Should Campaigns be able to go on forever, always with multiple factions?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 201 83.8%
  • No!

    Votes: 39 16.3%

  • Total voters
    240

Users who are viewing this thread

Varrak

Baron
WBWF&SNW
There's way too much war, that's the problem. Every faction is a genocidal blood cult that wants to raze the entirety of Calradia to the ground.
I completely agree with you.

IMO, each faction should have some long-term targeted region, instead of desiring to own every settlement. Like, Vlandia to have "Greater Vlandia" dream, consisting western parts of Battania, Western Empire, Aserai.

Sturgia would have a dream of taking control of northern territories of Vlandia, Battania, Northern Empire.

Khuzait would have a dream of taking control of the parts of Northern Empire & Southern Empire until they reach foresty lands of Battania.

Aserai would have a dream of taking control the lands around the lake that i don't know it's name.

Empire factions would have a dream of taking control of the lands of other empire factions.

Factions would stop advancing after they take their desired lands, and then try to hold them by defensive wars, or by investing in them to increase loyalty of settlements, so that they won't lose them with rebellions.

All-out-of-war for the sake of genocidal world conquest isn't fun, and it's kinda dumb.
 

Grendlewalt

Recruit
It is very simple.

My reccomendation is:

1) At the start of the game make militia bonuses around 25 to prevent any snowballing and total repainting. You can make it even more if you want no repainting at all.
2) When you want map repainting and join wars - just change this number. Just remember that 1 bonus = 20 troops. So you can decrease that bonus, and militia will slowly decrease their numbers.

Sounds good to me, just about to start a new campaign so ill try with these numbers.

One additional positive about this change vs other things that people have been asking for (longer peacetimes, feasts after battle, less warmongering) is that it keeps factions at war pretty much constantly without repainting the map. A lot of the other suggestions basically just reduce the amount of war, which is not really a fun outcome.

When TW actually make a change to the game to combat snowballing they should think about this.
What you really want is lots of sieges but only a fraction of those actually win.
Keeping together a large empire should be harder than growing a small one.

For now though this is a reasonable fix.

On the most recent mod update there's an ingame options place to adjust settings now, but they cant be adjusted this high so still have to do it in the config file.
 
Last edited:

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
AND...... BannerlordTweaks is broke again. Guess they patched the game and now I if I enter a tournament, BannerlordTweaks crashes the game <sigh>. Looks like 10+ hours of play wasted.

I am not sure why the even make a game "Moddable" if every damn patch breaks the mods. Seems like the devs should come up with a system that allows for this sort of thing.
 

Maximum997

Squire
Sounds good to me, just about to start a new campaign so ill try with these numbers.
The same. I want to start slowly. Gain so skills, trade some money, but good armor, but at that point i have only 2 superpowered factions.


TS - i reccomnd you to upgrade the main post with information that we gathered:

1) 1 bonus = +20 troops
2) You need about +40 and more to prevent any map changes.
3) you can change it midgame and militia ammount will change in few weeks.
 

durbal

Sergeant
A huge contributing factor is how fast the AI levels up due to only doing autoresolve. Current autoresolve gets an 8x (!!!) XP bonus compared to manually fought battles, so when a winner wins not only do they get tons of gold and loot but their troops get significantly better as well -- and the loser loses everything.
 

Maximum997

Squire
AND...... BannerlordTweaks is broke again. Guess they patched the game and now I if I enter a tournament, BannerlordTweaks crashes the game <sigh>. Looks like 10+ hours of play wasted.

I am not sure why the even make a game "Moddable" if every damn patch breaks the mods. Seems like the devs should come up with a system that allows for this sort of thing.
Steam, right click on Bannerlord, options, beta version. Choose e 1.07 and enjoy the game.

Then "updates" , "updates only before start" to prevent this from happening again.
 

Marcquez

Veteran
I completely agree with you.

IMO, each faction should have some long-term targeted region, instead of desiring to own every settlement. Like, Vlandia to have "Greater Vlandia" dream, consisting western parts of Battania, Western Empire, Aserai.

Sturgia would have a dream of taking control of northern territories of Vlandia, Battania, Northern Empire.

Khuzait would have a dream of taking control of the parts of Northern Empire & Southern Empire until they reach foresty lands of Battania.

Aserai would have a dream of taking control the lands around the lake that i don't know it's name.

Empire factions would have a dream of taking control of the lands of other empire factions.

Factions would stop advancing after they take their desired lands, and then try to hold them by defensive wars, or by investing in them to increase loyalty of settlements, so that they won't lose them with rebellions.

All-out-of-war for the sake of genocidal world conquest isn't fun, and it's kinda dumb.
Love this idea indeed.
But they should only start "working" on their dream when war is required and not a constant fight until they have it.

They also would need to implement an idea of 'borders' in the game, where kingdoms work with the landscape to fortify weak points in the map and fortify borders. The AI should then need to be able to recognise borders and what the best points are to defend them (build like a temporary fort (that could grow into a castle?) on the map where they think is required.

Taking castles or cities would also need to have a penalty when they are surrounded by the enemy concerning supplies etc
These should be surrounded by enemy and constantlyt harassed etc.
 

Grendlewalt

Recruit
The same. I want to start slowly. Gain so skills, trade some money, but good armor, but at that point i have only 2 superpowered factions.


TS - i reccomnd you to upgrade the main post with information that we gathered:

1) 1 bonus = +20 troops
2) You need about +40 and more to prevent any map changes.
3) you can change it midgame and militia ammount will change in few weeks.

Have updated original post
 

remoh23

Recruit
AND...... BannerlordTweaks is broke again. Guess they patched the game and now I if I enter a tournament, BannerlordTweaks crashes the game <sigh>. Looks like 10+ hours of play wasted.

I am not sure why the even make a game "Moddable" if every damn patch breaks the mods. Seems like the devs should come up with a system that allows for this sort of thing.

This happened to me. I just went into the Bannerlord Tweaks config file and changed all the tournament related items to "False." Everything works, but the Tourney changes
 

Vissy

Baron
WBNW
They also would need to implement an idea of 'borders' in the game, where kingdoms work with the landscape to fortify weak points in the map and fortify borders. The AI should then need to be able to recognise borders and what the best points are to defend them (build like a temporary fort (that could grow into a castle?) on the map where they think is required.

Taking castles or cities would also need to have a penalty when they are surrounded by the enemy concerning supplies etc
These should be surrounded by enemy and constantlyt harassed etc.

That kind of complex AI sounds awesome, though I have to question if it is feasible to implement at the depth it would surely require with the resources TaleWorlds have at their disposal. It takes quite a surprisingly large amount of resources and time to design deep and engaging AI of this kind, and it doesn't seem like they were planning on implementing campaign AI to anywhere near that level.
 
Yes we are not acting in hurry in this snowball thing like we acted in wood workshop / smithy OP problem. As you see 10 year settlement count graphs we are slowly fixing this problem in every patch. I do not want to add some easy hotfixes like adding more peace times. Because these additions can make game boring. Of course we can make peace times a bit more but problem is in peace times all lords start to wander around they need more mechanics features then like feasts and these are not hot fix these changes need time and bigger patches.

Currently game has not got enough quests to fill these gaps at peace times. By addition of new quests and new features we can increase peace times. Some people here put graphs after each patch and you can see how snowballing issue is slowly fixing. However please be patient in this problem because we should not damage gameplay while fixing this. We have lots of different solutions to fix this problem and we are slowly testing them and will add them by time.
Bring back Warband pace please. There was ideal peace/war ratio in previous game
 
Feast were a great way to socialize with lords, specially after the Tournament, and get yourself friends before even joining the kingdom, now it's like all the lords are always on campaign. The peace times in warband were quite nice and if you felt it was going on for to long you could go raid a village or two
 

Repus3232

Recruit
Is there any updates on this? I haven't seen any new changes in the patch notes to address this. I'm wondering if the devs have mentioned a fix, have not been able to find anything myself. I know this will take time to fix...
 

Vissy

Baron
WBNW
I think Warband had too many wars too, really. And it was too easy to conquer the world on your own. The system should be an *improvement* on Warband, not a copy.
 
To point is to eventually conquer all.
Not necessarily the entire continent with your first character, but your heir.

What's the point of forging a new empire if it's NEVER stable and I constantly have to fight civil wars? All things must come to an end.



Technically, no. A new character in a different scenario. I might be fighting Batanians instead of Khuzait, because they started steamrolling this playtrough.

I guess there is some miscommunication going on here, since we seem to have different time frames and game stages in mind.
Because it's a challenge and should be a challenge to rule a multicultural empire rather than being an unstoppable soldier factory. That said, a stable empire should be possible, and an end to a campaign in this case should be when you actually make a stable mono-cultural empire. But that should take multiple generations and hundreds of years in game after devastating rebellions and civil wars between heirs, rather than 12 years and suddenly Calradia is at eternal peace despite the fact 5/6 of all towns were conquered through war. Alexander's Empire died after he did, and I don't see why a Calradian empire wouldn't be at least thrown into chaos, and I consider the player character in m&b games capable of the same things Alexander the Great was. Your own goals should vary of course, its a sandbox game and you should be compelled to stop playing whenever. In general though, I thought of a basic early/mid/late/end game, tell me how you guys feel. Since devs say a faction conquering the entire map over 20 years should be possible -
Early game - multiple factions fighting over territory making minimal gain, while the calradian empire struggles to defend itself.
Mid game - Calradian empire should be either conquered by neighbors or united under one of the three leaders. The faction supported by the player should be one of the large factions at this stage.
Late game - Massive factions fighting over supremacy, massive battles and invasions, until one wins.
End game - A single faction dominating the entire map, but with massive cultural and internal power struggles that need to be resolved, but when the player (or AI ruler) dies, ambitious vassals or heirs who disliked the player fighting over inheritance. Many cities that are poorly managed should have rebelled or been in rebellion at this stage.
But, maybe you don't want to be the hero that conquers everything. It's an RPG, maybe you just want to be part of something, maybe you just want to be a merchant, maybe you want to be the king's right hand man, maybe just a loyal vassal but the game can keep going from there.
If your goal is to conquer the entire map, then the end game and generational stuff would be keeping it together. Think of Game of Thrones - the hard part wasn't conquering the seven kingdoms for Robert, it was keeping it together. Of course when death is a mechanic, you could die at any stage in game, right now the dynasty and clan system are frankly pointless gimmicks if you can conquer the entire world with a single character. In Bannerlord, the potential is there for a generational campaign that could change on a dime, leading to a truly insane dynamic, sandbox game but memorable, with tragedy, death, and legendary battles. Invading foreign armies, civil wars, collapse of player empires, independence factions started by you yourself or the AI, you name it. Warband did not have the potential, but Bannerlord does.
 
End game - A single faction dominating the entire map, but with massive cultural and internal power struggles that need to be resolved, but when the player (or AI ruler) dies, ambitious vassals or heirs who disliked the player fighting over inheritance. Many cities that are poorly managed should have rebelled or been in rebellion at this stage.

Why would anyone want to play this part, though? It's the equivalent of wanting to stay behind and clean up after going out clubbing.
The core to this whole problem is the fact that the game railroads you into conquering the entire map. Taking one castle is a slippery slope to doing a world conquest, unless you either lose (unlikely) or decide to step down (something the game never encourages you to do).

I definitely think that "control" should be a lot more ambiguous and that there should never be a time where your colour is on every settlement on the entire map. Even the Roman Empire at its height had internal (not civil) wars between client states, and even Athens and Corinth attacked each other while supposedly ruled by Rome.

For instance I would like a system where you collect taxes directly, and "enemies" can do the same. There is no arbitrary boundary to which settlements you can extract taxes from, or which lords you can bring to war. You might see an enemy lord taxing "your" village and decide to go and attack him. You would have to take castles to give you more dynamic control over the map and thus more areas to safely tax. Basing the campaign around the idea that control is relative would prevent the kind of dull homogeneous feeling the lategame map has in most strategy games.
 

Lebron James

Recruit
Taking and holding foreign territory should be flat-out difficult, expensive, and time consuming.

As long as this game is so war-focused, a realistic solution would be to emphasize low-intensity warfare; border skirmishes, caravan raids, village pillaging. More of a tit-for-tat escalation system with your neighbors. That would satisfy the player's hankering to pick fights with different factions and also allow wars between unequal AI factions. The same dynamic could exist internally. An escalation mechanic would allow for huge conflicts to emerge, but only rarely.

City-sacking death stacks should be incredibly expensive to maintain, even for a wealthy player.

Another mechanic I'd love to see would be significant morale penalties for armies fighting far from home for a long time.
 
Top Bottom