Pillaging sucks, don't do it.

[Pandora's?Suggestion☠Box]

Shouldn't it be the merciful trait? Generosity is more about how you treat your troops, not letting them pillage is actually not being very generous to your troops.

Strongly disagree! Morale is already easy enough to maintain as it is.

Morale is lost because they just risked their lives and saw their friends die to take a city and then they aren't allowed their playtime and chance to plunder wealth. Soldiers wanting to pillage cities is a pretty common thing in medieval history.

I would personally like to see more humanity and dissent in my multicultural ranks, not mindless robots which follow you loyally no matter what.

1. All traits should be refined before the game's release, obviously. "Cautious" is just a nice way of saying "Cowardice."

2. Morale may be easy to maintain but 1 morale penalty afffect is not enough. Not letting troops pillage isn't a valid wheelhouse for this penalty either. There's far better dynamic suggestions for this.

3. Pillaging has certainly taken place but it wasn't as common as you say it was. Even the Romans didn't much pillage at all after the marian reforms/late polybian reform era. Blanket statements really aren't necessary tbh and serve no purpose here.

4. You may want to watch the human behavior experiments (a good documentary) which helps explain the overbearing affect of authority over a seeming individual (not even a troop). Mindless loyalty has always been lent to leaders throughout all time and too many are willing to obey authoritative commands without any reason (even today).

Learning from history is usually the hardest for people. It often repeats itself after all.

 

[chemical_art]

3. Pillaging has certainly taken place but it wasn't as common as you say it was. Even the Romans didn't much pillage at all after the marian reforms/late polybian reform era. Blanket statements really aren't necessary tbh and serve no purpose here.

The periods of that history where they were not in civil wars I.E. conquest of Gaul (France) they did plenty of pillaging. You can only say they didn't much as much because such a time period was filled with civil war I.E. as represented in bannerlord same culture group.

On the broader scope of history the threat of pillaging / sacking of a city was very much a threat to intimidate a city to not resist. On one extreme you can cite the Khan invasions where any resistance was met with scouraged earth, on the other you can cite late Western medieval warfare where once a fort / city had all its layers breached by cannon surrender was expected to avoid the worst of looting. But at whatever was the considered norm of too much resistance the besieging army expected some sort of plunder whether organized or otherwise.

 

[ClickForFreeBeer]

All traits should be refined before the game's release, obviously. "Cautious" is just a nice way of saying "Cowardice."

Kinda irrelevant to the topic? This thread is specifically about pillaging, not whether you agree with the trait system.

Morale may be easy to maintain but 1 morale penalty affect is not enough. Not letting troops pillage isn't a valid wheelhouse for this penalty either. There's far better dynamic suggestions for this.

Why not? Make the morale penalty stronger then/dependent on how many friendly troops were lost in the siege and how much loot the party would gain for pillaging? Or perhaps if you show mercy, one or two troops may disobey based on your leadership skill; then given the decision whether to punish them at expense of the troop's morale or pardon them at expense of town relations.

Pillaging has certainly taken place but it wasn't as common as you say it was. Even the Romans didn't much pillage at all after the marian reforms/late polybian reform era. Blanket statements really aren't necessary tbh and serve no purpose here

Alright firstly, while it has strong historical inspiration, Bannerlord is a videogame. Calradia does not have to follow the exact same trends as Europe, the 'blanket' statement's purpose was to show pillaging is not some wacky fantasy feature and has happened dozens of times across medieval history.

Also, if you're going so rigidly by history, why are you quoting time periods that are BC? Bannerlord has strong early middle ages vibes...

You may want to watch the human behavior experiments (a good documentary) which helps explain the overbearing affect of authority over a seeming individual (not even a troop). Mindless loyalty has always been lent to leaders throughout all time and too many are willing to obey authoritative commands without any reason (even today).

While the unique power of authority figures over an individual has been well studied ever since Milgram, it is definitely not 'mindless' authority. There is deep psychological fallout, mutinies, etc. Quite often leaders have had their own men turn on them because they have pushed them for too long to do things which upon reflection they despise them for. The power of the authority figure can be pretty temporary or situational, and dependent on a whole load of other factors than just 'oh glorious leader'.

I mean just think about how many leaders have also assassinated by their own soldiers (the Romans lol, I mean no wonder they switched to the Varangian guard), how many whose campaigns have faced dissent amongst the ranks (Alexander the Great), etc.

Learning from history is usually the hardest for people. It often repeats itself after all.

What on earth is this condescending soundbite about? I'd recommend you remove your head from your backside and remember this is a thread giving feedback on a videogame... no need for your 'superior intellect' attitude here smh.

 

[Pandora's?Suggestion☠Box]

The periods of that history where they were not in civil wars I.E. conquest of Gaul (France) they did plenty of pillaging. You can only say they didn't much as much because such a time period was filled with civil war I.E. as represented in bannerlord same culture group.

On the broader scope of history the threat of pillaging / sacking of a city was very much a threat to intimidate a city to not resist. On one extreme you can cite the Khan invasions where any resistance was met with scouraged earth, on the other you can cite late Western medieval warfare where once a fort / city had all its layers breached by cannon surrender was expected to avoid the worst of looting. But at whatever was the considered norm of too much resistance the besieging army expected some sort of plunder whether organized or otherwise.

This is a culturally competitive game so you'll need to come to terms with that first I'm afraid. That's why universal constructs like pillaging for all cultures is not an appropriate dynamic. There's 3 major segments of an "empire" in Bannerlord so using one of the most iconic empires in our world history is completely valid and applies here. No need to obfuscate the obvious of the point made.

What isn't valid are broad blanket statements, or in this case, game mechanisms which remain crude. This is beta after all. It implies all cultural conflicts are battles that require barbarian/horde/brute tropes. Empires gained more from adopting religions and customs of their conquered peoples or they risked a weak hand and a risky occupation. You'll never tap dance over that fact.