No escape for captive lords to solve infinite armies + Strong King status + Return of Marshall status + Longer truces + Feasts and Lobbying

Users who are viewing this thread


1)Low escape chance for noble prisoners to solve 'infinite armies' problem:

Most of the players, including myself, complain that there is infinite army problem. Even if you destroy enemy army in a big battle for couple of times, enemy nobles always regroups + recruit so fast and form another big army before you take advantage of your victories. People try to solve this issue by executing all captured nobles but this kills the fun of the game.

The real solution is very easy to implement: Currently, capturing nobles is pointless because they escape from your dungeons very fast and they escape from your party even before you have time to put them into dungeons + they're getting ransomed very quickly for little amount of money. So lord escape chance from dungeons must be nearly impossible (which actually would be realistic) and lord escape chance from parties must be significantly lowered + AI must not send or accept ransom offers frequently, this must be very rare and price must be higher. In conclusion, if this little value changes would be adopted, winning big battles would have significant effect, AI and players would have time to exploit their victories strategically + prison break mission would get a significant meaning (they're useless currently because captives escape very quick and often ransomed even before that). If significant amount of lords in a faction gets captured by enemies, faction would have to sue for peace and pay tribute to regain it's manpower, which would be realistic.

2)Kings with more authority, in order to make this status advantageous:

Currently, being a king in this game is more of a burden, rather than being an advantage. Most of the decisions are tied up to clan voting system, which makes kings 'unnecessary figureheads'. There is nearly no advantage of being a king for the players aside from roleplaying reasons.

To give a meaning to this status, kings must be stronger with more authorities: *Kings must take feudal taxes from their vassals (like 7,5% income of each vassal) *Declare war and make peace options must be exclusive for the kings like in the Warband, it must not be tied to clan voting system. *Kings heir should be the inheritor of the title when king dies, so being a royal family and marrying with royal family member would have a meaning.

3)Marshalls from Warband must return and influence capacity must be introduced:

Currently, every noble can create armies with their influence, which fuels infinite army problem and kill a lot of roleplay elements. In Warband, only the King and the Marshall could create armies by starting campaigns. Getting title of Marshall was tied to election of nobles and required some lobbying and skill. There was an opposition system: If Marshall would be unsuccessful (by losing battles or overall being inadequate for protecting the Kingdom), opposition would surge and nobles would replace the Marshall. It was adding a lot of roleplay and feeling of rising trough ranks of the Kingdom, which is non-existent in Bannerlord. Currently, being a weak lord or being a powerful lord has no significant difference. Forming armies as a lord has no self-advantage because most probably, captured fiefs wouldn't be given to leader of the armies who captured it.

So my suggestion is, return the Marshalls. I will explain how this could be implement in Bannerlord very easily: *First of all, influence cap must be introduced. It will have 2 purposes: to solve influence hoarding (which makes late game very easy for player king) and to introduce marshall system. For example, the King will have 2000 influence cap, while title Marshall, which is elected by noble clans will have 1000 influence cap, + Marshalls will be waged with 2,5% of income of each vassal, which will motivate players to acquire this status. those two titles will have high amount of influence recovery speed so they will be able to field armies very efficiently. And other nobles will have 150 influence cap, which is enough to use that in voting system but not enough to field massive armies.

Marshall AI and King AI will focus on fielding massive armies if there is an ongoing war while noble AI will either join them if they're called to army or individually raid enemy lands or defend ally fiefs as usual. By this way, capturing kings after battle will get a significant meaning. While a faction can replace captured Marshall by voting, captured King will deprive faction from fielding another army. So faction will have to pay very high amount of money to ransom their King (realistically) or lose a lot of war effort.

4)Longer election timelines and lobbying trough feasts:

Currently, elections in kingdom happens in a 2 day timespan. This was longer in Warband. Also in Warband, feasts would occur which would give players a good opportunity to gain support of nobles in the election, like support for being a Marshall or support for gaining the captured title. I don't know why these features aren't introduced to Bannerlord but it must be introduced for better roleplay. I personally heard from the devs in a QA stream that they feared that feasts would broke the game as in Warband, In Warband, it is correct that Butterlord Harlaus would throw a feast in a very critical moment of war. But solution is actually very easy: Make it unable to throw feasts during wartime :wink:. So there is no excuse regarding not implementing that feature.

5)Longer truces and more serious wars:

Currently, truces are mostly for 20 days and it passes really quick. Also wars are very spontaneous, lords constantly and randomly vote for going a war with neighbor factions. I've seen many times that a faction would immediately go to another war after a long bloody war. For this reason, minimum truce timespan must be longer (like 100 days) and war reasons must be implemented, like border disputes in Warband. War reasons will occur randomly and it will be up to the King for whether using this reason to go to war or not using it because it's not convenient for going at the moment. Therefore wars between factions would feel more realistic and peacetimes would give AI and player a space of breath.

6)Diverse banners and banner colors for noble clans:

Currently, banners are consisting of random symbols and faction colors behind it. In Warband, it was diverse coloring & symboling which would make nobles more distinguishable. In reality, Medieval battles would consist diversely colored and symbolized banners on the same side which would add a feudal feeling to the battlefield. Therefore noble clan banners must be diversely colored to achieve that when bannerholders are introduced to the game. Name plate for fiefs are currently colored by green(ally) gray(netural) or red(enemy), which is an unnecessary coloring because player can distinguish which faction is enemy and which is not like in the Warband, without green/red coloring . Instead of giving faction color to the banner, faction color could be given to army numbers and name plate of fiefs like in the Warband.

BONUS: Remove success chance percentages from persuasion screen: This really kills the immersion. In Warband, players would really feel like they're talking to a 'person' because it was a mystery that whether AI will like your reasoning or not. But in Bannerlord, we see percentages and success chance. Persuasion in Bannerlord became clicking buttons with high percentage with no depth. Removing the percentages would help improving the immersion.
Last edited:


Nice list! I mostly agree but I have some pointers.

While it is true that the AI is capable of reforming armies very quickly, their decline in quality is very noticeable. Once you smash up about 2 armies the AI will be forced to field extensive numbers of recruits or tier 2s. They can still take castles and cities, but their actual effectiveness on the field is very low. Healthy faction are capable of launching 3 armies at once, while heavily smashed up factions are reduced to 1. I can understand if people think they're annoying, as at that point you're not even getting good loot for smithing. On the whole, though, I do agree that nobles don't stay captive for long enough, especially since their captivity matters in the warscore

I do not dislike the fact that any lord can assemble an army, at the end of the day this game is all about the big battles, so it makes sense it would try to show them as frequently as possible. Instead of a cap on influence, I would propose a rise in the cost of influence for assembling armies with the King and the marshall having significant discounts in doing so as well as bonus influence. Army building is like a market, and this would give them a large share of it, leaving small forces to other vassals. The "Marshals" kingdom policy could make multiple marshall positions available, so long as certain criterias are met (say, 1000 influence minimum)
Top Bottom