I have the same feeling. The game is full of "non-choices" becouse the consequences of the actions are far too high for the benefits. Why waste so much energy into coding so much stuff you actually discourage to use? clear examples are all the criminal interactions and agressive village interactions
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Raiding is not viable due to massive relations penalty
- 主题发起人 durbal
- 开始时间
正在查看此主题的用户
I have the same feeling. The game is full of "non-choices" becouse the consequences of the actions are far too high for the benefits. Why waste so much energy into coding so much stuff you actually discourage to use? clear examples are all the criminal interactions and agressive village interactions
So let's review what you are doing when you raid a village. Raiding means you take everything you need from that village and even everything you don't need. You murder the militia (militia meaning the townspeople who were given equipment to defend themselves against bandits,wolves, etc) with most of those having families in the village.Doing something like this destroys the lives of the people living there and even may cause deaths due to starvation, bandits, animals, etc. It's also a direct insult to the liege lords who are a part of that kingdom because they are directly responsible for the lives of the peasants living below them. If you slaughter them like cattle, then they've failed to do that. Furthermore, peasants are for the most part non-combatants, which means you are butchering helpless men, women and children for the sake of your own greed.
So no, I absolutely do not believe that the reputation hits you get as well as the ability to not be able to hire troops from them EVER again is overly heavy. Is it a way to stop lords from getting troops? Oh yes, absolutely. However, you are murdering innocent people for the sake of filling your pockets with trinkets and loot. No, you're in the wrong, stop trying to dodge the bullet.
TheWitchIzalith
Regular
As others have mentioned, just raid far off Villages you don't care about. I've done both an Empire/Sturgia Campaign and never raided any settlements linked to those two, because that's where I needed troops.
If you raid a Grain village, yeah, you'll get grain. I often Raid the Silver mine villages, and get 10+ Silver ore, that usually sells easily for 200+ Denar somewhere else. 2,000 Denars is a fair amount for 5 minutes of work.
Not to mention one of the reasons you raid isn't just money. It's so enemy lords can't recruit troops from there for a time being. If 4-5 Villages are Burnt down, and the Enemy lords Lose a Battle, they will be harder pressed to A: Recruit or B: Will weaken their Garrisons of nearby Towns/Castles to recruit in desperation.
It also affects the Prosperity of linked Towns/Castles thereby diminishing its effective Garrison over time.
Raiding is literally pillaging and in some cultures, having your way with the women. Of course the Lords and people affected will hate your guts. But again if I am playing a Sturgian campaign, why would I care what a Vlandian or Battanian noble thinks? And if they ever join my faction, well we have a less than friendly rivalry. Which livens up politics.
If you raid a Grain village, yeah, you'll get grain. I often Raid the Silver mine villages, and get 10+ Silver ore, that usually sells easily for 200+ Denar somewhere else. 2,000 Denars is a fair amount for 5 minutes of work.
Not to mention one of the reasons you raid isn't just money. It's so enemy lords can't recruit troops from there for a time being. If 4-5 Villages are Burnt down, and the Enemy lords Lose a Battle, they will be harder pressed to A: Recruit or B: Will weaken their Garrisons of nearby Towns/Castles to recruit in desperation.
It also affects the Prosperity of linked Towns/Castles thereby diminishing its effective Garrison over time.
Raiding is literally pillaging and in some cultures, having your way with the women. Of course the Lords and people affected will hate your guts. But again if I am playing a Sturgian campaign, why would I care what a Vlandian or Battanian noble thinks? And if they ever join my faction, well we have a less than friendly rivalry. Which livens up politics.
Being practically locked out of a notable when relationship gets to -10 (which can happen with 2 Family Feud quest completions against that NPC - even when you make a successful persuasion) is a problem in general.
I never raid because of the relationship cost, didn't in Warband either. In principle that's OK, but the details like the fact you break off a raid and return giving a bigger hit than staying and sustaining a single raid could use some attention. As has been mentioned it is currently a non-choice, you either do it because you will NEVER care about your relationship with that village, you don't do it because there is a chance at some point you might care. A little more thought should probably go into the decision to raid or not.
I never raid because of the relationship cost, didn't in Warband either. In principle that's OK, but the details like the fact you break off a raid and return giving a bigger hit than staying and sustaining a single raid could use some attention. As has been mentioned it is currently a non-choice, you either do it because you will NEVER care about your relationship with that village, you don't do it because there is a chance at some point you might care. A little more thought should probably go into the decision to raid or not.
TheWitchIzalith
Regular
I mean, if you showed up to rob my house, and ran away cause the police showed up, then came back the next night. I'd have a mighty big reputation penalty for you. It's no different really. Actions speak louder than words and all that. The intent was to raid, you got driven off.
There is more to it than just village reputation. Theres also lordly reputation. Safety of your villages etc. A lord you make enemies with will be more likely to raid your stuff. Vote against you politically, and perhaps Execute you (when it's a working feature) as Devs have stated you will be treated how your reputation preceeds.
It makes it so honorable lords in your faction may not like you, but the brigands will. So when you succeed the crown and start your own kingdom you may find you can only recruit untrusty worthy cruel lords who will no doubt cause you many headaches and wars.
Also will affect marriage, as certain spouses have specific requirements to wed them.
The strategic level of weakening a faction so you can win X war and so forth.
A lot of stuff isn't fully implemented or working, but it has been spoken about by devs and make appearances in game. It's more than just "Do I want this village to hate me" as you have a reputation that is intended to carry "real world" consequences. Not just recruitment options.
The difference in your analogy from the point I was trying to make with the leave and come back issue is that the raping and pillaging is an ongoing event that takes time, is it worse if you do it all at once or if you do half of it and come back to finish the job the next day?
Slotting that back into the analogy, if someone robbed my house and took all my stuff, it wouldn't make much difference to how much I hated them whether they did it in one night or spread across two. Or, if they only took half my stuff and never came back, I would probably hate them less than if they took all my stuff. Making hate directly proportional to economic loss is a simplification, but it is a better representation of how many people were personally abused and exploited (and thus how strongly the populous will hate you) than how many times you had to click the pillage button before finishing the job.
I can't believe I'm trying to make this argument lol...
It's just that gameplay choices are important, and choices that require no thought are pointless - they aren't really choices at all. So a gameplay system should be engineered to encourage thought about the choices you make.
Maximum997
Squire
+++
Raiding is completly useless.
1) Spend time
2) Destroy relashionship
3) take some crap for this
Only reason to do it is to delete garrisons.
Raiding is completly useless.
1) Spend time
2) Destroy relashionship
3) take some crap for this
Only reason to do it is to delete garrisons.
durbal
Sergeant
You know that all that and more happens during war right? That armies from the period the game is based on basically just went to towns and took whatever they wanted, even if they weren't enemy territory? You know that right?
Making up some kind of sensationalist argument as for why the game lacks appropriate measure of recompense is weird. It's a game. It has ways to gain positive relations. It does not have ways to gain positive relations once they dip below an arbitrary level. As long as I keep relations above -10 I can reliably raid all I want since I still have reliable avenues to boost relations. If I start a raid and take 1 grain it counts the same as burning the village down. I can reliably raid as long as I control the fief afterward, but I can't reliably raid if it's given to my ally. These are the problems with the mechanic.
最后编辑:
Drelyax
Recruit
What about making the roguery skill actually usefull?
Like, with a high skill, you can raid a village with a high chance of not suffering a reputation loss ( nobody knew who the raiders were, or who they were working for, or they got mistaken some random looters ), while less subtle heroes would be recognized, remembered, and hated the usual way.
Isn't that what roguery is all about?
Like, with a high skill, you can raid a village with a high chance of not suffering a reputation loss ( nobody knew who the raiders were, or who they were working for, or they got mistaken some random looters ), while less subtle heroes would be recognized, remembered, and hated the usual way.
Isn't that what roguery is all about?
Even though it doesn't solve the core problem, that's a good suggestion.
So you live in this village, and a group of nasty soldiers come in and start plundering all your food and valuables, kill the men and children, take the women, burn houses... and then shortly after, they cuss and leave as suddenly as they came.
You start burying the dead, angry men shout, widows that lost husbands mourn, r**ed women are crying... and then, just as you put the fires out, there they come again. The same soldiers, hit your village twice, and this time destroy everything. Survivors scatter to the woods. After a few days, they are gone.
...
You can bet your arse you're never recruiting from this village ever again.
You start burying the dead, angry men shout, widows that lost husbands mourn, r**ed women are crying... and then, just as you put the fires out, there they come again. The same soldiers, hit your village twice, and this time destroy everything. Survivors scatter to the woods. After a few days, they are gone.
...
You can bet your arse you're never recruiting from this village ever again.
Maximum997
Squire
Like someone asked them in that time period...
Razdv
Veteran
You can make a profit from raiding actually. For raiding rich and resourceful mines, stables etc. But relation strike and feeling bad for butchering innocent people (my issue lol) prevents from doing this.
We need a ways to improve relations. Influence dumping, gifts, trading, donating men to protect etc
We need a ways to improve relations. Influence dumping, gifts, trading, donating men to protect etc
Until a worse monster threatens the village in a year later and you are now sworn to protect them.
It's the middle ages yo. Atrocities by today's standards were a part of every day life, and hated lords still got their recruits when the alternative was even worse.
durbal
Sergeant
Actually, devastation from war tended to increase the number of available mercenaries but whatever.
Also, pretty much all wars involved towns and countryside being destroyed. And again, these silly sensationalist arguments as attempts to rationalize the simple fact that there is no reliable way to improve relations with village notables once they drop below -10 don't even make sense within the game mechanics -- if I delivered some herds of cattle for them before I raided I'd be able to recruit still. It's unjustifiably broken.
How many Swiss mercenaries do you think served for the Habsburgs? People usually don't serve under the guy that destroyed your village.
So, yeah, "whatever."
I think your sense of balance is unjustifiably broken, instead.
Ever since MB1/WB, we've all known opportunities to increase relations were rare, so if someone really wanted support and be able to recruit higher-tier troops, they would at least have the sense to NOT RAID THE VILLAGES that you think might potentially become a part of your fief. Back in MB1/WB I'd just usually go raiding off in some far corners of the map which I wouldn't visit often anyways -- if I decided to raid anything in the first place. Because gaining the trust of the villages was so hard, you don't flaunt it, or commit yourself to villainy. Or, you can just roleplay an oppressive ruler or a bandit criminal that doesn't give a f***.
So, is it normal to think that villages should be just happily resupplying you with troops when you've destroyed them before, after doing a few quests just to turn a negative number into positive? I really don't think so. I think, if you've destroyed someone's village, and you want to make amends, you'd probably have to spend decades making it up to them so they finally forgive you and turn cooperative.
The current state of the game in regards to how raiding is handled, is closer to the latter, as it should be.
(ps) I mean, game-wise, the current state clearly offers you a choice on your moral actions. Whether to take in easier profit and means to weaken the enemy or not.
What you think "normal", is clearly just treating a village as a "village-themed recruitment office" where you can just f*** with them for quick cash, and then do about one or two quests and then get soldiers, too. Both from the standpoint of a good game, as well as thematic/immersion, your view, sucks. It's just treating every element in a game in matters of convenience.
"If you f*** with the villagers' lives, they may not forgive you even after decades have passed." -- COMPLETELY makes sense to me.
If you want to make amends, you could always linger around the village and do tons and tons of quests every time they pop up, clear every bandit hideout that spawns, for years and years... and ,maybe one day, one or two of the notables in the village might change their minds... This makes COMPLETE SENSE to me as well.
In contrast...
You f*** with a village and destroy it, and after it respawns, do 3~4 quests that pop up every time you clear one quest... spend about a week doing 6~7 quests in a row and bam! Negative is all positive now. Recruit soldiers. Raid them again. Do quests again...
Does this make sense to anyone? Not to me, it don't.
What you think "normal", is clearly just treating a village as a "village-themed recruitment office" where you can just f*** with them for quick cash, and then do about one or two quests and then get soldiers, too. Both from the standpoint of a good game, as well as thematic/immersion, your view, sucks. It's just treating every element in a game in matters of convenience.
"If you f*** with the villagers' lives, they may not forgive you even after decades have passed." -- COMPLETELY makes sense to me.
If you want to make amends, you could always linger around the village and do tons and tons of quests every time they pop up, clear every bandit hideout that spawns, for years and years... and ,maybe one day, one or two of the notables in the village might change their minds... This makes COMPLETE SENSE to me as well.
In contrast...
You f*** with a village and destroy it, and after it respawns, do 3~4 quests that pop up every time you clear one quest... spend about a week doing 6~7 quests in a row and bam! Negative is all positive now. Recruit soldiers. Raid them again. Do quests again...
Does this make sense to anyone? Not to me, it don't.
最后编辑:
It is only logical that when you raid a village it hates you.
I live in a village and stories dating back to the middle ages still persist today. The collective memory back then was a strong factor.
So I think the way it is implemented in the game is fine.
And if they refuse to give recruits to you, isn't there an option to force them? Same goes for supplies if I remember correctly.
I never tried it, but I guess it would further decrease relation or decrease morale.
If you wanna be loved by everyone, do not raid and do not execute. The rules are quite simple and not too different from real life.
I live in a village and stories dating back to the middle ages still persist today. The collective memory back then was a strong factor.
So I think the way it is implemented in the game is fine.
And if they refuse to give recruits to you, isn't there an option to force them? Same goes for supplies if I remember correctly.
I never tried it, but I guess it would further decrease relation or decrease morale.
If you wanna be loved by everyone, do not raid and do not execute. The rules are quite simple and not too different from real life.
durbal
Sergeant
Look at the bolded. Do you realize that with the current relationship and raiding mechanics that it's fine to raid villages as long as they become part of your fief? You're trying to make an argument supporting the mechanic and your argument actually argues against it.
I'm treating them as game mechanics and nothing else. I'm not pondering deep aspects of morality when I click a button in a video game. And my view, no matter how much it sucks, is unfortunately also the view of the current raiding mechanics. If you do quests first you can treat the village as a 'village-themed recruitment office', but if you try to do them after you can't.
No, you can't just do tons of quests every time they pop up to make amends. That's what I keep saying. You get locked out of them at -10 relation which occurs after one raid. You seem to have a very strong view on how the mechanic should work and you're arguing in favor of its current implementation without understanding it. Your arguments that you think are in favor of the mechanic are actually against it because the way you think it works is not how it works.
最后编辑:
