-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
option to sack city?
- Thread starter badman
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
durbal
Sergeant
Sack != raze.
That with variants would be great. Kill, enslave or just rob the population. Just rough up the city, plunder it or burn it to the ground.
With the city recovering of course, but it massively reduces prosperity and removes buildings and the power of notables.
With the city recovering of course, but it massively reduces prosperity and removes buildings and the power of notables.
Nalgasucia507
Squire
Sounds like a good idea to me!
Mr.Kebab
Veteran
Sack city option=
Prosperity of city decreased by %10-20 due to your related skill
%10-20 of total money of merchants captured due to your related skill
-10 daily prosperity gain due to "lately sacked" for 7 days and market values a bit increased
You lose honour
-30 relation with notables
-30 relation with owner clan
-15 relation with nearby villages
Honoured lords have less than %1 change to use that option
If a lord have a very bad relation with owner clan he will be more likely to sack the city
Prosperity of city decreased by %10-20 due to your related skill
%10-20 of total money of merchants captured due to your related skill
-10 daily prosperity gain due to "lately sacked" for 7 days and market values a bit increased
You lose honour
-30 relation with notables
-30 relation with owner clan
-15 relation with nearby villages
Honoured lords have less than %1 change to use that option
If a lord have a very bad relation with owner clan he will be more likely to sack the city
If it was done the way you raid villages (meaning the downtime would be only temporary) I would be up for it.
Permanent destruction is a bad idea in every way. Most people wouldn't ever use the feature and the ones who do would only feel regret doing so, then rolling back a previous save. + If AI could destroy cities, I can only imagine what a ****show it would become.
Permanent destruction is a bad idea in every way. Most people wouldn't ever use the feature and the ones who do would only feel regret doing so, then rolling back a previous save. + If AI could destroy cities, I can only imagine what a ****show it would become.
He said completely destroy later on.
Also, there's already a mod that allows you to sack a city after capturing it. (without destroying it)
Yes please I don't want these crappy Imperial cities I just wanna take all the shiny stuff in them.
And into the silver mine you go. Battanians get sold.
VC has it and it works great on the DLC. Sometimes you just want to raid your enemy territory, not gain more land, same as you can raid villages. Economic war.
And we should get the mirror option: pay ransom to break the siege.
Grumblingstorm
Recruit
If I'm not mistaken this is already in the game? It's in the Beta branch at least; I've been in a city besieged and had the option to bribe the besieging lord to bugger off, that is if they're not obviously going to win as I do remember them saying another time something like "No, we're obviously going to win this, we're not leaving"
There is a possibility to bribe to break a siege, works just like in open field battle. Altough I'm not sure how often you could trigger the barter option though, as the AI is pretty good leaving the siege anyways, if the numbers are not in their favor. And in turn if they overwhelm you (as they do almost always in sieges) they will just outright refuse the bribe.
I am talking about the center/settlement action, not you as the player. So the AI can do the same when it is under attack.
lets consider the scenario where the town has no more food, but the defenses are too strong. They can offer at that point the ransom: 20000 denars if you leave our town and break the siege. The AI would only accept that if they dont believe they can win the siege. The AI wouldnt offer this if a army is coming to help defend it. And so on.
when you put that together with sacking it becomes a good compromise. Both sides wont lose troops, the town can go back to produce and buy food, the attacker gets money.
if the AI planned to conquer and rule that town they can just ignore it (as long they do have enough power to actually win the siege).
economic war was one of the key points about the new Bannerlord campaign AI. So it shouldnt be limited to raiding villages/caravans only, as the town themselves are major economic centers.
durbal
Sergeant
I use it in 3K. It's especially useful for factions like Ma Teng who can't manage a lot of cities at once and their holdings are low level but they need cash, so you sack a city like Chang'an (don't want the Emperor -- too much baggage) and use the cash to build up your power base. (aka doomstack of Qiang Marauder Cavalry).
Yeah i didn't mean permanently remove the settlement from the map, that wouldn't be good. But destroy the improvements and upgrades in the city, maybe. Depends maybe how long you spend sacking it.
I don't even think the penalties should be too big for this. Sacking cities after a siege is pretty much expected in those times. There should even be a massive party morale penalty for NOT doing it.
Civilization has always had versions of this feature, including razing the city, looting it or liberating it, depending on whether it originally belonged to someone else. Loot and occupy or loot and abandon should be options.
If you have the power to conquer a city - why wouldnt you take it over rather than sacking it and running away?
IRL sacking was a viable strategy for some factions in history, as there were constraints on what people could govern, due to distance or trustworthiness of governors etc, sacking allowed them to take resources and people back home and keep it in a centralised place.
But nothing like that exists in BL, unless they plan to implement something like Fief limits, conquering will always be superior to sacking. And if you exceed your (hypothetical) fief limit it'd just encourage giving the city to vassals, rather than sacking it, and taxing your vassal through the roof.
IRL sacking was a viable strategy for some factions in history, as there were constraints on what people could govern, due to distance or trustworthiness of governors etc, sacking allowed them to take resources and people back home and keep it in a centralised place.
But nothing like that exists in BL, unless they plan to implement something like Fief limits, conquering will always be superior to sacking. And if you exceed your (hypothetical) fief limit it'd just encourage giving the city to vassals, rather than sacking it, and taxing your vassal through the roof.
Loyalty, rebellion, and civilian unrest should be a thing, especially when you capture and attempt to incorporate cities from another culture. Settlement loyalty and rebellion seem to appear as a "to be implemented" feature, but when implemented it really should be a big deal and apply this way.
A captured foreign settlement should demand the faction and lord's time and attention, in order to make it stable and prevent riots and revolts, instead of being able to blitz through several cities, incorporate them for your faction, and call it a day.
This would help a lot of snowballing without having to downgrade the AI, and this would also make it more viable to take an enemy city, sack it, get a ton of money, and heavily damage the enemy's economy. The city should take a while to be usable again, and it should kick off in a very poor state when finally operational.
It would be extremely atmospheric, brutal, and awesome to see sacked cities with burnt-out buildings, emitting a lot of smoke, sparsed throughout the campaign map. This game is based on the fall of the Western Roman Empire, after all, sacking and razing cities was happening often and it brought Rome to its knees.
A captured foreign settlement should demand the faction and lord's time and attention, in order to make it stable and prevent riots and revolts, instead of being able to blitz through several cities, incorporate them for your faction, and call it a day.
This would help a lot of snowballing without having to downgrade the AI, and this would also make it more viable to take an enemy city, sack it, get a ton of money, and heavily damage the enemy's economy. The city should take a while to be usable again, and it should kick off in a very poor state when finally operational.
It would be extremely atmospheric, brutal, and awesome to see sacked cities with burnt-out buildings, emitting a lot of smoke, sparsed throughout the campaign map. This game is based on the fall of the Western Roman Empire, after all, sacking and razing cities was happening often and it brought Rome to its knees.
Similar threads
