Recommendation - Make AI parties attack the player party

[vth_Musketeer]

Up front: I'm recommending this as an "OPTION". I'm not saying implement this and make it permanent. Make it an option. That said... here we go.

My post only pertains to playing the game when you are not affiliated with any Kingdom. Right now, other than bandits, the only way that a Kingdom or minor clan will ever attack the player, is if the player attacks them first. So, if I don't want to be harassed, robbed, waylaid, or bamboozled, I can just avoid messing with anybody. If I want I could spend "game decades" building up wealth and never have to worry about anybody touching me. On a war torn continent like Calradia I think that's hardly realistic. Some warlord is going to see some rich dude running around with all these resources and decide those resources would be better used supporting that warlord's war effort. So that brings me to the recommendation...

Create an option in the difficulty settings that allows Clans and minor clans to attack the player without provocation or a war declaration. Base the whole thing on relationship. If my relationship with Clan X is at 20 or below (just throwing out a number), then there should be a probability calculation that if I come within scouting range of any member of that clan, they will attack me. If my relationship level with Clan X is above 20, that probability goes away and I can rest assured that I can barter and trade with that clan without having to worry about them attacking me.

This should not be tied to any war declaration. So, say for example that Vlandia is NOT at war with me, Clan X from Vlandia can still attack me just based on the relationship. I don't think it's too far fetched to imagine a warlord attacking a wealthy caravan just to take their stuff from them. And it's not too far fetched to say they would do this without a declaration of war assuming the caravan isn't affiliated to any sovereign political entity.

I think it would be an interesting option for players to be able to turn on. I think at the beginning of the game, the player would potentially find themselves starting out in a hornets nest. That's great; take your one horse show to a part of the map where they don't hate you to start out. Maybe everybody hates you. It'll be a random start. You never know until you see Garios make a right oblique turn towards your party. And you'll be wondering why is Garios marching straight towards me. And you start the first 5 to 10 days of the game as Garios's prisoner.

 

[SGT_Night]

+1

 

[Lucius Confucius]

This might put off new players. It is risky, but as an option I don't have anything against it. Might be interesting.

 

[vth_Musketeer]

This might put off new players. It is risky, but as an option I don't have anything against it. Might be interesting.

Yup. Totally as an option. I think new players would get swamped if they jumped right into a game like that.

 

[froggyluv]

No this should be in by Default. People make the mistake of thinking Sandbox needs to mean "Empty lifeless bland world which never reacts to me with no definitive or interesting characters (all random generated) in which i can do whatever i want and i must initiate ALL encounters". That may be a type of Sandbox but it is a poor one

Sandbox in its best formerly means, place me in an interesting World that is already launched in its own orbit with its own politics, dramas and disputes happening around the player whether he likes it or not. That Player can choose anyway he wants to live and thrive in that sandbox but that doesnt mean that Sandbox world ignores him.

Think about Hearts of Iron or even Total War Empire -not pure Sandbox but again that word is on a spectrum of features and themes NOT an absolute. In HOI you can choose what role your small country does in the theatre of WW2 following a loose example of History OR you can as a small European country choose to try and topple the Third Reich -and they'll surely notice if you make yourself too strong or wander in their borders with an army. that last statement is exactly whats wrong with Bannerlord -there is ZERO reaction from local lords. Thats one reason why the world map needs established borders and territorial dispute. Armies in medieval times surely could not just travel through other Lords territory without paying tribute or risking skirmish.

Acting is reacting. The Bannerlord has no interesting characters to react nor do they react properly to world dispute -thats why it feels so lifeless (among many other things)

 

[vth_Musketeer]

No this should be in by Default. People make the mistake of thinking Sandbox needs to mean "Empty lifeless bland world which never reacts to me with no definitive or interesting characters (all random generated) in which i can do whatever i want and i must initiate ALL encounters". That may be a type of Sandbox but it is a poor one

Sandbox in its best formerly means, place me in an interesting World that is already launched in its own orbit with its own politics, dramas and disputes happening around the player whether he likes it or not. That Player can choose anyway he wants to live and thrive in that sandbox but that doesnt mean that Sandbox world ignores him.

Think about Hearts of Iron or even Total War Empire -not pure Sandbox but again that word is on a spectrum of features and themes NOT an absolute. In HOI you can choose what role your small country does in the theatre of WW2 following a loose example of History OR you can as a small European country choose to try and topple the Third Reich -and they'll surely notice if you make yourself too strong or wander in their borders with an army. that last statement is exactly whats wrong with Bannerlord -there is ZERO reaction from local lords. Thats one reason why the world map needs established borders and territorial dispute. Armies in medieval times surely could not just travel through other Lords territory without paying tribute or risking skirmish.

Acting is reacting. The Bannerlord has no interesting characters to react nor do they react properly to world dispute -thats why it feels so lifeless (among many other things)

So, by default with an option to turn it off? Or by default with no option to turn off? I guess like anything I'd like to have it beta'd first. See how it affects the game. But you're right about the "empty lifeless bland world" bit. So I'm actually inclined to evolve my opinion and agree with you that default would be the right answer. I think it makes the relationship piece more important as well. Right now the only benefit to relationships is being able to get folks to join your cause. Now it will affect them coming after you even if you're unaffiliated. No free ride going around town to town smithing and trading. Keep your head on a swivel at all times.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Very good idea! I've been thinking about ways to ask TW to put pressure on the player, but it's a delicate thing that easily get auto-no'd by many players. As an option this could be very good!

I really dislike how many players advocate "just (spend endless campaign time) smithing for unlimited money" with no conception of "campaign time", but then again it's because there's no pressure what so ever on the player to accomplish anything in any time frame.

It was one thing I miss about the snowballing days, it did put pressure on you to get your butt in gear and either back a faction or destroy a powerful one or else eventually you would be faced with a massive khanate fielding hundreds of high tier horse archers all over the map!

I think it's fine to have an OPTION for casual pseudo-sandbox like we now, where absolutely nothing happens and the player has infinite time.
But it would be much better to have other options (perhaps stackable) to ad pressure to the gameplay, such as hostility(like OP) or addition faction invasions and such. And don't get me started on more action and challenges if they player goes to second gen and beyond.....

 

[vth_Musketeer]

Very good idea! I've been thinking about ways to ask TW to put pressure on the player, but it's a delicate thing that easily get auto-no'd by many players. As an option this could be very good!

I really dislike how many players advocate "just (spend endless campaign time) smithing for unlimited money" with no conception of "campaign time", but then again it's because there's no pressure what so ever on the player to accomplish anything in any time frame.

It was one thing I miss about the snowballing days, it did put pressure on you to get your butt in gear and either back a faction or destroy a powerful one or else eventually you would be faced with a massive khanate fielding hundreds of high tier horse archers all over the map!

I think it's fine to have an OPTION for casual pseudo-sandbox like we now, where absolutely nothing happens and the player has infinite time.
But it would be much better to have other options (perhaps stackable) to ad pressure to the gameplay, such as hostility(like OP) or addition faction invasions and such. And don't get me started on more action and challenges if they player goes to second gen and beyond.....

Ananda,

I would add that an AI Party that does not like you should also be able to go into a town you're in and attack you. The fight will be the AI party vs you and your companions. In other words, none of your soldiers get to be involved. So let's say (random dude) Vipon doesn't like you. If you're waiting in a city trying to recoup your stamina to do more smithing, and Vipon enters the city you're in, it automatically switches to a dialogue screen where Vipon basically tells you to surrender or die. If you choose to fight, it's you and your companions vs him and whatever number of soldiers he brings. So, if at the time you've only hired one companion, it's you and your one companion vs Vipon and however many of his folks attack. The number of soldiers the AI instigator gets to bring to the fight should be directly proportionate to their "Rogue" skill. If Vipon has 100 Rogue skill, he gets to bring (just throwing out a number) 5 Soldiers to the fight. If he has 200 Rogue skill, he gets to bring 20 soldiers. So, early game, if you're not careful, you might find yourself in a 5 on 1 fight if you haven't hired anybody yet.

The rogue skill should also be tied to the probability that they attack you in the city. If they have low rogue, they'll leave you alone. The higher their rogue skill, the higher the probability they'll enter the city and try to fight you.

But for this to be an added value feature, TW needs to really make it to where your companions are good fighters. It's hard to determine their performance in a full battle, but when I take my companions into Hideout battles, I can see their performance. It's often disappointing. If I have a character like say one of the Frostbeard or BloodAxe types, they should be able to handle a double team. But they can't. I've seen several times where they're being double-teamed and they don't even fight back. They just keep their shield up. I think the companions fighting abilities need to be tweaked a bit. Generally they dominate the AI troops in the bandit battles, but occasionally I'm left wondering what the heck is going on. If it's a low skill companion, i get it. But some of these high skill companions should be coming out of the hideout fights with 3 or more kills. On average I'd say they get about 2.

I equate the companions in this game to "hero" type characters like in Romance of the Three Kingdoms. If I find myself with only one companion and I get into say a 5 on 2 situation, I should still have a relatively decent chance of winning. Not saying it should be automatic, but my companion shouldn't just stand there with shield up absorbing blows until the shield breaks and they die. I want a good fight and not an AI companion that just starts bugging and does nothing which does happen in the hideout fights occasionally.

 

[Tryvenyal]

@vth_Musketeer Why should Vipon care about a lowly smith/trader? Yeah, if you have executed 3 lords and his uncle, then sure but if you are at +-5 why should he care?!

But robbers attacking you in fiefs I would very much like. But don't force me to have companions to join my fight. Pick them first, yes, but fill up with troops.

 

[CalarTheMerciless]

Up front: I'm recommending this as an "OPTION". I'm not saying implement this and make it permanent. Make it an option. That said... here we go.

My post only pertains to playing the game when you are not affiliated with any Kingdom. Right now, other than bandits, the only way that a Kingdom or minor clan will ever attack the player, is if the player attacks them first. So, if I don't want to be harassed, robbed, waylaid, or bamboozled, I can just avoid messing with anybody. If I want I could spend "game decades" building up wealth and never have to worry about anybody touching me. On a war torn continent like Calradia I think that's hardly realistic. Some warlord is going to see some rich dude running around with all these resources and decide those resources would be better used supporting that warlord's war effort. So that brings me to the recommendation...

Create an option in the difficulty settings that allows Clans and minor clans to attack the player without provocation or a war declaration. Base the whole thing on relationship. If my relationship with Clan X is at 20 or below (just throwing out a number), then there should be a probability calculation that if I come within scouting range of any member of that clan, they will attack me. If my relationship level with Clan X is above 20, that probability goes away and I can rest assured that I can barter and trade with that clan without having to worry about them attacking me.

This should not be tied to any war declaration. So, say for example that Vlandia is NOT at war with me, Clan X from Vlandia can still attack me just based on the relationship. I don't think it's too far fetched to imagine a warlord attacking a wealthy caravan just to take their stuff from them. And it's not too far fetched to say they would do this without a declaration of war assuming the caravan isn't affiliated to any sovereign political entity.

I think it would be an interesting option for players to be able to turn on. I think at the beginning of the game, the player would potentially find themselves starting out in a hornets nest. That's great; take your one horse show to a part of the map where they don't hate you to start out. Maybe everybody hates you. It'll be a random start. You never know until you see Garios make a right oblique turn towards your party. And you'll be wondering why is Garios marching straight towards me. And you start the first 5 to 10 days of the game as Garios's prisoner.

+1 an interesting idea, maybe have it tied to clan rank in terms of effects, or the ability to try negotiate passage (and a gain of relationship?)