-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
-
If you are posting SP feedback without an actual suggestion, please head over to The Keep - Singleplayer section.
My thoughts on the Faction Snowball effect. Campaigns should go on forever!
正在查看此主题的用户
I feel like a big part of the problem here is the total war of annihilation that all the nations of Calradia seem to be involved in. Historically this kind of thing is pretty new, and not really effective in a time of poor communications. The inability to rule everywhere at once is what gave rise to the feudal system in the first place, and even the roman empire got so big they had to split it in half. In the case of someone like Alexander his entire empire fell apart basically as soon as he was dead. To reflect that reality I think it would be great if rather than hunting each other to extinction when a nation gets weak enough it becomes a tributary or vassal. They could then rebel if their overlord was weakened or distracted perhaps. Possibly introduce some diplomatic and intrigue based gameplay for those non combat players around helping a nation to rebel/keeping them loyal and in the fold.
Related to that issue of poor communications, I think conquest could be slowed a lot by the removal of satellite phones for all the lords of the realms. What I mean here is all those popups about kingdom issues, where the lords all get to vote on new laws, I feel like they should have to take place at actual physical meetings. Ideally this would take place in the capital of each kingdom, and if you don't turn up you don't get a vote. I mean Caesar had to go racing back to Rome after conquering willy-nilly for years just to make sure the whole lot wasn't taken away by a vote. Would work best with a wargoals system I think, if not full CBs.
In my mind it works something like this: Vlandia declares war on Battania for X province (being say a town and its surrounding villages/castles). Their goal is to take that province, so they rally up an army and go do it. Now their focus becomes getting their enemy to accept peace (traditionally this is the divider between occupation and rulership). Once they manage that, the King calls a moot or an Allthing, or whatever you want to call it depending on the kingdom culture and the lords all turn up to squabble over the spoils. Once a kingdom is down to let's say its last three towns, it becomes possible to fight a war for vassalization, so that no one gets wiped off the map unless its by player intervention and again we get to create political and diplomatic shenanigans as the fallout from that war, with possibilities for quests to keep a new vassal passive, or encourage their fight for independence from the new overlord. I'm thinking this would slow down conquest, would give new importance to staying close to court, and it could be used to encourage dissent within snowballing factions. Maybe those lords on the fringe territories can't get to all the Moots and they become discontent since they aren't getting their say. These meetings would all provide a good feastlike opportunity to find lords gathered together, seek marriages and alliances, and generally do all that interesting that makes a big kingdom feel dynamic and exciting beyond a monocolour map.
I'm not sure how well I've explained it but what do folks think?
Related to that issue of poor communications, I think conquest could be slowed a lot by the removal of satellite phones for all the lords of the realms. What I mean here is all those popups about kingdom issues, where the lords all get to vote on new laws, I feel like they should have to take place at actual physical meetings. Ideally this would take place in the capital of each kingdom, and if you don't turn up you don't get a vote. I mean Caesar had to go racing back to Rome after conquering willy-nilly for years just to make sure the whole lot wasn't taken away by a vote. Would work best with a wargoals system I think, if not full CBs.
In my mind it works something like this: Vlandia declares war on Battania for X province (being say a town and its surrounding villages/castles). Their goal is to take that province, so they rally up an army and go do it. Now their focus becomes getting their enemy to accept peace (traditionally this is the divider between occupation and rulership). Once they manage that, the King calls a moot or an Allthing, or whatever you want to call it depending on the kingdom culture and the lords all turn up to squabble over the spoils. Once a kingdom is down to let's say its last three towns, it becomes possible to fight a war for vassalization, so that no one gets wiped off the map unless its by player intervention and again we get to create political and diplomatic shenanigans as the fallout from that war, with possibilities for quests to keep a new vassal passive, or encourage their fight for independence from the new overlord. I'm thinking this would slow down conquest, would give new importance to staying close to court, and it could be used to encourage dissent within snowballing factions. Maybe those lords on the fringe territories can't get to all the Moots and they become discontent since they aren't getting their say. These meetings would all provide a good feastlike opportunity to find lords gathered together, seek marriages and alliances, and generally do all that interesting that makes a big kingdom feel dynamic and exciting beyond a monocolour map.
I'm not sure how well I've explained it but what do folks think?
Theo_07
Regular
Yeah,as I expected,some factions are stronger than others.Battania and the Khuzaits seem to definitely do better than Sturgia and Aserai,for example.
Doktor Barber
Recruit
I love all of this
Last two games I've basically gotten to this point...
...and as I'm only interested an playing empire.... I've given up. First campaign ended up with empire nearly wiped out at day 300, second campaign looked like a worse version of the above around the 220 mark... 190 into this one I don't even want to bother. They've lost 4 cites in the last 30-40 days. Hell the western empire was gone before day 50.
But hey at least I got to look cool for about 30 minutes before it went down the ****ter this time.
...and as I'm only interested an playing empire.... I've given up. First campaign ended up with empire nearly wiped out at day 300, second campaign looked like a worse version of the above around the 220 mark... 190 into this one I don't even want to bother. They've lost 4 cites in the last 30-40 days. Hell the western empire was gone before day 50.
But hey at least I got to look cool for about 30 minutes before it went down the ****ter this time.
最后编辑:
Definitely definitely definitely. Every strategy game has this psychotic idea that every war has to be like the Russian Front in WW2, where you invade and just start exterminating the enemy officers and civilians. Also the idea of incorporating a city directly into the realm is something which has very rarely happened historically. Even states which have been around for literally 1000 years like France and England still have small "core" areas and a vast hinterland of culturally or linguistically distinct provinces where the central government has much less control. Trying to replace an insanely complex feudal network with your own government was so difficult historically that it almost never happened. Local institutions would survive conquest after conquest because replacing them was such a massive effort.
Instead of deliberately slowing the AI down with explicit mechanics like in EU4, I think that conquest should give you the option of doing the expensive, time-consuming and unpopular task of incorporating a city directly into the realm (but then reaping all the rewards at the end), or just keeping the local institutions intact as a separate but allied faction and being able to carry on. Then if you lose a few battles those areas might switch allegiance if they think they could get a better deal elsewhere. Maintaining an empire should be a task in and of itself, even if you control the entire map. I think the faction leader should only have direct control over a handful of settlements, and then everything else is essentially a separate faction, perhaps with a slightly different colour and even different troops.
Warband pace suits perfectly for new mechanics (childs etc). Also if you really wanted to speedrun Warband, you had ability to do that. In Bannerlord otherwise the game speedruns itself, trashing all new generational mechanics and making them useless.
If you don't like the slow pace, you can always just go and conquer the world yourself.
I play on a 5120x1440 120hz monitor and the game is silky smooth for me.
Exactly
paladinx333
Sergeant at Arms
The southern empire was snowballing until the patch that they said addressed it dropped. Now the Khuzait are taking over instead. Battania has almost wiped out the western empire and I stole a castle when no one was looking. The Vlandians and Sturgians fought several wars that all ended pretty indecisively. Now they mostly stay in their own territories and swear at each other across the border. I expect that the Khuzait will untimately win out if no one bothers to challenge them.
Guiflick
Regular
Bump.
This for sure will fix the snowball effect.
So much this.
It's been Battania and the Khuzaits in 2 of my 3 games, with Vlandia and the Khuzaits ruling the first game (Until Vlandia started wiping them out as well.)
Western empire was taken out int he first 50 days in my last game by Battania. Now Khuzait are stomping the Northern AND Southern Empire at the same time.
I think the reason Aserai do not steamroll is because they have more bandits to deal with (meaning defeated lords in an endless capture loop). Similarly, one of their minor factions has an abundance of horse archers, meaning again, lords cannot escape and are quickly captured after/while returning home from war.
I suspect there's a similar thing going on with Sturgia and Sea Raiders (they're tougher than other bandits), but i can't be certain because i haven't played in Sturgian land very much at all.
I suspect there's a similar thing going on with Sturgia and Sea Raiders (they're tougher than other bandits), but i can't be certain because i haven't played in Sturgian land very much at all.
Yes! Absolutely spot on!
Well, auto peace after a single conquest would indeed be somewhat odd. My suggestion is more along the lines that the AI which took the fief should try to make peace. It shouldn't succeed all the time obviously, but the should take a short break of sorts, and give the other side a chance to surrender if they're engaged on too many fronts at once.
It should also depend on the charm skills of the parties involved.
