SP - General Steamrolling and how to deal with it

[morncraban]

Most of the players have seen a steamrolling effect during their late game, one faction consumes another, then another, and then you see that it became a superpower which can't be stopped buy any left kingdoms. And the most confusing part is that it happens in from 1 to 2 game years. In Warband f.e. there would be slight shifts in the power and some kingdoms could lose up to half of their territory, but it was almost impossible to see one faction taking over the whole map without player helping it.

So there are the possible causes and solutions how to deal with that situation.
1) Sieges
Problem - They are to easy. When one 1k men army going through the enemy land they need 1-2 days to take a castle, and the main problem - they have no casualties.
Solution - shift balance in the sieges to defenders. Right now assaulting the wall with ladders is easy, you don't need assault towers, catapults and all other siege engines. Even if you build a ram, usually there is not enough time to break inner gates - walls fall faster. Making sieges harder for the attacking side could lead to the long waiting time near each castle, resulting in less land taken during one war. That would be nice if AI would start waiting for the defenders to start starving and if it would use catapults and all other stuff to bring some devastation to the walls and towers before the assault.
2) Wars
Problem - war on multiple fronts, no truce periods after the end of the war. Right now a kingdom could easily fight with 2 or 3 other kingdoms and start new war before winning current one. That leads to the factions just teared apart in the middle game, making creation of all this steamrolling superpowers easier.
Solution - Restrict kingdoms starting a new war when it already participates in a one, and if it is forced to fight on two fronts - force it to seek peace as soon as possible.
Another thing is making a truce period after the end of the war for at least of 2-3 months. That would give factions more time to recover from loses.
3)No rebellion/separation mechanic
Problem - When a kingdom grows new lords with different cultures come to serve it after their kingdoms are destroyed. They have no tendency to ask for settlements in their cultural region, so it easy to see some aserai in the north or some kuzaites on the west.
Another thing is that they are completely OK with being ruled by a person with the different culture, they are fine being a part of the one giant empire.
Lack of rebellions of that lords makes it easy for the attacking faction to grow, because it is only focused on external conquest, not on solving its internal problems.
Solution - Introduce a mechanic for the lords with the same culture and ruled by the foreign ruler tend to separate from that faction to existing one / rise a rebellion and restore destroyed kingdom. That will make big kingdoms unstable and led to them focusing on keeping their own lands instead of conquering foreign factions.
4) Lords can't restore their armies
Problem - one the lord lost its army it is hard for him to make a new one. In the late game there are a lot of bandit groups going around, which prevents lord from moving freely between settlements and recruiting new army. So after a one major defeat it is extremely hard for the faction to recover. Even for the future wars.
Solution - allow lord to left people in garrison and take them when they are recovering after defeat. F.e. if a lord have a limit to have 300 troops it set up a 100 troop garrison and take only 200 men in his party. If he has not enough troops in reserve(f.e. less than 40) he will ignore all calls to arms and will defend its land.

 

[Shemet]

+1, really liked your solutions and ideas toward game problems, hope you get noticed!!

 

[Marcquez]

my 2 cents as suggestions to maybe improve this:

• Stamina: Attacking armies should be exhausted after an attack on a castle/city (increased food consumption) and would require to resupply/rest first before continuing the invasion
  • Besieging could be the opposite and an attempt to starve the city out
• Borders: Factions should protect their borders more instead of running through the whole country.
  1. The game should recognize a border
  2. Each faction should have an idea what armies are required per castle/city to be able to defend (lords to stay and defend border cities that are next to an enemy or bad neighbor)
  3. Borders are being patrolled and armies don't just run around like a chicken without a head
  4. Players could get quests to patrol, protect border towns etc
  5. When an enemy army is spotted by a border patrol/castle/city, a message is sent to support that area
• Casualties: Sieges should be more taxing on the attackers (siege AI might need to get fixed first)
  • A castle should be able to defend against a bigger army
• Border patrolling: If an enemy army passes by a fortified castle/city to go siege somewhere else, the defenders should intercept and/or surround them (spawn defenders in center of the map and have the attackers spawn on opposite sides)
• War decision: Based on enemies/allies, financials and size, factions should have to make a decision if going to war is a good or bad idea
  • If they cannot defend their borders sufficiently (based on finances, bordering enemies/allies), going to war/invade another faction would be a bad idea
  • Have a specific reason (princess got kidnapped, important lord got murdered, more land required because of financial reasons or because border is easier to protect...) to increase the possibility to start a war.
• Attrition on conquered lands: Conquered lands that are surrounded by enemy territory should have high attrition rates as they can not supply easily (might already be the case)

 

[Shemet]

Since we are talking about the territories, borderline and protection, I think they should add an option to pay for a patrol or a patrol unit in general guarding the towns, villages or sections of the territory but not only in war, like also for keeping at bay looters and bandits. And the money spent on it can be in the daily exchange including your party salary, etc.

 

[HarkonBruce]

I made a post about almost the same stuff, i'll copy it here so it's all together in a single place.

Hi, i want to give a suggestion about the nobles switching faction mechanics. After about 30hours of gameplay (on realistic mode) i've got the whole map conquered by southern imperium. I've joined the empire as a mercenary first and vassal then, but i've noticed that after a faction take the upper hand against another, nobles start to massively switch faction. Of course with more nobles and more armies the faction can easily conquer more and more in a snowball effect that allows the conquest of the whole map in less than 400 game days.
My suggestion is to limit a lot this mechanic, for example asking the senate to vote to accept or not a noble who's switching side, or not accepting nobles if they have a bad relation with faction leader. Furthermore i've noticed that during the campaign a couple of faction switched not just once, but even three or four times, going from empire to khuzait, then back to empire and so on. It would be nice if those who betrayed once can be rejected the second time they try to be restored into faction.

 

[Zyakan]

I agree with the suggestions above.

In my 30 hours of gameplay, I still don't have seen longer than one game year, but the Western Empire is close to be destroyed by the Battanians, even if his ruler is a charismatic general. It is quite weird, but what is more weird is now the Western Empire and Battanians seem to have come to peace (There was no announce of it, or I didn't see it in the logs that disappear so quickly) the Western Empire is attacking the Southern Empire.

 

[Rorisjack]

Right now I think another really big problem is that Towns are almost always in food shortage, I think that should be taken away or at least made much easier. Because having towns and castles at -40 food at all times makes them unable to have garrisons and militia.

 

[morncraban]

Right now I think another really big problem is that Towns are almost always in food shortage, I think that should be taken away or at least made much easier. Because having towns and castles at -40 food at all times makes them unable to have garrisons and militia.

Actually, having food shortages when your villages are raided is kinda nice thing. But yeah, in peace the should probably produce a bit more food. Maybe it is related to their recovery after raids which makes border zones almost always having lack of food but it is fine, it is supposed to works so in that case.

 

[FireGods_68]

This happened in one one my games where vlandia started by taking out Battania with the western empire then went on to hold off all three empire factions at the same time take all of battania and form a stalemate.

 

[Count du Bonfim]

I actually really like this suggestion as it would bring way more diplomacy into the game, because diplomacy is literally broken right now and you cannot avoid war, even if you're a king yourself. I've been at peace with the rest of the map for some time now and often I hear the popup saying that "MY CLAN" declared war on another faction, FOR NO REASON. And I'm the king of my own kingdom, that decision should be mine and not automatically, so whenever that pops up on my screen, I usually start going over to the faction I just declared war, talk to a vassal of that faction and barter a peace treaty by offering money, but it's a temp-solution to a non-stop problem.

And by the way, the only way possible to stop the empire of conquering the whole map, is by helping your own faction conquer the empire, which is just another snowball solution.

 

[Jonlit]

The lords also run out of money very fast if defeated. What I've done when I see one lord being captured by looters is I track him down and give him money. This let's him recruit troops again.

Lord's literally go bankrupt and can't even afford 1 recruiter.
It's BS

 

[morncraban]

The lords also run out of money very fast if defeated. What I've done when I see one lord being captured by looters is I track him down and give him money. This let's him recruit troops again.

Lord's literally go bankrupt and can't even afford 1 recruiter.
It's BS

Actually, I've seen an opposite situation when all lords have MILLIONS of bucks

 

[Shemet]

Hahahahaha helping lords like that seems funny, good calradian samaritan.

 

[Jonlit]

Actually, I've seen an opposite situation when all lords have MILLIONS of bucks

Obviously it's to the eztream both ways depending on how they and their faction is doing.
Neither which is good and just let's the steamroll go on.

 

[morncraban]

Obviously it's to the eztream both ways depending on how they and their faction is doing.
Neither which is good and just let's the steamroll go on.

I heard there was a bug with caravans when they were making a few hundred thousands a day. May be this is the reason.

 

[ssssnake]

These are all good ideas.

One of the problems with Warband was that leaders were not aggressive enough. They would take a castle, then all the lords would go off and party at feasts.

In Bannerlord, the developers have definitely fixed the problem of factions not being aggressive enough. However, they seem to have gone too far. Currently, castles and towns fall like dominoes.

One way to fix this is to institute a system similar to that of Crusader Kings, where a war has certain, defined goals. When those goals are met, you have peace.

For example, your war goal could be territorial expansion. The more territory you want to capture, the more influence it would cost to declare war. Once you've captured the amount of cities/castles in your war goal, there is peace for a while. If you continue to prosecute a war after you've met your war goals, you would have a significant influence and/or economic penalty, reflecting war weariness of your subjects.

 

[CalenLoki]

I have another possible solution: make sure that faction get really disadvantages whenever they are outside their homeland:

1. Make terrain type affect combat simulation a lot more, and make world map naturally divided to help factions in their homeland.
i.e. give Sturgia big bonus on snow, Khazuit on steppes, Battania in the forest, ect. It should apply to bandits as well.
It can be some invisible magic cultural borders as well, as it's easier to code it in a predictable way.
It should ba based both on commander culture and specific troop types.
That will make defending and reclaiming land easier than attacking.

2. Make recruitment in foreign land very limited. Almost to the point where to get new soldiers lord need to go back to their homeland (which has hard-limited supply of recruits). After all foreign lords don't have that good contacts with local influential people.

3. Spawn a lot more bandits in lands ruled by invaders. That will hit their supply lines (attacked traders, peasants, supply caravans, maybe even raided villages). Also since the invaders need to spread their patrols over larger areas, their homeland should become more bandit-infested as well.

4. Make factions ally against the biggest threat, rather than finishing off the weakest. Nec hercules contra plures.

All those should apply to player faction as well, to keep late game more challenging.

 

[xtremzero]

I think in general we should add more things for lords to do and make declaring wars more circumstantial and costly. ideas being hunts etc

 

[Revenant342]

Been running a couple new games and just sitting my character on wait in Lycaron for a couple hours IRL to see what the AI does and have a few observations

I think factions declare war way too much. The game seems to be intended for a long time frame with the dynasty system and all that, but since every faction is almost constantly at war with at least one other faction at all times it's a bit of a problem. I feel like wars should be rarer than they are.

Factions also seem to declare a lot of pointless or suicidal wars. For example, the Northern Empire is down to 3 cities and is getting stomped by the Khuzaits... then decides to declare war on Battania or the Western Empire, who are at peace and able to send their entire army at them while they're barely holding on already. For pointless wars, Vlandia attacking Khuzaits in 1084 when they are literally as far from each other as it's possible to be is an example, and it makes both factions weaker if they've marched their armies to the complete opposite side of the map then get attacked by a neighbor with nobody left around to defend.

Also, peace seems very rare. Empires will stay at war in a stalemate for years until they're exhausted and become easy prey for their neighbors frequently. I really like the wargoal idea, where they'll seek peace after achieving limited goals. There really ought to be a lengthy peace treaty aftrwards as well. Frequently see Southern Empire take 2 cities and a couple castles from Aserai right off the bat in 1084, declare peace, then be back at war a month later before Aserai has had a chance to recover at all so they just get stomped again.

I think in general we should add more things for lords to do and make declaring wars more circumstantial and costly. ideas being hunts etc

That is an issue, because there really doesn't seem to be much for Lords to do other than war. Maybe increasing bandit presence more and having other tasks like you suggested. Could even have banditry be a kingdom stat that's weighted in their decision to declare war or not. IE, Kingdom banditry is high and countered by Lords hunting bandits, high banditry makes them less likely to go to war. Maybe even buffing the minor rebel factions a bit so they actually matter, too. Like The Hand is actually a thorn in the side of the Empire and needs to be dealt with in various ways instead of just wandering around and getting wiped out occasionally, for example.

 

[morncraban]

These are all good ideas.

One of the problems with Warband was that leaders were not aggressive enough. They would take a castle, then all the lords would go off and party at feasts.

In Bannerlord, the developers have definitely fixed the problem of factions not being aggressive enough. However, they seem to have gone too far. Currently, castles and towns fall like dominoes.

One way to fix this is to institute a system similar to that of Crusader Kings, where a war has certain, defined goals. When those goals are met, you have peace.

For example, your war goal could be territorial expansion. The more territory you want to capture, the more influence it would cost to declare war. Once you've captured the amount of cities/castles in your war goal, there is peace for a while. If you continue to prosecute a war after you've met your war goals, you would have a significant influence and/or economic penalty, reflecting war weariness of your subjects.

That is a really cool idea man, I love it!