Much needed game suggestion - defeated kingdoms

Users who are viewing this thread

Altissimus

Recruit
Hey,

I hope you guys all get behind this.

I'm sure every one of us is fed up of dealing with raiding lords of defeated factions. When they're gone, they should be gone. There needs to be some kinda change that allows a kingdom to finally, finally, be put to bed - without having to take out the executioner's axe.

In previous M&B, vassals of defeated kingdoms would leave and join yours - or others - but the faction would, ultimately, cease to exist.

If that isn't the intent here, at least make it so that those kingdoms have a realistic economy. If all the clans are "very poor", please stop them recruiting mercenaries and recruiting troops from towns/villages.

Thanks,

A
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
+1

If a faction has no fiefs for 10 days all its clans should either defect to a kingdom or, if no kingdoms like them, go into exile.
 

swally0ne

Veteran
disagree.
just because a faction is having no settlements it doesnt mean it isnt having supporters/claims. hope the claimant quests bring more depth into that.

lords defect after a while so there a just a few left already.

you want to completely destroy a faction? fine, make your hands dirty and kill the lords.
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
disagree.
just because a faction is having no settlements it doesnt mean it isnt having supporters/claims
It means it has no money with which to pay armies.
lords defect after a while so there a just a few left already.
Kingdoms with no fiefs end up hiring every single mercenary clan.
you want to completely destroy a faction? fine, make your hands dirty and kill the lords.
That has its own problems, because it makes an unrealistically large amount of people hate you, you get the Dishonorable trait which is impossibly hard to remove, and it takes a very long time to kill every last lord/lady in a faction.

So it would be much better if a faction which we have specifically gone out of our way to defeat stays defeated.

It's not like they will ever really be a proper challenge to us again. They're just an annoyance which slows down the process of winning the game, and adds grinding.
 

swally0ne

Veteran
Kingdoms with no fiefs end up hiring every single mercenary clan.

That´s the problem! A faction without fiefs shouldn´t have enough income to provide the landless lords with thousands of new recruits so they can keep raiding villages like forever.
true that, but that shouldnt be an argument to let a whole kingdom disband. as long as they still have money, they should be allowed to participate. you can slowly see factions die, not being able to form any armies or maintaining high parties over a longer stretch. clans will defect or be in debt over a bigger stretch. if its still strong enough to form armies+get mercanaries, then you cannot say it's defeated. i disagree with the easy way out of "oh just let them disband/defect".
That has its own problems, because it makes an unrealistically large amount of people hate you, you get the Dishonorable trait which is impossibly hard to remove, and it takes a very long time to kill every last lord/lady in a faction.

So it would be much better if a faction which we have specifically gone out of our way to defeat stays defeated.
if you dont want to kill them, then live with them. not making them exist just because you took their settlements is making things ridiculously easy and is giving no faction the chance to come back.
It's not like they will ever really be a proper challenge to us again. They're just an annoyance which slows down the process of winning the game, and adds grinding.
not really. like i dont really give a damn about them. a bottom faction is raiding from time to time and most likely they get automatically defeated by doing that. if its still strong enough to form armies+get mercanaries, then you cannot say it's defeated. as i said i hope that claimant quests are actually making it more interesting and less grindy.

while i do get where you coming from, there is a huge difference between the stupidness of the grind and the demand of elimating the faction just because someone (no matter if ai or player) took all their settlements.
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
They should die off, or maybe, after X amount of time/being poor, turn them into new 'mercenary' clans or make poaching them to other kingdoms quicker or ally with the rebel town clans.
I'm tired of seeing a kingdom (still usually NE or Sturgia) have no holdings for years yet still have 9 clans (full of kids) + all the mercenaries. They just declare war randomly, get that tribute money (stupid calculation), and literally spawn in front of you with ~20 units and repeat.

They have the rebellion mechanic already, why not, allow them to be able to ally with that rebel clan to make that 'new clan'/town repossesion part a bit better?
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
as long as they still have money, they should be allowed to participate.
If you didn't know, the game randomly cheats them hundreds of thousands of denars for free. They also get paid tribute by the AI factions even when losing wars. So they never run out of money. Seeing as those two things can't be changed without stuffing up the balance, the next best option is to disband them after X period of time, since if they didn't have cheat money they would have lost all their money by then anyway.
if you dont want to kill them, then live with them. not making them exist just because you took their settlements is making things ridiculously easy
You have already done the hard part of beating their large armies in field battles and sieges. There's nothing hard about killing the rest of their parties, it just slows you down from winning the game.

A kingdom with no fiefs left is not challenging to fight, just grindy. And Bannerlord has way too much grind already with 50+ hour long playthroughs.
and is giving no faction the chance to come back.
AI factions who have had all their fiefs taken by the player aren't going to come back. We are just going to continue keeping them down (easily) because we want to win the game.
as i said i hope that claimant quests are actually making it more interesting and less grindy.
So are you saying they would do something like come back with another army? How is that desirable from a gameplay perspective - I've beaten them once already, why should I have to beat every faction in the game twice to win? It's a long enough game already.
while i do get where you coming from, there is a huge difference between the stupidness of the grind and the demand of elimating the faction just because someone (no matter if ai or player) took all their settlements.
The demand is there for the purpose of removing the stupid grind.
 

clock4orange

Master Knight
I have question - did anyone see lord's party loose to villagers?
never, so how is this possible for a lord with 20 recruits to raid a village with 50-60 defenders, are they there or just watching the show of slotering???
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
There's no diplomacy/political intrigue or avenue for a defeated kingdom to rise back from the dead; especially later on when most of the other AI parties end up in 120+ large parties. Especially for the empire kingdoms, makes more sense story-wise if they get defeated they merge/join with the others (given it's already sort of a civil war/rebellion between the three of them).
And not sure how the influence aspect works for a defeated kingdom but they don't tend to create armies to even get that tiny fighting chance to retake a castle; before an immediate doom stack of 1K+1K+1K army attacks them again (but somehow also still manage to somehow get tribute payments from them after).
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
What if the player creates a kingdom and loses his fiefs? Should he be subject to those same rules?
AI didn't 'create' any kingdoms, they spawned with them; so same rules in this situation can only be applicable if all other same rules/situations also applies. Ie. we start as clan tier 3/4, in a kingdom, already have children, a couple parties, pre-owned fiefs, respawn with some units, etc...if we fail to defend the kingdom in that playstyle, gameover; or give us that same ~couple days dying off to choose to join another kingdom and no opportunity to become individual mercenary, etc...
 

thomas13

Regular
AI didn't 'create' any kingdoms, they spawned with them; so same rules in this situation can only be applicable if all other same rules/situations also applies. Ie. we start as clan tier 3/4, in a kingdom, already have children, a couple parties, pre-owned fiefs, respawn with some units, etc...if we fail to defend the kingdom in that playstyle, gameover; or give us that same ~couple days dying off to choose to join another kingdom and no opportunity to become individual mercenary, etc...
The AI did create a kingdom they just created it before the player got involved. I'll be honest I have no stake in this debate because defeated kingdoms aren't an issue for me in my playthroughs. Maybe instead of 'dying" or "going away" they should just become minor clans or join in with other factions. The real issue is that as a kingdom you can declare war or peace but as a minor faction you can't. But if a minor faction does somehow take a fief independently they should be able to start a new kingdom. That would be an interesting feature.
 

Apocal

Grandmaster Knight
The AI did create a kingdom they just created it before the player got involved. I'll be honest I have no stake in this debate because defeated kingdoms aren't an issue for me in my playthroughs. Maybe instead of 'dying" or "going away" they should just become minor clans or join in with other factions. The real issue is that as a kingdom you can declare war or peace but as a minor faction you can't. But if a minor faction does somehow take a fief independently they should be able to start a new kingdom. That would be an interesting feature.
This would be ideal, yes. Especially bulking up minor factions in the late game.
 

swally0ne

Veteran
The demand is there for the purpose of removing the stupid grind.
i disagree with the solution of "let factions disband after no settlements" for reasons i mentioned.

the solution of "just let the faction disband" is just another easy way to fix a complicated system. you are quick to criticize all the not so well mechanics like unreasonable tribute or ai recruitment for balancing reasons. and so on, but you ask for the same bs for yourself in the same sentence. i dont agree. letting factions just disband is cheap af.

if you want to find a real solution, then search for a rational approach. i like this one, or similar ideas which are plenty in this thread. i hope tw is at least thinking about some of them.
They have the rebellion mechanic already, why not, allow them to be able to ally with that rebel clan to make that 'new clan'/town repossesion part a bit better?
the reposession could be done without letting the kingdom disband and it is already happening with rebels joining bottom factions. sadly, they would do that randomly and without a bigger effect. it would be nice if that would happen more often and combined with a transparent narrative, like claimants.
 
Last edited:

thomas13

Regular
This would be ideal, yes. Especially bulking up minor factions in the late game.
Agreed. Cause right now the only purpose for minor factions are to beat up on and to hire as a mercenary. They are so one dimensional. Some expanded use would be interesting.
 

JunKeteer

Veteran
Agreed. Cause right now the only purpose for minor factions are to beat up on and to hire as a mercenary. They are so one dimensional. Some expanded use would be interesting.
I'm all for that with depth with the mercenary system and rebellion/minor factions but we all know TW won't be doing that unfortunately.
Be great if minor factions had a fighting chance (less now that they made kingdom armies focus them down recently) or that they became their own 9th kingdom (don't care if it's another purple shaded 'Central Empire') or could ally with other kingdoms or the underdog/defeated ones to punch up.

I mean, imagine if, because of all the wars and towns being overrun back-and-forth and over a simulated 50+years, we start to see Calradia have a possibility of splintering into multiple factions?
 

thomas13

Regular
I'm all for that with depth with the mercenary system and rebellion/minor factions but we all know TW won't be doing that unfortunately.
Be great if minor factions had a fighting chance (less now that they made kingdom armies focus them down recently) or that they became their own 9th kingdom (don't care if it's another purple shaded 'Central Empire') or could ally with other kingdoms or the underdog/defeated ones to punch up.

I mean, imagine if, because of all the wars and towns being overrun back-and-forth and over a simulated 50+years, we start to see Calradia have a possibility of splintering into multiple factions?
Agreed. It would make for more of a dynamic world. Only in our dreams though...
 

five bucks

Knight at Arms
i disagree with the solution of "let factions disband after no settlements" for reasons i mentioned.

the solution of "just let the faction disband" is just another easy way to fix a complicated system. you are quick to criticize all the not so well mechanics like unreasonable tribute or ai recruitment for balancing reasons. and so on, but you ask for the same bs for yourself in the same sentence. i dont agree. letting factions just disband is cheap af.
"Make the game more FUN and less annoying" and "likely to actually be done by taleworlds" is more important than "not cheap". Do you not agree?

I'm all for the AI playing by exactly the same rules as the player if the game can still be balanced, ideally, but since that isn't going to happen because this isn't an ideal world, let the player match the AI "cheap" things with "cheap" things of their own.

Besides, it's not even that cheap. If I, the player, lost all my fiefs in Ironman mode when my main character was in the lategame and about to die, I would probably rage quit rather than start all over again from scratch. Making kingdoms disband is like them rage quitting and saying "GG".

Warband did this and it was perfectly fine and good in that game so I'm not sure why you're so opposed to it.
if you want to find a real solution
It is a real solution, since it fixes the problem and I didn't have any issues with it whatsoever in Warband. It's also very easy for Taleworlds to do, making it a practical solution.
 
Top Bottom