Mechanic suggestion: white flag for defeated groups.

[Sir Frederic]

Without going too far, the suggestion is a direct robbery of the mechanics of the armies in Crusader Knights. In that game when a battle ends, the losing army goes into a state of low morale and white flag, you can not attack them and you must wait for them to come out of that state to face them again.

In bannerlord unfortunately it is forbidden to lose a battle, more so for the player. You lose all your troops, they steal all your inventory. And even the problem is not losing everything, but the work it can take to get it all back.

My idea is that after a battle, the losing party would still exist and be in a defeated party state for a period of time, a week maybe. The group that wins the battle can get a % of the wounded enemies as prisoners, the rest stays with the defeated group. In addition to a chance to capture the nobleman, or even continue with the 100% option as it is now. In the event that the player is captured, the party will seek to move to a safe town or castle until you are freed and regain control of the party and your inventory.

One detail is that for a group to exist in a defeated state, it is necessary for the group to be in retreat on the battlefield, that includes the player.

In the case of a defeated army, the defeat status effect will apply to everything individually, every group within, every noble that participated.

The state of defeat will not make you immune to bandits or looters, since these have no morals, they are bandits. It will also allow you to hunt them, but you will have a dangerous battle morale penalty.

Of course there is always the chance that the entire group ends up dead or captured, something that will depend on whether or not the leader of the group decides to leave the battle, as well as which troops manage to leave the battle when the call to retreat is given.

If this mechanic were applied, one as a player could be reckless and take risks with a less aggressive punishment than losing everything, fighting knowing that you are going to lose but your objective is to weaken an enemy and not win. The AI wouldn't be as punished on losses as well, both on your allies' and enemies' sides.

The most important thing also that you could not attack an enemy and then retreat without problems, if you retreat, you lost the battle and you are a loser, 7 days of punishment. It would automatically cancel the option to restart battles until your archers kill everyone.

 

[Madeloc]

I agree with your idea, or something around it.

Sometimes we see ennemy lords, having taken place in the battle, who manage to flee away.

I have tried too, to quit the battle map (with the 10 seconds countdown) but the only options back on the worldmap are « attack » or « surrender ».
I cannot conclude because I might have not had enough troops remaining to sacrifice some so as to escape.
If it’s not possible it’s just another thing the AI can do and not the player.

I wouldn’t go for that state of not being attackable but at least the damn reinforcements could be set to retreat.
By the way, and I am sure of that, if you order to retreat, you have to repeat the order for all the coming reinforcements… Else they go on heading to the front line.

I will test a retreat with full troops and give feedback. If not possible, then the retreat order is purely decorative.

 

[RozBritanicus]

If you could name your Troop of warriors you could buy the wounded back from the lord that took the captive . This would raise the moral . It is annoying when you put he working to build them and you get beat.

 

[Sir Frederic]

If you could name your Troop of warriors you could buy the wounded back from the lord that took the captive . This would raise the moral . It is annoying when you put he working to build them and you get beat.

it's a fantastic idea. It would not be necessary for your troops to have a name, I imagine that they could be marked by code to whom they belonged.

The only problem I see is that it would be a very complicated mechanic. For it to work, it occurs to me that the offer should come only after the end of the war, to recover your soldiers who were left in the dungeons of castles and cities.

It could work the other way too, you could capture the enemy's troops and sell them for 1000 denars or wait until the end of the war to be lucky to be offered 1500 for them. that is, a profit for waiting, even with the risk of being released after a siege.

What would happen when you attack an enemy army that has 100 prisoners from an ally or from several allies. You should return them to their master by gaining friendship and sending him gold in exchange for the troops. Or directly you could not recruit them since they will automatically go to the clan they belong to. It could be good, in the end, waiting for an ally to be defeated in front of you is an easy and dirty tactic to get free troops.

The prisoners you recruit would lose the code of last origin to gain your code of belonging since they are now loyal to you.

It would be a great idea, if you want to create a generous or ruthless leader with his troops.

 

[RozBritanicus]

it's a fantastic idea. It would not be necessary for your troops to have a name, I imagine that they could be marked by code to whom they belonged.

The only problem I see is that it would be a very complicated mechanic. For it to work, it occurs to me that the offer should come only after the end of the war, to recover your soldiers who were left in the dungeons of castles and cities.

It could work the other way too, you could capture the enemy's troops and sell them for 1000 denars or wait until the end of the war to be lucky to be offered 1500 for them. that is, a profit for waiting, even with the risk of being released after a siege.

What would happen when you attack an enemy army that has 100 prisoners from an ally or from several allies. You should return them to their master by gaining friendship and sending him gold in exchange for the troops. Or directly you could not recruit them since they will automatically go to the clan they belong to. It could be good, in the end, waiting for an ally to be defeated in front of you is an easy and dirty tactic to get free troops.

The prisoners you recruit would lose the code of last origin to gain your code of belonging since they are now loyal to you.

It would be a great idea, if you want to create a generous or ruthless leader with his troops.

Thank you for your positive answer . It would be great way to get them traits too. The leader of men a honourable champion who's men or his family too. paying for there freedom and getting a moral boost too.

 

[Sir Frederic]

I wouldn’t go for that state of not being attackable but at least the damn reinforcements could be set to retreat.
By the way, and I am sure of that, if you order to retreat, you have to repeat the order for all the coming reinforcements… Else they go on heading to the front line.

is that without it a state of defeat nothing would make sense. More than once I saw on the map how an army sacrifices troops to go and is automatically attacked again for going too slow. With the state is defeated, that army at least would not succumb completely. More than once I have seen an enemy flee defeated to stop to attack peasants along the way, only to be attacked again by the enemy they were following. Stupid double I say.

The state of defeat and the possibility of capturing only a % of the enemy troops would cause several positive effects:
-The first is that both your kingdom and the enemy would not be losing power abruptly due to a big defeat. Like when an army of 1500 soldiers is defeated by the siege mechanics that allows the enemy time to group up and defeat them.

- By not losing the entire party, the clans would not start to make a new party and the defeated party would not lose all its power. Therefore, an enemy defeated the first time does not necessarily have to be an easy victory the next time. It is not at all challenging for the player to have to fight the second wave of enemies with 300 recruits led by the enemy kingdom women with zero in strategy.

-if apart from that they fixed the stupid game mechanics. We could have real wars, against an enemy, for a long time. Right now what's happening in the game, if you're good, it's like this: they declare war on you, you defeat the first wave of enemies, the enemy loses power, you destroy the second wave, the game sends another declaration of war to punish you for be good, your kingdom declares peace to this enemy you weakened. And so you go jumping from wars to wars of 15 or 20 days until your patience runs out.

Regarding the withdrawal order, without a doubt, when giving the order, the troops that are in the battle should go and block the entrance of reinforcements. If you don't give the order to stop the attack, your troops cause a massacre. If you don't, you have to wait half an hour until all the enemies retreat.

 

[Sir Frederic]

Thank you for your positive answer . It would be great way to get them traits too. The leader of men a honourable champion who's men or his family too. paying for there freedom and getting a moral boost too.

your joint idea with mine would add many things. your idea would not necessarily benefit the player.

imagine that you dedicate yourself to being reckless, throwing yourself into fights where victory is uncertain. Great, now you are a man of courage, but now the war is over and the enemy offers you to pay 5000 denars to get back the 150 soldiers they have captured from you and you don't need them. You must choose between keeping your wealth or having the morale of your party low by not taking care of your soldiers, in addition to losing positive traits, or even gaining bad ones.

The mechanic could give you favor or curse you, and this is fine.