece of grammatical homicide

 

[Ningauble]

No offense mate but what an absolute murderous piece of grammatical homicide

Do you not feel the same way, that you have been taken for a ride ?

 

[froggyluv]

Do you not feel the same way, that you have been taken for a ride ?

Overall after much contemplation on your creative text choice -I must concur with your overall sentiment. Ive never even played into mid game despite my 2000+ whatever hours on Steam, just because I know nothing exciting or compelling waits for me there in terms of interesting world events. Whats made me a fan of Historical warfare from any age are the tactics that when into deciding where, when and how to engage the enemy -had just that aspect been implemented it would be enough even if the kingdom policies stayed generally the same.

The problem for me personally is twofold: there is zero thought into world landscape by the AI into where they might want to fight, hole up, depending on nearby terrain/weather and their specific troop makeup. Even less goes into play for the Auto calc battles which denies us the semblance of a strategy game. These types of AI decisions could be made 40+ years ago on Apple II-e's, theres just no excuse not to even address it.

The second is the Line of Site, or lack thereof it. That being -all soldiers know where all enemy soldiers are at all times. In what magical universe is this possible and its obvious the effects this would have on strategic planning. With the 2 above major missing components -there can be no Battle of Agincort where knights were massacred due to really bad terrain but English longbowman, there can be no Battle of Teutonberg as they requires ambush which is impossible because again -everyone is omniscient.

The battle mechanics and animations of this game in my opinion are fantastic -thats why its such a shame we cant put them to good military use.

So yes i agree the NPCS should at least have strong distinct behaviours because that can at least give the impressions of "Friends" and "Foes" who if nothing else you can get satisfaction out of annihilating. Its like they were deadset deprive us of all basic inherent positive male Toxicity so no one really feels like your enemy and almost seems like no one really wants to fight to be honest (on a personality level)

 

[Ogagon]

Spoiler

Bannerlord has systems like Personality Traits and Political Stances which sound great, like they could make characters feel unique and add depth to politics, strategy and roleplaying... but actually, they barely do anything.
For example, "cautious" lords will never surrender, even if outnumbered 10v1000; "merciful" lords still raid villages. All lords usually vote the same way on every issue, like a hivemind.
Some traits are also insanely difficult to get for the player.

Here are my suggestions on how these systems could be made more fun and useful, or how (in some cases) the existing trait gain rates could be tweaked to be more realistically attainable.


Honorable/Dishonorable
Noble Trait effects:
* Honorable nobles put high value on relation - with you and their liege - when deciding whether to defect.
* Dishonorable nobles will totally ignore relations, and freely defect if they think it makes financial/strategic sense.

Companion Trait effects:
* Honourable companions become angry when the player fails to complete a quest properly. If done 3 times, they will quit.
* A Dishonorable companion lowers party morale by -1 per day.

Player Trait gain/loss:
* +2% Honor each time you complete a quest as you agreed to with the quest-giver.
* -5% Honor every time you fail a quest, or choose an option which breaks your agreement with the quest-giver.
* -5% Honor when you leave troops behind to cover your retreat.
* -10% Honor when you break an oath to your liege by leaving a kingdom with your fiefs.


Brave/Cautious
Noble Trait effects:
* Brave nobles like voting for war, and against peace.
* Cautious ones like peace, and dislike war.
* Cautious nobles agree to surrender if your party strength is 3x higher than theirs. In battle, they retreat when their army's strength value is 3x lower than the enemy's.
* Nobles with no trait agree to surrender if your party strength is 5x higher than theirs. In battle, they retreat when their army's strength value is 5x lower than the enemy's.
* Brave nobles never surrender, and never retreat.

Companion Trait effects:
* Brave companions get angry if the player retreats from battle. If done 3 times, they will quit.
* Cautious companions will retreat in battle when your strength value is 3x lower than the enemy's.
* Companions with no trait will retreat in battle when your strength value is 5x lower than the enemy's.
* Brave companions will never retreat.

Player Trait gain/loss:
* +2% Bravery when you win or lose a battle where you had lower strength than the enemy.
* -5% Bravery when you retreat from a battle where you have lower strength than the enemy.


Generous/Closefisted
Noble Trait effects:
* Closefisted nobles put high value on money/fiefs when deciding whether to defect.
* Closefisted rulers give themselves fiefs more often.
* Generous rulers give others fiefs more often.
* Generous nobles vote for others to get fiefs more often.

Companion Trait effects:
* A Generous companion raises party morale by +1 per day.
* Closefisted companions get angry when the player fails to pay their daily wage. If done 3 times, they will quit.

Player Trait gain/loss:
* +2% Generosity for each day you have more than 7 food types in your inventory and 50+ troops.
* +2% Generosity for each fief you award to a vassal.
* +2% Generosity each time you give money to a beggar in towns, or buy a meal at a tavern for your troops.
* +2% Generosity when you choose a "generous" quest option, e.g. sharing profits with villagers.
* -10% Generosity for each day you do not pay troop wages.
* -5% Generosity for each fief you give to yourself.
* -5% Generosity for any quest option where you cause someone to lose money.


Merciful/Cruel
Noble Trait effects:
* Merciful nobles never raid villages.
* Merciful nobles never execute prisoners.
* Nobles without traits have a base 1% chance to execute prisoners, which increases by 1% for every negative relation point with the prisoner.
* Cruel nobles have a base 10% chance to execute prisoners, which increases by 1% for every negative relation point with that prisoner.
* Merciful nobles have a base 10% chance to set the player free after battle, which increases by 1% for every positive relation point with the player.

Companion Trait effects:
* A Merciful companion raises party morale by +1 per day.

Player Trait gain:
* +2% Mercy when you release a noble prisoner after battle.
* +2% Mercy when you give money to a beggar in a town.
* +5% Mercy when you choose a "merciful" quest option, e.g. not executing Radagos in the main quest.
* -10% Mercy when you execute a noble who does not have the Cruel trait. If they have the Cruel trait, you do not lose Mercy.



Calculating/Impulsive
Noble Trait effects:
* Calculating nobles are less influenced by their Personality Traits and political preferences when voting or defecting.
* Impulsive nobles are highly influenced by their Personality Traits and political preferences when voting or defecting.
* Calculating nobles are always willing to negotiate. Impulsive nobles are never willing to negotiate.
* Calculating rulers are more influenced by their councils when making decisions. Impulsive rulers will mostly ignore their councils.

Companion Trait effects:
* Each Impulsive companion lowers your party's daily morale by 1.

Player Trait gain:
* +2% Calculating when you win a battle where your strength rating is lower.
* -10% Calculating when you lose a battle where your strength rating is lower.
* +2% Calculating when you leave troops behind to retreat.
* +2% Calculating when you successfully negotiate with the enemy.
* +2% Calculating when you choose a quest option where you "talk your way out".

Political preferences
There is a system in Bannerlord's code for nobles to have political preferences that are Authoritarian, Oligarchic or Egalitarian, and for it to influence their policy votes. However, it currently has almost no effect. Here is how it could work better.

"Authoritarian" nobles vote for policies that benefit the ruling clan. Rhagaea, Raganvad, Monchug, and Derthert are Authoritarian.
"Oligarchic" nobles vote for policies that benefit the vassal clans. Lucon and Unqid are Oligarchic.
"Egalitarian" nobles vote for policies that benefit the common people and soldiers. Garios and Caladog are Egalitarian.
If they have enough influence, nobles will always vote on policies based on their political preference.

Spoiler: Full list of political preferences for policies

Feudal Inheritance: Oligarchs support, Authoritarians oppose.
Castle Charters: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Senate: Oligarchs support, Authoritarians oppose.
Grazing Rights: Egalitarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Sacred Majesty: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Land Grants for Veterans: Egalitarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Cantons: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Lawspeakers: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Royal Privilege: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Council of the Commons: Egalitarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Precarial Land Tenure: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Land Tax: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
State Monopolies: Authoritarians support, Egalitarians oppose.
Magistrates: Authoritarians support, Egalitarians oppose.
Debasement of the Currency: Authoritarians support, Egalitarians oppose.
Crown Duty: Authoritarians support, Egalitarians oppose.
Imperial Towns: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Royal Commissions: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Royal Guard: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
War Tax: Authoritarians support, Egalitarians oppose.
King's Mercenaries: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Lords' Privy Council: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Military Coronae: Egalitarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Serfdom: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Noble Retinues: Authoritarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Bailiffs: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Hunting Rights: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Road Tolls: Oligarchs support, Egalitarians oppose.
Peerage: Oligarchs support, Authoritarians oppose.
Marshals: Oligarchs support, Authoritarians oppose.
Citizenship: Egalitarians support, Authoritarians oppose.
Forgiveness of Debts: Egalitarians support, Oligarchs oppose.
Tribunes of the People: Egalitarians support, Authoritarians oppose.
Trial by Jury: Egalitarians support, Authoritarians oppose.

The system is already there in the game's code - but it is such a low impact that I have only ever seen it change a lord's vote a few times.

Spoiler: I express my approval

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

Bannerlord has systems like Personality Traits and Political Stances which sound great, like they could make characters feel unique and add depth to politics, strategy and roleplaying... but actually, they barely do anything.
For example, "cautious" lords will never surrender, even if outnumbered 10v1000; "merciful" lords still raid villages. All lords usually vote the same way on every issue, like a hivemind.
Some traits are also insanely difficult to get for the player.

Here are my suggestions on how these systems could be made more fun and useful, or how (in some cases) the existing trait gain rates could be tweaked to be more realistically attainable.

As far as I know, merciful lords don't autonomously raid villages, but... "as far as I know" in a huge sandbox where people can learn things for thousands of hours lol. Before I say anything, I must state I don't actually know to what degree traits affect decision making in the base game. Going by what the in-game help says, it seems like a fairly simple dichotomy (like Daring will attempt to pin down a large fleeing army if they think they have reinforcements coming while Cautious won't do that; Merciful will not raid if they can help it while Cruel will do it unless forced not to; etc.) and I'd sure like to see them play a greater role in national politics and HR.

Honorable/Dishonorable
Noble Trait effects:
* Honorable nobles put high value on relation - with you and their liege - when deciding whether to defect.
* Dishonorable nobles will totally ignore relations, and freely defect if they think it makes financial/strategic sense.

Companion Trait effects:
* Honourable companions become angry when the player fails to complete a quest properly. If done 3 times, they will quit.
* A Dishonorable companion lowers party morale by -1 per day.

Player Trait gain/loss:
* +2% Honor each time you complete a quest as you agreed to with the quest-giver.
* -5% Honor every time you fail a quest, or choose an option which breaks your agreement with the quest-giver.
* -5% Honor when you leave troops behind to cover your retreat.
* -10% Honor when you break an oath to your liege by leaving a kingdom with your fiefs.

That minus 1 penalty--what would counteract it? I fear it'd be way too severe and broken. Furthermore, I don't think ANY amount of dishonor in NPCs should immediately translate to "ungrateful scumbag" since you presently lose honor by executing prisoners, indicating honor is LESS a matter of upholding obligations and MORE a matter of adhering to Calradian morality. In other words, "dishonorable" NPCs should be more like mavericks rather than necessarily bad people. Therefore, I'd amend it to where they place greater weight on HR and self-interest than honorable lords rather than self-interest alone. Basically, they'll stick with their homies if their homies stick with them and drop them if they won't whereas honorable lords are more likely to suffer in silence.

Furthermore, defection ought to incur a much great honor penalty since, well... how can a guy who betrayed his liege of 20 years be called a right honorable dude?

Brave/Cautious
Noble Trait effects:
* Brave nobles like voting for war, and against peace.
* Cautious ones like peace, and dislike war.
* Cautious nobles agree to surrender if your party strength is 3x higher than theirs. In battle, they retreat when their army's strength value is 3x lower than the enemy's.
* Nobles with no trait agree to surrender if your party strength is 5x higher than theirs. In battle, they retreat when their army's strength value is 5x lower than the enemy's.
* Brave nobles never surrender, and never retreat.

Companion Trait effects:
* Brave companions get angry if the player retreats from battle. If done 3 times, they will quit.
* Cautious companions will retreat in battle when your strength value is 3x lower than the enemy's.
* Companions with no trait will retreat in battle when your strength value is 5x lower than the enemy's.
* Brave companions will never retreat.

Player Trait gain/loss:
* +2% Bravery when you win or lose a battle where you had lower strength than the enemy.
* -5% Bravery when you retreat from a battle where you have lower strength than the enemy.

I'd amend the impacts Bravery and Cowardice has by making it a matter of degrees; basically, "moderate" Bravery shouldn't be so inclined to banzai charges but that would fit "extreme " Bravery, while "moderate" Cautious should be more ballsy if only for campaign balance's sake.

Furthermore, I'd amend Cautious companions' likelihood to abandon you by factoring in their relationship with your clan (something that I think ought to be expanded to accomdate this) since maxed relations True Companions ought to never abandon you unless "extremely" Cautious.

As for Player gain/loss, I'd amend Bravery loss by being -1% for every battle you WIN where you outnumber an enemy by 1.5:1 and -2% if greater than 2:1, except in cases of fighting bandits and other non-factionals since you could easily lose all Bravery (or max Bravery) due to how they work.

Generous/Closefisted
Noble Trait effects:
* Closefisted nobles put high value on money/fiefs when deciding whether to defect.
* Closefisted rulers give themselves fiefs more often.
* Generous rulers give others fiefs more often.
* Generous nobles vote for others to get fiefs more often.

Companion Trait effects:
* A Generous companion raises party morale by +1 per day.
* Closefisted companions get angry when the player fails to pay their daily wage. If done 3 times, they will quit.

Player Trait gain/loss:
* +2% Generosity for each day you have more than 7 food types in your inventory and 50+ troops.
* +2% Generosity for each fief you award to a vassal.
* +2% Generosity each time you give money to a beggar in towns, or buy a meal at a tavern for your troops.
* +2% Generosity when you choose a "generous" quest option, e.g. sharing profits with villagers.
* -10% Generosity for each day you do not pay troop wages.
* -5% Generosity for each fief you give to yourself.
* -5% Generosity for any quest option where you cause someone to lose money.

I'd amend things a little by making Closefisted A.I. more treacherous (they're ingrates after all) similar to how you intend dishonorable sorts to behave and impose a -2% Generosity penalty for only having 1 type of food in your army and amend the penalty to granting yourself fiefs IF you're rubber stamping other people voting for you (same for A.I. rulers).

Merciful/Cruel
Noble Trait effects:
* Merciful nobles never raid villages.
* Merciful nobles never execute prisoners.
* Nobles without traits have a base 1% chance to execute prisoners, which increases by 1% for every negative relation point with the prisoner.
* Cruel nobles have a base 10% chance to execute prisoners, which increases by 1% for every negative relation point with that prisoner.
* Merciful nobles have a base 10% chance to set the player free after battle, which increases by 1% for every positive relation point with the player.

Companion Trait effects:
* A Merciful companion raises party morale by +1 per day.

Player Trait gain:
* +2% Mercy when you release a noble prisoner after battle.
* +2% Mercy when you give money to a beggar in a town.
* +5% Mercy when you choose a "merciful" quest option, e.g. not executing Radagos in the main quest.
* -10% Mercy when you execute a noble who does not have the Cruel trait. If they have the Cruel trait, you do not lose Mercy.

As with others, I'd amend behaviors of Merciful and Cruel so that they vary by degrees of Mercy/Cruelty; in other words, moderately Merciful will execute/raid but very rarely. Furthermore, I'd remove the plus and minus party morale buffs since I could seem them becoming very OP very quickly.

Calculating/Impulsive
Noble Trait effects:
* Calculating nobles are less influenced by their Personality Traits and political preferences when voting or defecting.
* Impulsive nobles are highly influenced by their Personality Traits and political preferences when voting or defecting.
* Calculating nobles are always willing to negotiate. Impulsive nobles are never willing to negotiate.
* Calculating rulers are more influenced by their councils when making decisions. Impulsive rulers will mostly ignore their councils.

Companion Trait effects:
* Each Impulsive companion lowers your party's daily morale by 1.

Player Trait gain:
* +2% Calculating when you win a battle where your strength rating is lower.
* -10% Calculating when you lose a battle where your strength rating is lower.
* +2% Calculating when you leave troops behind to retreat.
* +2% Calculating when you successfully negotiate with the enemy.
* +2% Calculating when you choose a quest option where you "talk your way out".

I'd likewise temper the extremes you're describing so they only apply to those with the square-bordered "extreme" variants of these traits since it's a little silly for a guy with mild impulsiveness to be immune to negotiations in particular.

I'd also subtract Calculating (-5%?) for battles fought where you're outnumbered by 1.5:1, so it'd often go along with Bravery.

Political preferences
There is a system in Bannerlord's code for nobles to have political preferences that are Authoritarian, Oligarchic or Egalitarian, and for it to influence their policy votes. However, it currently has almost no effect. Here is how it could work better.

"Authoritarian" nobles vote for policies that benefit the ruling clan. Rhagaea, Raganvad, Monchug, and Derthert are Authoritarian.
"Oligarchic" nobles vote for policies that benefit the vassal clans. Lucon and Unqid are Oligarchic.
"Egalitarian" nobles vote for policies that benefit the common people and soldiers. Garios and Caladog are Egalitarian.
If they have enough influence, nobles will always vote on policies based on their political preference.

The system is already there in the game's code - but it is such a low impact that I have only ever seen it change a lord's vote a few times.

I'm doubtful it has almost no effect because it's something I see most often when seeing % chance of support for various policies.

I think this should be factored into loyalty mechanics though, like, for example, those who want more power for the nobility and a restrained monarchy should seek each other out and be combative against restraints on nobility or empowerment on autocrats (and presumably neutral to commoners). If the national policies are net-against their personal values, perhaps they should incur daily relationship penalties with the ruling clan and be more willing to defect.

 

[Ningauble]

Overall after much contemplation on your creative text choice -I must concur with your overall sentiment. Ive never even played into mid game despite my 2000+ whatever hours on Steam, just because I know nothing exciting or compelling waits for me there in terms of interesting world events. Whats made me a fan of Historical warfare from any age are the tactics that when into deciding where, when and how to engage the enemy -had just that aspect been implemented it would be enough even if the kingdom policies stayed generally the same.

The problem for me personally is twofold: there is zero thought into world landscape by the AI into where they might want to fight, hole up, depending on nearby terrain/weather and their specific troop makeup. Even less goes into play for the Auto calc battles which denies us the semblance of a strategy game. These types of AI decisions could be made 40+ years ago on Apple II-e's, theres just no excuse not to even address it.

The second is the Line of Site, or lack thereof it. That being -all soldiers know where all enemy soldiers are at all times. In what magical universe is this possible and its obvious the effects this would have on strategic planning. With the 2 above major missing components -there can be no Battle of Agincort where knights were massacred due to really bad terrain but English longbowman, there can be no Battle of Teutonberg as they requires ambush which is impossible because again -everyone is omniscient.

The battle mechanics and animations of this game in my opinion are fantastic -thats why its such a shame we cant put them to good military use.

So yes i agree the NPCS should at least have strong distinct behaviours because that can at least give the impressions of "Friends" and "Foes" who if nothing else you can get satisfaction out of annihilating. Its like they were deadset deprive us of all basic inherent positive male Toxicity so no one really feels like your enemy and almost seems like no one really wants to fight to be honest (on a personality level)

Thanks froggy.

We all want to be super - impressed by BL, it ( still ..... ) has so much potential ........... maybe one day ............. maybe mods.

But, especially with your insider experience, do you think that good modders, if not TW, can in fact (re)write deep into all these personalities, traits, and Relation, and Renown, etc, to give the BL landscape ( peoplescape ) " life " ?

 

[five bucks]

As far as I know, merciful lords don't autonomously raid villages, but... "as far as I know" in a huge sandbox where people can learn things for thousands of hours lol. Before I say anything, I must state I don't actually know to what degree traits affect decision making in the base game. Going by what the in-game help says, it seems like a fairly simple dichotomy (like Daring will attempt to pin down a large fleeing army if they think they have reinforcements coming while Cautious won't do that; Merciful will not raid if they can help it while Cruel will do it unless forced not to; etc.) and I'd sure like to see them play a greater role in national politics and HR.

Unfortunately the text you see in the encyclopedia was written a very long time ago, like 6+ years ago when the devblogs for personality traits came out. That's what Taleworlds originally wanted personality traits to be, but it is not what they are in the current game.

That minus 1 penalty--what would counteract it? I fear it'd be way too severe and broken. Furthermore, I don't think ANY amount of dishonor in NPCs should immediately translate to "ungrateful scumbag" since you presently lose honor by executing prisoners, indicating honor is LESS a matter of upholding obligations and MORE a matter of adhering to Calradian morality. In other words, "dishonorable" NPCs should be more like mavericks rather than necessarily bad people. Therefore, I'd amend it to where they place greater weight on HR and self-interest than honorable lords rather than self-interest alone. Basically, they'll stick with their homies if their homies stick with them and drop them if they won't whereas honorable lords are more likely to suffer in silence.

Here's my thought process: it would be good for personality traits of companions to have some sort of relevant effect. Daily morale is a very easy way for Taleworlds to represent that.

As it stands with the party morale system, I have never once had issues with troop morale to the point they started deserting. Keeping troops paid and fed usually isn't hard at all. So something needs to exist that can make it relevant and make situations where you're losing it faster than you gain it, and I think companion personality traits are a way of doing that.

"Dishonorable", as it works in the game, seems to be a person who does not stand by their agreements, personal bonds, or obligations.

A person like that in a party would pretty quickly start to piss your other troops off, if they're (for example) not aiding allies in battle, or not paying debts back. So this seems to be a good fit to me thematically.

What can the player do to counteract that -1 daily morale from a dishonorable companion? They can win battles, which raises morale. They can feed their troops meals at taverns, which gives 2 morale for the day iirc. They can keep food variety in their inventory, which gives 1-3 daily morale based on variety. And with this suggestion, they can also hire Merciful or Generous companions, whose positive behaviour counteracts the negative effect of your Dishonorable or Impulsive ones.

But if you are rolling with a party of multiple dishonorable and impulsive assholes, you're going to need to make a decision whether it's better to keep the ******* in your party, or let them go because they're too much trouble.

So it makes both the Party Morale and Companion Personality Trait systems relevant, as well as giving you more reason to watch out for food variety.

Furthermore, defection ought to incur a much great honor penalty since, well... how can a guy who betrayed his liege of 20 years be called a right honorable dude?

I agree, I'll change it.

and amend the penalty to granting yourself fiefs IF you're rubber stamping other people voting for you (same for A.I. rulers).

Good point, I'll make a note about voting against majority.

As with others, I'd amend behaviors of Merciful and Cruel so that they vary by degrees of Mercy/Cruelty; in other words, moderately Merciful will execute/raid but very rarely. Furthermore, I'd remove the plus and minus party morale buffs since I could seem them becoming very OP very quickly.

Traits are a pretty binary thing in Bannerlord, they don't have degrees, just decimal amounts between 0 and 1 (eg. you need 1000xp in Bravery to have the Brave trait). Another thing is that the trait effects Taleworlds has already implemented are usually quite unnoticeable, so I'm leaning towards big differences (eg Merciful lords never raid) so that it's quite noticeable for the player.

Also, being deterministic means that the player can make strategic and politics decisions based on traits without being at the mercy of RNG, eg: they can rely on a Merciful enemy lord not to raid their fiefs, so if they know that lord is leading an enemy army, they can intelligently exploit that by leaving their villages unguarded.

I'd likewise temper the extremes you're describing so they only apply to those with the square-bordered "extreme" variants of these traits since it's a little silly for a guy with mild impulsiveness to be immune to negotiations in particular.

In addition to what I said above, I think there is an explanation. The way I see it, if they have that Trait (which signifies that they have gained a widespread reputation for that particular behaviour) then they must be extremely impulsive, not just mildly disposed towards impulsiveness.

I'd also subtract Calculating (-5%?) for battles fought where you're outnumbered by 1.5:1, so it'd often go along with Bravery.

The idea is that if you fight a battle where you're outnumbered and win, you can claim it was a calculated risk, and if you have a pattern of doing this, then you must be good at calculating risks.

If you repeatedly lose battles where you're outnumbered on the other hand, it must be because you're bad at calculating risks (impulsive).

I'm doubtful it has almost no effect because it's something I see most often when seeing % chance of support for various policies.

Here's the testing I've done on policies:

Why Bannerlord Voting is Broken, and How To Fix It

The voting system is almost pointless, because the lords almost always vote the same as each other, so even by spending 150 Influence you can't change the outcome. To test, I set my relation to 0 with every clan in Vlandia, and proposed every policy: 26 of the votes could not be changed by the...

forums.taleworlds.com

TL;DR - Almost all policies which a vote was called on were either: "everyone but one person on one side", or "everyone but the king on one side". There was one exception where one Vlandian lord joined the king on one policy, which I think may have meant he had an Authoritarian political preference. That was all though.

I think this should be factored into loyalty mechanics though, like, for example, those who want more power for the nobility and a restrained monarchy should seek each other out and be combative against restraints on nobility or empowerment on autocrats (and presumably neutral to commoners). If the national policies are net-against their personal values, perhaps they should incur daily relationship penalties with the ruling clan and be more willing to defect.

I would love something more complex, but complex suggestions usually don't make it into the game. Even the post I've made here is already quite a bit of effort required.

Spoiler: I express my approval

Thank you

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

Unfortunately the text you see in the encyclopedia was written a very long time ago, like 6+ years ago when the devblogs for personality traits came out. That's what Taleworlds originally wanted personality traits to be, but it is not what they are in the current game.

On Merciful, I know the YouTuber Halyclion claimed to have followed King Derthert around to see if he'd hypocritically raid--he didn't, so I wouldn't be surprised if they're at least partially implemented. I have not actually checked to see if the idiots eager to pin down large hordes when I'm only passing by had Impulsive or Brave or not though--I really ought to...

Here's my thought process: it would be good for personality traits of companions to have some sort of relevant effect. Daily morale is a very easy way for Taleworlds to represent that.

As it stands with the party morale system, I have never once had issues with troop morale to the point they started deserting. Keeping troops paid and fed usually isn't hard at all. So something needs to exist that can make it relevant and make situations where you're losing it faster than you gain it, and I think companion personality traits are a way of doing that.

"Dishonorable", as it works in the game, seems to be a person who does not stand by their agreements, personal bonds, or obligations.

A person like that in a party would pretty quickly start to piss your other troops off, if they're (for example) not aiding allies in battle, or not paying debts back. So this seems to be a good fit to me thematically.

What can the player do to counteract that -1 daily morale from a dishonorable companion? They can win battles, which raises morale. They can feed their troops meals at taverns, which gives 2 morale for the day iirc. They can keep food variety in their inventory, which gives 1-3 daily morale based on variety. And with this suggestion, they can also hire Merciful or Generous companions, whose positive behaviour counteracts the negative effect of your Dishonorable or Impulsive ones.

But if you are rolling with a party of multiple dishonorable and impulsive assholes, you're going to need to make a decision whether it's better to keep the ******* in your party, or let them go because they're too much trouble.

So it makes both the Party Morale and Companion Personality Trait systems relevant, as well as giving you more reason to watch out for food variety.

I didn't realize food variety granted a +value daily; I thought it was gravitating towards a pre-determined point, and... well, like how Town loyalty works, basically.

In that case it'd be easy to keep the bad guys in check by virtue of there being numerous traits that'd counteract it with your proposition. A random assortment of vassals, chosen for their abilities rather than their Traits, would likely result in a net positive relation. However... I do think companions and their preferences should be expanded upon. It was a real surprise when Sorgard Breakskull confronted me on retreating, and me saying I wouldn't do it again raised his affection by +44, and then I did it again and the same thing happened... clearly, this could lead to something, but I'm not seeing it so I can't but think it's a half-baked idea as it stands. Like, he should have called me out on it and turned that +44 into a negative 44 or something, and that relationship value ought to mean something as well when, as it stands, relations within your own clan are meaningless.

Referring back to your first point about illogical implementations; I notice a weirdness where Honor/Dishonor seems to refer to adherence to morality more than fulfillment of obligations (except you can gain Honor by turning in tax monies to nobles asking for you to tax farm for them) while Generous/Closefisted, at least in character descriptions and Encyclopedia, refers to the rate at which characters adhere to obligations. Therefore, somebody like King Caladog is supposed to take care of his homies but not give 2Fs about the moral question of life's value and whether it's better to suffer righteously for an unworthy ruler or be free and true to yourself as a traitor.

I agree, I'll change it.

Good point, I'll make a note about voting against majority.

Traits are a pretty binary thing in Bannerlord, they don't have degrees, just decimal amounts between 0 and 1 (eg. you need 1000xp in Bravery to have the Brave trait). Another thing is that the trait effects Taleworlds has already implemented are usually quite unnoticeable, so I'm leaning towards big differences (eg Merciful lords never raid) so that it's quite noticeable for the player.

Also, being deterministic means that the player can make strategic and politics decisions based on traits without being at the mercy of RNG, eg: they can rely on a Merciful enemy lord not to raid their fiefs, so if they know that lord is leading an enemy army, they can intelligently exploit that by leaving their villages unguarded.

In addition to what I said above, I think there is an explanation. The way I see it, if they have that Trait (which signifies that they have gained a widespread reputation for that particular behaviour) then they must be extremely impulsive, not just mildly disposed towards impulsiveness.

In that case, why is there an "extreme" yellow/red framed variant of it? They ought to range from negative 2 to positive 2 at the very least; THAT kind of moderation would justify it as-is, and would be a preferable handling.

I'd really rather NOT have it be so predictable because half the fun of an open simulation is the sheer randomness and lack of predictability. If I always know King Derthert (for example) will be a great guy who'll never willingly force me into a stupid war, I'll never be miffed if he suddenly says "You know what? F__k the Empire, we're going on a crusade for Lycaron" or something lol. However, SOME predictability and trends is good, but not to the point where I can predict how everything in a long playthrough will turn out before I even set about it. Hammers and monkey wrenches ought to be thrown into my plans; I like it when God laughs, since I'm too used to strategy games where I can plan all day and watch it happen with little deviation.

The idea is that if you fight a battle where you're outnumbered and win, you can claim it was a calculated risk, and if you have a pattern of doing this, then you must be good at calculating risks.

If you repeatedly lose battles where you're outnumbered on the other hand, it must be because you're bad at calculating risks (impulsive).

That is true, but I'd like it to be done in degrees, even simple -2 to +2 levels of degrees.

Possibly, but it could also be interpreted that you'd a madman who fights unwinnable battles (Impulsive) who happens to be good enough for those balls to be true (Brave)!

Here's the testing I've done on policies:

Why Bannerlord Voting is Broken, and How To Fix It

The voting system is almost pointless, because the lords almost always vote the same as each other, so even by spending 150 Influence you can't change the outcome. To test, I set my relation to 0 with every clan in Vlandia, and proposed every policy: 26 of the votes could not be changed by the...

forums.taleworlds.com

TL;DR - Almost all policies which a vote was called on were either: "everyone but one person on one side", or "everyone but the king on one side". There was one exception where one Vlandian lord joined the king on one policy, which I think may have meant he had an Authoritarian political preference. That was all though.

I would love something more complex, but complex suggestions usually don't make it into the game. Even the post I've made here is already quite a bit of effort required.

That's very interesting; I know from my first playthrough that it's rare for voting nobles to be split down the middle or even 40/60. Usually it's on questions of war declarations where the prompt to vote on it preceded another prompt saying we got declared on and so, with changed information, some of the hawks decided to return to the nest.

It's difficult for me to say what TW is and isn't willing to do--it's highly unusual for developers to update content for free into video games in general, so I have no precedence for this. After all, at least nominally, the game's done and officially complete for publication; normally it'd be time to do whatever it is we're postulating in the form of DLCs rather than do stuff (of varying levels of complexity) for free.

I think it's better to shoot for the stars at any rate; even if it falls short, it'd likely better than falling short of a modest target. Furthermore, to those like myself who'd be willing to reach into their pocket books, it may better for them to just clean up the game for now and then add new stuff (and redo existing stuff) via expansion packs. Considering how unstable the Sims 4 is (the only other game I know of with a post-development cycle, albeit one doing pricy DLCs AND free updates), I suspect it's much smoother to focus entirely on clean up or entirely on expansion content rather than trying to do both plus free update content. But... I don't know how game development works lol, and I've heard Sims 4 is being worked on by a skeleton crew on minimal budget whereas TW is an independent company, so... (shrug)

 

[Zerosaiko]

Trait levels do range from -2 to +2. Can't remember if any NPCs start with a-2 or +2 trait though or if they can change them during the game though. I'd say unlikely though, if only because the player has to painstakingly grind Trait XP to reach those extremes.

 

[Yoshioki Ouchi]

Trait levels do range from -2 to +2. Can't remember if any NPCs start with a-2 or +2 trait though or if they can change them during the game though. I'd say unlikely though, if only because the player has to painstakingly grind Trait XP to reach those extremes.

NPCs born into the world have them--I've seen "Sadistic" with a generated daughter of a couple of parents with "Cruel," for example.

I am very curious how in the world you're supposed to acquire traits for yourself though--I think they should come more readily given you'd think a guy who never pillages cities would be renown for being a nice guy after a while, for example.

 

[froggyluv]

But, especially with your insider experience, do you think that good modders, if not TW, can in fact (re)write deep into all these personalities, traits, and Relation, and Renown, etc, to give the BL landscape ( peoplescape ) " life " ?

Sorry to disappoint but I have no insider experience into the current modding field for Bannerlords engine - but I would definitely say the guys here around me do and have a much better understanding of what mechanics (and lack of) are at play. From what ive seen and know is possible then I would answer your question with a resounding yes -BUT- TW isnt making it easy to help facilitate this from what ive seen so it might be a very long wait