Tiger180
Recruit
I have played Mount and Blade Bannerlord Singleplayer for over half a year now, and I really enjoy this game! I just want to throw out some suggestions that have come to my mind throughout the time of playing this game as listed below.
1. Allow the player to be involved in city rebellions: When a certain city is undergoing a civil disobedience crisis, the player should be given opportunities to actively participate in city rebellions, whether by assisting or stopping it. The intereactions can start by allowing the player's party to wait in the city with civil crisis. After doing so for some time, a menu will pop up to state that there is some type of demonstration going on in the city streets. This menu will prompt the player if he wants to particate in this demonstration or not, and if the player chooses to, he should also choose whether to side with the rebels or side with the city guards. Whatever side is chosen, the player will be prompted to form a small squad (e.g. 10 troops like in the bandit camp raids) for the mission. The player's group will spawn in the messy city environment with rebels and city guard groups spawned throughout the streets and fighting each other. The player's objective is to defeat all of the units that are in the opposing side of whoever he is supporting.
To win the mission, the player is required to survive throughout the mission and defeat all opposing units; Dying during the mission will bring the player back and his injured troops to the map screen with 1% HP. The common outcome from failing the mission would be no change to the city's situation (i.e., Security and Loyalty etc. all remain the same) from the demonstration. Then, if the player sided with the rebels and failed the mission, his crime rating with the faction that owned the city increases, and he will also get a significant drop in relationship with the city owner and his clan members. The player will also be expelled from the city and not be allowed to return for a certain timeframe. If the player sided with the city guards and failed the mission, then I guess shouldn't be any ramifications other than leaving the ordeal with 1% HP and injured troops that joined the demonstration.
Now if the player wins the demonstration mission then:
A. If the player sided with the rebel side, the city's security and the number of garrison units will be dropped. However, this does not immediately make the city become owned by the rebel as I think this would be way too easy (and likely unrealistic too). Rather, after the mission, the rebel leader will immediately talk to the player, saying thank you for the help and will ask the player if he is interested in further cooperation for the rebellion. If the player agrees, he will be given a new quest with a name like "Support the rebellion against (city name)", which will have a metric called rebellion progress of xx/100% that will start with a certain number (e.g 30%). As time progresses, the rebel leader will send subquests that the player should get involved in to increase the rebellion progress bar, such as donating troops to the leader at a certain campsite, fight certain militia or city guard groups that are against the rebellion act, convince the bounded village headmen to support the rebellion, get involved in another city demonstration fight, and so on. Once the rebellion progress reaches 100%, the rebel leader will talk to the player stating that the rebellion army is now ready to do a final invasion of the city's palace. This of course means a final quest involving a fight in the palace against the city's remaining garrison that the player shall assist with.
Winning the final palace invasion quest will prompt the rebel leader to give a "we couldn't had done this without you, thank you! let's have a drink!" screen. Of course, the player will get a decent reward; He will now become the new owner of the city, and the rebellion parties (that normally form in the regular rebellions of the current game) will now be under the player's clan. Of course, there will also be downsides too, such as that the faction owner will go at war with the player without the possibility of an immediate peace declaration, and the previous city owner will obviously hate the player for a lifetime.
Of course, if the player does not get involved in any of the subquests of the support the rebellion quest, then the rebellion progress bar will drop over time and upon reaching 0%, the quest will fail with an angry rebel leader's face as a final dialouge. Meanwhile, losing the final palace invasion quest, which may occur by the player dying or by the rebal invading army getting eliminated in the attack, in my opinion, shouldn't fail the quest immediately, but rather the rebel leader will talk to the player "Well that didn't go as planned! But our cause isn't dead yet! Let's build up our army and try again!". The player may agree to continue the cooperation, if he does, then the rebellion progress bar will be reset to the start value of 30% and the player has to rebuild on the rebel effort over again. If the player disagrees to continue, then the rebellion quest is simply cancelled.
B. If the player sided with the city side, then he will get a significant relationship increase with the city owner, and maybe a reward in denars to thank the player for his help. The city will have a temporary boost in security while the number of militias drops accordingly too, which of course will help to delay the potential city takeover by the rebels.
Key notes about the above idea: The player cannot support the rebel side demonstrations if he is that city's owner or if he is affiliated with the city's faction. Also, the player should be required to have a high enough clan ranking (e.g. 3 or 4) to be allowed to support the rebel side. Also, it also looks sensible that the rebellion progress bar's reduction rate be related to the city's loyalty. For example, the bar's rate or reduction to 0% is higher with higher city loyalty, and vice versa. Also, if for any reason, the city's loyalty increases into values of when civil disorder wouldn't normally appear, this can prompt the cancellation of the rebellion quest.
2. Add "City Police Quests" to the game: So whenever the player visits a city and sees the list of what to do, there will be an additional option for the city's police quest, where a list of what's available will be shown. Finishing these questions will give denar rewards and maybe increased relationships with the locals and the city owner for the more significant quests. Denar reward sizes should be decided based on the general difficulty of the specific quest. The possible quests posted by the city may include:
A. Bounty hunting: Basically capturing or killing a renowned person that has commited crimes to the city and its bounded villages. These guys may be reputable bandit leaders who will spawn as an army and roam around the map upon accepting the quest. Or, they may even be certain lords/vassals of a faction the city's faction is at war with and has raided the bounded villages or attacked friendly parties in the city's vicinity. For the latter case, should the player not be affiliated with the city's faction, the player should still be able to attack that lord's party without the need of waging war with his faction.
B. Solving a murder mystery of a citizen: This may involve trying to find clues and traces inside a city or village to determine who the murderer is and where he has gone hiding. Eventually, this question can end with a dual fight with the murderer, or perhaps the murderer has grouped up into a bandit army that must be fought to capture the murderer.
C. Destroying a bandit camp that is near the city.
D. Providing food supplies to the city, which should be available if the city is lacking food. The reward from doing this can be higher than if the person directly sold the food to the city's market by the trade screen.
3. Add the ability to enable small sub-armies from the player's main one: If you are a lord patrolling about with an army of 200 and you encounter a small bandit group of only 10, then it makes sense that you should be able to send a small squad of say 20 guys to go after that party and not the entire 200 men that would generally move a lot slower. Thus, I suggest that there should be an option where you can create such a sub-army that can generally move a lot faster to intercept the smaller enemy parties. The conditions imposed here for this sub-army would include:
A. Only allow one sub-army to be active at any time.
B. The sub-army must be less than half the size of the main army.
C. The sub-army will not carry any inventory items of the main army. This implies that the main army's movement speed will be based on the party size without the sub-army and the original inventory. It also means that the sub-army shouldn't be out for too long or they may suffer from hunger and party morale will drop.
D. The main army and sub-army's navigation on the map can be freely controlled by simply selecting the party of interest to be moved and clicking wherever on the map.
E. However, if the sub-army goes out of field of view from the main army, this will make the player lose movement control of the sub-army on the map, and after every so amount of time, the dice will be rolled to determine whether or not the sub-army will desert the main army and disappear forever. If such a situation occurs, the player will be regularly prompted by the game to go and relocate the sub-army before it is too late. The chance that the sub-army will desert on each roll should be higher with lower party morale.
G. Obviously, fights encountered by the sub-army will only involve the sub-army troops, and vice versa for the main army. Unless of coruse, the two parties are within fighting range of each other then they can be treated as the big single army.
H. Rejoining of the sub-army back into the main army can be done by moving the two to meet each other, and a dialouge will appear where the player will have the option to rejoin the army.
4. Enable big bandit encampments: By this, I mean ones that have their own facilities (especially food production) and can be walled and be besieged like it is a castle. Such camps can typically have over 100 bandits and will induce an even bigger security penalty to nearby settlements than the current bandit camps. As a further suggestion, I also think players should also be able to establish similar such encampments for themselves too. Though these camps cannot provide revenue to the player, they can act as a place to store troops, items, and produce free food.
5. Enable auto-resolve for bandit camp raids that is similar to the "send troops" option for regular battles: I think this option should be available as it is time consuming to personally be involved in this type of mission every time. For example, the player may assign a companion member or a leader of another lord's party if in an army to lead the raid rather than the player himself, and there will be a "% risk of failure" factor that depends on the tactic's ability of the selected member.
1. Allow the player to be involved in city rebellions: When a certain city is undergoing a civil disobedience crisis, the player should be given opportunities to actively participate in city rebellions, whether by assisting or stopping it. The intereactions can start by allowing the player's party to wait in the city with civil crisis. After doing so for some time, a menu will pop up to state that there is some type of demonstration going on in the city streets. This menu will prompt the player if he wants to particate in this demonstration or not, and if the player chooses to, he should also choose whether to side with the rebels or side with the city guards. Whatever side is chosen, the player will be prompted to form a small squad (e.g. 10 troops like in the bandit camp raids) for the mission. The player's group will spawn in the messy city environment with rebels and city guard groups spawned throughout the streets and fighting each other. The player's objective is to defeat all of the units that are in the opposing side of whoever he is supporting.
To win the mission, the player is required to survive throughout the mission and defeat all opposing units; Dying during the mission will bring the player back and his injured troops to the map screen with 1% HP. The common outcome from failing the mission would be no change to the city's situation (i.e., Security and Loyalty etc. all remain the same) from the demonstration. Then, if the player sided with the rebels and failed the mission, his crime rating with the faction that owned the city increases, and he will also get a significant drop in relationship with the city owner and his clan members. The player will also be expelled from the city and not be allowed to return for a certain timeframe. If the player sided with the city guards and failed the mission, then I guess shouldn't be any ramifications other than leaving the ordeal with 1% HP and injured troops that joined the demonstration.
Now if the player wins the demonstration mission then:
A. If the player sided with the rebel side, the city's security and the number of garrison units will be dropped. However, this does not immediately make the city become owned by the rebel as I think this would be way too easy (and likely unrealistic too). Rather, after the mission, the rebel leader will immediately talk to the player, saying thank you for the help and will ask the player if he is interested in further cooperation for the rebellion. If the player agrees, he will be given a new quest with a name like "Support the rebellion against (city name)", which will have a metric called rebellion progress of xx/100% that will start with a certain number (e.g 30%). As time progresses, the rebel leader will send subquests that the player should get involved in to increase the rebellion progress bar, such as donating troops to the leader at a certain campsite, fight certain militia or city guard groups that are against the rebellion act, convince the bounded village headmen to support the rebellion, get involved in another city demonstration fight, and so on. Once the rebellion progress reaches 100%, the rebel leader will talk to the player stating that the rebellion army is now ready to do a final invasion of the city's palace. This of course means a final quest involving a fight in the palace against the city's remaining garrison that the player shall assist with.
Winning the final palace invasion quest will prompt the rebel leader to give a "we couldn't had done this without you, thank you! let's have a drink!" screen. Of course, the player will get a decent reward; He will now become the new owner of the city, and the rebellion parties (that normally form in the regular rebellions of the current game) will now be under the player's clan. Of course, there will also be downsides too, such as that the faction owner will go at war with the player without the possibility of an immediate peace declaration, and the previous city owner will obviously hate the player for a lifetime.
Of course, if the player does not get involved in any of the subquests of the support the rebellion quest, then the rebellion progress bar will drop over time and upon reaching 0%, the quest will fail with an angry rebel leader's face as a final dialouge. Meanwhile, losing the final palace invasion quest, which may occur by the player dying or by the rebal invading army getting eliminated in the attack, in my opinion, shouldn't fail the quest immediately, but rather the rebel leader will talk to the player "Well that didn't go as planned! But our cause isn't dead yet! Let's build up our army and try again!". The player may agree to continue the cooperation, if he does, then the rebellion progress bar will be reset to the start value of 30% and the player has to rebuild on the rebel effort over again. If the player disagrees to continue, then the rebellion quest is simply cancelled.
B. If the player sided with the city side, then he will get a significant relationship increase with the city owner, and maybe a reward in denars to thank the player for his help. The city will have a temporary boost in security while the number of militias drops accordingly too, which of course will help to delay the potential city takeover by the rebels.
Key notes about the above idea: The player cannot support the rebel side demonstrations if he is that city's owner or if he is affiliated with the city's faction. Also, the player should be required to have a high enough clan ranking (e.g. 3 or 4) to be allowed to support the rebel side. Also, it also looks sensible that the rebellion progress bar's reduction rate be related to the city's loyalty. For example, the bar's rate or reduction to 0% is higher with higher city loyalty, and vice versa. Also, if for any reason, the city's loyalty increases into values of when civil disorder wouldn't normally appear, this can prompt the cancellation of the rebellion quest.
2. Add "City Police Quests" to the game: So whenever the player visits a city and sees the list of what to do, there will be an additional option for the city's police quest, where a list of what's available will be shown. Finishing these questions will give denar rewards and maybe increased relationships with the locals and the city owner for the more significant quests. Denar reward sizes should be decided based on the general difficulty of the specific quest. The possible quests posted by the city may include:
A. Bounty hunting: Basically capturing or killing a renowned person that has commited crimes to the city and its bounded villages. These guys may be reputable bandit leaders who will spawn as an army and roam around the map upon accepting the quest. Or, they may even be certain lords/vassals of a faction the city's faction is at war with and has raided the bounded villages or attacked friendly parties in the city's vicinity. For the latter case, should the player not be affiliated with the city's faction, the player should still be able to attack that lord's party without the need of waging war with his faction.
B. Solving a murder mystery of a citizen: This may involve trying to find clues and traces inside a city or village to determine who the murderer is and where he has gone hiding. Eventually, this question can end with a dual fight with the murderer, or perhaps the murderer has grouped up into a bandit army that must be fought to capture the murderer.
C. Destroying a bandit camp that is near the city.
D. Providing food supplies to the city, which should be available if the city is lacking food. The reward from doing this can be higher than if the person directly sold the food to the city's market by the trade screen.
3. Add the ability to enable small sub-armies from the player's main one: If you are a lord patrolling about with an army of 200 and you encounter a small bandit group of only 10, then it makes sense that you should be able to send a small squad of say 20 guys to go after that party and not the entire 200 men that would generally move a lot slower. Thus, I suggest that there should be an option where you can create such a sub-army that can generally move a lot faster to intercept the smaller enemy parties. The conditions imposed here for this sub-army would include:
A. Only allow one sub-army to be active at any time.
B. The sub-army must be less than half the size of the main army.
C. The sub-army will not carry any inventory items of the main army. This implies that the main army's movement speed will be based on the party size without the sub-army and the original inventory. It also means that the sub-army shouldn't be out for too long or they may suffer from hunger and party morale will drop.
D. The main army and sub-army's navigation on the map can be freely controlled by simply selecting the party of interest to be moved and clicking wherever on the map.
E. However, if the sub-army goes out of field of view from the main army, this will make the player lose movement control of the sub-army on the map, and after every so amount of time, the dice will be rolled to determine whether or not the sub-army will desert the main army and disappear forever. If such a situation occurs, the player will be regularly prompted by the game to go and relocate the sub-army before it is too late. The chance that the sub-army will desert on each roll should be higher with lower party morale.
G. Obviously, fights encountered by the sub-army will only involve the sub-army troops, and vice versa for the main army. Unless of coruse, the two parties are within fighting range of each other then they can be treated as the big single army.
H. Rejoining of the sub-army back into the main army can be done by moving the two to meet each other, and a dialouge will appear where the player will have the option to rejoin the army.
4. Enable big bandit encampments: By this, I mean ones that have their own facilities (especially food production) and can be walled and be besieged like it is a castle. Such camps can typically have over 100 bandits and will induce an even bigger security penalty to nearby settlements than the current bandit camps. As a further suggestion, I also think players should also be able to establish similar such encampments for themselves too. Though these camps cannot provide revenue to the player, they can act as a place to store troops, items, and produce free food.
5. Enable auto-resolve for bandit camp raids that is similar to the "send troops" option for regular battles: I think this option should be available as it is time consuming to personally be involved in this type of mission every time. For example, the player may assign a companion member or a leader of another lord's party if in an army to lead the raid rather than the player himself, and there will be a "% risk of failure" factor that depends on the tactic's ability of the selected member.
