Stop war votes?

Currently viewing this thread:

Gadheras

Regular
Got my kingdom, recruited some lords, and now they want to wage war on.. anyone. I spend influence and object, and then couple minutes later another lord does the same vote, and now I got no influence left to object and get stuck in a war with someone I don't want.

Is there any of the policies that in effect make you supreme leader when it come to war decisions?
 

Midnitewolf

Sergeant
Yep, this is a persistent issue in the game. Nope, there are not any policies that change it. You create a Kingdom and find that your not the King, your just a puppet at the whims of your vassals and/or you actually somehow created a democracy without realizing it. It is a huge issue to me honestly. Hopefully they will decide to make a Rules decision absolute or someone will create a mod to do it.

Also, as far as I understand it, this is a balancing mechanism in a game or I should say wars are at the very least. The whole system is designed to make sure that the status quo is kept in any and all circumstances and it will get worse as you manage to expand your Kingdoms power. The more powerful you get the more your lords want to be in war and the more the other factions want to fight you. By the time you reach end game, you will be fighting every faction in perpetual war and no matter how good or bad your doing in any particular war, there will be no support to end the war ever.

I am facing this right now. I have a huge kingdom with 27 actual clans, no one can stop me yet it has turned out to be one of the most frustrating gameplay loops I have ever experienced. I am at war with nearly every faction, my lords support peace with none of them and I am finding that while I might be making progress in one area of the map, I lose the same amount of progress in another part. I guess I am slowly winning over all because I am exploiting the catch and release mechanic to make all enemy lords love me then recruiting them in time of war and getting them to bring all their fiefs with them but I feel frustrated because I have to bounce all over the map and constantly take back the castles and towns I lost while I was off fighting a war against another faction.

I know that this is designed to make sure I am being challenged as a player but I also feel like the end goal of any single player game is that the player is supposed to win and a system designed to be challenging just to be challenging rather than realistic is just frustrating. Also another part that frustrated me was why everyone was fighting only me. For example I don't even share a border with Vlandia and I am currently engaged in a very hard fought and highly contested war with both Battania and the Western Empire yet Vlandia has it hard for me. How about instead of challenging me with having to fight all factions, that Vlandia instead decides to go to war with Battania or the Western Empire and challenges me by growing their kingdom to the same size as mine while Battania and Western Empire are dealing with me??

Anyway, I don't like frustration for frustrations sake and that is all the constant wars are just frustrating. Also, ideally I don't want all factions being equal for the entire game, instead I want it to eventually be just 2 or 3 large faction vying for supremacy. Of course this is why I argue that snowballing isn't something that should have been eliminated because the ultimate goal of this game is conquering the world. The only snowballing I wanted to see fixed was the fact it was always the Khuziats that were snowballing. Honestly, I think we ended up with a worse game when they "balanced" it so that no faction can really manage to ever get superiority over another.
 
Also, as far as I understand it, this is a balancing mechanism in a game or I should say wars are at the very least. The whole system is designed to make sure that the status quo is kept in any and all circumstances and it will get worse as you manage to expand your Kingdoms power. The more powerful you get the more your lords want to be in war and the more the other factions want to fight you. By the time you reach end game, you will be fighting every faction in perpetual war and no matter how good or bad your doing in any particular war, there will be no support to end the war ever.

I know that this is designed to make sure I am being challenged as a player but I also feel like the end goal of any single player game is that the player is supposed to win and a system designed to be challenging just to be challenging rather than realistic is just frustrating.
You are right that this is an artificial way to prolong the game, but this kludge is used in many other games too. It's explained away as increasing the challenge as you progress.
Some people probably like it that way, a final, difficult campaign of domination. Other people see through it and are turned off by the tedium of constant battles and the lack of realism in declaring war on much more powerful neighbors instead of submitting.
The least TW could do is to declare a victory for you when you control 2/3 or 3/4 of the map, so you don't have to siege everything and hunt down everyone. In addition they should allow diplomatic annexation of weak neighbors if you fulfill some conditions. The end game needs to be challenging, but it certainly shouldn't be dragging out endlessly.
Why didn't anyone think about this in Warband and since? People very rarely finished their Warband games precisely for this reason, it was too much work that ceased to be fun.
If somebody forced Armagan at gunpoint to finish a Warband game, Bannerlord would have been so much better.
 
Last edited:

Gadheras

Regular
You are right that this is an artificial way to prolong the game, but this kludge is used in many other games too. It's explained away as increasing the challenge as you progress.
Some people probably like it that way, a final, difficult campaign of domination. Other people see through it and are turned off by the tedium of constant battles and the lack of realism in declaring war on much more powerful neighbors instead of submitting.
The least TW could do is to declare a victory for you when you control 2/3 or 3/4 of the map, so you don't have to siege everything and hunt down everyone. In addition they should allow diplomatic annexation of weak neighbors if you fulfill some conditions. The end game needs to be challenging, but it certainly shouldn't be dragging out endlessly.
Why didn't anyone think about this in Warband and since? People very rarely finished their Warband games precisely for this reason, it was too much work that ceased to be fun.
If somebody forced Armagan at gunpoint to finish a Warband game, Bannerlord would have been so much better.

What really irk me with the last experience is that. I just came out of a war with the Aserai. 2 of my clan parties was wiped out. Then one of the lords drop a vote to go to war with the khuzait's. Which I feel we would be ill prepared for. So I object spending a huge amount of influence, and then another lord drop the same vote 5 mins later.. At same time I have this "conspiracy" quests that keep chime in with "rocket propelled caravans (hehe), and raiders all over the place. Just need a breather :p
 

Gadheras

Regular
Anyway, I don't like frustration for frustrations sake and that is all the constant wars are just frustrating. Also, ideally I don't want all factions being equal for the entire game, instead I want it to eventually be just 2 or 3 large faction vying for supremacy. Of course this is why I argue that snowballing isn't something that should have been eliminated because the ultimate goal of this game is conquering the world. The only snowballing I wanted to see fixed was the fact it was always the Khuziats that were snowballing. Honestly, I think we ended up with a worse game when they "balanced" it so that no faction can really manage to ever get superiority over another.

In my game the Khuzait's and Sturgia on the roll chewing into the southern and northern empire. I still think the AI factions can still get the upper hand but the excesive snowballing is not there as much as it used too. Starting a new campaign and then realize the likes of the Khuzaits had gobbled up a large chunk of the map before you can get your first fife was demotivating, when thinking about the grind the future would bring.
 
What really irk me with the last experience is that. I just came out of a war with the Aserai. 2 of my clan parties was wiped out. Then one of the lords drop a vote to go to war with the khuzait's. Which I feel we would be ill prepared for. So I object spending a huge amount of influence, and then another lord drop the same vote 5 mins later.. At same time I have this "conspiracy" quests that keep chime in with "rocket propelled caravans (hehe), and raiders all over the place. Just need a breather :p
A nice concept from Rimworld is a "storyteller", an algorithm that tracks how challenging the game is for you and adjusts the rate of good and bad things happening to you. It may feel like unrealistic mollycoddling but it works well in keeping the level of challenge bearable but challenging, and increasing with time.
So if Bannerlord tracked your game and decided too many things are happening to you at once (or for too long), it may delay or prevent new wars or quests or whatever needs attention. This "balanced gameplay" could also decide or influence the tempo of wars and peace, so you would have enough time to enjoy battles and enough time to do peace things.
Someone should definitely make a mod like this.
(This is the default "storyteller" behavior, which you can change at any time to a completely random storyteller that doesn't care if you have too many or too few problems - which is the default setting of Bannerlord.)
 
Last edited:

D0c1

Knight at Arms
Yep, this is a persistent issue in the game. Nope, there are not any policies that change it. You create a Kingdom and find that your not the King, your just a puppet at the whims of your vassals and/or you actually somehow created a democracy without realizing it. It is a huge issue to me honestly. Hopefully they will decide to make a Rules decision absolute or someone will create a mod to do it.

Also, as far as I understand it, this is a balancing mechanism in a game or I should say wars are at the very least. The whole system is designed to make sure that the status quo is kept in any and all circumstances and it will get worse as you manage to expand your Kingdoms power. The more powerful you get the more your lords want to be in war and the more the other factions want to fight you. By the time you reach end game, you will be fighting every faction in perpetual war and no matter how good or bad your doing in any particular war, there will be no support to end the war ever.

I am facing this right now. I have a huge kingdom with 27 actual clans, no one can stop me yet it has turned out to be one of the most frustrating gameplay loops I have ever experienced. I am at war with nearly every faction, my lords support peace with none of them and I am finding that while I might be making progress in one area of the map, I lose the same amount of progress in another part. I guess I am slowly winning over all because I am exploiting the catch and release mechanic to make all enemy lords love me then recruiting them in time of war and getting them to bring all their fiefs with them but I feel frustrated because I have to bounce all over the map and constantly take back the castles and towns I lost while I was off fighting a war against another faction.

I know that this is designed to make sure I am being challenged as a player but I also feel like the end goal of any single player game is that the player is supposed to win and a system designed to be challenging just to be challenging rather than realistic is just frustrating. Also another part that frustrated me was why everyone was fighting only me. For example I don't even share a border with Vlandia and I am currently engaged in a very hard fought and highly contested war with both Battania and the Western Empire yet Vlandia has it hard for me. How about instead of challenging me with having to fight all factions, that Vlandia instead decides to go to war with Battania or the Western Empire and challenges me by growing their kingdom to the same size as mine while Battania and Western Empire are dealing with me??

Anyway, I don't like frustration for frustrations sake and that is all the constant wars are just frustrating. Also, ideally I don't want all factions being equal for the entire game, instead I want it to eventually be just 2 or 3 large faction vying for supremacy. Of course this is why I argue that snowballing isn't something that should have been eliminated because the ultimate goal of this game is conquering the world. The only snowballing I wanted to see fixed was the fact it was always the Khuziats that were snowballing. Honestly, I think we ended up with a worse game when they "balanced" it so that no faction can really manage to ever get superiority over another.
i think the main reason is high escape rate.
i did a playthrough with a mod that removes escaping entirely and fighting everyone is not as frustrating at all.
i still didn't conquer the whole map (1 faction had 2 towns and one full faction) because i played with pacemaker so saving/reloading took >30 seconds after so many years in game (>100).
 
You are right that this is an artificial way to prolong the game, but this kludge is used in many other games too. It's explained away as increasing the challenge as you progress.
Some people probably like it that way, a final, difficult campaign of domination. Other people see through it and are turned off by the tedium of constant battles and the lack of realism in declaring war on much more powerful neighbors instead of submitting.
The least TW could do is to declare a victory for you when you control 2/3 or 3/4 of the map, so you don't have to siege everything and hunt down everyone. In addition they should allow diplomatic annexation of weak neighbors if you fulfill some conditions. The end game needs to be challenging, but it certainly shouldn't be dragging out endlessly.
Why didn't anyone think about this in Warband and since? People very rarely finished their Warband games precisely for this reason, it was too much work that ceased to be fun.
If somebody forced Armagan at gunpoint to finish a Warband game, Bannerlord would have been so much better.
For me a good rebellion system will maybe a better approach, rather than a single town rebelling it will be nice if a cluster of 3-4 towns do and their owners become traitors, you should try to avoid it scattering the fiefs owned by a lord, at same time lords with scatered fiefs might lose some relationship with you, etc

So this kind of cat & mouse game with your lords will be fun, trying to keep them happy but at same time don't allow them to have to much power, but of course t requires mechanics that are not in game neither expected.
 
Top Bottom