My thoughts on the Faction Snowball effect. Campaigns should go on forever!

[Lucas Hood]

Mines 2 years in and not too bad so far but still a not as balanced as I would've liked, one part of the empire is dominating already.

 

[viperswhip]

In Warband the lords had to go to villages to collect taxes (I think) if they owned them, they got the funds (I think), if they were lord of a city or castle and it wasn't under siege. If these lords have to do that then it's screwed up because I think they changed it from Warband so the Lords actually did things, instead of endlessly touring their own realm and collecting taxes.

 

[bestguy]

This is a balance issue. They said things weren’t well balanced before release. They’ll fix it in time.

I’d like to see a coalition or warmongering/aggressive expansion mechanic to keep factions in check.

 

[Chelro]

Same here, have to start over now xD

 

[High chief Kieran]

It looks like Talesworld wanted to make the world feel more alive since alot of players used to complain that lords in Warband only needed to stay in a castle for a few ingame days to recuperate their armies while the player needed to go around villages and training them constantly. I like that system where lords also have to go around recruiting but the bandits scaling to players should've just not been a thing. Mid game and late game have plenty of ways to make money for the player in Warband so we don't need giant bandits to hunt in Bannerlord. Just add normal ways to get money in mid to late game and leave bandits as a threat to villagers who don't scale to players. Scaling in games is almost never a good thing.

i am not saying that lords should no longer recruit, just give them a starting army after a defeat of say 15 - 20 men, maybe a bit more later in the game

I think that there's an incredible thin line for Tale Worlds to hit:
It is a sandbox game so the fun is in the unpredictability. If there are many stalemates and little movement on the map it seems kinda dead. If there's too much it seems ... unbalanced. But if it was too balanced it would feel dead again.
I think the problem may be a bit more in the mechanical options the player has to react to certain situations: If there were a diplomacy and civil war mechanic it would be no problem if one power took over because it would shatter after some time. Just like in CK2 for example.

they could do more with the minor factions becomming a treat to the factions. right now they are just an organised version of bandit, they could expand this into minor factions being able to grow with lords who are no longer content with their leader but who do not want to abandon their own people ( for example an lord of the empire could call his leader to progressive and join the legion of the betrayed). those minor factions could maybe capture a settlement, and than grow from there.
another way they could turn the tide when an empire is spiraling out of control is by making the faction that is being attacked at that moment hire the Company of the golden boar (they are mercenaries after all).

 

[mcmonxp]

I for my part don't want a railroaded campaign where nothing really happens until me as a player start to interact with it. I like the sandbox effect where many things can happen and so I'm totally fine if some campaigns have some snowballing as long as it is only some percentage of total games that do this.

 

[High chief Kieran]

I for my part don't want a railroaded campaign where nothing really happens until me as a player start to interact with it. I like the sandbox effect where many things can happen and so I'm totally fine if some campaigns have some snowballing as long as it is only some percentage of total games that do this.

i dont think anyone wants a railroaded campaign as you put it. the biggest problem people have right now is that by the time you leveled up, got some good troops (60 t4 men) and joined an empire, half the map can already be taken over with almost nothing you can do to stop it. now this would not be a problem if this would happen once every 100 games you play but it happens pretty much every single time.

 

[stevehoos]

This should never happen period. Nobody took over 11th century Europe in 3 years, way too many logistical issues. I can't play until this is fixed, not worth investing the time (even just testing) only to have this happen.

 

[mcmonxp]

Well - this is not 11th century Europe in that sense that this is more like a single duchy or something like that - measured by the distance one can travel in a single day.

 

[Wildthorne]

It seems this happens alot. West and North empire took over the entire map but the North wipes the West in a matter of couple weeks.
I noticed that the lords didnt stay in capture for long and the moment they get free, they just gather all available troops and you can see opponent which have been beaten a week ago, standing again with full army capacity.

 

[Lucas Hood]

It seems this happens alot. West and North empire took over the entire map but the North wipes the West in a matter of couple weeks.
I noticed that the lords didnt stay in capture for long and the moment they get free, they just gather all available troops and you can see opponent which have been beaten a week ago, standing again with full army capacity.

It's completely random it seems, I've seen an instance of every different empire taking over the map with the exception of the Aserei. The Western Empire is already wiped out on my save and the South Empire is dominating, not sure what's causing it, either a bug or a big imbalance, I hope it's a bug, that would be easier to fix.

 

[stevehoos]

Well - this is not 11th century Europe in that sense that this is more like a single duchy or something like that - measured by the distance one can travel in a single day.

Point being is that this is not Poland in September of 1939.

 

[King Jerry]

Would love to see kingdoms work more on their borders etc
my 2 cents:

• Stamina: Attacking armies should be exhausted after an attack on a castle/city (increased food consumption) and would require to resupply/rest first before continuing the invasion
  • Besieging could be the opposite and an attempt to starve the city out
• Borders: Factions should protect their borders more instead of running through the whole country.
  1. The game should recognize a border
  2. Each faction should have an idea what armies are required per castle/city to be able to defend (lords to stay and defend border cities that are next to an enemy or bad neighbor)
  3. Borders are being patrolled and armies don't just run around like a chicken without a head
  4. Players could get quests to patrol, protect border towns etc
  5. When an enemy army is spotted by a border patrol/castle/city, a message is sent to support that area
• Casualties: Sieges should be more taxing on the attackers (siege AI might need to get fixed first)
  • A castle should be able to defend against a bigger army
• Border patrolling: If an enemy army passes by a fortified castle/city to go siege somewhere else, the defenders should intercept and/or surround them (spawn defenders in center of the map and have the attackers spawn on opposite sides)
• War decision: Based on enemies/allies, financials and size, factions should have to make a decision if going to war is a good or bad idea
  • If they cannot defend their borders sufficiently (based on finances, bordering enemies/allies), going to war/invade another faction would be a bad idea
  • Have a specific reason (princess got kidnapped, important lord got murdered, more land required because of financial reasons or because border is easier to protect...) to increase the possibility to start a war.
• Attrition on conquered lands: Conquered lands that are surrounded by enemy territory should have high attrition rates as they can not supply easily (might already be the case)

I don't have this game but I played a lot of Warband, and these all sound like good ideas. One other thing that Warband had was feasts. And the Lords and Kings liked to spend more time eating and talking about war than actually fighing one. Which slowed down conquests. I know in POP the dominate faction was the one with the Lords that got along, they would support one another in battles.

 

[OperaticOcelot]

Addressed by mexxico here.

 

[mcmonxp]

Point being is that this is not Poland in September of 1939.

That's completely right.
Stay healthy.

 

[stevehoos]

If this snowballing happens without player intervention, then it is purely regression in terms of game play. In my more than 3,000 hours of playing Mount and Blade and myriad mods I never saw this happen in any of them.

 

[Nevore]

I think making peace last a few years might give factions time to rebuild after war and have ai agree to peace after a couple of keeps or towns are taken.

Could have war require a cassus belli and a war target. Like "your guy is stealing our caravans now we want Praven". f the faction captures Praven, war over highly likely. Also have a war discontent fucntionality so if the war drags on months without capturing Praven then nobles and/or commoner discontent causes a cease fire.

 

[Arhu]

If this snowballing happens without player intervention, then it is purely regression in terms of game play. In my more than 3,000 hours of playing Mount and Blade and myriad mods I never saw this happen in any of them.

Pretty much this.

 

[Benisfug]

i am not saying that lords should no longer recruit, just give them a starting army after a defeat of say 15 - 20 men, maybe a bit more later in the game

Where did I say in my post, that you stated lords cannot recruit?

 

[High chief Kieran]

Where did I say in my post, that you stated lords cannot recruit?

you did not say that anywhere but my girlfriend read it and pointed out to me that people could read it in such a way so i clarified it anyway.