Meaningful wars and diplomacy

Currently viewing this thread:

JiriPestr

Recruit
Hi Dev team, like many of your fans, we have spent countless hours playing and watching your games. I would like to thank you for your efforts to deliver the best possible game, I understand that you can not meet the taste of every player. I would like to share with you my opinion on what Bannerlord lacks the most.

1) Meaningful wars / battles
In my opinion, as they stand today, the great battles (1000 vs 1000) have no real impact on clan behavior and warfare. Countless times I have seen that a large army was completely crushed just to find a new one appear a few days later. The loss of troops has no actual impact on the economy, except for the fact that there are more units in the new armies at a lower level (but also in this AI cheats). Personally, I think that the recruitment of units in the current system should change more to a system of levies, where a certain number of units would be called from each village, castle and town (their number would correspond to size and quality could then be regulated by buildings and battle experience). Calling levies would then have a direct impact on the economy, according to the number of units, economic output would be reduced. In the current system, the recruitment of units in villages and towns should also reduce the overall economic output, with the id of a certain value being recruited only by the owner of the settlement. Units of the same culture could then return after the end of the fight and thus improve the economy (again, only to some level to avoid unwanted player interventions).

2) External and Internal Diplomacy
I know that there has been a lot of discussion about diplomacy, but this element is perhaps missing the most. In my opinion, good external diplomacy would solve many problems with the snowballing effect. While internal diplomacy would bring much-needed content for a period of peace. I know it's unrealistic to expect a similar system of lords hierarchy as in the Crusader Kings, but the current system of points of influence is at least unfinished and I need to redo it to better reflect the complexity of individual lords and clans.

I apologize for any mistakes, English is not my native language. Once again, I would like to thank the Dev team and look forward to what adjustments they will make in the future.
 

D0c1

Knight
a levy system will never be implemented. it's too late for this. idk if it's historically correct either. anno domini 1257 for warband had it. a mod will add this for bannerlord.

snowballing is fixed in 1.5.8. try it.
diplomacy in general indeed should be added into the game. we can hope that it will be.
 
I apologize for any mistakes, English is not my native language
Your English is very good.

In my opinion, good external diplomacy would solve many problems with the snowballing effect. While internal diplomacy would bring much-needed content for a period of peace.
I really think it would be a far better way to stop one faction steamrolling the map than what is being done atm.
snowballing is fixed in 1.5.8. try it.
Fixed how?
 

JiriPestr

Recruit
snowballing is fixed in 1.5.8. try it.
diplomacy in general indeed should be added into the game. we can hope that it will be.

I'm not entirely sure that the snowballing effect was fixed, at least not the way it should be. It occurs to me that the decision to declare war was rather subdued. I mean, there is almost no opinion of individual lords. Either everyone wants a war with a particular faction or no one, it's the same with peace.
 
I'm not entirely sure that the snowballing effect was fixed, at least not the way it should be. It occurs to me that the decision to declare war was rather subdued. I mean, there is almost no opinion of individual lords. Either everyone wants a war with a particular faction or no one, it's the same with peace.
That's the impression I've got.
Rather than just reducing the likelihood of factions declaring war or limiting the number of wars they want to fight at once, they should be given other ways to interact with rival kingdoms which could remove or severely reduce the possibility of war between them for a period of time.

The main storyline is actually built around a conflict between two opposing military alliances. It isn't unreasonable to expect something of the sort to actually be possible in the game.
 

Blood Gryphon

Master Knight
WBVC
By taking down the Cavalry speed bonus from 60% to 40% and adjusting the AI upgrades to favor cavalry over infantry to a point.
Also by letting weak poor factions to stop performing actions that bankrupted them (hiring mercenaries) which caused lords to defect. Also another big one was improving the AI lords focus on defending, so big armies actually get confronted now instead of just steam rolling through someone's territory.

I'm not entirely sure that the snowballing effect was fixed, at least not the way it should be. It occurs to me that the decision to declare war was rather subdued. I mean, there is almost no opinion of individual lords. Either everyone wants a war with a particular faction or no one, it's the same with peace.
This actually had little impact compared to what Apocal said and what I pointed out above. Lords have never really thought too individually about wars and instead consider the factions state as a whole, I believe it has always been this way and the thing that changed was their sensitivity to how many wars they were willing to stay in (went from 3 wars down to 1).

Personally I agree with you that decisions should not be 100 to 0 always, but that wasn't the cause for snowballing being fixed (which means it can be changed without an impact on snowballing).

The main storyline is actually built around a conflict between two opposing military alliances. It isn't unreasonable to expect something of the sort to actually be possible in the game.
Yeah this one confounds me as well, the main story is literally about a civil war and alliances, yet we have neither.
 
By taking down the Cavalry speed bonus from 60% to 40% and adjusting the AI upgrades to favor cavalry over infantry to a point.
Perhaps that will have an effect but I can't help but feel that a lot of these tweaks are causing certain factions to just feel far less threatening as a player, taking some of the fun out of it. When I first started playing I quite enjoyed the fact that the Khuzaits were always a looming threat that might trample over the world in true steppe horde fashion. I don't get that feeling anymore. I understand wanting to stop every campaign having the same outcome but I think they could take a better approach.
 
Also by letting weak poor factions to stop performing actions that bankrupted them (hiring mercenaries) which caused lords to defect. Also another big one was improving the AI lords focus on defending, so big armies actually get confronted now instead of just steam rolling through someone's territory.
These seem like good changes.
 
In my opinion, as they stand today, the great battles (1000 vs 1000) have no real impact on clan behavior and warfare. Countless times I have seen that a large army was completely crushed just to find a new one appear a few days later.

They are able to field a new army because they get troops from their garrisons, it has been explained many times...

Anyway I agree that kingdom manpower should be something in place in one way or other, so losing troops has more impact... but seems hard to find a balanced way and at same time keep the game fun.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
Perhaps that will have an effect but I can't help but feel that a lot of these tweaks are causing certain factions to just feel far less threatening as a player, taking some of the fun out of it.
Yeah, since none of the factions gain an upper hand in twenty years, that means that a strong player kingdom can completely trash them, even with the strategic AI being as stupid as a box of rocks.
 

JiriPestr

Recruit
This actually had little impact compared to what Apocal said and what I pointed out above. Lords have never really thought too individually about wars and instead consider the factions state as a whole, I believe it has always been this way and the thing that changed was their sensitivity to how many wars they were willing to stay in (went from 3 wars down to 1).

Personally I agree with you that decisions should not be 100 to 0 always, but that wasn't the cause for snowballing being fixed (which means it can be changed without an impact on snowballing).
I hope this will be one of the things that will change over time. Personally, I don't like setting a fixed resistance to be in more than one war at a time. I think it takes away a lot of flavor from the game. At the same time, it leads to great frustration for the player, as it is basically not possible to outvote other lords (and no matter how much influence I have). I don't know about the rest of you, but personally I don't see much difference in deciding state affairs, between being the lowest lord and being the king. I know it's been discussed a lot, and I'm not happy that it won't change much. I hope someone comes up with a good mod.
 

JiriPestr

Recruit
a levy system will never be implemented. it's too late for this. idk if it's historically correct either. anno domini 1257 for warband had it. a mod will add this for bannerlord.
I really hope that someone will make a similar recruitment mode as in Anno Domini 1257. In addition, volunteers could still be recruited from villages and towns to mercenary groups, but a different kind of unit at a different cost.
 

vonbalt

Knight at Arms
WBNWVCM&B
The main storyline is actually built around a conflict between two opposing military alliances. It isn't unreasonable to expect something of the sort to actually be possible in the game.
Yup, at the very minimum we should have an alliance system or a coalition system when one faction gets too strong, warband had this with multiple factions declaring war when they felt threatened by one becoming too strong.

In the same veins a dynamic civil war system would be awesome, once again it's part of the lore of the game but all we got is city rebellions that have like a 1 in 100 chance of succeeding, civil wars should split factions into 2 or 3 parts sometimes like one or two major clans gathering support from the lesser ones for their own bid for the throne and the remaining clans being loyalists support the rulling one.

Right now succession is determined by voting, what is this a modern republic? i know it happened sometimes depending on the political system but it happens 100% of times and just creates a lame gameplay experience, succession should be the time a kingdom is torn apart if they don't have a ruling clan strong enough be it in troop numbers or support from his vassals (good relations), disloyal clans should also be able to declare civil wars normally if they feel they can get enough support from the other clans to become stronger than the ruling one so to have unpleased vassals or a big enough kingdom would create another series of problems that would curb your ability to just midlessly expand until the entire map is yours.
 
Top Bottom