I agree with the faction leader armors. It would give the devs the ability to make the imperial factions a bit unique and definitely show off the wealth of the empire.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
POLL: The Empire.... DO we NEED three of them?
- Thread starter Icaurs
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I dont expect TW to do anything. i put forward my original opinion and asked everyone elses. i originally wanted to replace one of the empire factions with a new faction but failing that i think adding some variation between the three factions works perfectly. not massive differences like i have said repeatedly. but instead small differences such as only the special troops that go to tier 6, or something like that, where there will be at least some kind of difference between the three factions.
Also saying that the empire is the equivalent of Italy is incorrect. Italy was not the size of three neighbouring countries, Italy was infact smaller than gaul by itself. The three Empire factions dont combine into the country "empire" this would make no sense. The three empire factions combined are the equivalent of the Roman empire, which covered most of Europe, the northern parts of Africa, all around the meditteranean sea, asia minor and more. taking away one of the empire factions isnt cutting off part of italy, its cutting off say asia minor, or africa. but this is irrelevant really as im not suggesting to remove one of the empire factions as this is probably too much of a change. instead the troop trees should vary anywhere from either very slightly to alot.
adding small variations is alot more realistic than having three different empire factions whose regions and borders vary dramatically and who are ruled by very different types of leaders, having the exact same troops trees with no variation in style, equipment, training etc. making them have very slightly different troops/troop also makes the empires have more originality and not feel so samey as you conquer or fight with or recruit the very same troops in what is essentially a massive blob of empire right in the centre of the map.
I am certain that most of the people who voted "no the empire is fine as it is" would much prefer them to actually have 1 different kind of troop each. it adds more flavour to the game and makes more sense than having them all identical. From the poll i can see that more people do want some kind of change whether it is small of big (mostly people would want very minor changes) rather than keeping the empire exactly as it is now.
EDIT: i know the % says 50% or so votes to keep it as it is but alot of these same people also voted for the second option, meaning that actually they dont want to keep it as it is but rather want small changes such as an extra troop type + all the people who want to get rid of one of the empire factions want this because they want more variation, so if those options werent there they would also vote for variation in the different empire factions. more people want change than not
Last edited:
I meant factions within Italy
Yeah, no. You completely made this up. They choose that option because they want the Empire as it is.
I'm done with this debate, and I have made my opinion clear.But wouldn't mind seeing someone mess around with this idea as a mod.
Last edited:
I suspect people in this thread are getting too bogged down on historical realism and forgetting that this is early access and that some features in the game are not present.
I would say the focus on Clan and heirs suggests the developers are looking the make a multi-generational game but with the features currently in the game that is not possible. The game play loop only goes up for the player
adventurer > mercenary > vassal > king ( but not fleshed out yet )
In order for this to work across generations clans and kingdoms must be able to rise and fall dynamically from external threats and internal dissension. The empire in the game as it is I think represents a kingdom whose internal politics have caused it to split. However the mechanics to this are not currently in the game ( thus why the main quest abruptly stops ) so it looks like three separate kingdoms.
This could also explain some of the issues with snowballing of factions and selfish kings not getting their comeuppance.
So giving the three empire factions a different culture ( as that is what new troop trees would entail ) I think misses the point of what they represent in the campaign, and what quests involving them would teach the players.
Of course this is pretty much all speculation on my part so could be wrong lol
I would say the focus on Clan and heirs suggests the developers are looking the make a multi-generational game but with the features currently in the game that is not possible. The game play loop only goes up for the player
adventurer > mercenary > vassal > king ( but not fleshed out yet )
In order for this to work across generations clans and kingdoms must be able to rise and fall dynamically from external threats and internal dissension. The empire in the game as it is I think represents a kingdom whose internal politics have caused it to split. However the mechanics to this are not currently in the game ( thus why the main quest abruptly stops ) so it looks like three separate kingdoms.
This could also explain some of the issues with snowballing of factions and selfish kings not getting their comeuppance.
So giving the three empire factions a different culture ( as that is what new troop trees would entail ) I think misses the point of what they represent in the campaign, and what quests involving them would teach the players.
Of course this is pretty much all speculation on my part so could be wrong lol
Wizefool
Recruit
I find it quite strange that if I go across the north of the map I go from Normans to Celts to Russians to Steppe Tribes, but across the middle and I just get 3 types of imperial.
personally I don’t like shooting down cataphracts in the Celtic highland, it feels thematically wrong - the unit stats are fine, I’d just prefer a slightly different look for each.
South - Byzantine
West - Western Roman Empire
North - West + animal skin cloaks.
Considering the 600-1000AD time period of bannerlord, this would map to history a bit better too. A quick google search will show you the difference in style between the west and East empires.
personally I don’t like shooting down cataphracts in the Celtic highland, it feels thematically wrong - the unit stats are fine, I’d just prefer a slightly different look for each.
South - Byzantine
West - Western Roman Empire
North - West + animal skin cloaks.
Considering the 600-1000AD time period of bannerlord, this would map to history a bit better too. A quick google search will show you the difference in style between the west and East empires.
Don't even get me started on what needs to be done about the supposed "celtic" faction.
But yes, seeing those roman skirts in the snow is pretty silly.
then why did alot of them also vote for another option? why in the comments do people say the want these changes but they have voted the first option. i made nothing up, im using my poll ersults combined with comments and logic.
as i have said the empire is not factions within italy. the three house style of total war works within italy as each of those factions arent the size of a whole other faction. as i said gaul is larger than italy. having a empire split into three factions where each of the factions is the same size as any other kingdom makes for a huge blob of the same thing and doesnt make sense when they are identical despite spanning such a large area.
^^ this
But IMO the differences between "West and East" are not so dramatic. When historians begin referring to the Eastern Roman Empire as Byzantines the Western Roman Empire has not been existing as a political entity for several centuries.
Differences between East and West were never too compelling, heck, they even had Emperors coming from different regions of the Empire. The underlying culture and political norms were very much uniform.
Take the third century crisis as an example (that was before the official division into East and West):
Three self-fashioned emperors/rulers vied for control or secession from the Empire.
- Tetricus, a Roman who hailed from Gaul commanded the heavily romanized gaulish provinces and legions along the Rhine
- Aurelian, a military commander from Illyria, modern Croatia, who made his career in the notorious illyrian military cabal
- Zenobia, self-proclaimed Queen of Palmyra, the only "non"-Roman but rather Syrian ruler, however politically entirely romanized who took over rulership of the eastern provinces after the demise of her governing husband. Keep in mind that they held roman official titles. Furthermore she was backed by the legions of the east, roman legions.
The point is, although those rulers might have had different access to auxiliary troops or mercenaries beyond the frontier, they all heavily relied on the typical roman legionary (this is also the time when roman cavalry started to play a bigger role). But they all identified themselves as roman.
In Calradia the situation is not so different. Three prominent figures of the empire are competing for control. The people under their rule are calradian. One could argue to give each of the faction access to special tier troops, e.g. some horse archers for the South, Varangian (Sturgian) guard for the North and Vlandian knights for the West (Latinikoi as the historical reference). But beyond that, the imperial factions simply have easier access to the recruits of the other populations across the continent.
Differences between East and West were never too compelling, heck, they even had Emperors coming from different regions of the Empire. The underlying culture and political norms were very much uniform.
Take the third century crisis as an example (that was before the official division into East and West):
Three self-fashioned emperors/rulers vied for control or secession from the Empire.
- Tetricus, a Roman who hailed from Gaul commanded the heavily romanized gaulish provinces and legions along the Rhine
- Aurelian, a military commander from Illyria, modern Croatia, who made his career in the notorious illyrian military cabal
- Zenobia, self-proclaimed Queen of Palmyra, the only "non"-Roman but rather Syrian ruler, however politically entirely romanized who took over rulership of the eastern provinces after the demise of her governing husband. Keep in mind that they held roman official titles. Furthermore she was backed by the legions of the east, roman legions.
The point is, although those rulers might have had different access to auxiliary troops or mercenaries beyond the frontier, they all heavily relied on the typical roman legionary (this is also the time when roman cavalry started to play a bigger role). But they all identified themselves as roman.
In Calradia the situation is not so different. Three prominent figures of the empire are competing for control. The people under their rule are calradian. One could argue to give each of the faction access to special tier troops, e.g. some horse archers for the South, Varangian (Sturgian) guard for the North and Vlandian knights for the West (Latinikoi as the historical reference). But beyond that, the imperial factions simply have easier access to the recruits of the other populations across the continent.
And what difference is that?
West and East were not so different from one another, a lot of the military units existed both in the east and in the west.
Furthermore they shared the same political and military structure and people identified as roman and could even migrate between the realms.
The major differences could be felt along the frontiers, where Western legions had to face Franks, Saxons and Picts, while the East was dealing majorily with Goths, Arabs and Persians.
If you are referring to the difference between Byzantine and Western Empire, that is a fruitless comparison.
What historians refer to as byzantine is a historical evolution of the roman empire, after the Western provinces were lost. No one can say if the West would not have developed in the same way. Or if the East would have even turned "byzantine" if the West could have been held.
Maximum997
Squire
In the game time period around 10 century(becouse we have crossbownem, russians( nothern Novgorod russians) and mongolians (but mongolians apeared in Europe in 13 century so it might be Avar Khaganate, but it was in 7-9 century) there wasnt western roman empire. In died 5 centuries ago in 455 AD
Actualy it Was Byzantine and Frankish Empire.Then frankish Empire was splited to 3 sons of Charles the Great.
So Empire may be actualy the Frankish Empire after death of Charles the Great.(814 AD)
Then after some time it involved in two countries - France and Holy Roman Empire. And in the modern Spain we had caliphate of cordoba(Azerai?).
So imho:
1) If we still have the same troops - it is the Frankish empire after death of Charles the Great. (9 century)
2) if we have different troops - Holy Roman Empire, Byzantine and France. And Khazar Khaganat on the east (10+ century)
3) Even earlier in 7 century we might have Visigothic Kingdom(west) Frankish Kingdom(middle) Lombard kingdom(south) Avar Khaganate on the east and some svalic\baltic\saxons\norsemen on the north.
Learn the frkn history guys.
Last edited:
It's a fantasy game.
Maximum997
Squire
So lets add a Spider man as a lord. It is fantasy game, right?
In discussion people always go to some historic parallels. And i just say that it can be 3 of them. And all 3 of them doesnt include western roman empire.
The point is, it isn't following Earth's history. This is not the Roman Empire, and also, your facts here are not related at all. This is one Empire which just broke into three due to an issue over who should be emperor. It is not the same as the Frankish Empire (which was after the fall of Rome), the Byzantine Empire (also after the fall of Rome), or the Holy Roman Empire (once again after the fall of Rome). You are bringing up three different nations that are entirely different in every way which all formed AFTER Rome Fell and was no longer a country/nation. Also each dominated by different ethnic groups which were not Romans. Only the Byzantine Empire could be said to still be sort of "Roman" but it was really mostly "Greek" influenced. Either way, not relevant to this at all.
Maximum997
Squire
Really? No way!
But it certanly enspired by Earth history. And by the way - in Western and eastern roman empires there was completely different nations. Or do you think that only Romans lived in Palestina for example?
And main reason - it is boring as hell to see 3 same factions in the game. Half of the player base thinks that it is boring and should be fixed.
No, the Western and Eastern Roman empires WERE NOT different nations in the sense you are talking about. Different people may have lived there, but they were still culturally ruled by Rome and Roman influence, including Roman Legions/governors etc. Even the Emperor was Roman in both sides of the Empire. In this game, it isn't the same type of situation either and just because you split an empire does not mean they all of a sudden instantly and magically become so different. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
Also, you clearly can't read polls because the vast majority want no change to just a little change according to the very poll in this thread. Adding a different troop tree or a slight change to troop trees is not "Half of the player base thinks that it is boring". Way to read your own bias into a poll which doesn't even prove your bias.
Maximum997
Squire
47% is a vast majority right now, okay lol. I guess 53% who want some changes is a minority. Becouse some new different troops - is a frkn change. t1-t3 troops for every faction is almost the same right now.
Wizefool
Recruit
Getting brexit flashbacks
Wow, you really are dense and clearly do not know how math works. Let us look at this.
Does the Empire need a rework/rethink?
- No. the Empire is fine as it is.
Votes: 133 46.8% - Adding different troop trees to the Empire is enough.
Votes: 139 48.9% - An Ancient Greek style/inspired faction would be perfect!
Votes: 40 14.1% - Get rid of one of the Empire factions in favour for something else
Votes: 32 11.3% - Get rid of two of the empire factions in favour for something else
Votes: 9 3.2% - Get rid of Empire completely?.... lol?
Votes: 5
There are 284 total voters. There are multiple options and also in this poll, you could select more than one option.
Let us look at the people who selected the negative options as you say.
40 votes for an ancient greek style faction.
32 votes for getting rid of one of the empire factions.
9 votes for getting rid of two empire factions.
5 votes for get rid of empire completely.
133 votes for No change. 139 votes for adding a different troop tree.
Can you not see such obvious numbers? Are you really that dumb? Where do you see anything that proves your point? If I were to add up the amount of people who voted for No change or just a troop tree change, that would equal 272 votes. If I were to add up all the votes for major changes, that would equal 86 votes. Of course, we know people could choose multiple votes so someone might have easily chosen no change, or just a troop tree change. Someone might have also chosen get rid of one empire faction or two.
Either way, even if I added up all the negatives as a separate vote (which it isn't because we don't know how many people double voted, triple voted, etc.), it would equal less than 30% of total votes. It is sad I had to explain such a simple thing to you. I bet you are having a nice laugh in your ignorance though, how stupid.
I find it laughable that you just looked at the 46.8% above and thought it proved your point. Really, I am shaking my head at such an idiotic jerk knee reaction.
Maximum997
Squire
Adding new troop three certanly is not a change at all....
Are you really that dumb?
