(Suggestions) Kingdom management, Settlement management, Clans, Smithing, Diplomacy, Feasts and much more

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)


Best answers
This will be quite a lenghty post so i tried to make it as readable as possible. I intentionally didnt want to break all into few posts, because all the suggestions (in my opinion) gives a nice overview of the game. I put every suggestion into its own section and subsection for easier reading. Without further ado.

Table of contents

1) Kingdom management and policies
2) Clans
3) Settlement management
4) Feasts and competitions
5) Smithing
6) Diplomacy
7) Banners/ Crests
:cool: Prisoner mechanic
9) Bandit Hideouts and neutral locations
10) Campaign AI
11) Art
12) Quality of life
13) Custom start options

1) Kingdom management and policies
a) Kingdom differentiation

  • Current system of kingdom organization ingame is totally unispired, and most of all, without any major influence on game. First of all, game lacks different types of kingdoms to better represent different factions. Vlandia for example should play differently (when you are part of that faction) than for example Aserai. Differences should be cosmetic (different name for leader/kingdom) and functional (different voting system, war declaration … ). Also voting system and especially who can vote must also change, because now it fells like leaders of the faction have no real power and kingdoms feel like democracies. With that in mind I propose next system of different faction organization:

  • Primary organization of Vlandia
  • Leader is called King
  • King has total control over war/peace declarations
  • King can ask Council of nobles to vote on war/peace declaration (totally optional, meant only to see where kingdom stand, Council cannot start vote)
  • Council of nobles is consisted of Clan leaders and each has only one vote
  • Council of nobles can propose and vote on all policies but King must always confirm decision
High Chiefdom
  • Primary organization of Sturgia
  • Leader is called High Chief
  • High chief can propose war/peace and policies but has only one vote
  • Clan leaders can propose and vote on war/peace and policies and each have one vote
  • Primary organization of Battania
  • Leader is called high chief
  • Policies and war/peace declarations can only be initiated by clan leaders and leader
  • every fief owner can vote on all things and each have one vote
  • Primary organization of Aserai
  • Leader is called Sultan
  • War/peace can only be proposed by Sultan but must be voted on by Council of traders
  • Council of traders is consisted by leaders of those clans that own at least one city (since Aserai have bonus to caravans it is logical to put emphasis on trade in their kingdom (as cities are trade centres) in terms of who holds the power)
  • Council of traders can initiate vote on any policy and need only majority to pass-Sultan is only one of the voters
  • Primary organization of Khergit
  • Leader is called Khan
  • Khan has total control of war/peace decisions
  • Khan can propose any policy and can veto any decision
  • Khan appoints characters into Khan advisors (number is determined by number of clans in faction)
  • Khan advisors can propose and vote on any policy
  • Primary organization of all Empire factions
  • Leader is called Emperor
  • Emperor or senate can initiate vote on war/peace and policies but only senate can vote (Emperor can veto any decision)
  • The number of Senate seats correlates with number of cities in the faction
  • Senate members are picked by the clan leaders that own particular city (there can also existst some differences on how Senators are picked to differentiate even more between Empire factions)

I think that these changes can greatly enhance the game. On one side it increases immersion and allows the players even more roleplaying when playing the game. On other hand it adds new tactical depth and also solves some problems on clan defections (which clan actually have power now)while also allowing new play options (like rebellions to establish new system) and also making powerful clans more transparent.

b) Voting and influence
  • Current system, how voting is done and influence connected with it, should be changed to make it more transparent and usefull. First of all, influence should be only used when proposing policy or war/peace decision. When the vote starts then all who are entitled to vote have one vote. Also, influence can be spent to change the stance of certain voter and the influence used is, in that case, transfered to the character you are influencing. Influencing can only be done on a character who has less influence than you. This way, influence becomes more transparent and repesent power relations better. Also, voting becomes more streamlined but not dumbed down. Having voting power becomes a significant power. Combining this changes with proposed kingdom changes in previous chapter, game becomes far more immersive and complex, and also makes getting voting right and influence far more important.
c) Policies and Laws
  • Policies are a great addition to the game in my opinion, but at the same time also not deep enough. Policies should be expanded to also include laws, kingdom changes and other mechanics to further deepen kingdom management. To simplify, policies screen should be divided into two parts, laws and policies. Laws are more like core institutions of a kingdom that defines its organization. Laws should be further divide into goverment, land organization and treasury. Laws should define the inner workings of a kingdom (eg. who votes, obligations etc…). They should be incrementaly based and changing them significantly would take them to progrese through certain scale (e.g. changing kingdom form tribal.low tribal-feudal-imperial). Policies on the other hand shoould work similarly to how they work now, but avaliability is based on existance of certain laws. Also, policies should be duration based and should be renewed or disabled after certain time. These changes, combined with suggestions from previous sections would greatly improve immersion and make every kingdom feel and work unique.
d) Fief voting
  • Currently you cannot refuse a fief, which is a bad idea. There are many different reasons why to refuse fief, like too far from your other fiefs, maintenence cost and garrison problems. First of all, there should be a choice to refuse a fief and gain influence as a result of this. Secondly, refusing a fief should also raise relations with a leader and the new fief owner as a result of this action. This two options alone would add additional strategical depth to the game, as refusing a fief could be a great way to repair relations or increase influence.
2) Clans
  • Clan mechanic is, in my opinon, a mess of a mechanic currently. The problem is, that it is supposed to combine dynastic play with hierarchichal play (clan leaders are like dukes and vassals like counts) but neither of the two parts are even remotely good in terms of design. I propose next changes:
a) Hierarchy and assembling army
  • Basic hierarchic system should be based on king-major clan leader-minor clan leader scale. When assembling an army, king should be able to call every fief owner with no problem. Major clan leaders should only be able to assemble army from minor clans that are a vassal under major clan. Minor clans cant assemble their own army and have only their party. Every family that own fief is its own clan. Every clan, when creating new, should start as minor clan. When you join a kingdom as a vassal, there should be a difference whose vassal you become. For example, you can become a vassal to a king directly or a major clan leader. When you get vassalage you automatically become a minor clan under that major clan. Every minor clan should pay 5% of their fief income to their major clan nad major clans pay 5% of all their income from fiefs and vassals to their king. You can rise from minor clan to major clan by having appropriate clan rank and required renown and influence by asking king to recognize your work for the kingdom. King will only consider this request if he likes you better than the major clan leader you belong to. Granting you a major clan status angers your previous intermediate liege (Major clan leader) and you and king lose relations with them. Based on your new tier you get new rights.
b) Clan Hierarchy
In connection with previous section, this is how certain ranks function.
  • Top tier of any kingdom
  • Gets 5% of all fief income from their vassals
  • Can raise minor clan to major clan (if they meet requirements)
  • Can assemble army from any clan, fief in their kingdom
  • Can apoint Marshal (only character apart from king who can assemble complete army)
  • King also serves as a leader of his own major clan
Major Clan Leader
  • second highest tier of nobles in kingdom
  • can have minor clans as vassals
  • get 5% from his vassals income
  • can assemble army only from minor clans that are their vassals
  • when giving fief to someone they automatically become their vassal
  • need to be at least tier 3 clan to become major clan
  • you need to be tier 2 clan to pledge your vassalage to them
  • can appoint marshal to assemble their own army
  • can be appointed as Marshals of the kingdom by king
Minor Clan Leader
  • lowest tier of nobles
  • can only have one fief
  • cannot have their own vassals
  • can be appointed as Marshals
  • pay 5% of their fief income to their direct liege
This changes would, in my onpinion greatly increase game immersion and open new possibilities in terms of rebellions and other mechanics that need clear hierarhical system. Also, it would solve the problem of hoarding fiefs since with these changes it gets far more beneficial to create new vassals. To make these changes far more beneficial it needs changes to fief distribution. When new fief is conquered, King should decide whether to keep it or give it to any major clan leader. When they get fief they should always try to create a new vassal of their clan and thus increasing their numbers. This way landless vassals should always be a pripority for getting fief since as fief owner they pay taxes and provide their party to army roster and there should also be incentive to create new vassal you have instead of hoarding fiefs yourself.

3) Settlement management
Overally speaking, current system of fiefs, linked villages and settlement projects is quite good and devs deserve a praise for it. In my opinion it doesnt need any changes just a few additions that would make a good system great

a)Governor system

  • This system is almost perfect, it just need 2 small additions. First of these is estethical. Rename governor to castellan when they are in charge of castles and governors when they lead a city. It is a small change but it would increase immersion significantly. Second request is to allow us to appoint a random local noble as governor/castellan. This is actually very immportant thing. Most of my playthroughs in most of the fiefs there were no governors present. When you get multiple fiefs you also found more important work for your companions. With appointing random nobles you solve the problem of governors not existing. Also, governors are meant as primary garrison comander and with each fief having them it adds an immersion to battles itself. Most of the castle sieges are ussualy just attack on leaderless garrisson. To prevent debt spiral, local nobles should be free to apponit/pay but cant be comparable to a fully skilled companion.
b)Fief councillors
Basically, the game need farm more different fief postions to assign than just governors. In my opinion, this would not only deepen immerssion but also solve some current problems game has. If nothing else, it would make sieges more alive/complex as fief councillors (beside governor) would also be considered as garrison commanders during battles. This would solve one of the most annoying siege thing(for me at leaset), fighting against leaderless garrison. I believe next types are necessary:

Master at arms
  • can appoint random local noble or companion
  • responsible for training garrison (troops get exp up to certain rank and get automatically upgraded at certain intervals)
  • ability to train militia into garrison troops (based on skill)
  • option to automatically recruit troops into garrison from linked villages (possibly by also setting some recruitment treshhold)
  • option to create prison caravans (basically it would look like normal caravan, but can only be created in your fief by speaking to MaA. He leads caravan with certain troops from the garrison. Point is transfering prisoners from your fief to cities instead of doing it yourself)
  • effectivness determined by skill
  • one of the comanders during siege
  • can appoint random local noble or companion
  • responsible for optimizing/reducing food consumption and similar things
  • option to create supply caravan (you appoint steward, add garrison troops, specify which resources you need, caravan starts traveling between cities, buy res and return and deposit it in your fief)
  • part of the defense during sieges
  • allowing to organize feasts
  • can appoint random local noble or companion
  • can only be appointed in your primary fief
  • ability to start diplomatic missions (senescal is sent to other fiefs, stays there for some time, trying to improve relations, success based on his skill)
  • Can be used in certain barter situations without the need of personal being present there
  • during sieges is present only if player designate him beforehand
Househould guard
  • can only assign companions/characters
  • unlimited slots
  • way for leaving companions in garrison
  • always part of siege defence
  • family members that have no other occupation and are present in your fief can be assigned too
  • makes sieges more alive and immersive

I believe that all those additions mentioned would greatly expand the game, while also increase immersion. It provides new ways to interact with fiefs. Also, it gives the player and AI, new strategic layer of play, with choices between assigning fief councillors based on primary skill, or filling positions with high level battlehardenend ones to make fiefs harder to lose. If nothing else, it at least makes sieges always have plenty of commanders without current situation where you mostly just assault leaderles small garrisons. Also, to prevent possible debt spirals for AI, and player , assigning and maintaining local random nobles should be free. This way even poorest fiefs have live garrisons and additional characters to interact. Random nobles are ofc no match for a skilled companions but are solid and cheap addition for smaller lords or if you need companions elsewhere

c)Settlement storage
  • Basically, adding storage to castles is a must. Beside that, storage should have certain capacity and there should be a difference betwen city and castle storage (castle have less). Also, function of storage should be expanded to act as a backup for fief food consuption. To avoid starving, food stored in settlement is used whenever there is not enough production This would add another strategic layer while helping to maintain garrison and prosperity. Also, there should be an option to allow exesive food production be stored in storage.
  • Militia is a mechanic, that i really like, but also need few tweaks to make it even better. Number of militia troops, villages provide, should be capped at certain treshold (example 100 militia per village). Every time troops are recruited, militia should be decreased accordingly. Militia growth should be applied only when militia is not at full strenght. When village is raided, militia growth should be zero for certain duration, while current number is reduced by a certain number. Also, growth can only be negative if prosperity is bad but stops at certain tresholfd and militia dont grow until it is improved. With these changes, mechanic gets more streamlined and transparent.
e) City Watch
  • Cities are supposed to be powerhouses in terms of population and economy. Consequently, conquering them should be a higher feat. Number of defenders should be far higher to repesent this but at the same time shouldnt create debt spiral huge garrisons make. City watch mechanic should be implemented to solve this. It should be based on certain building, buildable only in cities and upogradable but otherwise should be free to maintain. Militia growth aspect should be used to replenish those forces too and it takes pripority over militia replesnishment. Troops should be higher quality than militia but ofc not as strong as top tier units. All these additions would make game deeper while also limiting snowballing since taking cities should require far bigger force.

4) Feasts and competitions
  • Feasts is a mechanic that didnt really worked for me in warband, but if it is done right, can add a lot to the game. Feasts should only be available to organize during peace time and if enough resources have been stored. Furtermore, renown should determine whether you can organize minor or major feast. Minor feast would need far less resources and money to organize, should last for example 2 days and have intendance based on renown (with low renown you get visits from similar based clans). Major feasts, on the other hand should last longer, require far more resources and attract basically whole kingdom. Once feasts are in progress, kingdoms shouldnt be able to start wars (for simplicity sake). To ensure wider variety of nobles show up, feasts should be announced day early to allow attendance from farther fiefs. Every noble who attends feast should get some minor relations boost when he arrive (difference betwen major and minor feast) at fief no matter if owner is there. Morover, each noble gets additonal relations increase if during the feast speak with owner of the fief. Also to make major feasta realy unique and huge, there should be an option to also organize small tourney during feast. for which organizer also provides reward. To differentiate with the competions current in the game these tourneys should be smaller and mostly melle or archery competitions.
5) Smithing
  • Smithing is kind of a mixed bag in my opinion. On one hand, i absolutely like the idea behind i0,t but on the other hand there are many issues. Aside from balancing issues (that are probably worked on), the system is too bland. To make it more meaningfull and deep i propose next additions.
a)Blueprint system
  • Currently there is no system that allows crafted item to be saved for future use, to simplify future work on it. Also, the current learning of parts is not specifically interesting or effective. I propose to add a new tab to smithing UI, blueprint tab. At the start of the game, every ingame weapon that exists should be shown in the blueprints tab but greyed out until unlocked. Hovering over these plans should inform the player which parts of cetain blueprint you have unlocked and what parts are missing to optain full blueprint. Learning parts shouldnt be random anymore and can only be done with reverse enginering existing weapons.When you reverse engeneer it you instantly learn blueprint and ability to use its parts for custom smithing. When you smith custom weapon that does not exist ingame a new blueprint is created. Also for getting additonal parts that cant be learned this way a smithing NPC should be added that teach/sell parts and blueprints.
b)Smithing NPC
  • Having a smithing NPC is a must from many perspectives. First of all, smithing is ussually a chore you dont always want to bother with in every playthrough. Also, some players dont really liked it and prefer to focus on other skills. Problem is that you then stay without that cool looking custom named weapon for you or your companions. NPC should be able to fix this problem by allowing the player to commision the custom weapon from NPC. This would allow players to get the weapons they want but with a caveat. Weapons crafted by NPC should be far more expensive than those crafted by a player, to incentivize players to smith them themselves . NPC should also be available in every city, but they should have different specialization based on culture and starting location of a city (eg. Vlandian smith cant smith highest lvl parts of empire faction). This system would ensure you can get custom weapon without a necessary skill but also incetivize players to learn the skill since NPC they are limited by specialization. Another thing why NPC is a must, is to use them as a quest giver. Current quest variety is to low from my opinion. Also, smithing NPC should provide only smithing related quests based on your level. Rewards for completion should also be connected to smithing skill. Instead of money/influence, rewards should be smithing experience and learning new weapon parts. This system would make smithing far more interesting while also providing more natural and relistic way of getting new smithable parts that could be otherwise tedious to learn. NPC should also sell blueprints and custom weapon parts schematics at high prices..Ofcours, blueprints available at certain NPC should vary based on specialization and culture of city.
c)Armor crafting
  • I know that current system is not designed with armor crafting in mind. Crafting in terms of combining different parts like when making weapons is not plausible so i propose different soultion. Armor should be smithable but only as complete one part item. Also, smithing it should be possible only by acquiring blueprint first. Armor shouldnt be able to reverse engineer but the only way to acquire the blueprint is by buying it from NPC. Also, since armor is considered harder to make than weapons, it should be available to smith after reaching certain level. With that kind of system, it would be easier to add also armor that dont really belong to game timeline (like full plate) and allowing to craft it at higher levels. There could be also certain quest lines avaliable to complete before you can get higher levels of each faction armor blueprints to deepen the immersion.
6) Diplomacy
  • Current diplomatic system has a lot of problems and in the best case can be seen as bland. Lack of different diplomatic stances, some forms of strategic cooldowns and strategic diplomatic AI behaviour, game is in this regard severely barebones.With that in mind I propose more complex system below with more diplomatic stances which would greatly benefit the game in my humble opinion.
a)Diplomatic stances
  • Basically the same as now
  • Factions can declare war without restrictions
  • When factions make peace they enter Truce stance
  • While truce stands factions cannot start war against factions they have truce with
  • When truce ends factions enter the peace stance
  • Truce should have a duration of 40 days
  • Any hostile act of clan agains vilagges/caravans etc. during truce would reduce relations by -10 against lords of both sides and reduce influence by 50 along other penalties that already exist
  • Same as now
  • When peace is achieved, factions enter truce stance
  • Can only declare war if truce is not in effect
  • Can only be proclaimed while in peace stance with faction
  • Non-war type of conflict between factions
  • When faction is under embargo caravans that are owned by embargoed faction are forbidden to enter and trade in cities of opponent faction
  • It is proclaimed for 10 ingame days then can be prolonged continously
  • If embargo is enforced for 40 consecutive days factions enter war stance
  • Embargo is broken when truce is achieved
  • Embargo can be resolved also through standard barter system
Non-aggression pact
  • Can only be signed when in peace stance
  • It lasts 20 days and can be renewed after that
  • After pact ends factions enter truce stance
  • If hostile action is made during Non-aggression pact it ends instantly and factions enter peace stance instead of truce along with heavy penalties for pact breaker
  • Embargo cannot be proclaimed during this stance
  • Non-aggression pact cannot be negotiated if factions were at war with each other in the last 60 days or if a hostile action was made against the faction
  • Can only be negotiated if there is already Non-aggression pact in stand for at least 40 days
  • Allies automatically enters each others wars
  • Alliance is in effect until hostile actions are made or factions break it
  • If alliance is broken without hostile action it is followed by truce stand

b)Diplomatic Behaviour

  • Along diplomatic stances factions should have predefined certain goals in terms of diplomatic actions they pursue with ceratin factions based on their lore instead of fight everyone tactic they use now. For example Vlandia should never try to sign Non-aggression pact with Battanians and Empire factions unless they are the only one standing. Sturgians on other hand should prioritize aggresive behaviour aggainst empire factions while trying to pursue Non-aggression pact with Khuzait since their teritory is not their main focus and so on. I think that with factions having priorities in terms of opponents and extended diplomatic system game would be far better and also prevent snowballing with cooldown after wars and at least let factions get back on their feet. It would be great if factions would start the game with those new stances and at least have pacts of non-aggresion signed betwen some of them or some embargos so that starting conflict and truces provide some strategic defence in the early game to allow player to choose faction without some beeing handicaped to much.

7) Banners/ Crests
  • There should be far more customizibility avaliable to creating our own banner with far more emblems and crest styles. Also, color shouldnt be affected by kingdom color all the times. I know this was done for better distinction but it should be done better. Instead just everyone in the kingdom having same color, at least majority should have more uniqueness. To preserve some visuall distinction and dont make a mess when combined armies battle together they should all wear their kingdom color but otherwise they are using their own color. Also, to have campaign map still distinctable when viewing where borders lay, each emblem over settlement should have border in color of their faction if color is different. This way we get more uniuqeness and deeper immersion without making visual mess.
:cool: Prisoner mechanic
  • Whole mechanic needs to be far more fluent than just selling, recruiting or donating prisoners. All prisoners you get rid off by selling them etc. shold accumulate for some time in the city. When the city is at peace (no war in its Kingdom), prison caravan should start transporting prisoners across map. Caravan should visit villages of prisoner culture and start depositing those prisoners there. When prisoners are deposited/ransomed to village, militia growth in that village is raised and village recruits are available (if they were unavailable because they were recently recruited). I thiln that this solution would make game more transparent and feel alive, while also making sure that villages have alternative respawn rate for militia/troops..
  • When capturing nobles, there should be available an option to get rid of the noble without directly executing them and getting negative consequences. There should be an option to use trial by combat. This way you get an opportunity to kill noble prisoner without getting negative consuquences but at possibility of own death. There is option to choose your own companion or any soldier in party if you dont want to risk your death. If prisoner wins he gets released and you lose renown because you lost fight (even if you didnt fight yourself). The same option (trial by combat) should be offered to you if you get captured, but you must fight that yourself (you get renown if you win and your freedom or die trying)
9) Bandit Hideouts and neutral locations

  • As much as bandit hideouts sound interesting, they are kind of a mixed experience. Fun for the first few times but tedious after that.. There should be more options avaliable to them. Hideouts should be divided into permanent and temporal locations. Temporal should work like hideouts work now. Permanent hideouts should always stay on map. They should spawn bandits/looters etc at certain intervals and should be tougher to deal with. Locations should be designed defensively. Player or AI should have the option to clear location and create his own bandit base of operations and create bandit parties led by companions and attack caravns etc.If hideouts stay empty for some time, new bandits spawn in intervals. This addition would add new strategic layer to game and provide new ways to play game.
b)Neutral locations
  • Campaign map, after certain time, starts feeling a bit empty, with not enough things to do. That is why neutral locations should be added to the map. Those location should be permanently on the map and have apropriate map model that reflects their purpose. Each region of the map should have numerous special/unique locations to create a feelling of variety. For example, western part of the map shlould have independent inns randomly distributed along the map while southern should have caravanseries (basically fortified location where caravans can hide while also serving as market. ALso, adding some ruins you can explore, sites of famous battles with skleletons lying around and other things would greatly enhance gampley. These locations could be also used for certain quest (like finding actual empire banner in certain battledifel) or some hidden resources in chests among ancient tuins.

10) Campaign AI
  • AI should chose only settlements that directly border its territory as siege target. Currently in my playthrough AI chose in around 70% of time targets that lay in the middle of the enemy territory.
  • AI should prioritise its former settlements that have been conquered before as primary targets. Currently AI just randomly siege settlements which create weird situations where in some weird cases where two kingdoms are almost exclusively only attacking each other and the map looks like they just traded their primary culture towns between them.
  • AI should try to prioritize siege targets in a way to minimize border lenght between potential enemies. Currently in most of the situations if AI manages to consolidate its realm without having isolated settlements inside enemy territory it creates huge border line. The next time war start it becomes whack a mol situation when you try to defend lands as enemies raid from all sides.
  • AI should prioritize defending its territory instead of starting sieges if it is in a war with multiple enemies. In my run as Battanian vassal when we were in simultanous war with 2 or 3 kingdoms and seriously OP AI constantly chose siege target (usually quite far into territory) went there while other factions just carved our territory. It would be far more effective if AI would in this situation only patrol its territory and hunt smaller forces and lift sieges to try to balance whole situation.

  • AI lords should prioritise staying at their fief and recruit at least party of 40 before leaving their lands. Currently when lords get defeated or lose army on any other way they start traveling around with not enough soldiers and get almost beaten by bandits and looters.
  • AI should prioritise garrison replenishing if it gets to low and cease all other activity. In about half of the time when lords are defeated they are quickly replenishing troops from garrisons and leaving fiefs almost unprotected.
  • AI should prioritize destroying bandits around their fiefs and patroling around if their income suffers or their villages are on the border or if their party is too small for anything else. Currently I see lords in many times overlooking bandits in their own land while fighting bandits etc in another lord fief looking as if they dont recognize their own lands.
  • AI should exclude lords under certain army size from gathering and also stop gathering armies if faction doesnt have enough strength. Currently especially factions that are in all out war on all sides at once and accumulating defeats still try to gather their armies and sieging something while they can barely amass 100 men from 5 lords.
11) Art
  • I dont realy have much to critique in terms of art. Game is relatively beautifull but there are some smaller issues that could be quickly fixed. First of all, please make western part of the campaign map greener. Whole map fells like a steppe(there is some constrast but it is almost nonexisting and breaks immersion) That is great for eastern side of a map but awfull, for example, lands of Vlandia. Trees are passable but landscape of the map should have dark green color.
  • Secondly, mountains should be also more darker in the western side, but that could visualy change if just grass on campaign map becomes darker.
  • Thirdly, replace the light grey part of map grass with brown. Currently when you travel between settlements you can see on the map, among green patches of grass, grey parts which are meant as representation of paths, i guess, but instead of this it gaves a felling that whole map is rocky,steppe land. Again that works superbly for Eastern part of the map but its really hard to look upon in other parts. Instead of that, these gray parts should be visually replacew with brown patches so they look like roads.
  • These three things are the most problematic things regarding art style. Also, with incorporating more visual constrast in different parts of the map, it would greatly enchance estetic and immersion and not make every part of the map feel the same. Also it wouldnt hurt to also replace some parts of campaign map that looks like barren lands (especially near cities, castles) with visual fields instead just for better immersion and estetics. Similarly Aserai desert should be populated with some oases randomly to make the map more vissualy alive since so much time is spent on the campaign map.

12) Quality of life
  • Capturing multiple nobles in one screen. Currently if you capture multiple different characters you have different screen for deciding their fate. It would make it easier and faster to show them in single frame with all the options available with single click.
  • Option of automatic sell/buy. You should be able to define which resources you need/dont need and then when you arrive at city, you automatically buy/sell what you need without the need of doing it manually and loading trade screen. Option should be available in the overlay. This would save us the hassle and also precious time.
13) Custom start options
  • Currently, the game has only one start option, that is to start sandox with a main quest. While the idea is great for the first playthrough, it becomes annoying in subsequent plays. I know you can just ignore the questline but i am not just talking about the quest. For me the true sandox campaign is when everything is choosable, including stats. Instead of current system of choosing the right statement to get the right starting (the ones that i want) stats, i would like the option to distribute stats freely. Making the distinction betwen starting options would greatly inctrease immersion and replayability while also having important effect on moding comunity.
  • Multiple custom starting options may be unimportantn to the devs but are actually far more important in term of full conversion mods By adding more custom start options it would consequently help to make more different scenarios avaliable in mods, each with different storyline,… Antother and most important request is to make this system so flexible to allow modders to create different scenariso with different timeline(Starting characters, mnain quests,…) possible without the need for separate mod. With that kinds of system the same base could be used for different starting options.

Last edited by a moderator:


Spanish Gifquisition
Master Knight
Best answers
+2 For content and for the effort to take care of style and structure.



Subforum Moderator
Best answers
Very detailed and interesting post, tought i'd give it some time to naturaly get the traction for Top Activity, but since the board is very active and new suggestions usualy bury old ones, i think this one deserves to be Curated!