[POLL] Would you like alliances in Bannerlord? Currently they are not planned.

[AJAJP_Juan]

I dont know about this. When I played mods in Warband that had alliances as an option, the world eventually locked in a perpetual peace because there was no benefits to going to war.

 

[Ulfhedinn_]

Can I bring an idea? It may be the solution... @mexxico @Dejan @Duh_TaleWorlds @armagan and everyone.

• Alliances could have a "cohesion" mechanic that decreases over time and is only increased when allied troops fight together:
  - When cohesion reaches a critical level, alliances could act as neutrals and AI no longer help each other.
  - With this, only the player will have the opportunity to prevent the alliance from ending prematurely, when fighting together with the allied troops, again increasing cohesion to an active level where the AI will help each other.
  - If the player doesn't want to prolong the alliance or doesn't reach the necessary cohesion, when the cohesion reaches zero the alliance will end prematurely and can negatively impact the faction relationship..
  
  
• But what if cohesion is always high? Calm down:
  - Every military alliance agreement will have a period of validity.
  - When this period ends, the cohesion level of the terminated alliances will decide whether the alliance will be renewed or not.
  - Good cohesion guarantees an alliance, medium cohesion guarantees a non-aggression pact, and critical cohesion fails in any agreement.
  - AI may not always want to renew the alliance, it will depend on its level of expansionism and power.

@Fate @Terco_Viejo @Ling* @Maelstrom8 @Gamersaufromage @Apocal @stevepine and @vonbalt what do you think?

 

[Apocal]

Can I bring an idea? It may be the solution... @mexxico @Dejan @Duh_TaleWorlds @armagan and everyone.

• Alliances could have a "cohesion" mechanic that decreases over time and is only increased when allied troops fight together:
  - When cohesion reaches a critical level, alliances could act as neutrals and AI no longer help each other.
  - With this, only the player will have the opportunity to prevent the alliance from ending prematurely, when fighting together with the allied troops, again increasing cohesion to an active level where the AI will help each other.
  - If the player doesn't want to prolong the alliance or doesn't reach the necessary cohesion, when the cohesion reaches zero the alliance will end prematurely and can negatively impact the faction relationship..
  
  
• But what if cohesion is always high? Calm down:
  - Every military alliance agreement will have a period of validity.
  - When this period ends, the cohesion level of the terminated alliances will decide whether the alliance will be renewed or not.
  - Good cohesion guarantees an alliance, medium cohesion guarantees a non-aggression pact, and critical cohesion fails in any agreement.
  - AI may not always want to renew the alliance, it will depend on its level of expansionism and power.

@Fate @Terco_Viejo @Ling* @Maelstrom8 @Gamersaufromage @Apocal and @vonbalt what do you think?

Fighting together to maintain cohesion means that the sort of aggressive, snowballing coalition that is bad for balance will be the main one benefiting from alliances. I was under the impression it was more to keep smaller factions in the game by way of banding together against an aggressor -- not necessarily fighting together, but declaring war and keeping the larger factions spread out.

 

[Gamersaufromage]

Can I bring an idea? It may be the solution... @mexxico @Dejan @Duh_TaleWorlds @armagan and everyone.

• Alliances could have a "cohesion" mechanic that decreases over time and is only increased when allied troops fight together:
  - When cohesion reaches a critical level, alliances could act as neutrals and AI no longer help each other.
  - With this, only the player will have the opportunity to prevent the alliance from ending prematurely, when fighting together with the allied troops, again increasing cohesion to an active level where the AI will help each other.
  - If the player doesn't want to prolong the alliance or doesn't reach the necessary cohesion, when the cohesion reaches zero the alliance will end prematurely and can negatively impact the faction relationship..

The "cohesion" Idea is good but maybe the "opposite" way would be better. It could be a gauge / pool.
Every time you battle with your allied you "consume" this cohesion pool. This way you could balance it in time and amount. Maybe a stronger Alliance can have a less bigger "starting pool" of cohesion.
This way you could also balance it by adding malus if you do too much alliances one after the other or alliance with your previous enemy.
I think the player shouldn't be allowed to "fill" this pool so it prevents to make it too durable.

For example :

You start with a pool of 100 cohesion points.

Attacking consumes 10 points​

Defending consumes 8 points​

Siege attack consumes 30 points​

Siege defending consumes 25​

​

If you stack too much power in your alliance you could have a big malus
Making an alliance with previous enemy could give also big malus.

You could also affect this pool with a different sort of alliance maybe a defending alliance could have a bigger pool.

etc.

I don't really know how but i'm sure it could be good.

 

[Dreed89]

Alliances is not a must for me. Of course it would add to the game but for the sake of prioritization, it could wait until more important things are added.

Alliances as a feature is kind of like ships. The base of the game is so empty that I cannot care for them at the moment.

 

[Ulfhedinn_]

Fighting together to maintain cohesion means that the sort of aggressive, snowballing coalition that is bad for balance will be the main one benefiting from alliances. I was under the impression it was more to keep smaller factions in the game by way of banding together against an aggressor -- not necessarily fighting together, but declaring war and keeping the larger factions spread out.

So the degree of expansionism and power must be taken into account as well. Powerful factions won't be too inclined to band together, considering that they both want control of Calradia.

The "cohesion" Idea is good but maybe the "opposite" way would be better. It could be a gauge / pool.
Every time you battle with your allied you "consume" this cohesion pool. This way you could balance it in time and amount. Maybe a stronger Alliance can have a less bigger "starting pool" of cohesion.
This way you could also balance it by adding malus if you do too much alliances one after the other or alliance with your previous enemy.
I think the player shouldn't be allowed to "fill" this pool so it prevents to make it too durable.

For example :

You start with a pool of 100 cohesion points.

Attacking consumes 10 points​

Defending consumes 8 points​

Siege attack consumes 30 points​

Siege defending consumes 25​

​

If you stack too much power in your alliance you could have a big malus
Making an alliance with previous enemy could give also big malus.

You could also affect this pool with a different sort of alliance maybe a defending alliance could have a bigger pool.

etc.

I don't really know how but i'm sure it could be good.

Good idea too. I liked.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

OK, I've found the thread. Interesting ideas were put forward there as well.

Definitely a fatigue variable I think would be an interesting solution as @Blood Gryphon commented (here and here). Call it fatigue... attrition... cohesion etc...That said, I honestly say, Diplomacy should be the starting point from which to build.

I also summon @Bannerman Man , to comment on this if he feels to participate in this updated debate .

 

[Blood Gryphon]

OK, I've found the thread. Interesting ideas were put forward there as well.

Definitely a fatigue variable I think would be an interesting solution as @Blood Gryphon commented (here and here). Call it fatigue... attrition... cohesion etc...That said, I honestly say, Diplomacy should be the starting point from which to build.

I also summon @Bannerman Man , to comment on this if he feels to participate in this updated debate .

What @Terco_Viejo said. I'm glad your memory is better than mine.

 

[Terco_Viejo]

What @Terco_Viejo said. I'm glad your memory is better than mine.

I don't think I'll last another year of EA ... I'm starting to get old .

 

[vonbalt]

The "cohesion" Idea is good but maybe the "opposite" way would be better. It could be a gauge / pool.
Every time you battle with your allied you "consume" this cohesion pool. This way you could balance it in time and amount. Maybe a stronger Alliance can have a less bigger "starting pool" of cohesion.
This way you could also balance it by adding malus if you do too much alliances one after the other or alliance with your previous enemy.
I think the player shouldn't be allowed to "fill" this pool so it prevents to make it too durable.

For example :

You start with a pool of 100 cohesion points.

Attacking consumes 10 points​

Defending consumes 8 points​

Siege attack consumes 30 points​

Siege defending consumes 25​

​

If you stack too much power in your alliance you could have a big malus
Making an alliance with previous enemy could give also big malus.

You could also affect this pool with a different sort of alliance maybe a defending alliance could have a bigger pool.

etc.

I don't really know how but i'm sure it could be good.

that's quite an awesome idea for real, really liked the cohesion (or whatever it's called) droping the more help you get out of an alliance

 

[Bjorn The Dead]

I don't know how sanbox would be affected by alliences but from immersion pov, this is a strongly needed feature for me. I am playing on 1.5.10 with Diplomacy mod but just 4 years passed so it is still in early game to show results. Faction strength in my gameplay through right now are avareging from 3900 to 6000.

 

[Grank]

You start with a pool of 100 cohesion points.
Attacking consumes 10 pointsDefending consumes 8 pointsSiege attack consumes 30 pointsSiege defending consumes 25

You can add flavor event text to make them more immersive. Like the classic border incidents events. If an alliance can form one multi-faction army, we can add more interesting mini events like "some soldiers fought in a drunken brawl" and the like. Heroes can even have charisma perks to minimize this decay.

 

[Danny5]

Perhaps in terms of not enough factions, maybe the minor factions can play a role in this alliancing?

 

[Limbojack]

Are you ****ing kidding me? They aren't planning on implementing alliances?

Isn't this pathetic excuse for a game supposed to somewhat represent a medieval experience? Have they lost their marbles? Who in their right minds would even think of doing so without alliances? I guess it's time for some of the decision-makers to retire because this is simply absurd. There must be something terribly wrong with the drinking water in Turkey.

 

[Gamersaufromage]

You can add flavor event text to make them more immersive. Like the classic border incidents events. If an alliance can form one multi-faction army, we can add more interesting mini events like "some soldiers fought in a drunken brawl" and the like. Heroes can even have charisma perks to minimize this decay.

Yes of course, it should have a nice "packaging / wraping" and I should add that the diplomacy mod as said by @Terco_Viejo is a great starting point.

Are you ****ing kidding me? They aren't planning on implementing alliances?

Isn't this pathetic excuse for a game supposed to somewhat represent a medieval experience? Have they lost their marbles? Who in their right minds would even think of doing so without alliances? I guess it's time for some of the decision-makers to retire because this is simply absurd. There must be something terribly wrong with the drinking water in Turkey.

I'm not sure this is the proper way to express your dissatisfaction. I don't recall having real diplomacy in Warband so this game can work without it. Maybe that's why they didn't intend ot have it in BL. But, as lot of people here, we think that this feature is a must and would fit perfectly and makes lot of sense in the game.

I hope it will makes his way into vanilla

 

[Ulfhedinn_]

Perhaps in terms of not enough factions, maybe the minor factions can play a role in this alliancing?

This would be nice.

 

[AndrewArt]

I think alliances with such few factions doesn't make much sense (to me at least)... The only way I find it would make sense would be if small factions would form alliances simply to defeat a big faction that is snowballing out of control (otherwise the small factions will just get stomped if big factions were allowed to form an alliance in the same manner), but even then the small factions losing territory will be even more irrelevant that it is now (people are already complaining that AI keeps coming back with full armies when defeated and when losing territory.. now imagine 2 small factions that become one big faction through alliance just to preserve themselves, prolonging their life and the game for no good reason, isn't that annoying?). Also, snowballing issue is so fixed currently that they would only team up against the faction that the PLAYER is part of.

And then you get into lore issues... would the 3 empire factions be able to form alliance with one another, when they want to rule the empire themselves? How would it work in a way that a) it doesn't just prolong the game unnecessarily, and b) doesn't create unnecessary snowball. What purpose does an alliance serve in the current vanilla bannerlord?

The only outcome I can imagine is factions ganging up against the player that has now conquered half the map. So is it worth it to prolong the game in such a case? You probably already spent over 10 years in the game and want to be done with it by the time you get to that point.

Also let's not forget how people complained that their faction was at war with 2 or more factions before... The same thing would happen now only though the premise would be "the factions are in an alliance". All in all it serves no useful purpose from what I can see... The way alliances would be implemented would be either 1) unbalanced, creating snowball or 2) So balanced that nothing really changes, but the number of factions warring against one another turn from 8 small factions to 2 or 4 bigger factions. At most I imagine it is a tool to give some variety and spice to the gameplay (oh look, the kuzait is in alliance with aserai, very cool), but if you tear down this pretty mask the gameplay is either the same, or maybe more annoying to deal with as a player. Maybe the game needs something else added on the side to make this work.

Maybe I'm wrong and it can be implemented in a positive way, but I'm really not seeing it at the moment. Only if there was a possibility for new factions to be created (by the rebels for example, instead of them just joining an existing faction, but even then...).

So with only 8 factions I don't currently see the point of alliances, but that's just the limit of my vision right now. Maybe some of you have a different vision that makes more sense than what I just described, but that is just how I imagine alliances would happen in the current game, without at least some other additions/modifications to the current experience.

 

[Gamersaufromage]

And then you get into lore issues... would the 3 empire factions be able to form alliance with one another, when they want to rule the empire themselves? How would it work in a way that a) it doesn't just prolong the game unnecessarily, and b) doesn't create unnecessary snowball. What purpose does an alliance serve in the current vanilla bannerlord?

No lore issue in sandbox. Sandbox is sandbox, your own alternative story I agree that this feature makes less sense in story mode.

Also, snowballing issue is so fixed currently that they would only team up against the faction that the PLAYER is part of.

You can find many ways to nerf or just block alliances. For example : If the total of power of 2 factions exceed XXXX points, you can't make an alliance.
I think there is loooots of ways to adjust it.

The only purpose I can see it serving is to gang up against the player that has now conquered half the map. So is it worth it to prolong the game in such a case? You probably already spent over 10 years in the game and want to be done with it by the time you get to that point.

You have to test diplomacy mode to understand all the benefits. It works flawlessly An alliance can suddenly reshuffle the card of the game ! So spicy !

 

[Apocal]

Who in their right minds would even think of doing so without alliances?

The same people who shipped Warband without alliances.

 

[kreamy]

theres literally no diplomacy if you cant make alliances, trade agreements, etc.

war/peace is just.... soooooooooooo basic