The limbo of independent clan fief ownership

[anoddhermit]

Wondering what people's thoughts are on the fact that you can take and own an indefinite number of fiefs without kingdoms being able to declare war on you. It allows a more gradual transition to becoming a kingdom with limited usage of it, taking a few rebel towns or going to war with a single weak faction and taking some of their territory, but it's also exploitable such that you can practically take over the map with minimal resistance. If you start this early, you can have minimal garrisons and make tons of passive money with no risk.

Something just seems missing, like there should be some consequences from the AI after a certain point if an independent clan has several of their fiefs. Not being a valid target for war at all is just weird.

 

[SanyaBeli]

Frankly, it's an exploit. It should be closed, but if you don't like it just don't use it.

 

[OpenYourMind]

Problem with ignoring it is AI clans can be independent and in control of towns.

 

[SanyaBeli]

Problem with ignoring it is AI clans can be independent and in control of towns.

But how often does this really become a problem? The only time I see independent clans controlling towns is rebel clans. They don't ever seem to expand. And they are generally speaking at war with the original owner kingdom of the town. Eventually they either get reconquered by the original owner or they join some other kingdom and the problem is solved.

And if you want to conquer them, you can declare war on them if you are the monarch (or an independent clan yourself). The only time you can't declare war on them is if you are a vassal or mercenary of an existing kingdom. And that seems pretty normal. You can't start wars when you aren't the sovereign.

And the AI controlled independent clans will still declare war on other kingdoms.

 

[mujadaddy]

They definitely should enable the Chaos Start and close this loophole. Letting one rebel town exist and not be able to stitch together a "nation" is fine, though I'd prefer they didn't revert back to the mother kingdom as often.

 

[thomas13]

If you start this early, you can have minimal garrisons and make tons of passive money with no risk.

Overall it is an exploit but if you take a fief before clan tier 4 you miss out on being a mercenary and creating armies. You'd have to conquer as a solo party with not a lot of troop capacity.

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

Wondering what people's thoughts are on the fact that you can take and own an indefinite number of fiefs without kingdoms being able to declare war on you. It allows a more gradual transition to becoming a kingdom with limited usage of it, taking a few rebel towns or going to war with a single weak faction and taking some of their territory, but it's also exploitable such that you can practically take over the map with minimal resistance. If you start this early, you can have minimal garrisons and make tons of passive money with no risk.

Something just seems missing, like there should be some consequences from the AI after a certain point if an independent clan has several of their fiefs. Not being a valid target for war at all is just weird.

They were supposed to make it so the price to pay for peace would jump up exponentially if you keep attacking as an independent so that it would become unreasonable to do so. It worked for sometime but I think it was compromised by some update since so now you can easily pay for peace, but I'm not sure how easy as I haven't done lately. This is just going after other people's claims. If it's very expensive to make peace then this is worthless because if you need to grind up hundreds of K smithing (or anything) in between each fief, that a huge waste of time and it's easier and faster to just stay at war and make a faction.

One draw back to not being a faction though is not having loyalty policies, this means you have clear hideouts and do quests otherwise you can have rebellions. It's annoying so the game is better if you just make a faction and pass them so you don't ever have to do this.

All in all it's very easy to just keep taking fiefs and then make a faction at rank 4 too, so it barely matters. It always faster and easier to just keep hammering a faction until you've taken all their fiefs rather then making piece in-between. It's like choosing to fight the full force of the faction each time you start war or keeping them at a diminished power by keeping the war going, keeping prisoners and such.

I do agree it's weird that there will never be a war declared though. Making it like war band where you are considered a faction once you own a fief alone would make sense but probably conflicts with needing rank 4 to be a faction and other stuff under the hood.

 

[AJAJP_Juan]

To me, the challenge with this is that clans follow a different set of diplomatic rules than kingdoms. So it wouldn't just be a matter of enabling independent player clans to call armies. If that was permitted alongside owning settlements, it would essentially be better than a kingdom as other kingdoms could not target you and you could essentially force peace through barter given enough resources (for the wars that you start). Still, if we allowed kingdoms to declare war on you... we might just as well turn you into a kingdom when you capture a town - which would reduce the grace period of players that wish to prepare the creation of their kingdom.

 

[Piconi]

There is a third option, which i have used recently, that is going for 300 trade and then buying up all the towns and castles with money from smithing, and even though it was OP, I loved it!

Personally i think it is true that independent clans owning settlements could be fleshed out more, but then it pulls minor factions in for a rework as well.

The alternative would be player-specific rules, not applied to AI, but i'm not a fan of thise either.

 

[Count_Morfetico]

that is going for 300 trade and then buying up all the towns and castles with money from smithing,and even though it was OP, I loved it!

Couldn't that be a reward for that specific playstyle? I mean... in a sandbox game if you put enough time, things can be op

 

[saittam]

I think of a more totalwar start. Each kingdom has one town and one castle each. Rest is own by independent clans, bandits, desserters. Independent clans have all the towns and bandits and desserters have castles. Alot more clans starting out smal as the player.
And make a use for marrying of a sister or daughter. Those two clans then join. Being the best way to expand your empire.

 

[Count_Morfetico]

I think of a more totalwar start. Each kingdom has one town and one castle each. Rest is own by independent clans, bandits, desserters. Independent clans have all the towns and bandits and desserters have castles. Alot more clans starting out smal as the player.
And make a use for marrying of a sister or daughter. Those two clans then join. Being the best way to expand your empire.

I like this idea
It will make no sense lore-wise, but it could be a interesting different start

 

[Piconi]

Couldn't that be a reward for that specific playstyle? I mean... in a sandbox game if you put enough time, things can be op

Buying up towns is OK, exploiting smithing, and exploiting trade by catching a merchant just outside of a town gate and bumping trade to 300 in a 1 in-game day is not OK, as well as me buying up whole Aserai except for Sanala, all while being immune to war declaration, the most important point. If i got a message saying they want to declare on me for reasons A, B or C, and then i throw money at them to appease them, that would be OK.

 

[anoddhermit]

They were supposed to make it so the price to pay for peace would jump up exponentially if you keep attacking as an independent so that it would become unreasonable to do so. It worked for sometime but I think it was compromised by some update since so now you can easily pay for peace, but I'm not sure how easy as I haven't done lately. This is just going after other people's claims. If it's very expensive to make peace then this is worthless because if you need to grind up hundreds of K smithing (or anything) in between each fief, that a huge waste of time and it's easier and faster to just stay at war and make a faction.

One draw back to not being a faction though is not having loyalty policies, this means you have clear hideouts and do quests otherwise you can have rebellions. It's annoying so the game is better if you just make a faction and pass them so you don't ever have to do this.

All in all it's very easy to just keep taking fiefs and then make a faction at rank 4 too, so it barely matters. It always faster and easier to just keep hammering a faction until you've taken all their fiefs rather then making piece in-between. It's like choosing to fight the full force of the faction each time you start war or keeping them at a diminished power by keeping the war going, keeping prisoners and such.

I do agree it's weird that there will never be a war declared though. Making it like war band where you are considered a faction once you own a fief alone would make sense but probably conflicts with needing rank 4 to be a faction and other stuff under the hood.

When taking fiefs as independent you don't have to worry about multiple front wars. I agree there's a point where it makes sense to make a kingdom, but in my experience the easiest/lowest risk method of starting a kingdom is to take over the entirely of a faction's land and recruit all of their clans before starting a kingdom. You can take all of the towns of your character's culture and get huge daily income without dealing with being voted against or not being on the vote at all, and you can just gift every clan a single castle or whatever since they tend to drain money anyway.

Basically I just think the AI should be able to declare war on independent clans, at least under certain conditions. Maybe if you have more than 2 fiefs of their culture, or something. That lets players use the independent stage to prep for kingdom expansion before dealing with too much war a bit, but not exploit it.

 

[Count_Morfetico]

Buying up towns is OK, exploiting smithing, and exploiting trade by catching a merchant just outside of a town gate and bumping trade to 300 in a 1 in-game day is not OK, as well as me buying up whole Aserai except for Sanala, all while being immune to war declaration, the most important point. If i got a message saying they want to declare on me for reasons A, B or C, and then i throw money at them to appease them, that would be OK.

Oh, I see your point now... and I agree.

 

[Sweynforkbeard]

When taking fiefs as independent you don't have to worry about multiple front wars. I agree there's a point where it makes sense to make a kingdom, but in my experience the easiest/lowest risk method of starting a kingdom is to take over the entirely of a faction's land and recruit all of their clans before starting a kingdom. You can take all of the towns of your character's culture and get huge daily income without dealing with being voted against or not being on the vote at all, and you can just gift every clan a single castle or whatever since they tend to drain money anyway.

Basically I just think the AI should be able to declare war on independent clans, at least under certain conditions. Maybe if you have more than 2 fiefs of their culture, or something. That lets players use the independent stage to prep for kingdom expansion before dealing with too much war a bit, but not exploit it.

Nahh, takes too long. Its just faster and more effecient to just join a neighboring faction and then, with that factions assistance, steamroll the faction you intend to make your starting kingdom.