The Viking Conquest of Bannerlord DLC Idea - The Birth of the Roman Empire

[Akfiz]

The map would be in 10 Jannuary 49 BC right when Caesar Crossed the Rubicon:

Similar to Viking Conquest you could play as:
- Campaign Storyline (play as Julius Caesar)
- Normal Sandbox (star as traveller, can pick any of the major factions as starting point)
- Lordly Sandbox (start as lord, can pick to be a general of any of the major factions)
- Royal Sandbox (start as king, be the leader of any of the major faction, in the case of Rome you play as Pompey)

*while I understand that the time of the Roman Empire wasn't exactly the time of Feudalism, the Roman Empire had Generals & Administrators instead of Lords. So while the lord and vassal system did not exist, the Mount&Blade style of gameplay can be explained with generals instead of lords.

Similary to Viking Conquest, you would have: Gender (being female makes things harder), Personality, Gender Virtue, Nationality, Father's Occupation, Learnt While a Child, Vocation, Religion.

Major factions:
- Roman Empire (Caesar's Rome - I know it's not exactly accurate, but for the sake of simplicity)
- Roman Republic (Pompey's Rome - much like the Empire from Bannerlord, it's split)
- Britons (England)
- Germans (Germany)
- Celts (Austria)
- Dacians (Romania)
- Illirians (Croatia)

But within the Roman Empire, will exist some unique cultures that may revolt and become independent:
- Thracians (Bulgarians)
- Galicians (Turkey)
- Cappadocia (Turkey)
- Egyptians (Egypt/Ptolemy)
- Numidians (Algeria)
- Maurenatians (Moroco)
- Judea (Israel)

Basically, a Roman Empire life simulator during the time of Caesar.



It would be "a better age of a more civilized time".

The sea mechanic from Viking Conquest will also come in handy.

You could to a lot in such a secnario: Play the historical way with Caesar, play with Pompey instead, instigate a Jewish revolt in Judea, conquer the rest of the Barbarian Europe as Rome, conquer Rome as one of the barbarian tribes (cursed ending), be a bandit, etc.

And for the record: Bandits were everywhere in the Roman world; to travel anywhere - even a short distance from a major city, including Rome was dangerous.

So both the trade caravans and regular bandits from Bannerlord make sense.

 

[Roy1012]

Let’s fix the game before thinking about money grabs?

 

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I want Vikings again. And Elephant.

 

[Wulfric]

And for the record: Bandits were everywhere in the Roman world; to travel anywhere - even a short distance from a major city, including Rome was dangerous.

Source?

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

Source?

You have reason to doubt the existence of bandits, anywhere in the world at any point in history?
Name me a time and place, any, on earth, where bandits weren't a legit threat.

BANDITS IN THE ROMAN WORLD. Bandits were everywhere in the Roman world; to travel anywhere – even a short distance from a major city, including Rome – was dangerous and involved serious risk of encountering bandits and other less organized groups or individuals keen on taking your money and possibly your life.

OT: Love the idea. And to be honest, I truly believe TaleWorlds will do more then just Bannerlord with the engine they developed. The underlying systems are too costly not to be used in more games. And I would 100% play a Roman themed game.

 

[CrazyElf]

OT: Love the idea. And to be honest, I truly believe TaleWorlds will do more then just Bannerlord with the engine they developed. The underlying systems are too costly not to be used in more games. And I would 100% play a Roman themed game.

You already can - Eagle Rising is available.

 

[Julio-Claudian]

I really don't think this game suits the classical Roman world. Aside from the total lack of anything naval and the fact that you can barely field a full cohort let alone full legions, no diplomatic relations between factions, no differences in government etc. the game is too medieval/feudal and small scale.

 

[Veledentella]

After a useless thread with Michael the Brave, here comes another useless suggestion by Akfiz. This time, however, it is much shorter and, therefore, better. Good job, one day maybe I will find the courage to read it!

@MadVader, look who has come out of obscurity to haunt us again.

 

[julijs]

lmao

 

[HalfMetalJacket]

I mean if the Bretwalda team came out with Viking Conquest, I don't see why the CA Eagle Rising lads can do their own version of that.

 

[Akfiz]

After a useless thread with Michael the Brave, here comes another useless suggestion by Akfiz. This time, however, it is much shorter and, therefore, better. Good job, one day maybe I will find the courage to read it!

@MadVader, look who has come out of obscurity to haunt us again.

Ah, yes, the trolls are at it again.
Imagine entering someone's home and then complaining that they are haunting you. You know you can not click the topic, right? you are allowed to do that, and will spare you all the haunting.

Good thing you spawned your associate, at least one of you is competent in trolling. Hey, MadVader, I think you should ditch Veledentella, he is mostly dead weight.

 

[Akfiz]

Let’s fix the game before thinking about money grabs?

Not saying start working on a DLC now, this is really a long-term suggestion.

Source?

10.2: Bandits

human.libretexts.org

While the Roman Empire gives us the impression of "a better age of a more civilized time", it really was not. Sure, when it comes to art that is the case, and when it comes to the army as well. Soldiers were in equal measure builders to the point where these jobs were undistinguishable. Build a camp from Mount&Blade? How about build a fort.

But the social element was pretty much the same as in Medieval Europe. Rome had more civil wars than pretty much any state I read about, and I read about a lot.

I really don't think this game suits the classical Roman world. Aside from the total lack of anything naval and the fact that you can barely field a full cohort let alone full legions, no diplomatic relations between factions, no differences in government etc. the game is too medieval/feudal and small scale.

Viking Conquest had naval combat. Mount&Blade itself is a miniature yet simulator of the medieval world. In the medieval age, minor nations could muster 10.000 - 20.000 soldiers while major ones even up to 100.000 - 150.000 soldiers, but these are not the numbers used in Mount&Blade.

And they don't need to, Mount&Blade's objective is to immerse you in that world and make you feel part of that world. To be a simulator of that world in a way that you can live in and interact with the world. You need to "live" in the Roman Empire and they don't need realistic troop count for that, just enough to make it feel a massive battle.

There are diplomatic relationships between factions, although minimal.

Differences in government can be added, I don't think either extra differences in government or extra diplomatic relationships are needed for a good Roman Empire game, but even if you think that what you think is the reason "this game can't work" is not so difficult to implement. Viking Conquest had tons of features that Warband didn't have. The same can be done with a Roman Empire DLC for Bannerlord.

 

[Poddicus]

Hey this isn't an elephant DLC

D e l e t e

 

[Wulfric]

You have reason to doubt the existence of bandits, anywhere in the world at any point in history?

No but I have reason to doubt your ability to understand what you read.

 

[Damnas]

While I'm certainly not opposed to this kind of expansion, it's worth remember that Viking Conquest was originally made as a mod, and not an expansion. This kind of thing will be created by modders, not the company, though they may choose to formalize it as they did VC.
Which is not a bad thing. Taleworlds needs to focus on finishing this game and expand upon existing systems before launching new big ass projects.

On a purely academic note and for the sake of interest in the subject matter:

You have reason to doubt the existence of bandits, anywhere in the world at any point in history?
Name me a time and place, any, on earth, where bandits weren't a legit threat.

While you're right on the surface, how do you define a bandit? An outlaw? Ie, someone who is outside of established law? That could just be someone living outside of the constraints of society. Someone who uses violence to take other people's possessions? How does one differentiate between a raider from tribe X, and a bandit? Or maybe escaped slaves? Therefore forced to live in hiding on the outskirts of society?

My point is that Roman society tended to name anyone who didn't fit in their political hierarchy as a bandit. If the members of an annexed tribe refused their defeat and continued fighting, they would be branded as bandits by the Romans, even though they would technically be closer to a proto-independence/nationalist movement.

In fact, even the source posted above specifies that:

"Some rebels might be classified as bandits so as to be more easily dismissed. Tacfarinas was a deserter from the Roman auxiliaries, who belonged to a nomadic Berber tribe from what is now modern Algeria. This tribe had rebelled in 5/6 CE, and then rebelled a second time in 17 CE under Tacfarinas, who managed to almost wipe out part of a Roman legion in 18 CE."

In modern terms, bandit means someone who violates the constraints of the law for financial gain. To the Romans, it applied to political dissidents and revolutionaries as much as it did to criminals.

It was essentially a form of state propaganda. In the same manner that in the modern day we refer to independence movements we approve of as "Freedom Fighters" and "Revolutionaries" but those we don't like, are "Terrorists" and "Criminals".

The escaped slaves who revolted during the three serville wars, were branded as bandits by the Romans, even though they are more comparable to an international freedom fighter movement. In the case of Spartacus' revolt, there were even alliances with Cilician pirates, Gallic tribes, and even plans for an alliance with some Roman officials such as Quintus Sertorius who was in Spain at the time and had essentially seceded from the Republic. Now that's some high level banditry, right there...

I'm pretty sure Jesus was branded as a bandit and was essentially executed for causing trouble amongst the more independence-minded Jews.

Roman legionaries and auxiliaries who had served under a defeated general during the many civil wars of the empire, would usually be given the opportunity to join the victor's banners, but would just as frequently end up being outcasts and therefore, branded as bandits.

Even goat herders generally had a reputation of being semi-bandits due to their lifestyle. And were as a result, prized recruits for skirmishing units amongst all nations of the time.

My point is that 'bandit' doesn't mean the same thing now as it did then. As a matter of fact, bandits of all stripes were disparagingly referred to as 'latrones' which I'm sure you'll notice, is amusingly close to 'latrinea.' Which is admitedly a linguistic coincidence, but does give a good indication of how bandits were perceived at the time.

But yes, you're right about the fact that Rome itself was a bandit-infested nest. As are all urban centers with high population density. So nothing new there...

The 'law' being seen as something inalienable from an individual, is a concept that only rose to prominence with the advent of nationalist movements during the 1800s. Meaning, in many nations today, you can't strip someone's rights before the law - which is not to say that it doesn't happen, but it is considered against the 'rules' and an abuse of power. Before that, in all countries, throughout time, the 'law' was as much a shield, as it was a sword of Damocles. If you were a team player, you would be afforded the protection of the law. If you rocked the boat, all rights and privileges could easily be stripped from you. In which case, you were pretty much ****ed.

While the Roman Empire gives us the impression of "a better age of a more civilized time", it really was not. Sure, when it comes to art that is the case, and when it comes to the army as well. Soldiers were in equal measure builders to the point where these jobs were undistinguishable. Build a camp from Mount&Blade? How about build a fort.

But the social element was pretty much the same as in Medieval Europe. Rome had more civil wars than pretty much any state I read about, and I read about a lot.

Arguably, there is no Roman Empire. It doesn't exist. There are Roman EmpireS. Plural. The early imperial period has nothing in common with the late imperial period, and it's practically a different country - in the words of historian L.P. Hartley, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." That is as true for us compared to Romans, as it is to a late period Roman when compared to an early period Roman citizen.

The time periods mentioned in the source you posted, are for the most part dated within the vicinity of 100 AD. Which is a particular time period of the empire.

The social element was, as you say, indeed pretty much the same as in Medieval Europe, but only after the crisis of the third century, during which... I believe it was Emperor Diocletian, but I could be wrong... essentially established the foundations of the feudal system by binding local populations to their regional governor. It was the hybridization of that particular iteration of the Roman societal system, along with the social structures of Germanic migrants, particularly the Franks, that resulted in the feudal system of the medieval period.

Prior to that, the claim of a "better age of a more civilized time" was arguably true in terms of technological advancements and scientific progress. The problem is that for a number of reasons, the Romans were - like the Greeks - utterly incapable of applying their knowledge to practical pursuits. They had technically discovered (or rather stole from the Greeks) steam engines, railways, proto-computers, theorized the existence of the atom, et cetera... but did nothing with those inventions and discoveries.

It was only shortly prior to, during, and after the crisis of the third century, that everything went tits up.



Not that any of this matters anyway, since should a mod/dlc be made for this time period, most of the historical accuracy will have to be tossed out the window for the sake of game mechanics and playability. Like I said, I only bring this up purely out of interest in the subject matter.

 

[Lord Grindelvald]

No but I have reason to doubt your ability to understand what you read.

Really? Interesting. What did I misunderstand?

On a purely academic note and for the sake of interest in the subject matter:

While you're right on the surface, how do you define a bandit? An outlaw? Ie, someone who is outside of established law? That could just be someone living outside of the constraints of society. Someone who uses violence to take other people's possessions? How does one differentiate between a raider from tribe X, and a bandit? Or maybe escaped slaves? Therefore forced to live in hiding on the outskirts of society?

My point is that Roman society tended to name anyone who didn't fit in their political hierarchy as a bandit. If the members of an annexed tribe refused their defeat and continued fighting, they would be branded as bandits by the Romans, even though they would technically be closer to a proto-independence/nationalist movement.

In fact, even the source posted above specifies that:

"Some rebels might be classified as bandits so as to be more easily dismissed. Tacfarinas was a deserter from the Roman auxiliaries, who belonged to a nomadic Berber tribe from what is now modern Algeria. This tribe had rebelled in 5/6 CE, and then rebelled a second time in 17 CE under Tacfarinas, who managed to almost wipe out part of a Roman legion in 18 CE."

In modern terms, bandit means someone who violates the constraints of the law for financial gain. To the Romans, it applied to political dissidents and revolutionaries as much as it did to criminals.

It was essentially a form of state propaganda. In the same manner that in the modern day we refer to independence movements we approve of as "Freedom Fighters" and "Revolutionaries" but those we don't like, are "Terrorists" and "Criminals".

The escaped slaves who revolted during the three serville wars, were branded as bandits by the Romans, even though they are more comparable to an international freedom fighter movement. In the case of Spartacus' revolt, there were even alliances with Cilician pirates, Gallic tribes, and even plans for an alliance with some Roman officials such as Quintus Sertorius who was in Spain at the time and had essentially seceded from the Republic. Now that's some high level banditry, right there...

I'm pretty sure Jesus was branded as a bandit and was essentially executed for causing trouble amongst the more independence-minded Jews.

Roman legionaries and auxiliaries who had served under a defeated general during the many civil wars of the empire, would usually be given the opportunity to join the victor's banners, but would just as frequently end up being outcasts and therefore, branded as bandits.

Even goat herders generally had a reputation of being semi-bandits due to their lifestyle. And were as a result, prized recruits for skirmishing units amongst all nations of the time.

My point is that 'bandit' doesn't mean the same thing now as it did then. As a matter of fact, bandits of all stripes were disparagingly referred to as 'latrones' which I'm sure you'll notice, is amusingly close to 'latrinea.' Which is admitedly a linguistic coincidence, but does give a good indication of how bandits were perceived at the time.

But yes, you're right about the fact that Rome itself was a bandit-infested nest. As are all urban centers with high population density. So nothing new there...

The 'law' being seen as something inalienable from an individual, is a concept that only rose to prominence with the advent of nationalist movements during the 1800s. Meaning, in many nations today, you can't strip someone's rights before the law - which is not to say that it doesn't happen, but it is considered against the 'rules' and an abuse of power. Before that, in all countries, throughout time, the 'law' was as much a shield, as it was a sword of Damocles. If you were a team player, you would be afforded the protection of the law. If you rocked the boat, all rights and privileges could easily be stripped from you. In which case, you were pretty much ****ed.



Arguably, there is no Roman Empire. It doesn't exist. There are Roman EmpireS. Plural. The early imperial period has nothing in common with the late imperial period, and it's practically a different country - in the words of historian L.P. Hartley, "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." That is as true for us compared to Romans, as it is to a late period Roman when compared to an early period Roman citizen.

The time periods mentioned in the source you posted, are for the most part dated within the vicinity of 100 AD. Which is a particular time period of the empire.

Yes, bandits in the broadest sense of the word. There were bandits in every period of time, all in different manifestations. And not only was later Rome riddled with bandits, it was founded by bandits. The mythical figure Romulus, his brother (who'm Romulus later killed) and a group of bandits were the starters of the settlement of Rome. Rome itself grew quickly because of its trading position on the map and the fact that it accepted all different levels society. Including crooks and criminals.

Now this was just at the start of the Rome and many of these details are vague or mystified. The romans had about 750 years to clean up their act and alter history in their favor. But bandits have always been an umbrella term under which there were pirates, criminals, highwaymen, political refugees, escaped slaves etc. But that hasn't changed during the reign of the Roman Monarchs, nor the Roman Republic, nor the Roman Empire. And it hasn't changed now.

Also dont forget that not all was well within the Roman Empire. There were prolonged times of poverty. In one period even there were so many slaves that the cheap(free) labor caused an overabundance of grain and other crops which flood the markets and tanked the prices, introducing a major recession. And with poverty and recession on the rise, so did the crimerate.

* About the time periods you mentioned, I agree. Since it was such a big timespan and such a vast amount of territory there are different categories under the Romans (the Kings, the Republic & the Empire). And under those categories there were multiple leaders with just a dozen or so of noteworthy leaders. The majority of leaders didn't have a long reign (killed or died under mysterious circumstances) while about half of who did have a long reign made such a mess of it. The ones who did Great are the ones who's periods are remembered.

 

[TengriBless]

There are diplomatic relationships between factions, although minimal.

Understatement of the bloody C

 

[Akfiz]

*makes a statement that there were banits in the Roman Empire*
*turns into a philosopical discussion about banits*
Not that I don't like it.

I would define bandit as someone who lives outside the law & uses violence to take other people's possessions.

A raider from tribe X, has a cultural background and a state of their own, that is different from simply being Roman/former slave and being a bandit.

Bandits of the Roman times were the terrorists of today in terms of buzzwords. But that doesn't stop real bandits/terrorists from existing. There were Romans and former slaves who decided to live outside the law and make a living by violently taking other people's possession.

They were not oppressed people for a former tribe conquered by the Romans or a vassal state like Thracians, Egyptians, Jews, looking for independence (which I also suggested to be added in the game, because it would lead to some really cool moments).

Ah, Jesus, that bloody bandit! Can't wait to be robbed by Jesus in the game. "My men will a word about your belongings, my son".

I see your point about being multiple type of bandits simply because everyone the Romans didn't like were bandits, but I also see that you agree with me that there were real bandits within the Roman Empire.

I remember reading this book on the Byzantine Empire, and somewhere, I don't remember when but it was shorlty before the time of Basil II "the Bulgarslayer" the Emperor wanted the troops to construct a fort, and the troops said "we are soldiers, not builders"... man, it made me think exactly of this moment with Caesar's civil war and how the troops would often build walls and fortifications during the battle.

Kind of like this:

And it made me think, man, how bad Rome has fallen.

I think it's a bit unfair to say that " The romans had about 750 years to clean up their act and alter history in their favor" because in those 750 years there were people including Emperors who lived & died. They didn't have continuity. Our modern world has a lot more continutiy because the laws have a whole different meaning so the laws in the perception of the common man evolves and now with technology everything can be saved. Where as in the Roman times, all it took was 1 bad Emperor to lose Germania, another to decide to fully retreat, and another who decided to fully retreat from Pannonia up to the Carhaptian mountains after the previous Emperor basically conquered that for him.

And there's also the civil wars, lots of civil wars. One could argue that lack of constant civil wars was the reason the Early Roman Republic was so successful and saw so many technological advancements. There was a lot more stability back then.

And eventually Rome would fall so bad that everyone and their mothers could be Emperor if he was a General and his troops agreed he should be Emperor, no more "royal family, etc". And for an Emperor to last more than a year it became a challenge.

Such a system is doomed to failure, you could have a great Emperor once or twice to save the Emperor from utter colapse due to civil war and barbarian invasion. But constant instability leads to poverty which leads to the eventual fall of Rome.

And the Praetorian Guards, my god, why weren't they disbanded like moments after they killed the first Emperor. 1/2 Emperor would meet his end at the hands of the Praetorian Guards, and the next Emperor wouldn't disband them.

I'm not sure why the Varangian Guard of the Byzantine Empire were so loyal while the Praetorian Guards of the Roman Empire were so... not.

" The ones who did Great are the ones who's periods are remembered."
*doubts in Nero and Caligula*

Understatement of the bloody C

I think it's because Mount&Blade is at its core a warrior-immersive game. You immerse yourself and the focus is on the warrior and the battles, with a greatly done open-world that allows you to interact with the castles and the lords. It's a game mainly about fighting and immersing yourself in the world, not about opening & closing tabs after tabs of diplomacy and looking online on how to properly set your economy. I don't think a lot of people expect Civilization when playing Mount&Blade and for many that over focus on diplomacy may ruin the game.

 

[eardstapa]

i think this time period doesn't fit in bannerlord's engine
bannerlord's hardcapped limit of battle size is 2000 entity at one time
for me it's arthurian era britain or northern europe, bannerlord's engine should be able to handle 1/1 scale battle

 

[saucefar]

Nah, we don't need another Viking Conquest DLC, play Warband if you want Viking Conquest, they're not going to make another dlc so graphich whores can get to play it with eyecandy.

Gameplay/mods>fancy pixels any day of the week.