Mexxico, I'd value and appreciate your opinion on implementing Casus Belli in Bannerlord

Users who are viewing this thread

What gives solace to me is the modding of the game is really solid and we will probably see these features with mods.
If in the current state of the game those things can't be added, there might be a deeper issue now that could prevent even being modded in for real, other than as the CK2-3 style random events that are only textual, rather than proactive.
 
You guys are being naive. "We're stronger", "enemy is weak", "we can expand" are not casus belli. It's a result of npc power calculation, whereas what the player base wants is - clan stole daughter, villagers stole cattle and got massacred, merchants attacked, lord was insulted, lord lost a game of dice - kind of casus belli. Something a player can help provoke, or avert.

Yeah. Its almost like both are right. "Were stronger and can expand our territory" is the actual reason why you go to war. "We've had a border incident where they stole some of our cows," is the reason the king tells the peasants to make them happy.

If this doesn't get added to the game it should be an easy mod.
 
It's a shame that we'll get only basic reasons, and that they really have no impact to game play.
 
You guys are being naive. "We're stronger", "enemy is weak", "we can expand" are not casus belli. It's a result of npc power calculation, whereas what the player base wants is - clan stole daughter, villagers stole cattle and got massacred, merchants attacked, lord was insulted, lord lost a game of dice - kind of casus belli. Something a player can help provoke, or avert.
this is kind of the way

this is belli -

Yeah. Its almost like both are right. "Were stronger and can expand our territory" is the actual reason why you go to war.
it is A reason to go to war

edit - an alliance reason would be casus foederis

casus belli in the paradox games were used iirc to prevent unchecked constant war - and part of the reason they implemented limits on territory acquisition was for game balance reasons. in other words, it would not allow an unjust war at all in the older games iirc... and/or it put a large rep hit on someone declaring unjust war.

if we are going to have aggressive reasons to cause wars (we want that border city) and aggrieved reasons to cause war (we need to get our city back)... then that might be better handled via a rep system of some sort... a badboy rating if you will (preferably with a leaky bucket)

what needs to be defined is... what is a JUST war in this universe/game world? Is a just war any empire faction attacking another empire faction? if so, why so? Is it just war when a kingdom attacks any other kingdom? if not, why not?

also in my humble opinion - the empires should be almost always at war with each other. Their reasoning for starting a war should have additional options when it comes to other empires. Should they be able to press for peace? sure! but why would the other side accept it when the reasons for the empires to be at war is to put them all under one crown again?

Yes, but why do we always have to resort to the modder community to obtain mechanics and features with depth and complexity?
?
i agree - especially in a war game - where the reasons (good or bad) for going to war or not should be part of the game itself

right now wars start any time for any reason (as a player)... you can recruit people to your kingdom but people leave with no notice (i throw money at them and give them cities from victories with no apparent effect). I am looking forward to them adding some more visibility to war reasoning (as well as other relations issues)

if you are going to have marriages and potential alliances that result from that - then there should be a system that takes that into account during war decision making
(and preferably a screen that we can look at to see the relations with each power and the entanglements that affect those relations)

also - if they don't want something complex - put a button in the game options to remove relations (or whatever part of it that affects the complexity that they are concerned about)
 
Last edited:
Yes, but why do we always have to resort to the modder community to obtain mechanics and features with depth and complexity?
?
mexxico himself said I don't want the game to become too complex when I suggested him an after-battle looting system today, he said when the games complexity level increases its target audience decreases(which is kinda true, unless the game is really popular already). So basically, money :grin:
 
Yes. I suggested it (only showing war reasons to player) at meetings and it is approved. Will work on it at January probably you could see this feature at game in February.

Edit : You will only see why a voting is started. Clan will give reason for starting a voting.
Nice
 
mexxico himself said I don't want the game to become too complex when I suggested him an after-battle looting system today, he said when the games complexity level increases its target audience decreases(which is kinda true, unless the game is really popular already). So basically, money :grin:

I am not getting that money:smile: So it is not related to money. I only prefer simple to learn hard to master designs. About war reasons I also prefer complexity because it could add lots of sense to game. However it is not chosed. After now it is so hard for vanilla, mods can try this.
 
You guys are being naive. "We're stronger", "enemy is weak", "we can expand" are not casus belli. It's a result of npc power calculation, whereas what the player base wants is - clan stole daughter, villagers stole cattle and got massacred, merchants attacked, lord was insulted, lord lost a game of dice - kind of casus belli. Something a player can help provoke, or avert.
I guess a positive is with the base system in place it's easier for modders to build off it. Sadly that seems to be the way with a lot of the features from this game, the base is there but modders will have to do it right.

Unfortunately ones you mentioned will not be in game after this point. You are right and this kind of reasons could be better. I suggested this years ago maybe 5-6 years ago. Suggestion had these : Having some agrressive lords and king cannot control them. They will raid a neutral village and sometimes after this new war will be initiated. Or a lord will attack a neutral caravan after some point a war will be initiated or entering neutral kingdom territory can be war a reason. Or more solid reasons like them... If kings do not want problem they will kick these agressive lords from kingdom. These did not accepted at these years and in current state of game we cannot add these anymore. Game moved in different direction. So reasons will be something like : They captured our lands we should take them back or we have good power and Sturgians have more territory we should attack them, ....

So please lower your expectations about this feature. Sorry.
If only the TW's bosses actually listened to the dev's who really care and are passionate about making a great game, Mexxico etc, instead of chasing the marketability, broad target audiences and money, we might've had the game we all dreamed of. All you have to do is look at the way the multiplayer community is neglected and see the bosses don't give a **** about community anymore.

I always use to see Taleworlds as one of the few lasting companies that were created by gamers and cared about both creating a great game and it's community. Now all I see is a selection of dev's who still care and then a company that's constantly becoming more corporate, disconnected and lost from their fan base.

I might be wrong but as a long time fan and an outsider this is just how I see it.
 
I am not getting that money:smile: So it is not related to money. I only prefer simple to learn hard to master designs. About war reasons I also prefer complexity because it could add lots of sense to game. However it is not chosed. After now it is so hard for vanilla, mods can try this.
I know that, sorry if I sounded mean there :grin: but, in the end money is why video games continue to exist right? So it is okay (at least in my viewpoint) for companies to target more casual players. (again not saying you get the money, leads do :grin:)
If only the TW's bosses actually listened to the dev's who really care and are passionate about making a great game, Mexxico etc, instead of chasing the marketability, broad target audiences and money, we might've had the game we all dreamed of. All you have to do is look at the way the multiplayer community is neglected and see the bosses don't give a **** about community anymore.

I always use to see Taleworlds as one of the few lasting companies that were created by gamers and cared about both creating a great game and it's community. Now all I see is a selection of dev's who still care and then a company that's constantly becoming more corporate, disconnected and lost from their fan base.

I might be wrong but as a long time fan and an outsider this is just how I see it.
I also see it like this, devs do care about the fanbase and the game but leads? Well they probably care about the game too but not as much as the devs.
 
Yes. I suggested it (only showing war reasons to player) at meetings and it is approved. Will work on it at January probably you could see this feature at game in February.

Edit : You will only see why a voting is started. Clan will give reason for starting a voting.
should put quests in the game with results of success/failure that add to casus beli rating

(like village raid quest, or dispute settle etc) that causes issues along border towns and such
crime could also factor in (eventually) - where notables gangs of other cultures cause problems or make missions for some roguery type quests that add to causus belli

(assassination would work great here btw, or caravan raiding of AI npc or to player too... or even making some quests where evidence is planted to suggest another kingdom did it, who then goto war (2 rival kingdoms), and they can find out later (thru a quest perhaps) and then the player kingdom gets declared war on by both of these, relationship effects, or possibility to negotiate reparations OR else war... some high level intrigue stuff)
 
Last edited:
this is kind of the way

this is belli -


it is A reason to go to war

edit - an alliance reason would be casus foederis

casus belli in the paradox games were used iirc to prevent unchecked constant war - and part of the reason they implemented limits on territory acquisition was for game balance reasons. in other words, it would not allow an unjust war at all in the older games iirc... and/or it put a large rep hit on someone declaring unjust war.

if we are going to have aggressive reasons to cause wars (we want that border city) and aggrieved reasons to cause war (we need to get our city back)... then that might be better handled via a rep system of some sort... a badboy rating if you will (preferably with a leaky bucket)



i agree - especially in a war game - where the reasons (good or bad) for going to war or not should be part of the game itself

right now wars start any time for any reason (as a player)... you can recruit people to your kingdom but people leave with no notice (i throw money at them and give them cities from victories with no apparent effect). I am looking forward to them adding some more visibility to war reasoning (as well as other relations issues)

if you are going to have marriages and potential alliances that result from that - then there should be a system that takes that into account during war decision making
(and preferably a screen that we can look at to see the relations with each power and the entanglements that affect those relations)

also - if they don't want something complex - put a button in the game options to remove relations (or whatever part of it that affects the complexity that they are concerned about)

Yeah. Thats all correct. I agree with most of it.

I'm just saying that usually the type of things that players want to see as Cassus Belli are the legal reason to go to war and they normally have nothing to do with the actual reason.

For instance, George W. Bush declared war on Iraq.

Cassus Belli for that war: supposed weapons of mass destruction.

Actually reason: make oil fields in Iraq available to western oil corporations.

This isn't a modern thing. Its historic. People have been using little skirmishes to expand their territory and control for thousands of years.

The system they're implementing just gives you the real reason for going to war and drops the extra layer of complexity that Cassus Belli adds.

I like the Cassius Belli system and prefer it but having lords vote for actual reasons to go to war is even more necessary than Cassius Belli.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but why do we always have to resort to the modder community to obtain mechanics and features with depth and complexity?
I was worried about how simple the vanilla game is turning out, but honestly with what I'm hoping for that's not a bad thing. If Taleworlds can lay out a broad, stable, easily modded base, the end result will be a modders paradise where our various dreams can be achieved, as opposed to a vanilla game that's pretty good, but harder to mod. So I really hope as they're moving forward they keep the modding community squarely in their sights.
 
I guess a positive is with the base system in place it's easier for modders to build off it. Sadly that seems to be the way with a lot of the features from this game, the base is there but modders will have to do it right.
That's exactly why i was celebrating these news, i know TW won't add anything too complex since their view for the game seems to be "shallow and flashy" but if the base is there it'll be easier for modders to built upon it once the game is stable enough.

Classic/Warband modders did wonders to every system they could get their hands on to modify in the game when it was much harder than now so i'm hopeful :grin:

It's just a shame how game companies grow after a few successes and lose sight of what made them beloved in the first place, this probably happens when decisions stop being made by developers passionated about their work and instead are made by corporate bussinessmen basing everything in spreadsheets or something..
 
I know that, sorry if I sounded mean there :grin: but, in the end money is why video games continue to exist right? So it is okay (at least in my viewpoint) for companies to target more casual players. (again not saying you get the money, leads do :grin:)

Yes. As example Warband was a great game but its audiance was small. In Bannerlord company target reaching more people and I cannot say it is wrong of course. Here we (company + devs + players) all want Bannerlord to be more popular and reach more people and this is not about money of course.

Anyway if we choose that way and implemented these mechanics I offered probably lots of things should be different now. Maybe game become more complex and maybe we reach less people or it make game more successfull we cannot know its result of course, it was a risky and hard to control design. It is time lose after this point discussing these things, past is past. Now we will try to give as much as feedback to player why that war is started however it is usually to control more territory of course. At least you will get more information about these decisions.
 
@mexxico, while you are online, could I ask something? In warband it was possible to go up to a friendly army and " suggest a course of action" for example:

'Go and defend this castle, there is a group of enemies there' and (depending on your relation level with the lord you were speaking with), they would go and do it for you.

This was REALLY useful

Many times it saved my castles from being taken by enemies.

Is there any chance of seeing this same option in Bannerlord?
 
I like the Cassius Belli system and prefer it but having lords vote for actual reasons to go to war is even more necessary than Cassius Belli.
I think first a definition of "just war" needs to be made

what is a justified reason to go to war in this world? culture differences, whether its an empire faction or not? whether it holds a previously owned city? has the culture changed for that city? should the former holder lose a just cause of war if the culture changed?
etc

culture differences pre-dispose the hate at the start of the game or are all cultures starting at zero hate? what moves the hate/love scale?

will there be a summary of incoming and outgoing trade?
will a trade imbalance be a reason for just war? (queue south park - they stole our jobs)
etc
 
@mexxico, while you are online, could I ask something? In warband it was possible to go up to a friendly army and " suggest a course of action" for example:

'Go and defend this castle, there is a group of enemies there' and (depending on your relation level with the lord you were speaking with), they would go and do it for you.

This was REALLY useful

Many times it saved my castles from being taken by enemies.

Is there any chance of seeing this same option in Bannerlord?

In Bannerlord it is hard for one lord to go and defend a castle. He should gather an army. So actually in Bannerlord you should spend your influence and gather an army and go your castle with it. Maybe by spending lots of influence you can force a lord to gather an army and go there. However this is different topic we should not discuss this here. I noted for future but not a must have feature for now.
 
In Bannerlord it is hard for one lord to go and defend a castle. He should gather an army. So actually in Bannerlord you should spend your influence and gather an army and go your castle with it. Maybe by spending lots of influence you can force a lord to gather an army and go there. However this is different topic we should not discuss this here. I noted for future but not a must have feature for now.

And what about just telling a lord to go to a castle to defend and the result is he waiting close to the settlements like some single parties are already doing? I mean, just waiting close for a good opportunity to attack when more single lords or armies come to defend.

This would be a nice addition but I am personally more interested to see snowballing getting completely fixed or improved as much as possible, and then be able to give directives to our clan members what you have already planned. Thanks!
 
And what about just telling a lord to go to a castle to defend and the result is he waiting close to the settlements like some single parties are already doing? I mean, just waiting close for a good opportunity to attack when more single lords or armies come to defend.

This would be a nice addition but I am personally more interested to see snowballing getting completely fixed or improved as much as possible, and then be able to give directives to our clan members what you have already planned. Thanks!

Yes, "giving orders to clan members" is scheduled. It would help you about this problem at least about village raids. After that we can think more solutions for this problem but first we should implement giving orders to clan members.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom