A massively obvious problem in the Bannerlord (and actually, it was already the case in M&B, just less egregious due to the lack of smithing), is the completely disconnected price of war gear compared to, well, EVERYTHING ELSE. A single weapon can have its price skyrocket in the hundred of thousands, which is costlier than a whole CASTLE. I hope the absurdity of the situation doesn't need to be explained.
Just as obvious and grating, upgrading troops costs a pittance, while equiping them with the same sort of items that have such huge price. This is weird to say the least, with the leader in ragged outfit that hope one day he can buy a good armor, but can gear dozens of guys with armors better than the one he's aiming for, for a fraction of the price.
I think that this absurdity comes from the need of money being siphoned from high-level players, so it's still something valuable. But I think it's a very bad way to do it.
First, as said, it's just absurd. It breaks the self-consistency of the world, it's blatantly gamey and it leads to illogical situation.
Second, it's a problem that is in large part self-sustaining : most of the wealth of a (non-smithing) player comes from selling loot, which itself has a huge value due to, precisely, items being overpriced.
Third, it causes exploits (like smithing javelin to get cartloads of gold) that need to be constrained by another system, which just risk to compound the problem.
I think it would be better to use a more organic and realistic way, by simply using money sink that DID exist instead of artificially creating ones that have weird consequences.
Basically, what cost a lot in real-life was WAR, and lucky us, it's precisely one thing that is central to the game. As such, I think that a better way would be to have gear at a reasonable price (a basic sword costing maybe 100 or 200 denars, a very good sword maybe 2000, no more), BUT to significantly increase the cost of high-level troops, both to equip and to pay them. THAT was what could lead whole kingdom to ruin, the price of raising troops and paying them.
To temper this cost and not reduce lord in a difficult financial position to wander alone on the map, allow each city/castle/village that a lord possess to make the 25/15/5 most costly soldiers in his party to be free (basically, paid for by taxes or corvées or whatever). So even if you're broke, you can still have a retinue of elite guards as long as you have a place of power in society.
The advantages of this system are numerous :
- It MAKES SENSE. Buying a single weapon for literally tons of gold is nonsensical. Paying a lot of money to equip and support dozens or hundred of men is not.
- Samely, it's historical. Kingdom didn't become broke because the king bought a lamellar armor. They were brought to ruin because war WAS incredibly costly.
- It's a constant drain. Money sink that work once are not that great as money sinks. Once the player has bought his armor, then his money will keep accumulating, and be worth nothing. Replacing troops and paying them is a neverending task, hence money will ALWAYS be good (just like it is in the real world).
- It gives a long-term goal to the player that replenishes itself.
- Regular revenues becomes more interesting than punctual loot. It makes assets important as a source of power and not just to paint the map. More consistency, more immersion, and it pushes the player to diversify its sources of revenues.
- It allows variety. Making better troops more costly means that there is a reason to fall back on worse but cheaper ones. More wealthy kingdoms/lords will be able to field better armies, which is historical, but poorer can compensate by fielding lots of inexpensive ones.
I think it would be a terrific improvement to the game, AND at the same time would fix the absurd situation of smithing.
Just as obvious and grating, upgrading troops costs a pittance, while equiping them with the same sort of items that have such huge price. This is weird to say the least, with the leader in ragged outfit that hope one day he can buy a good armor, but can gear dozens of guys with armors better than the one he's aiming for, for a fraction of the price.
I think that this absurdity comes from the need of money being siphoned from high-level players, so it's still something valuable. But I think it's a very bad way to do it.
First, as said, it's just absurd. It breaks the self-consistency of the world, it's blatantly gamey and it leads to illogical situation.
Second, it's a problem that is in large part self-sustaining : most of the wealth of a (non-smithing) player comes from selling loot, which itself has a huge value due to, precisely, items being overpriced.
Third, it causes exploits (like smithing javelin to get cartloads of gold) that need to be constrained by another system, which just risk to compound the problem.
I think it would be better to use a more organic and realistic way, by simply using money sink that DID exist instead of artificially creating ones that have weird consequences.
Basically, what cost a lot in real-life was WAR, and lucky us, it's precisely one thing that is central to the game. As such, I think that a better way would be to have gear at a reasonable price (a basic sword costing maybe 100 or 200 denars, a very good sword maybe 2000, no more), BUT to significantly increase the cost of high-level troops, both to equip and to pay them. THAT was what could lead whole kingdom to ruin, the price of raising troops and paying them.
To temper this cost and not reduce lord in a difficult financial position to wander alone on the map, allow each city/castle/village that a lord possess to make the 25/15/5 most costly soldiers in his party to be free (basically, paid for by taxes or corvées or whatever). So even if you're broke, you can still have a retinue of elite guards as long as you have a place of power in society.
The advantages of this system are numerous :
- It MAKES SENSE. Buying a single weapon for literally tons of gold is nonsensical. Paying a lot of money to equip and support dozens or hundred of men is not.
- Samely, it's historical. Kingdom didn't become broke because the king bought a lamellar armor. They were brought to ruin because war WAS incredibly costly.
- It's a constant drain. Money sink that work once are not that great as money sinks. Once the player has bought his armor, then his money will keep accumulating, and be worth nothing. Replacing troops and paying them is a neverending task, hence money will ALWAYS be good (just like it is in the real world).
- It gives a long-term goal to the player that replenishes itself.
- Regular revenues becomes more interesting than punctual loot. It makes assets important as a source of power and not just to paint the map. More consistency, more immersion, and it pushes the player to diversify its sources of revenues.
- It allows variety. Making better troops more costly means that there is a reason to fall back on worse but cheaper ones. More wealthy kingdoms/lords will be able to field better armies, which is historical, but poorer can compensate by fielding lots of inexpensive ones.
I think it would be a terrific improvement to the game, AND at the same time would fix the absurd situation of smithing.
