Multicultural armies are boring and make no sense

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Apocal

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
1
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.
How long do you think it takes to accumulate 100 guys?
edit: like 15-20 minutes, maybe an hour if you want to get them all to tier 3 first.

The real drawback with the current systems is paying those troops and your idea wouldn't alleviate that burden. If they were upkeep free or considerably (50-80%) discounted that would definitely be an incentive but... a player would still be stuck with **** troops in a lot of cases and winning battles is maybe a bigger carrot than paying 2-5x as much in troop wages is a stick.

I guess it would be a detriment for the first playthrough, before a player develops a sense of how easy it can be to raise new troops or if the game simply never taught them it was easy in the first place. But that would probably require enough balancing so that certain troops weren't blatantly superior to others.
 
Last edited:

Kipsta

Squire
WB
Best answers
0
The problem is compounded by all factions virtually being the same. Sometimes less is more, Warband's distinct troop trees were better.
 

Apocal

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
1
The problem is compounded by all factions virtually being the same. Sometimes less is more, Warband's distinct troop trees were better.
That doesn't compound the 'problem' of most armies being multicultural in Bannerlord. It has nothing to do with it.

Warband didn't have this issue because the AI lords spawned with full or near-full parties and didn't need to recruit from scratch whereas in BL, the AI lords go through (nearly) the same recruiting process as the player. Naturally, they take whatever they can get.
 

redmark

Sergeant
Best answers
0
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.
The idea several have raised of having a conquering-culture notable added to a town/village would allow that. And personally, I'd like to see some recruitment - limited to owning clan members and always troops of the owning culture - at castles, as military outposts with entourages, not based on the surrounding long term settled culture.
 

Kipsta

Squire
WB
Best answers
0
That doesn't compound the 'problem' of most armies being multicultural in Bannerlord. It has nothing to do with it.

Warband didn't have this issue because the AI lords spawned with full or near-full parties and didn't need to recruit from scratch whereas in BL, the AI lords go through (nearly) the same recruiting process as the player. Naturally, they take whatever they can get.
OP complains about all armies being the same. Almost all factions having the same kind of troops does compound the problem.
 

Apocal

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
1
OP complains about all armies being the same. Almost all factions having the same kind of troops does compound the problem.
He complained about different cultures recruiting others, Vlandians picking up Battanians to be specific. Those two factions' troop trees are not similar.
 
Best answers
0
The idiocracy attacks together in band as always is when someone points that this system makes no sense. [...] The worse part is the lack of arguments and personal attacks. Way to go.

Now excuse me, I need to go to creative assembly forums say that they have been doing it all wrong all along and when rome conquers Celt territory they should recruit from the celt rooster, not from the roman one. Oh, and I must correct all the history books and say that when crusader armies replenished its troops in Antioch all they got access to was the Turk rooster.
If most people that replied misunderstood you, maybe there is something to think about.

So if I understand now, your complain is not that people can recruit wherever they rule but that recruits are not raised in the culture of the kingdom. Reading your first post, I thought you were advocating the first option.

So, yeah, that could make sense. True, Roman would make recruits legionaries.

But I think we can find other examples that differ. Just watch Ogniem i mieczem/Potop/etc, the movies that are the basis of M&B With Fire And Sword (set in time maybe a bit later, modern era and not medieval per se; but when M&B is exactly set?), you'll see that in Poland-Lithuania, they relied on troops of various background, like Zaporozhian Cossacks.

I think also that viking worked from time to time for some various kingdoms.

So maybe in specific culture like roman-empires inspired, maybe troops should be raised in the kingdom culture. But this restriction can make the game even harder to balance. And maybe not increasing much fun.

What I can agree on is that surely have troops of mixed background should cause leadership difficulties that can be reflected in game (wasn't it in warband? or I dreamt it). Impossible, though, no.
But probably there should be incentives so most lords at least have 75 % of troops matching the kingdom. It is quite obvious that if your troops are composed in majority of khuzait, for instance, what could happen when you are at war against this kingdom? Wouldn't be a risk, in reality, of massive defections?
 

Apocal

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
1
What I can agree on is that surely have troops of mixed background should cause leadership difficulties that can be reflected in game (wasn't it in warband? or I dreamt it). Impossible, though, no.
There was a morale penalty but it was minor. The much larger penalty only applied if you were actively beating the **** out of their home faction. Mixed troops penalty isn't in Bannerlord, presumably because it was so trivial if you had food variety and won battles. Or maybe to support the AI recruitment system with them running around like the player to replenish troops.
 

HalfMetalJacket

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
So its decided. OP doesn't have a clue about what he's talking about and multicultural armies were a real historical thing.

I wouldn't mind some sort of penalty for keeping a mixed army. And maybe if you take a leadership perk, that penalty could be nullified.
 

Itisausername

Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
Absolutely this. It would be fun to have quests where you gotta help an unwelcome migrant settle down into new lands. Maybe the choices could be something like make them assimilate with the culture and avoid pissing local notables off, or helping them retain their culture and potentially piss off the locals.

Forget about turning a Battanian city into an Imperial one, this idea is a lot more fun and actually does something with the notables system.
I actually would also really support this system a lot
 

Banjodelacruz

Recruit
Best answers
0
so whats hard for me to think of .... you don't see the real logistics in the game ... who says that once you get a certain soldier, you don't have access to a certain commander, who is able to teach them their "credo"? all you say is "hey i can tell them to be that and that, they don't fight like sturgians, but like aserai as they are". History has shown, that most of the times lords who hired auxillaries etc. also hired folks who could command them preferrably in their language. Because a lord cannot be bothered to learn the language of each pawn etc. Maybe you are also that knowledgeable, that you can train all troops yourself, because you got to know their trainings etc. It is a game, the immersion, that folks who are raised in a certain country, yield certain weapons they are proficient with etc. is totally fine. Because not all cultures will give up their "inheritances" ... and a smart leader will always take the better troops instead of trianing them in a different way. I really like the way the game is playable with the different armies and different end tier units for me. Imperials for the shield wall units. Sturgian for the shock infantry and for sieges. Aserai for cavalry(marmelukes). Khuzaits for the cavalry as well (archers). battanian for the infantry archers (fian champion) .... and vlandia is never used by me ... they just dont have a real adavantage for me... this game was never intended to be completely realistic. and i think the multicultural armies are more interesting, than having the same army 24/7 and not being able to have a way to counter your weaknesses completely.
 

Bigamo

Banned
Best answers
0
OP complains about all armies being the same. Almost all factions having the same kind of troops does compound the problem.
To be honest I don't think that all armies feel or play the same, I do think that there is enough distinction between them. The problem is that all become the same when everything get mixed. Mostly all the armies become imperial flavoured as most of the center of the map is imperial culture. And that it makes no sense. I have been thinking about that and I think that the only culture that should recruit from the original culture of the settlement are the Khuzaits, as both the mongols and the turks that inspire them had really mixed armies, but mostly cause it is really hard to make an horse archer of someone who have been not trained that way since he was born. All the other armies can train the levies to fight their own way. Honestly I really love the troop design of each culture in this game and I do think they are very different.
 

Bigamo

Banned
Best answers
0
If most people that replied misunderstood you, maybe there is something to think about.

So if I understand now, your complain is not that people can recruit wherever they rule but that recruits are not raised in the culture of the kingdom. Reading your first post, I thought you were advocating the first option.

So, yeah, that could make sense. True, Roman would make recruits legionaries.

But I think we can find other examples that differ. Just watch Ogniem i mieczem/Potop/etc, the movies that are the basis of M&B With Fire And Sword (set in time maybe a bit later, modern era and not medieval per se; but when M&B is exactly set?), you'll see that in Poland-Lithuania, they relied on troops of various background, like Zaporozhian Cossacks.

I think also that viking worked from time to time for some various kingdoms.

So maybe in specific culture like roman-empires inspired, maybe troops should be raised in the kingdom culture. But this restriction can make the game even harder to balance. And maybe not increasing much fun.

What I can agree on is that surely have troops of mixed background should cause leadership difficulties that can be reflected in game (wasn't it in warband? or I dreamt it). Impossible, though, no.
But probably there should be incentives so most lords at least have 75 % of troops matching the kingdom. It is quite obvious that if your troops are composed in majority of khuzait, for instance, what could happen when you are at war against this kingdom? Wouldn't be a risk, in reality, of massive defections?
Sorry, I believed it was pretty clear in the original post. Like, I am a Vlandian lord, from Vlandian background but all my castles and cities are in imperial or Sturgian territory. My army right now is just made from empire and esturgian units. And it makes no sense. Those auxiliary troops are represented in the game by mercenaries. It DOES make sense if Khuzaits can't recruit from their own culture as the turks had this "problem" themselves. It is not easy to make an horse archer from someone that is not raised that way since a very young age. And the Mongols never really had an empire, just in name as in reality they just transformed everyone in vassals, exception made in China with the Ming Dynasty. So, it make sense that they can't convert to their own culture. All the other can easily.
 

Kentucky James VII

BioAfrikaner
Duke
Best answers
2
It DOES make sense if Khuzaits can't recruit from their own culture as the turks had this "problem" themselves. It is not easy to make an horse archer from someone that is not raised that way since a very young age.
This is true, but for 99% of the other troop types in the game it isn't. The only difference between generic lancer cavalry and generic swordsmen that every faction has is the equipment. Wielding a falx or using a crossbow isn't a unique aspect of any one culture more than any other. If you have the equipment, most of the time you should be able to recruit.
 

Bigamo

Banned
Best answers
0
This is true, but for 99% of the other troop types in the game it isn't. The only difference between generic lancer cavalry and generic swordsmen that every faction has is the equipment. Wielding a falx or using a crossbow isn't a unique aspect of any one culture more than any other. If you have the equipment, most of the time you should be able to recruit.
Exactly. So would be interesting and make it more unique if only the Khuzaits didn't convert their recruits. I am in theory a Vlandian lord but I have mostly no Vlandian units. To be honest as I am hold in eternal war in the middle of the map everyone there is using imperial troops. Looks more like another empire civil war than a war between the Vlandians and the southern empire (that won the real empire civil war, but still the game treat is as the civil war was still ongoing. In truth the southern empire IS the empire now. And Vlandia is the empire also, as it seems that nothing changed as we still administrate empires cities, with imperial troops and culture. Nothing changed at all. When the lombards took Italy I ensure that the troops they recruited there weren't legionaries anymore.
 
Last edited:

HalfMetalJacket

Sergeant at Arms
Best answers
0
Exactly. So would be interesting and make it more unique if only the Khuzaits didn't convert their recruits. I am in theory a Vlandian lord but I have mostly no Vlandian units. To be honest as I am hold in eternal war in the middle of the map everyone there is using imperial troops. Looks more like another empire civil war than a war between the Vlandians and the southern empire (that won the real empire civil war, but still the game treat is as the civil war was still ongoing. In truth the southern empire IS the empire now. And Vlandia is the empire also, as it seems that nothing changed as we still administrate empires cities, with imperial troops and culture. Nothing changed at all. When the lombards took Rome I ensure that the troops they recruited there weren't legionaries anymore.
There were no legionaries by the Migration Era. Rome's armies were full of foederati foreigners, who fought like other Germanic peoples. Even the regular army weren't the same pilum throwing, testudo forming, segmentata wearing legionaries anymore.

There is also no devastating cities in Bannerlord, so you can't really just wipe out cultures and the people in them. Tbf, I really wished there were more options with what you could do to conquered settlements. Being able to eradicate an entire people, and then bring your own people over would basically capture how people tended to 'convert' a population. If Bannerlord is trying to capture a Fall of Rome period, why not have such things?

That along with appointing new notables would help. I don't think most people here necessarily disagree with how annoying it is not to be able to recruit the troops of your own factions- just your reasoning for it.
 

Kentucky James VII

BioAfrikaner
Duke
Best answers
2
There were no legionaries by the Migration Era. Rome's armies were full of foederati foreigners, who fought like other Germanic peoples. Even the regular army weren't the same pilum throwing, testudo forming, segmentata wearing legionaries anymore.
The types of soldiers you're describing existed only in some legions for a tiny slither of roman history. The Roman army was constantly changing, as were the armies of the germanic allies and frontier tribes who had so much contact with the Roman Empire that there would have been very little distinction between somewhere like northern gaul and west germania.

Similarly there would have been very no obvious material distinction between most foederati and most "regular" legionaries back then. Some foederati were basically just germanic warbands recruited wholesale into the army, but so were many "regular" auxiliary troops. Alaric himself was a Christian and a Romeaboo, something that was incompatible with the barbarian identity for a lot of Romans at the time. There is so much material and social contact over the danube-rhine frontier that to call the foederati "foreigners" is like calling a Texan or a Californian a foreigner to the USA.

This is part of the reason why I find it odd that some people want every troop type to be unique to that specific faction and then citing history as a motivation. Historically the only thing stopping a soldier from using one weapon or another was availability. There are some exceptions like horse archery and slinging, where you need a specific kind of society for people to learn how to use them, but even those are very rare.