SP - General Please reconsider removing village as an independently held fief

[Sheepify]

This one's a major sticking point with me. Frankly, I don't understand any benefit of currently existing implementation as compared to Warband.

Settlement upgrade aspect completely aside (and it's a big aside!), removing independent ownership means fewer lords. Fewer smaller lord parties doing "emergent gameplay" things like keeping villagers and traders safe from bandits. Fewer smaller lord parties for the player to engage in small-scale battles (which, to me, were often more entertaining than large-scale army clusterchuckle engagements). Fewer lords to work on improving relationship with, or just get quests from to improve some skill or simply get paid. Fewer chances for internal factional strife with multiple parties vying for control over a particular fief.

On a larger scale, fewer opportunities to allow suing for peace. Right now, a faction ruler, even when losing ongoing wars with two or more factions, can't simply offer a village fief in return for temporary ceasefire with one of them to handle the rest (then, when the truce is up, immediately declare the war to regain the traded fief back). Can't really do that with castles, much less towns, since there are so few of those.

As a player, you no longer can be given a fief (no matter how crummy and raided that village you just got really is) when joining a faction - something that I always felt was a tiny, but very pleasing feature of Warband. Depending on the political situation, you may or may not have to wait significant amount of time before earning that castle.

The village wasn't much, but it was something YOURS. Also something that promoted investment of your early income, if you so desired. These elements are now lost in that earlier stage of the game, even if you decide for vassalage as soon as your clan tier allows it.

So... please. Please. Reconsider this, if possible, and bring back the Warband implementation. Let us enjoy being petty nobility with a bunch of filthy unappreciative peasants probably demanding more money from us on village upgrades than we can get from them in the short run.

 

[Sigismund]

Emergent gameplay is hurt because of the hamfisted way the clan system works right now. It's almost impossible to have relations with a clan member without also affecting relations will all members. All the clans property and also collectively owned so by saving a village you're only helping the clan, not the clan member who is responsible for that village. It might not help the player with getting fiefs, unless they let us join clans, but it would feel more natural if clans gave their members villages to be resposible for.

I assume part of the reason is down to villages being part of towns and castles because of the food system. If a castle is missing a village it will starve faster. They could solve this by adding much more villages to the game and have crummy remote villages that aren't tied to cities to give to upstarts like the player. Some villages are closer to castles and towns that they aren't tied to which could be owned by an enemy. What's stopping them from claiming ownership of that village?

 

[Apocal]

This one's a major sticking point with me. Frankly, I don't understand any benefit of currently existing implementation as compared to Warband.

A lot of people hated getting villages in Warband and complained that villages provided very little in way of income (which was true, unless you kept it pristine) while drawing AI raids like meat draws flies.

Settlement upgrade aspect completely aside (and it's a big aside!), removing independent ownership means fewer lords. Fewer smaller lord parties doing "emergent gameplay" things like keeping villagers and traders safe from bandits. Fewer smaller lord parties for the player to engage in small-scale battles (which, to me, were often more entertaining than large-scale army clusterchuckle engagements).

The factions still have roughly the same number of lords leading parties? Each clan's average about three members per, right? I certainy don't lack for smallish (30-60) parties to engage.

 

[Sheepify]

Emergent gameplay is hurt because of the hamfisted way the clan system works right now.

Well, that too. The "companion" mod that allows various instructions really seems to change map dynamics a lot, but ultimately the game is just so bloody barebones right now there isn't much opportunity for emergent gameplay in the first place.

Villagers will take a week to get chased down by looters, if at all. Caravans with 30-40 veteran guards will run from a group of 4 or 7 looters because why not. Lords are mostly just stuck in larger armies, because there's no mechanism in place to make them go "screw this, I got more important things to do" regardless of character traits and/or map situation, and with the "cheat spawn" and "improved" recruitment will quickly reach party size that makes them big enough to be a party member.

Emergent gameplay is hurt because of the hamfisted way the clan system works right now. It's almost impossible to have relations with a clan member without also affecting relations will all members. All the clans property and also collectively owned so by saving a village you're only helping the clan, not the clan member who is responsible for that village. It might not help the player with getting fiefs, unless they let us join clans, but it would feel more natural if clans gave their members villages to be resposible for.

And then expand on it so people within the same clan can get in a row because uncle Joe got that village I wanted, and cousin Jack is not doing his share in defending our holds, or whatnot. The whole thing is just so... empty.

I assume part of the reason is down to villages being part of towns and castles because of the food system. If a castle is missing a village it will starve faster. They could solve this by adding much more villages to the game and have crummy remote villages that aren't tied to cities to give to upstarts like the player.

Which, really, is a few minutes tweaking passive castle or town variables anyway. Or better yet, as you say, by having more villages than necessary. Another thing I would like to see is higher-tier settlement's prosperity unlocking opportunity for settling additional villages. So a castle with one village hitting 4000 prosperity can start work on development of another village, a city with 6000 prosperity gets another brand new - and initially largely noncontributing, so forward planning! - fief, and the like. There are many ways of solving this than simply making villages a largely abstract element of the game that the player has no direct influence over.

Some villages are closer to castles and towns that they aren't tied to which could be owned by an enemy. What's stopping them from claiming ownership of that village?

Yeah, one of the big advantages of villages being separate fiefs is the ability to introduce flexible association - as I mentioned in the OP, they would make for fantastic "trade good" in diplomatic attempts at "bribing" the other party. Not to mention that it really annoys me that I can't tell villagers from my own fief to trade in MY town, not the one behind the mountain they spend a week reaching because "closest direct distance" calculations that drive their trading preference completely ignores terrain features.

A lot of people hated getting villages in Warband and complained that villages provided very little in way of income (which was true, unless you kept it pristine) while drawing AI raids like meat draws flies.

Wouldn't that just be easily solved with adjustment of income? Not that I personally ran into such sentiments.

As for raids, expand on potential methods of at least enemy notification (isn't there a mod that already allows you assign companion for patrol and defense duties) and the issue is mostly solved, too. While you still get to enjoy all the benefits of a villages being a distinct fief.

If nothing else, it meant you got something "yours" much earlier on. Considering how the encumbrance and heard mechanics work, I wouldn't mind having "manor house" in a village that acts as a storage/temporary unnecessary troop billet if you have a reason to run a smaller party all of a sudden and the combination of inventory items and horses you had to make your party faster suddenly drops your mobility to 0.

You may or may not get a castle quickly. A village (even without such improvements over Warband implementation) was a meaningful and intuitive stepping stone.

The factions still have roughly the same number of lords leading parties? Each clan's average about three members per, right?

Not sure, some have 6 people, some have 1. Didn't try to average it out, but I generally don't see parties smaller than 60+ (ignoring the troop quality) unless a faction is getting steamrolled already.

In Warband, it wasn't uncommon for me to run into under-30 party with a large proportion of troops being high tier.

Also, as far as I'm aware for the "landless clan members" income is implemented in a largely abstract way that you can't affect simply raiding their fief.

The whole concept of raiding as a warfare tool is largely relegated to just trying to starve (not that you'll meaningfully achieve that with current implementation) a castle or a town. Lords can still recruit from "raided" villages, even if you can't. They'll still get passive "AI cheat" income to support their army. You raid, all you end up with is huge negative penalty, future recruitment and quest lock on that location, and some redundant goods (money isn't that hard to come by through other means). The whole system is, like a lot of Bannerlord right now, just an outright mess.

I certainy don't lack for smallish (30-60) parties to engage.

Not my experience in most recent memory (again, aside from factions that are on the verge of being erased anyway), but fair enough.

 

[Apocal]

Wouldn't that just be easily solved with adjustment of income? Not that I personally ran into such sentiments.

As for raids, expand on potential methods of at least enemy notification (isn't there a mod that already allows you assign companion for patrol and defense duties) and the issue is mostly solved, too. While you still get to enjoy all the benefits of a villages being a distinct fief.

In Bannerlord, villages can actually pay out decently (something like 700-1000 denars/day). The bit about hating village fiefs in Warband was restricted to that game.

There are already raid alarms in Bannerlord. There was an even more obvious one in Warband (like a full screen alert). Knowing your fief was/is being raided was never the issue. The issue was you had to be near it to stop the raiders and a single raid tanks its prosperity. It is actually slightly worse in Bannerlord because bandit parties are both much more numerous and more willing to harrass your villager parties (especially on the eastern steppes).

If nothing else, it meant you got something "yours" much earlier on. Considering how the encumbrance and heard mechanics work, I wouldn't mind having "manor house" in a village that acts as a storage/temporary unnecessary troop billet if you have a reason to run a smaller party all of a sudden and the combination of inventory items and horses you had to make your party faster suddenly drops your mobility to 0.

The lack of storage until you get your first fief is an issue and I really wish they hadn't removed the workshop stash from Warband.

Not sure, some have 6 people, some have 1. Didn't try to average it out, but I generally don't see parties smaller than 60+ (ignoring the troop quality) unless a faction is getting steamrolled already.

In Warband, it wasn't uncommon for me to run into under-30 party with a large proportion of troops being high tier.

...

Not my experience in most recent memory (again, aside from factions that are on the verge of being erased anyway), but fair enough.

I usually find them by stalking around the enemy's "safe" interior where the prime recruiting grounds are. These are parties looking to rebuild after getting stack-wiped or ground down in an army. Which makes sense -- there is little reason for a lord to run around with such a crap composition if they aren't going to be at or near their max party limits other than having taken losses.

 

[GitiUsir]

I'd say don't make villages independent from castles/cities (not compatible with game), but it's possible to assign ownership of fiefs to different members inside a clan. Even more, assigning ownership to a specific lord should be a requirement, so if a fief doesn't have owner can't give tax income to the clan. Then the fief owner gives a percentage of income to the clan leader if he isn't leader.

 

[MakinTorf]

i dont like the idea of independent villages either.
this will make the fief diplomacy overcomplicated. the system that the fief is for the hole clan is good enough.
there are so many casltles and cities, that you have more then enough choices (only if you get enough) to give the fiefs all around your kindom clans.

the possibility to expand villages into castles and cities was suggested in some blog, but they cancelled that idea (exactlty to say, the possibility to build your own castles and cities) because of overcomplex balance issues and AI complexity

i remember a screenshot in a devblog around 2 years ago with a hole build upgrade tree for villages. the actual system is boring and to easy.
i looked for the screenshot, but i couldnt find it in the 5 minutes i spent.
there was a mill, a school, farms improvement and maybe also a small smith? every village should have his own small smith, just for the tools they use on the fields or mines or whatever they produce, right?