And it is concerning when a DEV says that steam rolling could still happen. It's a major step back in design. Look at Viking Conquest, that could never in a million years happen, I know because I was over 3,000 days in a few times.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
SP - World Map My thoughts on the Faction Snowball effect. Campaigns should go on forever!
- Thread starter Koartz
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
And it is concerning when a DEV says that steam rolling could still happen. It's a major step back in design. Look at Viking Conquest, that could never in a million years happen, I know because I was over 3,000 days in a few times.
One the map is entirely taken over by a single faction there is no more game - it's over, so for anyone who likes to play slow you're essentially saying "No one who doesn't play as fast as I do and prefers to take it slow should be allowed to play" which literally includes all M&B and M&B Warband players because that is how the game has always worked.
You're arguing for an artificial time limit on the game, no one is going to like that idea.
I'd love to see intense back and forths, betrayals, etc. I don't want the map to remain constant, but I don't want my game to start ending itself while I'm still playing. This snowballing was never an issue in the previous games.
An artificial time limit of perhaps 1000 years. Nobody plays that slow. I'm in favour of an AI being able to make a gradual progress over time. Some factions getting stronger and others getting weaker. I don't want this equal equilibrium that can only be disrupted by the player.
I am also in favor of the map shifting over time, even dramatically over long periods of time, I don't want permanently the same borders either, the death of factions does equal a more boring game though, by all means chase the Battanians back to a single town, but at least have the other AI jump in via alliances or reacting to growing threats, having one nation just gobble up the whole map while the rest of the people sit around like lemmings with no explanation for their actions is not fun.
Every strategy game in which there are no cheats for the AI ends up the same way. The artificial in AI is a very real thing.
Kipsta
One faction taking over the map should be possible if there are comeback mechanics for the other empires like rebellions in all former cities. That would be really cool and I wouldn't mind the AI "cheating" to achieve such an event. Of course this has to be made more interesting than just flipping all the cities all of a sudden.
Yup agreed entirely.
Or maybe a feature which allows us to leave some troops at the training camp for some time, with a daily fee.
Raven2221
Recruit
Yeah, the same thing happened to me on both of my plays. The first one - with the aserai - they just sat there doing nothing while being hammered by the empire. The second one - sturgia. I've thought i've figured it out. The army didnt do anything relevant (one lord kept creating it just to patrol some villages) until I joined, and we've had like 300+ units. So the AI isn't that dumb and knows some basic maths, it won't do anything unless the army is big enough. And thats the problem I think - If for some reason a nation can't get a pretty decent army, they'll just do completely nothing, while the other factions start snowballing. Then its 300 men vs >1000, and its a gg. Alliances would be very nice, it's even a part of the historical storyline here. And maybe punishments for large armies - like morale dropping faster, more desertions, bigger punishments for starvation (some armies don't even bother with food, they just go around with 0). Maybe the general economics of a nation should be more punished when there are loads of armies on the field? Maybe the money should stop flowing in? Or the rebellions that some of you guys mentioned, that sounds great. The rougery and banditry might kick in while the nation is at war. That would open up new options for the players. But still, I believe its all just a matter of time, the game will be a masterpiece when all the pieces are in place. I've played a little bit of warband today, and oh my, bannerlord does a lot of things far better.
Agreed.
Not only do war campaign need to be better though off, the AI in general needs to be better.
Warfare should be conducted where and when it makes sense - mostly seasonal (I guess some faction would be more aggressive)
The loosing side should move to re-inforce and fortify nearby castles/towns.
If the enemy moves in a big blob, it cannot be everywhere at once, so the AI should send smaller raiding parties to loot and attack their holdings, forcing the big blob to split and return to defend.
Ceasefires should be more readily accepted.
Lords should be harder to capture.
Bring back feasts.
Additionally, implement simplified logistics for moving armies, supply lines/caravans that can be attacked, hampering armies that push too deep, too fast.
Perhaps creating temporary camps along the supply chain on the map that can be garrisoned to protect supplies, etc.
Not only do war campaign need to be better though off, the AI in general needs to be better.
Warfare should be conducted where and when it makes sense - mostly seasonal (I guess some faction would be more aggressive)
The loosing side should move to re-inforce and fortify nearby castles/towns.
If the enemy moves in a big blob, it cannot be everywhere at once, so the AI should send smaller raiding parties to loot and attack their holdings, forcing the big blob to split and return to defend.
Ceasefires should be more readily accepted.
Lords should be harder to capture.
Bring back feasts.
Additionally, implement simplified logistics for moving armies, supply lines/caravans that can be attacked, hampering armies that push too deep, too fast.
Perhaps creating temporary camps along the supply chain on the map that can be garrisoned to protect supplies, etc.
Agree with OP on every word
Considering how bannerlord is supposed to be multi generational, I think the chief problem is actually the rate of conquest now. It should take years for a faction to rapidly expand and taking over a city should be a mighty endeavor requiring peerless organization and logistics. Take a gander at say, Crusader Kings II, and its more realistic progression of time for military conquests versus diplomatic ones. Taking over the map by force should be hard as balls and accomplished in decades, not years, let alone months.
Castles also need to fulfill their historical role, and the AI needs to recognize logical progression of sieges. AI should not be able to siege a city without taking a castle first that lies in the way, or realistically their army should be destroyed by guerilla raids. IMO what Bannerlord needs the most is a logistics train feature, where an army needs a clear route to home or pillaging local settlements to supply food for its troops, or its morale plummets and the army splinters.
Castles also need to fulfill their historical role, and the AI needs to recognize logical progression of sieges. AI should not be able to siege a city without taking a castle first that lies in the way, or realistically their army should be destroyed by guerilla raids. IMO what Bannerlord needs the most is a logistics train feature, where an army needs a clear route to home or pillaging local settlements to supply food for its troops, or its morale plummets and the army splinters.
Same here, Northern Empire just got the half of the map, Battania almost the rest with Vlandia sttrugling with 4 cities. And atm I'm almost able to found my own faction, but how could I try to get a castle or a city when the faction I'll attack will just wipe me out because it owns the whole map and clans ? It should be a major problem, it just ruins a game. In Warband I spend a lot of time and had to take the lead of many wars to influence the game and make the faction I took side of winning a part of the map.
Mppqlmd
Regular
My 2 cents about this problem :
- Army cohesion should be a more relevant feature, to avoid the endless army campaign (even when they have nothing to do and end up chasing brigands with 1000 men).
- Feasts need to happen to make the lords waste their time doing something else.
- Faction defection needs to stop, or be severely limited.
- When gaining a new city, the IA should commit a HEAVY part of its troops for garrison, and not just put 50 peasants in it and keep the huge army to continue conquering. They should put 200-300 men, and that will make their conquering a bit slower.
- Lords could have a personal guard, a permanent stack of 5-10 elite troops that would mainly be there to avoid the horrible bandit situation where they respawn with 0 troops and get captured by looters.
- Army cohesion should be a more relevant feature, to avoid the endless army campaign (even when they have nothing to do and end up chasing brigands with 1000 men).
- Feasts need to happen to make the lords waste their time doing something else.
- Faction defection needs to stop, or be severely limited.
- When gaining a new city, the IA should commit a HEAVY part of its troops for garrison, and not just put 50 peasants in it and keep the huge army to continue conquering. They should put 200-300 men, and that will make their conquering a bit slower.
- Lords could have a personal guard, a permanent stack of 5-10 elite troops that would mainly be there to avoid the horrible bandit situation where they respawn with 0 troops and get captured by looters.
Everything seemed fine, then all of a sudden Northern Empire took over most of the map... just hoovered up dozens of towns in no time at all. And that really is "literally no time at all". You don't have a chance to build a big enough army to take them on (even if all maxed out soldiers in your army) as doom stacks of 1000 troops show up who just charge (tactics irrelevant in that sort of battle, simply overwhelmed).
Lords used to switch sides when they got pissed off, which could work with the bigger an empire gets, the less loyal the fringes are and more likely to treason out. I haven't noticed this as of yet, or if it is happening, are they all joining the mega blob?
Also noticed that many minor lords clearly have either no money, or more likely, no supplies for their troops - so running around with ever diminishing groups until it's them solo (with 20 odd wounded soldiers). They can't mount a fight back while the new overlords taking over the map get supplies + troops and just roll onwards.
But this mega blobbing problem is, for me, a killer to the game.
Lords used to switch sides when they got pissed off, which could work with the bigger an empire gets, the less loyal the fringes are and more likely to treason out. I haven't noticed this as of yet, or if it is happening, are they all joining the mega blob?
Also noticed that many minor lords clearly have either no money, or more likely, no supplies for their troops - so running around with ever diminishing groups until it's them solo (with 20 odd wounded soldiers). They can't mount a fight back while the new overlords taking over the map get supplies + troops and just roll onwards.
But this mega blobbing problem is, for me, a killer to the game.
+1 on this specifically. jumping castle to castle and capping them all should not be possible. I am doing this lol.
