Stop former faction leaders serving other factions

Users who are viewing this thread

eritchie

Recruit
In a recent patch you made it possible for faction leaders to join other factions when there faction is wiped out. I think its a bad change I don't want to see Rhagea fighting for Derthert after the Empire is defeated it just seems silly and detracts further from immersion in the world. Currently the lords are just disloyal scum that are able to switch faction multiple times for no specific reason with no real consequence.

My suggestions
(a) faction swapping should be lord specific so they have a certain reason why they might switch to a given faction (e.g high personal relations with a member/ leader, cultural or marital ties, sympathies) to do this you would need to add depth to the characters, faction leaders should fight for factions of a similar culture if at all after being defeated (e.g Rhagea might join the north or west empire but not Battania, Khuzait... Caladog might fight for Sturgia but not the rest, Raganvad for Battania etc, etc. if all 'similar culture' factions are defeated there clans should be destroyed or their leaders replaced by those loyal to the victor.

(b) expand the clans to include more family members that you might target as possible replacements to lords that refused to join you (or to replace those disloyal within your own kingdom). These intrigues could be really fun content as you have to use the encylopedia to find these often non combatant npc's to plot. This kind of mechanic would also be great for plots within kingdoms when playing as a vassal too.

(c) When Kingdoms grow they should begin to produce some new clans with the same culture rather than relying on clans of other cultures so heavily. Perhaps this could tie in with marriages and children coming of age, as well as with my idea of expanded clans above
 
I agree nice post!

Defecting lords has been a feature I have hated since Warband and it ruins late game immersion. I really think TW should limit defecting lords to the Empire as it makes since for them as they are in a civil war. I can't tell you how many campaigns I have dropped because of this, but it is not good game design.

I would seriously take page out of Viking Conquest and how they handled factions, factions should not be an entire united cultures. There should be multiple factions per culture with 3-4 factions for each one. In Viking Conquest I loved fighting for one of the smaller Welsh factions and trying to unite the Welsh people so that one day we can stand as one against the Saxons and Vikings. Breaking up the cultures to several factions would be a change of epic proportion and would be one of the single best changes the devs could make imo. Then limit defecting lords to culture, which makes sense in that context as clans would switch sides as a dominate clan emerges.

This is an outdated map but it gives you an idea how cultures could be split more like Viking Conquest.
KoBRNjW.png
 
Why?
Medieval politics are shifting allegiances, broken treaties, forming new alliances and if your clan is wiped out ... well you start fresh and join a new one.
What's your problem with that?

A faction leader who loses their kingdom would just sit down, give up and farm corn?
No way, they would continue in exile, join someone else in power and continue fighting.

OK, maybe defections should be fixed a little bit, but those are just slight balancing issues.
You as a player have the choice to convince others to defect to your side.....so don't complain that it works the other way too
 
Why?
Medieval politics are shifting allegiances, broken treaties, forming new alliances and if your clan is wiped out ... well you start fresh and join a new one.
What's your problem with that?

A faction leader who loses their kingdom would just sit down, give up and farm corn?
No way, they would continue in exile, join someone else in power and continue fighting.

OK, maybe defections should be fixed a little bit, but those are just slight balancing issues.
You as a player have the choice to convince others to defect to your side.....so don't complain that it works the other way too

Completely agree.
Take El Cid for example - he served under several Christian and Muslim rulers, even his former enemies.
Or take Rollo for example - he was a viking, who raided Franks and later he joined them.

Most of the time, war was just business for these nobles. There were some exceptions (like when religious fanatics got involved), but otherwise switching sides did happen.
 
Completely agree.
Take El Cid for example - he served under several Christian and Muslim rulers, even his former enemies.
Or take Rollo for example - he was a viking, who raided Franks and later he joined them.

Most of the time, war was just business for these nobles. There were some exceptions (like when religious fanatics got involved), but otherwise switching sides did happen.

El Cid was not an emperor and neither was Rollo he was a travelling warlord opportunist. What you are saying is complete bollocks im sorry. Ex emperors were more often than not killed in battle, assassinated or exiled. They were not invited to join the armies of their enemies for the most part because there name itself was a threat. Usually when they lost their power they were replaced or killed and then replaced. When a roman emperor lost his empire to civil war etc he didnt go join the germanic warlords to try take it back... You morons that keep citing ridiculous historical examples to justify massive holes in this games logic are not helping.. Your actually part of the problem
 
why irl when a lord lost all counties is he saying what ever then i will go farming? lol im totally disagree with topic yet things need the improve thats for sure.
 
He doesnt go farming lol. Read history, 95% of the time they were killed (im talking about kings and emperors) either in battle or by assassins and there whole family usually killed too. You couldnt afford to leave these people around
 
Kings who've lost their kingdoms ought to have a 50/50 chance of being executed or going into exile. That chance could be modified up or down based on the king's traits, honor rating, relations with the conquerers, or whatever else is relevant. Then if they survive, they're exiled and become like the pretenders from warband, hanging around in foreign keeps, trying to convince anyone to help them get their kingdoms back. And the the player can do their claimant quest to revive the old kingdom.

And any time a kingdom is destroyed and the king is dead, there should be a chance for an heir to pop in another kingdom as a pretender.
 
Back
Top Bottom