[Poll] Do we want AI clans to die?

Do want AI-clans to easely die?

  • Yes

    Votes: 36 73.5%
  • No

    Votes: 13 26.5%

  • Total voters
    49

Users who are viewing this thread

I am of the opinion that clans should not easely die but I know alot of players who likes to destroy clans/see them destroyed.

so I would like to see what you people really think.

Should we have a method of replacing fallen nobles as we have one for mercs? I could picture a really low-level youngster spawned, that needs to be rebuild from scratch as a fun and meaningful feature in case anything aling these lines should be added.

And... After 5 years of gameplay, the game runs dry of marriage-targets. Already little-brother can be hard to get a young(ish) deal for within any kingdom with a few deaths.

It couls OFC be a game-configuration feature...
 
Yes they should die! I actually don't like the 2% in live battle because I have hardily seen any of my enemies die in battle, just random ones elsewhere in the world. Gotta see the same smug :poop:s show up over and over again. I think 10% in live battles is better! I think clans should also have more modes besides warfare, like if they lose too many members they should become passive and double down on trying to make babies or even adopt in a npc. The key here is a COOLDOWN where they not joining armies or raiding, they're OH **** mode and need to get themselves together, it could even be a very long break like years and if they lose thier fief maybe they become neutral until they can join another faction. If TW just makes them easily replace clan members and keep never ending armies, then that will make the game suck more as it's one of the main complaint already is that the AI doesn't give the player any breaks and re-build too fast.

Also related, factions with no fiefs need to lose thier clan about 100X faster and the ruler need to GTFO or join a faction. We don't want a bunch of parties doing nothing but trying to raid and getting defeated forever, they need to GO AWAY.
 
Yes they should die! I actually don't like the 2% in live battle because I have hardily seen any of my enemies die in battle, just random ones elsewhere in the world. Gotta see the same smug :poop:s show up over and over again. I think 10% in live battles is better! I think clans should also have more modes besides warfare, like if they lose too many members they should become passive and double down on trying to make babies or even adopt in a npc. The key here is a COOLDOWN where they not joining armies or raiding, they're OH **** mode and need to get themselves together, it could even be a very long break like years and if they lose thier fief maybe they become neutral until they can join another faction. If TW just makes them easily replace clan members and keep never ending armies, then that will make the game suck more as it's one of the main complaint already is that the AI doesn't give the player any breaks and re-build too fast.
In that case, they NEED to stop falling en masse on the battlefield! The leader of a loosing party needs to try to get away and have chanse to manage doing so! Even more so in scenario battles, they need to NOT charge alone....

But in general, your comment is about CHARCHTERS dying, not CLANS dying. I´m all for charachters dying.

Clan's running low on members especially destroys the game balance and interactivness as far into the game(but before first generation grows adult), alot of clans are down at 1-3 members. No fertile ladies are available for marriage, the few who are in age are blocked for the player by an older lady(another issue, I know). Rich T6 clans with 1-2 parties due to low member-count are pathetic.

I´d like clan-tier to have a lower impact in partysize and charachter level having on it´s own. This way, a lowlevel charachter in a T6 clan would have a much lower partysize than a high level characher(It could be a low-level AI- penalty rather than a boost!). This way AI clans could spawn new members with a low level.

Another solution is to fix the "missing generation" and make all married couples in the game start with children in the full age-span 0-17 years. So each year, new members should spawn in many clans.

The noble-count needs to stay stable during the harch part of the game, day 500 - 1200. Here alot of nobles has died and none has spawned.
 
Also related, factions with no fiefs need to lose thier clan about 100X faster and the ruler need to GTFO or join a faction. We don't want a bunch of parties doing nothing but trying to raid and getting defeated forever, they need to GO AWAY.

This is not realyl related but I agree it's a conserning issue.

As I understund it, to leave a kingdom, a clan needs to defect to another kingdom.
  1. I think we need a middle option for them to become independent(Like revoltclans who is not destroyed but lose the fief they revolted in). IE to leave the sinking ship.
  2. A vassal- clan without fiefs should use this opportunity unless they are Friends of the ruler clan
  3. A kingdom with only a fiefless ruler-clan should be destroyed after a short while. They should as well be an independent clan, along with their former vassals/failed revolt-clans
 

Aurex

Regular
WB
Should we have a method of replacing fallen nobles as we have one for mercs? I could picture a really low-level youngster spawned, that needs to be rebuild from scratch as a fun and meaningful feature in case anything aling these lines should be added.
I'm all for noble clans dying off if they get some bad luck or a lot of lost sieges in which they're either killed in battle or executed by rivals. The ruler could then replace them by giving away fiefs and titles to an emerging clan or an existing branch of another, already established clan. There could be a really nice game of politics going on there, too.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
Yes, i want everyone to die including the player and be replaced by heirs, if clans die out the AI should generate new clans from companions like the player can and populate their faction to a certain standard, this way the dynastic system will be much more important to the game and it can be disabled in a new save anyway if the player wants that old M&B experience of everyone being immortal.

During development TW had shown the AI with companions just like the player, don't know if they axed this feature (like many others) or will implement at a later date.
 
I'm all for noble clans dying off if they get some bad luck or a lot of lost sieges in which they're either killed in battle or executed by rivals. The ruler could then replace them by giving away fiefs and titles to an emerging clan or an existing branch of another, already established clan. There could be a really nice game of politics going on there, too.
Yes, me too. But as is, not alot of "bad luck" is needed. Many clans are starting with 4-5 nobles. say minus 1 i marriage-trades first few years and they are 3. How big is the chanse all three of these survives 18-21 years untill first child grows 18? the clan grows stronger and can have more parties but is helplessly stuck with the low lord-count.

In my math, if this clan survives at all untill first few children is grown up, they are EXTREMLY lucky. With the current deathrate(and 2% is considered low by most players) any given lord should die in any of their first 50 battles in which they fall. In how many battles does a lord fall during first 18 years in avarage? Even lords in successfull factions falls alot in battle!
 
Yes, i want everyone to die including the player and be replaced by heirs, if clans die out the AI should generate new clans from companions like the player can and populate their faction to a certain standard, this way the dynastic system will be much more important to the game and it can be disabled in a new save anyway if the player wants that old M&B experience of everyone being immortal.

During development TW had shown the AI with companions just like the player, don't know if they axed this feature (like many others) or will implement at a later date.
What purpuse does a new clan serve? What makes their chances of survival higher?

And my biggest concerns are not dead but dying clans. In my game ~1100 days in there are 6-7 T5-T6 with only a single noble. They are worse than a T2 clan with 2 nobles!!
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
And my biggest concerns are not dead but dying clans. In my game ~1100 days in there are 6-7 T5-T6 with only a single noble. They are worse than a T2 clan with 2 nobles!!

That happens mainly because the passing of time is too slow for new clan members to grow and replace those dying in battle and of old age.

The easiest solution for TW to balance the death rate of clan members would be to make time pass faster, this alone would solve everything for real.

For example, there is the Pacemaker mod that changes that, it's default settings change the vanilla 21 days/season and 84 days/year to 7 days/season and 28 days/year and with that faster timescale there is absolutely no population problem in the clans, people die but are replaced by their offspring growing up and with marriages to other clans.
 

Lukar

Regular
M&BWBNWVC
I voted for no because clans should not be destoyed easy/fast. But without destroying clans the game would be immersion breaking.
 
But in general, your comment is about CHARCHTERS dying, not CLANS dying. I´m all for charachters dying.
Clans die because of thier members dying, I'm jumping ahead of you because the bottom line is any "replacement" mechanics need to coincide with significant TIME OUT from war or else you might as well just turn off death and birth. I the player goes hard against a faction (more battle defeats) or executes them, it's not good to have an automatic even just replace those lords and keep the Clans going, UNLESS it also gives significant respite from warfare or some other benefit. Say the player chooses spares the last 2 members of an enemy clan in return for thier allegiance or even just turning neutral for some significant time.

This is not realyl related but I agree it's a conserning issue.
It's absolutely related because pesky "defeated" Clans are the number one reason players execute entire Clans!

Clan's running low on members especially destroys the game balance and interactivness as far into the game(but before first generation grows adult), alot of clans are down at 1-3 members. No fertile ladies are available for marriage, the few who are in age are blocked for the player by an older lady(another issue, I know). Rich T6 clans with 1-2 parties due to low member-count are pathetic.
Your issue seems to be more about lack of a spread of children ages at the game start and lack of young women, both a serious issues issues that have been brought up. TW should add a more health spread of children at the games start to trickle in for the first 18 years. TW should also add young females to rebel clans and player created clans to facilitate a health population. As it is, one good idea I have is to create as many player made Clans with younger female wanderers, so that hopefully they will marry a man into thier clan and make babies!

What purpuse does a new clan serve? What makes their chances of survival higher?
It lets the faction use it's resources to to compensate from bad luck of losing lords, say they expand and do well but suffer many lord losses, they can then use thier extra fiefs and influence to generate new clan like the player. This would have to be tweaked so it only happened when they lost enough so they can't just make more and more and also they still need to add females to the new clans. Of course if they're not expanding and losing, that's that, then they may be wiped out eventually and that's how the game goes.
 
Clans die because of thier members dying, I'm jumping ahead of you because the bottom line is any "replacement" mechanics need to coincide with significant TIME OUT from war or else you might as well just turn off death and birth. I the player goes hard against a faction (more battle defeats) or executes them, it's not good to have an automatic even just replace those lords and keep the Clans going, UNLESS it also gives significant respite from warfare or some other benefit. Say the player chooses spares the last 2 members of an enemy clan in return for thier allegiance or even just turning neutral for some significant time.
Yes, ofcourse, by my issue is not the lords dying. If there is no way for clans to replace fallen kins, they are doomed to 15-20 years of very hard struggle.
Yes but allow AI clans to hire wanderers too.
This is an interesting solution. But what happens when the last adult clan-member dies? Does a companion "step up" as nobility? Even if it does not save the clan, it makes them act untill the bitter end! And if there are children in the clan when last adult famillymember dies, a companion could step in as "Regent" untill the kid was grown up.

It's absolutely related because pesky "defeated" Clans are the number one reason players execute entire Clans!
No this is a seperate issue. Landless clans could easely be excluded from any replacement features. It´s interesting and lots of other threads to discuss this issue in :smile: This issue needs a solution of it´s own and should not interfare with anything that have with clan management to do. It´s a kingdom management/cleanup.
Your issue seems to be more about lack of a spread of children ages at the game start and lack of young women, both a serious issues issues that have been brought up. TW should add a more health spread of children at the games start to trickle in for the first 18 years.
That would maybe solve most runs and absolutely a good start towards what I would like to see. If all clans had 3-5 children in age range 3-15 the world would repopulate and stay healthier. But does it entirely solve it? I think children should keep the clan alive too.
TW should also add young females to rebel clans
Absolutely!
I voted for no because clans should not be destoyed easy/fast. But without destroying clans the game would be immersion breaking.
Fully agree! Many clans are very fragile and if the the wong 1-2 persons dies the first 2 years, the clan is doomed. Loosing two such nobles in 2 years are slighly unlucky but is definatly something that happens to several clans each playthrough! To me, that's immersionbreaking and very bad familly-planning from the calradian nobility(Of great noble familly died in real history but it´s too easy in Bannerlord!!)
 

Julio-Claudian

Knight at Arms
It should certainly be possible for them to be destroyed, maybe the children could be taken in by a friendly clan if the adults are wiped out. I think there should be at least twice as many military lords at the start of the campaign and a better populated generation beneath them around 14-17 years old. I'd like it if new tier 1 clans could arise from time to time for each culture, beyond rebel clans.
 

dannazgu

Sergeant at Arms
YES!
I want see death to everyone in Calradia, not one single person should be safe in a war torn continent. Even the player, this immortality on battlefield is BS. What makes the game great with the new dynastic system is the possibilities of changes around the world, new clan raising and old falling.
 

CrazyElf

Veteran
They should be destroyable, but they also should try their best to resist destruction.


I would say that a clan taking losses should be able to hire companions and produce more children.

If a clan is not viable, maybe the remainder of the clan should be given to a friendly clan.
 
Top Bottom