Multicultural armies are boring and make no sense

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Bigamo

Banned
Best answers
0
It's just put an option "settlements give troops of the conquering culture" and let people think if they want immersion or not.
 

HalfMetalJacket

Sergeant
Best answers
0
I don't understand why everyone wants a nonsense 'convert settlement' option when the Notables system is in place. We should have the option to install a new notable, who we can source recruits from a particular culture.
 

Apocal

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
0
But you will NEVER see normans and bizantines and arab troops mixed in a single battle formation.
Well, my first example was Norman lords taking Welsh longbowmen into their service, something you said would make zero sense even though that actually happeed. I'm not sure why your latest go-to example is even more extreme than that, but even then, it isn't extreme enough to have never happened:

As early as 1076, we find Saracen archers already included in the lists of Robert of Guiscard’s armies. By 1098, the armies Count Roger was leading across the Messina straits to fight the Byzantines in Calabria were composed mostly of Muslims. From 1130 Roger II used Saracen footsoldiers in
his Royal Guard, and by 1174 we even find Saracens participating in the Norman assault on their fellow Arabs in Alexandria.


French-speaking Italo-Normans, leading levies of Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians and Arabs. Real history is some wild ****.

I'll take that bet. Show me an example where army basic training produced an air force pilot. I'll be waiting.
Oh no, you said as far back as 10,000 BCE. I'm going way back for an example -- the Mamluks. Different culture, being largely taken from Turkic steppe peoples on account of having extremely good horsemanship at a young age, (a skill that was difficult to acquire in places like Egypt with limited pasturage for horses) and trained for a different role than most of the freeborn locals, who made up the majority of the foot troops.

I don't understand why everyone wants a nonsense 'convert settlement' option when the Notables system is in place. We should have the option to install a new notable, who we can source recruits from a particular culture.
Or installing companions as notables, for that real feudal feeling.
 
Last edited:

Kut

Sergeant
Best answers
0
How about new villages ?

"You or the AI faction conquered a castle. After two in-game years, relatively small amount of migration happened. Boom.. The third village spawned.."

"Then you or the AI faction conquered a city. After two in-game years, a considereble amount of migration happened again. And settlers arise on the horizon. Boom.. Two villages are spawned..."

It will be like the current bandit hideout system. Basically an improved hideout in a village form. Village names will be generated by game based on the issued culture.

But only villages. Not new castles or cities will spawn. And there will be no conversion mechanic for the other (the original ones) villages/cities.

If conquered castle or city is taken away by the enemy, those villages will be sacked to the death. And it will be vanished from the map...
 
Last edited:

Haethei

Recruit
WBNW
Best answers
0
Mixed culture armies make a lot of sense, but I personally feel like I want to have my party (even entire faction) solely use one type. I just prefer it, luckily it's not too difficult if you play as a vassal but it's a little more annoying if you are a faction leader and need every troop you can get
 

Kentucky James VII

BioAfrikaner
Duke
Best answers
2
I think instead of using historical examples to make sense of an already completely ahistorical system, we should think about what makes most sense gameplay wise. Bannerlord's military systems make zero sense, so trying to use the real world as a guide is going to result in circular arguments like what a lot of the last few pages have been.

Factions are clearly supposed to be specialised, so there should be something to incentivise using troops from the same faction, otherwise everyone is going to do the boring metagame thing of just finding the best troops and using them in every campaign. Warband had the morale penalty thing, but that was incredibly boring.

I dont think the current notables recruitment system is salvagable, its just too silly and too one dimensional. I would like something where:

1. As a noble, you recruit troops in bulk from settlements you own, for a very low price (or for free).
2. You still have to pay upkeep, and for the sake of the prosperity of your settlement you have to disband them as soon as possible after an excursion.
3. Upgrades can only be done while your troops are "disbanded", but they still gain experience as a group while fighting.
4. If you own a settlement of a culture different to the kingdom's one, you recruit them the "normal" way to suggest that you don't yet have the institutional power to levy a bunch of guys from the town or village. 5. If you own no settlements you can only get mercenaries or prisoners, but these stay with you the entire time.
 

Apocal

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
0
Factions are clearly supposed to be specialised, so there should be something to incentivise using troops from the same faction, otherwise everyone is going to do the boring metagame thing of just finding the best troops and using them in every campaign. Warband had the morale penalty thing, but that was incredibly boring.
...
1. As a noble, you recruit troops in bulk from settlements you own, for a very low price (or for free).
2. You still have to pay upkeep, and for the sake of the prosperity of your settlement you have to disband them as soon as possible after an excursion.
3. Upgrades can only be done while your troops are "disbanded", but they still gain experience as a group while fighting.
4. If you own a settlement of a culture different to the kingdom's one, you recruit them the "normal" way to suggest that you don't yet have the institutional power to levy a bunch of guys from the town or village.
5. If you own no settlements you can only get mercenaries or prisoners, but these stay with you the entire time.
Recruiting the normal way is not a serious expense so this wouldn't incentivize using troops from one faction or even discourage someone from going for the best units every playthrough.
 

Bigamo

Banned
Best answers
0
Well, my first example was Norman lords taking Welsh longbowmen into their service, something you said would make zero sense even though that actually happeed. I'm not sure why your latest go-to example is even more extreme than that, but even then, it isn't extreme enough to have never happened:

As early as 1076, we find Saracen archers already included in the lists of Robert of Guiscard’s armies. By 1098, the armies Count Roger was leading across the Messina straits to fight the Byzantines in Calabria were composed mostly of Muslims. From 1130 Roger II used Saracen footsoldiers in
his Royal Guard, and by 1174 we even find Saracens participating in the Norman assault on their fellow Arabs in Alexandria.


French-speaking Italo-Normans, leading levies of Greek-speaking Orthodox Christians and Arabs. Real history is some wild ****.



Oh no, you said as far back as 10,000 BCE. I'm going way back for an example -- the Mamluks. Different culture, being largely taken from Turkic steppe peoples on account of having extremely good horsemanship at a young age, (a skill that was difficult to acquire in places like Egypt with limited pasturage for horses) and trained for a different role than most of the freeborn locals, who made up the majority of the foot troops.



Or installing companions as notables, for that real feudal feeling.
About the normans from calabria and sicily: yes, and still used norman armors and fighting. That's EXACTLY what I am talking about. Conquered sturgia? You get blonde people using Vlandian weapons (could mix a bit) but being in the VLANDIAN tech tree.
 

Olympeus

Regular
Best answers
0
Oh no, you said as far back as 10,000 BCE. I'm going way back for an example -- the Mamluks. Different culture, being largely taken from Turkic steppe peoples on account of having extremely good horsemanship at a young age, (a skill that was difficult to acquire in places like Egypt with limited pasturage for horses) and trained for a different role than most of the freeborn locals, who made up the majority of the foot troops.
/tiphat
 

zieggystardust

Recruit
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.

It's even said that the xiites wanted to help the christians to take Jerusalem from the Sunis, and it just don't happened for lack of capacity to communicate in a common language.
The fact that you believe any of this is evidence that either your degree is worthless or you are lying. You do realize that just calling something a legionary doesn't make it automatically the same? The moment the military was standardized it started drifting and changing. At best a standardized Roman Imperial military existed for maybe a century and even then what Trajan was using would have been unrecognizable to Augustus.

I advise you let go of all your rigid views on things and stop thinking about history as a map painting strategy game.

Explain to me what a border even is in an era before instant communication and nation states?
 

Bigamo

Banned
Best answers
0
The fact that you believe any of this is evidence that either your degree is worthless or you are lying. You do realize that just calling something a legionary doesn't make it automatically the same? The moment the military was standardized it started drifting and changing. At best a standardized Roman Imperial military existed for maybe a century and even then what Trajan was using would have been unrecognizable to Augustus.

I advise you let go of all your rigid views on things and stop thinking about history as a map painting strategy game.

Explain to me what a border even is in an era before instant communication and nation states?
That's a idiotic post. All the crap your just said don't change that Vlandians would no put Asserai in a same battle formation without adaptation. All the rest you are saying is useless garbage.
 
Best answers
0
When I read this I just know it's going to be good! :smile:

What I would like is for maybe 1 notable to change or be added when a fief gets taken and held for say a season or 2. SO it's an imperial fief, but 1 khuzait dude has moved in a set up shop.

I'd also like quests/option to do this if I own a fief too, bring in a foreigner to get a different troop type. I'd also like to make an outlaw notable for bandit recruits or a STRONG WOMAN notable for sword sister (when they get finished).

Pie in the sky!
This right here is a great idea. The ability to invite notables to your fief that dispense particular troop types would be welcomed...

What is this "notable for sword sister (when they get finished)"??? TW is working on them? ... they're going to implement sword sisters?!?!? My favorite troop type from Warband returns? This can't be! Can it?
 

AnandaShanti

Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
What is this "notable for sword sister (when they get finished)"??? TW is going working on them? ... they're going to implement sword sisters?!?!? My favorite troop type from Warband returns? This can't be! Can it?
No idea if they're working on them but I want them too! There is a sword sister in the data but it's just a generic infantry unit that's female, not a plate armored soldier on a fast horse with a crossbow too..... They have been sited in some glitch y parties in some older version but I hope they add a real sword sister line someday.
 

Kentucky James VII

BioAfrikaner
Duke
Best answers
2
Recruiting the normal way is not a serious expense so this wouldn't incentivize using troops from one faction or even discourage someone from going for the best units every playthrough.
When everyone can get an army at the drop of a hat basically for free, trying to accumulate 100 guys the normal way would be a massive detriment.
 

a_ver_est

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
I wouldn't mind it if conquered fiefs switched to the conquerers culture. It would definitely make the armies look more unified. But the main issue I have with that is once a faction's been defeated, those troops would be gone for good, and that would suck because I do like mixing my troops.
It would be nice if recuitable troops could be from both cultures. Some form the original and some other from the conqueror ones, like 30% vs 70% or such.