Multicultural armies are boring and make no sense

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Bigamo

Banned
Best answers
0
Only a quarter of the army led by Emperor Romanus to Manzikert in 1071 were professional Byzantine soldiers. Most of his forces were provincial troops, peasant levies, private retinues and mercenaries. Those mercenaries included Frankish, Anglo-Saxon, Norman, Georgian, Armenian, Bulgarian, Turkic Pecheneg & Cuman troops.
The opposing Seljuk forces included a sizeable contingent of ghulams - subject warriors from conquered enemies.
What would be more interesting than forcing ahistorical uniformity in Bannerlord armies would be to allow defections. At Manzikert the Emperor's Turkic mercenaries defected to the Seljuks.
I don't disagree with you.

But in Bannerlord terms that would be a big armies full of lords. The emperor army would be lead by the emperor with mercenaries and lords of other cultures mixed in the army. Get my point?

And even if the villages and town gave converted troops there would be still a lot of people from other cultures in the party, cause of rescued prisoners and recruited prisoners. I just think that the main bulk of the force must be from the original civilization.

Edit: and those different nationalities troops never fought mixed in a single battle line. When much you had every point in the line hold by different troops. Not a mixed line with Sturgian, imperials and Vlandians mixed.
 

froggyluv

Master Knight
NW
Best answers
0
Her name is Svana and Im 188 days in. Not saying their was def Aserai but again had at least 3 different cultures making up her troop type. Another female Sturgian lord Skiva is now a Vassal of the Khuzait -that is a Nordic female warrior is now fighting for a desert asiatic mongol type horde -so early in the game? Sits well with you?....ok
Also couple with the the very spammy blink and you missed it notification alerts - situational understanding of whats going on is quite diminished. For instance if i see a quick alert that "Skiva has been defeated by Denghul Kherdan" -what should my quick understanding of that event tell me? Most likely by reason that a Nordic female lord has been defeated by a Khuzait -but in reality the opposite of that is true. That just does not ring true with History at all.
 

Blood Gryphon

Knight
WBVC
Best answers
1
Her name is Svana and Im 188 days in. Not saying their was def Aserai but again had at least 3 different cultures making up her troop type. Another female Sturgian lord Skiva is now a Vassal of the Khuzait -that is a Nordic female warrior is now fighting for a desert asiatic mongol type horde -so early in the game? Sits well with you?....ok
I doubt the majority of her troops weren't sturgian. What clan is Skiva a part of, she doesn't exist in my games. But yeah sturgians joining khuzait is pretty typical, the khuzait often have new fiefs (from the gracious northern empire) available to offer new lords.
 

Bigamo

Banned
Best answers
0
I doubt the majority of her troops weren't sturgian. What clan is Skiva a part of, she doesn't exist in my games. But yeah sturgians joining khuzait is pretty typical, the khuzait often have new fiefs (from the gracious northern empire) available to offer new lords.
That should be from their own culture. Maibe only the empire should receive lords of other factions.
 

Blood Gryphon

Knight
WBVC
Best answers
1
That should be from their own culture. Maibe only the empire should receive lords of other factions.
AI and players play by the same rules, so if cultures can't recruit lords from other cultures then should the player be limited to their starting kingdom culture? I think it is fine the way it is.
 

Bigamo

Banned
Best answers
0
AI and players play by the same rules, so if cultures can't recruit lords from other cultures then should the player be limited to their starting kingdom culture? I think it is fine the way it is.
If the player have a kingdom he is "the choosen one". So it's fine that the player don't follow the rules. Or should be able to recruit new clans via quest to get new clans appearing.
 

NLCRich

Sergeant
Best answers
0
If the player have a kingdom he is "the choosen one". So it's fine that the player don't follow the rules. Or should be able to recruit new clans via quest to get new clans appearing.
I agree with this. I don't understand why they feel like everything that affects the AI has to affect the player, particularly when the AI for example doesn't have to buy horses for their cavalry and have other benefits over the player, like getting an army back with seemingly great ease. That said, I don't necessarily agree with the point that AI factions shouldn't be able to recruit clans from other empires. However, I could also see a mechanic where an individual from one clan can break off to form a new clan and increase the total number of clans without needing to pull in others. I guess the clans from fallen factions will still need somewhere to go though.
 

Blood Gryphon

Knight
WBVC
Best answers
1
I guess the clans from fallen factions will still need somewhere to go though.
You answered it. The goal is to have factions be able to be defeated, without having to execute everyone.

Clan splitting could also lead to the issue of there being more clans than fiefs in the game. Leading to constant kingdom flipping as there would be no way to keep some clans happy.
 
Last edited:

Bigamo

Banned
Best answers
0
I guess the clans from fallen factions will still need somewhere to go though.
Why? The nobles of Sturgia aren't nobles in Vlandia. Let them workin the camps like the other peasants do. One or other clan ok, but every single clan going to another nation with lands kind of kills the point of doing war in the first time. What is the point in taking the lands from the nobles of sturgia just to give it back to them?
 

Bigamo

Banned
Best answers
0
You answered it. The goal is to have factions be able to be defeated, without having to execute everyone.

Clan splitting could also lead to the issue of there being more clans than fiefs in the game. Leading to constant kingdom flipping as there would be no way to keep some clans happy.
With the NPCsbeing able to die in every battle and not only in the Player battles like it is now i suspect that will never have too many nobles in a defeated clan. And we know that clans are what really matter. A Clan without Fief will become commoners in little time.

Imagine if Saladin and Richard Lionheart have decided that Richard and its army should join the Sultanate? Yes, it makes no sense. Everything that Saladin missed was some random rolls. Then Richard the Lionheart would join Saladin with all his troops and everyone would not care at all... cmom.
 

NLCRich

Sergeant
Best answers
0
Why? The nobles of Sturgia aren't nobles in Vlandia. Let them workin the camps like the other peasants do. One or other clan ok, but every single clan going to another nation with lands kind of kills the point of doing war in the first time. What is the point in taking the lands from the nobles of sturgia just to give it back to them?
Hmm... well you will still need to have some clans available for the player to recruit. They certainly all couldn't just diminish into nothing. However, what if they made another place for them to go?

Maybe if a clan is unlanded for a certain period of time, they turn into a mercenary faction until someone decides to land them again? The player can recruit them as a mercenary and if after a while you want to make them a true vassal then great? I mean i'm not sure if it is still the same in 1.5.1, but in other play throughs in earlier versions I had landed a mercenary clan to make them a vassal several times. However, they always eventually left to become mercenaries again, and since the game needs at least some mercenaries (it acts as a balancing mechanic for AI kingdoms), being able to have normal clans become mercenaries would negate the need for the ex. ones to always have to stay mercenaries. So it would become dynamic in that mercenaries and noble clans could go back and forth depending on circumstance.

Another idea is for unlanded clans to eventually split up and go out looking for work as companions. You could hire them into your clan as a companion, and if the game created a system as in warband where you could land your companions, then you would now have a system where noble clans can dissolve without the characters being lost, and also a way for new clans to be formed.

Just some thoughts. There is always a way to accomplish something if you think about it long enough.
 

NPC99

Baron
M&BWBWF&SVC
Best answers
14
IMO clan defections would be more plausible if these only happened where their new kingdom could offer them a fief of their original culture. In other circumstances the clan should randomly either:
1. Turn into a minor faction intend on inciting rebellions to free their home culture from invaders, or,
2. Become a mercenary clan on hire to the highest bidder, or,
3. Become an outlaw clan resorting to banditry for survival, or,
4. Just disappear like failed notables, to be replaced by newly spawned clans of the conquerers culture in the conquerer's kingdom.

It would be interesting to see in a mod. :smile:
 

Blood Gryphon

Knight
WBVC
Best answers
1
Hmm... well you will still need to have some clans available for the player to recruit. They certainly all couldn't just diminish into nothing. However, what if they made another place for them to go?

Maybe if a clan is unlanded for a certain period of time, they turn into a mercenary faction until someone decides to land them again? The player can recruit them as a mercenary and if after a while you want to make them a true vassal then great? I mean i'm not sure if it is still the same in 1.5.1, but in other play throughs in earlier versions I had landed a mercenary clan to make them a vassal several times. However, they always eventually left to become mercenaries again, and since the game needs at least some mercenaries (it acts as a balancing mechanic for AI kingdoms), being able to have normal clans become mercenaries would negate the need for the ex. ones to always have to stay mercenaries. So it would become dynamic in that mercenaries and noble clans could go back and forth depending on circumstance.

Another idea is for unlanded clans to eventually split up and go out looking for work as companions. You could hire them into your clan as a companion, and if the game created a system as in warband where you could land your companions, then you would now have a system where noble clans can dissolve without the characters being lost, and also a way for new clans to be formed.

Just some thoughts. There is always a way to accomplish something if you think about it long enough.
Temporary mercenary clans would be interesting
 

Olympeus

Regular
Best answers
0
Turk rooster.
I want a Turk Rooster. Is it a Tier 7 troop?

I agree with the OP that if I am leading an army that contains 100 Sturgian Veteran Warriors when I add an Aserai or Battanian or Khuzait or any recruit from some **** hole I just conquered I am going to train and equip them to fight in my Sturgian infantry formation.

I'm not going to train them to run around with a falx (Battanian) or an executioner axe (Aserai).

If I'm leading Sturgians they will learn to fight like Sturgians and they will get equipped by my quartermaster with Sturgian equipment.

Why would I magically start spawning horse archers in the middle of a campaign when my army doesn't incorporate horse archers? Because of bad design decisions is why.

On the other hand, if I recruit an auxiliary of horse archers with Captain that can lead and train men, then when I add recruits I may turn some of those troops over to him to learn to become horse archers. Once again, these recruits can be Battanian or Sturgian or any culture. What matters is that I have someone (quartermaster) to equip them and someone (Captain) to train them.

And not that it matters....but I can also guarantee that what I've described is "historically accurate" from 10,000 BC to today. If a Russian boy comes to America and enlists as an 11B (infantryman) he's given an M4, not an AK. He's trained to U.S. Infantry Platoon Tactical SOPs, not Russian. He's dressed in a uniform bearing a U.S. flag not Russian. The same is true for auxiliaries. The recruit conform to the auxiliary, not the other way around.

It's funny that you can take an imperial recruit and he just magically becomes an Imperial Elite Legionnaire while surrounded by 100 Aserai Mameluke Axeman. That recruit must have been the "chosen" one to morph into an Elite Legionnaire in the absence of any leadership and training. Maybe he watched a YouTube video.

But this is all pie in the sky speculation because 1) it's not getting implemented in the game and 2) my armies can't even recruit troops in this buggy pos.
 

Ling*

Sergeant
Best answers
0
I don't care about anything other than the fact that by letting players recruit multi-cultural armies makes every playthrough feel the same and makes every army composition feel the same because players all have preferences they tend not to stray away from. If you were to limit the player to only being able to recruit and maintain wages for troops that belong to the same faction race as the player, this might force players to come up with different compositions to make their factions units work for their purposes.
 

NLCRich

Sergeant
Best answers
0
I want a Turk Rooster. Is it a Tier 7 troop?

I agree with the OP that if I am leading an army that contains 100 Sturgian Veteran Warriors when I add an Aserai or Battanian or Khuzait or any recruit from some **** hole I just conquered I am going to train and equip them to fight in my Sturgian infantry formation.

I'm not going to train them to run around with a falx (Battanian) or an executioner axe (Aserai).

If I'm leading Sturgians they will learn to fight like Sturgians and they will get equipped by my quartermaster with Sturgian equipment.
Ok, but I think that a lot of players (like myself) enjoy employing a large variety of troops. Why? For the same reason these people (like myself) find themselves trying to catch all the pokemon. Variety is the spice of life.

But, while we're all brainstorming, including @Blood Gryphon and @NPC99 , what if the clans once turned to mercenaries, continued to maintain they're specific culture unit types. Instead of recruiting from villages as much, they get them the same way ex. mercenary clans get their minor faction specific troops. So now when you are leading an army, you can hire a sturgian battalion to help out but also have your own troops of the types of your choice of course in your own unit. (we also need to have more options for making units, obviously if you could put them in their own unit it would be better)
 

Apocal

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
0
Actually I base my opinions in a mastery degree in medieval history LOL. I know this have not to be mentioned here, but I could not hold myself this time. LOL

And in the example you give the game already uses it in the form of the mounted archer of the empire. They were first employed by the bizantines as auxiliaries and overtime have been incorporated to the army, then began to use proper armor in Bizantine style and have it's battle tactics incorporated to the army doctrines. This do happen all the time, less so in medieval history. As we know most people in game should not even to be able to speak the same language.
I think maybe your master's degree program didn't cover much military history then, because the obvious go-to example of a multicultural army in the medieval context would have been the militant orders of the Crusades. I could pull plenty of other examples, Normans in Sicily levying Saracen archers, the Mameluks generally, Cumans in Hungary, Welsh being a disproportionate share of longbowmen out to the 15th century, the nominally English White Company in Italy having contingents of Hungarians, Germans and Frenchmen and others besides -- the Pechenegs who served Sviatoslav of the Kievan Rus, the Turkic troops of the Khwarizm Empire, some of the halqas of the Mameluke Sultanate, etc.

It really was a common practice. I don't know who you're drawing the idea from that armies weren't multicultural in the medieval era but this was before the rise of widespread nationalism.

I don't care about anything other than the fact that by letting players recruit multi-cultural armies makes every playthrough feel the same and makes every army composition feel the same because players all have preferences they tend not to stray away from. If you were to limit the player to only being able to recruit and maintain wages for troops that belong to the same faction race as the player, this might force players to come up with different compositions to make their factions units work for their purposes.
It would make an independent start even more difficult though, if players were restricted to one culture. Just getting a player kingdom off the ground is usually either extremely opportunistic or incredibly frustrating until you've established a decent power base. Also, which culture would you use? The player character culture or the culture of the first settlement they take over?

Ok, but I think that a lot of players (like myself) enjoy employing a large variety of troops. Why? For the same reason these people (like myself) find themselves trying to catch all the pokemon. Variety is the spice of life.

But, while we're all brainstorming, including @Blood Gryphon and @NPC99 , what if the clans once turned to mercenaries, continued to maintain they're specific culture unit types. Instead of recruiting from villages as much, they get them the same way ex. mercenary clans get their minor faction specific troops. So now when you are leading an army, you can hire a sturgian battalion to help out but also have your own troops of the types of your choice of course in your own unit. (we also need to have more options for making units, obviously if you could put them in their own unit it would be better)
Minor faction troops simply increase over time until they hit their party limit -- even if they aren't able to afford them. That's why you can occasionally grab a full party of Beni Zilal as prisoners without any fighting at all.

And not that it matters....but I can also guarantee that what I've described is "historically accurate" from 10,000 BC to today.
You'd lose money on that bet, lol.
 
Last edited:

Bigamo

Banned
Best answers
0
I think maybe your master's degree program didn't cover much military history then, because the obvious go-to example of a multicultural army in the medieval context would have been the militant orders of the Crusades. I could pull plenty of other examples, Normans in Sicily levying Saracen archers, the Mameluks generally, Cumans in Hungary, Welsh being a disproportionate share of longbowmen out to the 15th century, the nominally English White Company in Italy having contingents of Hungarians, Germans and Frenchmen and others besides -- the Pechenegs who served Sviatoslav of the Kievan Rus, the Turkic troops of the Khwarizm Empire, some of the halqas of the Mameluke Sultanate, etc.

It really was a common practice. I don't know who you're drawing the idea from that armies weren't multicultural in the medieval era but this was before the rise of widespread nationalism.



It would make an independent start even more difficult though, if players were restricted to one culture. Just getting a player kingdom off the ground is usually either extremely opportunistic or incredibly frustrating until you've established a decent power base. Also, which culture would you use? The player character culture or the culture of the first settlement they take over?



Minor faction troops simply increase over time until they hit their party limit -- even if they aren't able to afford them. That's why you can occasionally grab a full party of Beni Zilal as prisoners without any fighting at all.



You'd lose money on that bet, lol.
All your examples have been covered in earlier posts. This idea that "nationalism" is a modern idea is bull crap, um the only thing that changed is that the estate stopped being the organization of a people interests to become it slave master.

We already have mercenaries from another cultures/civilizations in game. This could even get a bigger role. But you will NEVER see normans and bizantines and arab troops mixed in a single battle formation. That is what this game does 147% of the time. Even Cartage with its wide spread use of mercenaries and auxiliaries had its own formations with libians doing most of the cavalry work, the cartageans themselves doing the heavy infantry and other peoples doing the light infantry. In game terms each of those formations would have it lord in a main army. Not this mixed equipment that makes no sense.