SP - General Making Surrender Have a Purpose - Simple System

Users who are viewing this thread

five bucks

Knight at Arms
Currently, surrendering is a terrible option the player will almost never want to do, even if they are not save-scumming. In real life, surrendering could potentially have benefits compared to fighting to the death, but in Bannerlord it has no benefit. It may as well not even exist as an option.

Relations with nobles also don't matter enough. An enemy noble you have grinded 100 relations with, who absolutely loves you, will not allow you to escape a battle, and will hold you prisoner if you are defeated. It's very unsatisfying to have relations you work hard for mean so little.

Here is a simple system that could make surrender have an actual use, make traits and relations with lords more useful in gameplay, make births/deaths/heirs more relevant, and feel more realistic and immersive.



When you surrender to a noble, or they defeat you in battle, that noble checks their relations with you. They take the relation number, then:
* For every Mercy or Honesty trait the player or noble has, they add 10. (If both of you have both traits, this can add up to +40).
* For every Cruelty or Dishonesty trait the player or noble has, they subtract 10. (If both of you have both traits, this can add up to +40).
* If you were defeated instead of surrendering, 20 is subtracted.
* If you surrendered a castle under siege, 20 is added.
* Finally, a random number is rolled between 0-50, and added to the result.

If the resulting number is -100 or less, they execute you. (This is rare, and only occurs if the player has been very bad and very unlucky).

If it's 49 or less, they take you and your troops prisoner, and confiscate some of your items. (Most common outcome).

If it's 50 or more, they let you and your troops go, but take some of your money to "ransom" your troops, and warn you not to take any hostile action for the next 5 days. If you do a hostile action anyway, you lose Honor and lose 30 relations with that noble.

If it's 100 or more, they let you and your troops go freely, but warn you not to take any hostile action for the next 5 days, with the same penalties.




Here are some examples of how this system could work in practice.

Example 1: The player is Cruel. They surrender to a Merciful lord they have -100 relations with. The RNG rolls 10.
-100, +10, -10, +10 = -90. Player loses freedom, troops, and some money.

Example 2: The player has no traits. They surrender to a Cruel, Dishonest lord they have -100 relations with. The RNG rolls 16.
-100, -20, +16 = -104. Player is executed.

Example 3: The player is Cruel and Dishonest. They surrender to a Cruel, Dishonest lord they have 70 relations with. The RNG rolls 17.
70, -40, +17 = 47. Player loses freedom, troops, and some money.

Example 4: The player is Merciful and Honest. They surrender to a lord who has no traits and 0 relations with them. The RNG rolls 31.
0 +20 +31 = 51. Player keeps freedom and troops, but loses some money.

Example 5: The player has no traits. They surrender to a Merciful, Honest lord they have 50 relations with. The RNG rolls 33.
50 +20 +33 = 103. Player keeps freedom, troops, and money.

Example 6: The player is Dishonest. They are defeated by a Cruel lord they have -35 relations with. The RNG rolls 1.
-35 -20 -20 +1 = -74. Player loses freedom, troops, and some money.



With such a system, players would have a real reason to use the surrender button, especially in Ironman Mode - if they thought they were very unlikely to win the battle, they would have better chances surrendering. Also, choosing to fight against unbeatable odds would feel braver if surrender was a viable option.
 
Last edited:
This is very interesting, I very much like the idea of surrendering having more possible outcomes like it has for the players when you defeat an opposing lord.

What happens currently when you surrender? You just get imprisoned and lose all your troops?
 
What happens currently when you surrender? You just get imprisoned and lose all your troops?
Unfortunately yes. Your companions usually get scattered to random locations and have to be found again, too.

Because the penalty for losing a single battle - or accidentally hitting "surrender" due to a misclick - is often enormous, it's no wonder that players savescum a lot.
 
I like it, I'll buy it.
A combination of Your proposal + True Relations I feel would be quite beneficial to broaden the playable experience in Bannerlord.
Nice proposal/feedback.
 
seems like a fancy new system

things I like:
- adds more purpose to being merciful yourself and maintaining good relationships with other lords
- kind of adds some micro-diplomacy in these capturing events, which is a good place to add it
- adds more purpose to character traits
- adds an event of NPCs executing you (or maybe even other NPCs? either way, it gives more drama to the game)

things I don't like:
- possible early game unlucky death
- possibly speeds up the game (if other lords execute each other) while other systems are still very slow and player won't have time to get far with them (for example the trading grind)
- it's a whole new system, ie it will have a lot of edge cases/bugs/weird behavior/whatnot, will need to be tweaked, tested etc... (maybe is not the top priority at the moment)
 
@Ananda_The_Destroyer , as an experienced player who knows the ins and outs of the game, what is your opinion regarding this proposal?
I think it sounds like a good start, but also losing all your troops is such a set back that not being imprisoned yourself is barely a benefit. Maybe have an option with the mid-high roles to spare your men(they go to a garrison) but surrender yourself or maybe for certain lord personalities. Or a hefty fine. Although I think the bulk of being caught by a unstoppable force comes from the map clicking movement controls being finicky getting you "touched" by a party you should be able to pass. Of course in some playthroughs you may not use special troops and so this option becomes more useful. I would fight tooth and nail to protect 100 KG but if I have 100 bandit troops (and the 150 roguery).... maybe I would let them go.

I would also like to be able to use surrender in some way, like say a certain lord type will gamble you fortune for you freedom, but they can be goaded into gambling for more and more games so you can end up winning a large amount of money. Also giving up a clan member as collateral to a debt for being let go (with troops) but then having them sold into slavery or executed because you refuse to pay would be a fun husband disposal feature. Also maybe some lords should want to duel you for you freedom (or theirs). Also, when you've really got a bad reputation with a faction it be fun if your character could be put on a trial for war crimes and all the people with relations could role for or against and see if you get executed! however it should return your clan's negative relations to zero, otherwise there'd be no point.

There should also be a special consideration for surrendering at a siege parley too, since you're really saving them a large amount of time and men if you just give up, this is a situation where being able to leave without penalty could make sense.

And of course, even more important, the AI needs to surrender or make a deal that's more useful. Letting them go when "they have no wish to fight" should make them stay away form your fiefs for some time and give small relation boost. Garrison with no lord inside should have a moral bar that goes down over time, starving, having siege bombardment deaths and such, but goes back up if a ally tried to break the siege. You should also be able to threaten prisoners to reduce the garrisons moral, if you have enough (say a whole faction) it should be very disturbing a garrison.

One thing I'd like is a visual representation of the rolls the game odes for this and other dialogue game rolls so the player gets an idea of what's going on and it's more interesting then just mashing a choice nad re-loading if it doesn't do what you want.
 
I think it sounds like a good start, but also losing all your troops is such a set back that not being imprisoned yourself is barely a benefit. Maybe have an option with the mid-high roles to spare your men(they go to a garrison) but surrender yourself or maybe for certain lord personalities. Or a hefty fine. Although I think the bulk of being caught by a unstoppable force comes from the map clicking movement controls being finicky getting you "touched" by a party you should be able to pass. Of course in some playthroughs you may not use special troops and so this option becomes more useful. I would fight tooth and nail to protect 100 KG but if I have 100 bandit troops (and the 150 roguery).... maybe I would let them go.

I would also like to be able to use surrender in some way, like say a certain lord type will gamble you fortune for you freedom, but they can be goaded into gambling for more and more games so you can end up winning a large amount of money. Also giving up a clan member as collateral to a debt for being let go (with troops) but then having them sold into slavery or executed because you refuse to pay would be a fun husband disposal feature. Also maybe some lords should want to duel you for you freedom (or theirs). Also, when you've really got a bad reputation with a faction it be fun if your character could be put on a trial for war crimes and all the people with relations could role for or against and see if you get executed! however it should return your clan's negative relations to zero, otherwise there'd be no point.

There should also be a special consideration for surrendering at a siege parley too, since you're really saving them a large amount of time and men if you just give up, this is a situation where being able to leave without penalty could make sense.

And of course, even more important, the AI needs to surrender or make a deal that's more useful. Letting them go when "they have no wish to fight" should make them stay away form your fiefs for some time and give small relation boost. Garrison with no lord inside should have a moral bar that goes down over time, starving, having siege bombardment deaths and such, but goes back up if a ally tried to break the siege. You should also be able to threaten prisoners to reduce the garrisons moral, if you have enough (say a whole faction) it should be very disturbing a garrison.

One thing I'd like is a visual representation of the rolls the game odes for this and other dialogue game rolls so the player gets an idea of what's going on and it's more interesting then just mashing a choice nad re-loading if it doesn't do what you want.
Thank you for your time and for joining the debate, much appreciated. Of course, everything you say here is very interesting ? :wink: .
 
Thanks for the nice words all :smile:
seems like a fancy new system

things I like:
- adds more purpose to being merciful yourself and maintaining good relationships with other lords
- kind of adds some micro-diplomacy in these capturing events, which is a good place to add it
- adds more purpose to character traits
- adds an event of NPCs executing you (or maybe even other NPCs? either way, it gives more drama to the game)

things I don't like:
- possible early game unlucky death
- possibly speeds up the game (if other lords execute each other) while other systems are still very slow and player won't have time to get far with them (for example the trading grind)
- it's a whole new system, ie it will have a lot of edge cases/bugs/weird behavior/whatnot, will need to be tweaked, tested etc... (maybe is not the top priority at the moment)
Regarding early game deaths, if you needed to get below -100 to be executed, and the RNG added between +0 and +50 to the final result, you would need to:
* lose a battle and not escape
* be at -80 relation with the noble, or both you and they have Dishonest and Cruel traits and you are at -40 relation
* roll 0 on the RNG (a 1/51 chance).
That would be quite difficult to get your relations that low and be that unlucky, so it shouldn't be too much of an issue in the early game; and players can also choose to just reload a save or disable deaths on their playthrough, too.

Speeding up the game is a valid concern if lords execute each other. I was mainly thinking just applying it to the player's surrenders, and other lords just taking each other prisoner as usual (with the exception of rebels, who do get executed at the moment). But depending on what people and TW wanted to do perhaps lords could do it too if it didn't disrupt the world simulation too much.
I think it sounds like a good start, but also losing all your troops is such a set back that not being imprisoned yourself is barely a benefit. Maybe have an option with the mid-high roles to spare your men(they go to a garrison) but surrender yourself or maybe for certain lord personalities. Or a hefty fine.
Fair point that losing your troops is quite a big setback. Sending troops to a garrison might be a bit tricky to implement because it would require a teleport, and where would they go if the player was fiefless or owned many fiefs, and how would you reclaim them? A fine (ransom of your private wealth in exchange for your troops' freedom) seems simple, easily implemented, and less of a setback than losing all your troops. It sort of has historical precedent too. Will change the post.
There should also be a special consideration for surrendering at a siege parley too, since you're really saving them a large amount of time and men if you just give up, this is a situation where being able to leave without penalty could make sense.
I hadn't thought of that, that's something worth adding.
And of course, even more important, the AI needs to surrender or make a deal that's more useful. Letting them go when "they have no wish to fight" should make them stay away form your fiefs for some time and give small relation boost.
Agreed. They can currently tell you to stay away for 5 days in negotiations, but for some reason you can't demand the same of them.
 
Currently, surrendering is a terrible option the player will almost never want to do, even if they are not save-scumming. In real life, surrendering could potentially have benefits compared to fighting to the death, but in Bannerlord it has no benefit. It may as well not even exist as an option.

Relations with nobles also don't matter enough. An enemy noble you have grinded 100 relations with, who absolutely loves you, will not allow you to escape a battle, and will hold you prisoner if you are defeated. It's very unsatisfying to have relations you work hard for mean so little.

Here is a simple system that could make it situationally useful for the player to surrender, make traits and relations with lords more useful in gameplay, make the births and deaths and heirs system more useful, and feel more realistic and immersive.



When you surrender to a noble, or are defeated in battle, that noble checks their relations with you. They take the relation number, then:
* For every positive Mercy or Honesty trait the player or noble has, they add 10. (If both of you have both traits, this can add up to +40).
* For every Cruelty or Dishonesty trait the player or noble has, they subtract 10. (If both of you have both traits, this can add up to +40).
* If you were defeated instead of surrendering, 20 is subtracted.
* If you surrendered a castle under siege, 20 is added.
* Finally, a random number is rolled between 0-50, and added to the result.

If the resulting number is -100 or less, they execute you. (This is rare, and only occurs if the player has been very bad and very unlucky).

If it's 49 or less, they take you and your troops prisoner, and confiscate some of your items. (Most common outcome).

If it's 50 or more, they let you and your troops go, but take some of your money to "ransom" your troops, and warn you not to take any hostile action for the next 5 days. If you do a hostile action anyway, you lose Honor and lose 30 relations with that noble.

If it's 100 or more, they let you and your troops go freely, but warn you not to take any hostile action for the next 5 days, with the same penalties.




Here are some examples of how this system could work in practice.

Example 1: The player is Cruel. They surrender to a Merciful lord they have -100 relations with. The RNG rolls 10.
-100, +10, -10, +10 = -90. Player loses freedom, troops, and some money.

Example 2: The player has no traits. They surrender to a Cruel, Dishonest lord they have -100 relations with. The RNG rolls 16.
-100, -20, +16 = -104. Player is executed.

Example 3: The player is Cruel and Dishonest. They surrender to a Cruel, Dishonest lord they have 70 relations with. The RNG rolls 17.
70, -40, +17 = 47. Player loses freedom, troops, and some money.

Example 4: The player is Merciful and Honest. They surrender to a lord who has no traits and 0 relations with them. The RNG rolls 31.
0 +20 +31 = 51. Player keeps freedom and troops, but loses some money.

Example 5: The player has no traits. They surrender to a Merciful, Honest lord they have 50 relations with. The RNG rolls 33.
50 +20 +33 = 103. Player keeps freedom, troops, and money.

Example 6: The player is Dishonest. They are defeated by a Cruel lord they have -35 relations with. The RNG rolls 1.
-35 -20 -20 +1 = -74. Player loses freedom, troops, and some money.



With such a system, players would have a real reason to use the surrender button, especially in Ironman Mode - if they thought they were very unlikely to win the battle, they would have better chances surrendering. And also, choosing to fight against unbeatable odds would feel braver if surrender was a viable option.
Ah I see you beat me to this topic.

Good ideas, but adding RNG to whether the player character gets executed or not, is probably not the best idea, even if it's very unlikely. Getting executed should be a known quantity i.e. you pissed off Lord Stabs-a-lot, and if he gets you, he's gonna part your head from your body.

I think there should be at least 2 ways to surrender, and possibly a new way to avoid battle.

  1. Surrender your troops/inventory, but player character walks away free.
    • Earns player Caution, Closefisted, and Dishonest
  2. Surrender yourself/inventory, but troops will return to nearest player fief.
    • Earns player Valor, Generosity, and Honor
Surrender your troops follows this check:
(Relation w/ Lord) + (10+ for each trait opposing Lord has: Caution Closefisted Dishonest) + (10+ for each trait PC has: Caution Closefisted Dishonest) = 50+ Pass, anything less is fail and everything is taken


Surrender yourself following this check:
(Relation w/ Lord) + (10+ for each trait opposing Lord has: Valor Generosity Honor) + (10+ for each trait PC has: Valor Generosity Honor) = 50+ Pass, anything less is fail and everything is taken


So if you have a very good relation with said Lord you can surrender either of the two ways. Alternatively if you have a lot of traits in common that will also work. Or you can have a bit of both.


I also think you should be able to Duel the enemy Lord to settle a battle, but this is only possible when both the Player AND opposing Lord have the traits: Valor and Honest


Clan Member Execution, IMO, should be determined as follows:
(Relation w/ Lord) + (+100/-100 if Lord Merciful/Cruel) + (+50/-50 if Lord Honest/Dishonest) + (+25/-25 if Lord Generous/Closefisted) + (+25/-25 if Lord Calculating/Impulsive) + (+25/-25 if Lord Valor/Cautious)= -200 or less results in Execution, any score above -199 no Execution

If you have a really bad -100 Relation with a Cruel Lord expect your Clan Members to be at risk of the chopping block. If a rival Lord is Cruel, Dishonest, and Closefisted (i.e. Evil Sadist) they will need less reason to kill your Clan (only -25 Relationship). However as long as a Lord has one of the five positive Traits you will generally be safe. But if a Lord has two or more negative Traits you need to be much more mindful of them.

Currently there's very little penalty for making other Clans angry via war. Even with my proposed "Execution Check", the vast majority of Nobles in-game will not perform Executions even if you do really upset them (-100 Relation), because they generally have some kind of decent qualities. But there are some Nobles you should be mindful of... maybe even execute yourself to protect you Clan. Or maybe you should release them after battle, besides just doing so for the Charm gains.

Examples:

If you have -100 Relation with fen Gruffendoc, Caladog will kill execute you or any of your Clan he captures
PTnGUkI.png


Then there's Raganvad who's less pleasant, he only needs -75 Relation to perform executions
dul29cH.png


Then there's someone like Nemos, who may be "Honest" but will show no mercy if get on his bad side. He only needs -50 Relation before he executes.
hL5FstR.png


And at last you have someone like Eilidh. Surely this young lady isn't to be feared? Wrong. If you have even -25 Relation with her Clan she will show your Clan no pity.
wilVZvx.png
 
Ah one thing I forgot to mention:

Most important of all, the A.I. itself needs to surrender when the odds are completely against them. Seriously is Calradia actually Feudal Japan? Honestly I don't even think Samurai were so honor-bound that they would fight impossible odds, pretty sure there were many instances of them surrendering when things are bad.

A.I. should consider surrendering if odds are 75:25, or lower. When you outmatch the enemy 10:1 it should almost be a give. Also the Lord's traits should probably be factor. i.e. a Valorous Lord is very unlikely to ever surrender, but a Cautious Lord is much likely to.


Currently Looters are about the only parties that ever try to surrender, and even then it's really not often enough.
 
I like that surrender is a viable option, I would like to add that it would be good if such a system also worked with enemies. Because for now, you can go with 300 men against a noble who has 10 and will never redeem. Let him surrender under an oath of non-aggression. He cannot attack or be attacked, the only thing that allows him is that he can defend his lands in case they are being sacked or under siege.

I once had 100 Battanian archers shoot down a single nobleman who managed to escape alone from the previous battle. it was hilarious

Also add that if you must pay a monetary compensation to let you go, that is not a percentage of your wealth, and yes to the number of soldiers. I once provided the option to let me go for money and they wanted millions for it ...
 
Back
Top Bottom