The war system is a mess (extremely long topic)

Users who are viewing this thread

The war system is a mess

I am currently in a game that has been going on for 35 years. For a long time I was alone, stealing castles from Vladia and Sturgia when they went to war with Battania, until I got tired of going alone and became a vassal of Battania. It was all part of a bandit roleplay, I don't know if it's relevant.

The problem I bring is the following, right now we are constantly jumping from being at war with Vladia, Western Empire and Aserai. From one to three at the same time, constantly losing and recovering cities, forcing us to enter into peace with the weakest enemy to fight against the strongest, so that later the previous one returns with everything to declare war on us. I've been like this for hours of play.

The worst of all is that the other kingdoms are no longer at war. In my game I have Stugia weakened, the southern empire has a city in Sturgia that they got by recruiting a rebel clan and nothing else. Aserai and Kusait are almost unmatched at the beginning and the empire is basically 50-50 between north and west. Out of the 3 that are at war with me, the other kingdoms are in constant peace, basically they are waiting their turn to have a reason to be at war with me.

It is worth mentioning that Aserai went to war with us because we conquered the neighboring castle to Ortysia, because of that I am now in a spiral of war with an enemy that by far should be on my list of problems and the biggest problem that Battania has It is Vladia, a nation that I was never able to reduce because of that mechanism of launching multiple wars at me.

Besides that, it seems that the allied AI tends to lose on purpose, I see allies walking straight into traps, trying to conquer territory that is geographically unfavorable. Even before yesterday, we managed to make peace with Aserai, we were at war with Vladia, who took us 3 cities in no time and the assholes of my allies decided by majority to go to war with the West. Also, since Vladia was not fighting so much, I decided to go to the east of Asherai to loot all her villages to divide her forces. Basically I left a devastated area, a plate served for the southern empire to take advantage of the situation and attack the Aserai, of course that never happened. Aserai came to peace with us and so he stayed.

What I come with all this is that the wars in the game do not have any mechanics, each kingdom does not seem to have a warlike strategic plan or purpose.

The game implies that the Empire was divided after the death of the emperor and a civil war was formed by divergent interests. This means that each Empire should have as its initial purpose to conquer all the imperial territories.

The kusait, sturgia and aserai see in this war an opportunity for expansion. Vladia and Battania too, but geographically it would be obvious that before spreading to imperial lands, these two kingdoms should fight for the dominance of the West, Battania is much weaker than Vladia, but it could be a dangerous enemy in a Vladia that expands beyond from the mountains.

I think the mechanics of war motives should be polished, it is clear that something like this already exists, because Aserai went to war with me because he entered the territory that he wishes to conquer, but this is also the problem. Aserai should have as its first purpose to conquer the territories of the western empire, but preferentially attacking the kingdom that has more territories in this area. Do not go to war with battania for a castle, in any case go to war with them when it becomes an ostacle. It's ridiculous to create new enemies that are currently your allies.

Thus, aserai would initially seek to expand attacking the west, sturgia attacking the south, and kusait the north (invading kingdoms vs. imperial kingdoms). At the same time the 3 empires would be defending themselves from these invasions which at the same time trying to expand their dominance in the empire. Vladia and Battania should initially start a western war between them.

The invading kingdoms should always give preference to their homelands if their wars go wrong. The imperial kingdoms should give preference to maintaining their original properties, secondly expanding over the rest of the empire and finally advancing on their original invader after consecrating themselves the winner of the civil war. In addition, empires, despite being in civil war, are a single nation, therefore they should not attack each other if one of these empires is being strongly attacked by an invading nation, an imperial code, immediate peace to stop invaders.

Regarding the invaders, if Aserai manages to conquer the western territory, except for Lageta, which is in the hands of Battania, because at this point Battania managed to defeat Vladia and is now spreading towards the empire, then if he went to war with Battania, but only To conquer Lageta, after being able to conquer it and not lose any western territory, you should seek peace and jump to your second objective, which should be to conquer the territories of the northern empire, from the hands of whoever they are at that time. All this I put as an example, it should be thought well how each kingdom should advance, but in general, each nation should have a well-planned and not random territorial conquest plan.

With all this and finally, if each nation has a planned expansion objective, the multiple wars would be ended and it would allow a more enjoyable game to be. It would also add more gameplay options because each nation will have a different objective and a different difficulty level, which each player can choose from the beginning, you can go easy and collaborate with an invader or Vladia, or fight fiercely to protect Battania or unify the empire, it will be a decision of the player.

It would also not be bad if the war compensations were for 30 days, that your allies are more prone to peace when they are tearing you apart and that the peace truces were more lasting and not weekly. Thanks
 

Danny5

Sergeant at Arms
Yea 100% agree, each factions should have a purpose or a goal. Such as expanding there kingdom in this area, or taking over a faction because of THIS reason, Taking over this area - creating a strategic approach for trading etc etc etc.

But I think they are working on this, not sure tho, but hopefully
 
Yea 100% agree, each factions should have a purpose or a goal. Such as expanding there kingdom in this area, or taking over a faction because of THIS reason, Taking over this area - creating a strategic approach for trading etc etc etc.

But I think they are working on this, not sure tho, but hopefully
I hope so. A curious fact, today when playing after the last update. I see that the other kingdoms stopped being silly and began to fight among themselves. I spent all day fighting alone against Vladia, then we made peace, a vote began to fight against the western empire but it was canceled due to an aserai declaration of war. My allies played at losing battles as usual. But it's funny that I always see that happen to me in updates, as if something was restarted that stabilizes the purposes of war and later goes crazy again. I am convinced that what alters that stability is the war compensation.
 

Danny5

Sergeant at Arms
Yea, hopefully it gets fixed, haven't played in a while, so maybe someone has a similar experience.
 

vonbalt

Sergeant Knight
WBNWVCM&B
The current war/diplomacy system of the game can be accurately summarized as:

- we strong? attack
- we weak? sue for peace
- we fighting multiple wars? sue for peace cause this makes we weak

It really needs severe expansion/overhaul to a more logical system, they work so much to try and balance "snowballing" but the root of the problem it the non existent diplomacy of the game and the completely bonkers war-time "logic".

The diplomacy mod greatly helps in this with alliances, non-aggression pacts, war-exhaustion, civil wars etc but they can't simply overhaul this entire aspect of the game, TW really needs to improve this.
 

Danny5

Sergeant at Arms
The current war/diplomacy system of the game can be accurately summarized as:

- we strong? attack
- we weak? sue for peace
- we fighting multiple wars? sue for peace cause this makes we weak

It really needs severe expansion/overhaul to a more logical system, they work so much to try and balance "snowballing" but the root of the problem it the non existent diplomacy of the game and the completely bonkers war-time "logic".

The diplomacy mod greatly helps in this with alliances, non-aggression pacts, war-exhaustion, civil wars etc but they can't simply overhaul this entire aspect of the game, TW really needs to improve this.
Lol that summarized is true
 
The diplomacy mod greatly helps in this with alliances, non-aggression pacts, war-exhaustion, civil wars etc but they can't simply overhaul this entire aspect of the game, TW really needs to improve this.
The diplomacy mod made my games so much more enjoyable, i can't imagine playing without it. I hope they keep updating it, better yet, i hope they implement it as it is.
 
It would be good if the map had an "area/region" partition as @Danny5 mentions, consisting of 1 town and from 1 up to 3 castles and their villages. Then wars could get a hotspot. War declarations can be developed into a political game, rulers can set focus regions - his friens are more inclined to declare war on that area. Holding parts of an area as well makes it more likely to get and recieve a DoW - it´s contested area. Owning parts of an area could increase merit score etc. And wars could get a more given state of how it goes. And maybe most importent of all, player knows what he has to do to finish the war. "Warscore" could count for alot more when done within the contested area.
 

Danny5

Sergeant at Arms
It would be good if the map had an "area/region" partition as @Danny5 mentions, consisting of 1 town and from 1 up to 3 castles and their villages. Then wars could get a hotspot. War declarations can be developed into a political game, rulers can set focus regions - his friens are more inclined to declare war on that area. Holding parts of an area as well makes it more likely to get and recieve a DoW - it´s contested area. Owning parts of an area could increase merit score etc. And wars could get a more given state of how it goes. And maybe most importent of all, player knows what he has to do to finish the war. "Warscore" could count for alot more when done within the contested area.
Yes I agree, having a Warscore would be great, players AND AI would know how to finish the war.
 
Yes I agree, having a Warscore would be great, players AND AI would know how to finish the war.
And "Warscore" in a Bannerlord context is how big a jump in your favour the tribute moves for your action. it´s slowly ticking in favour of whoever of the parties controls all land in the contested area.
 

Danny5

Sergeant at Arms
And "Warscore" in a Bannerlord context is how big a jump in your favour the tribute moves for your action. it´s slowly ticking in favour of whoever of the parties controls all land in the contested area.
Yea for sure, slowly it changes depending on the territory
 
It would be good if the map had an "area/region" partition as @Danny5 mentions, consisting of 1 town and from 1 up to 3 castles and their villages.
Among my ideas for the mechanics of warfare that I did not detail in my brief opening comment :v. It is that the wars should be for border areas and small advances of territory.

For example, sturgia would initially declare war on the northern empire to expand its territory, then the AI would determine which territory. It would analyze the neighboring territories to sturgia and select a castle and a city to conquer. It has the Amprella or Epicrotea area initially.

The player will be warned "sturgia declares war to conquer X place" and if you are participating in this war, depending on which side you are, in the icon of the city, castle and villages in the area a sword or shield will appear indicating the area of war. Your allies would loot only the area affected by the war, you would gain influence by being in the war zone. Your allies would seek to build armies near the war area and remain in it, to conquer and defend it.

Wars would end by objective accomplished and attrition, if the invader does not achieve his goal, attrition will begin to give him reasons to go to peace, if the defender loses the territory and cannot reconquer it, he will give up due to attrition. The attrition should be due to the amount of casualties, or perhaps a new mechanics, war morale, casualties of soldiers, dead nobles, imprisoned or freed nobles, great battles won, all of this would affect civil and noble support for the war. When it reaches a very low value, peace is sought.

Beyond giving a bit of order and meaning to the war, it would be quite exciting. The great battles and skirmishes would take place in a specific area of the map, the chaos would not spread to the entire map, the wars would not become endless and the 1 vs 2 wars would be more fair.
 
Among my ideas for the mechanics of warfare that I did not detail in my brief opening comment :v. It is that the wars should be for border areas and small advances of territory.

For example, sturgia would initially declare war on the northern empire to expand its territory, then the AI would determine which territory. It would analyze the neighboring territories to sturgia and select a castle and a city to conquer. It has the Amprella or Epicrotea area initially.

The player will be warned "sturgia declares war to conquer X place" and if you are participating in this war, depending on which side you are, in the icon of the city, castle and villages in the area a sword or shield will appear indicating the area of war. Your allies would loot only the area affected by the war, you would gain influence by being in the war zone. Your allies would seek to build armies near the war area and remain in it, to conquer and defend it.

Wars would end by objective accomplished and attrition, if the invader does not achieve his goal, attrition will begin to give him reasons to go to peace, if the defender loses the territory and cannot reconquer it, he will give up due to attrition. The attrition should be due to the amount of casualties, or perhaps a new mechanics, war morale, casualties of soldiers, dead nobles, imprisoned or freed nobles, great battles won, all of this would affect civil and noble support for the war. When it reaches a very low value, peace is sought.

Beyond giving a bit of order and meaning to the war, it would be quite exciting. The great battles and skirmishes would take place in a specific area of the map, the chaos would not spread to the entire map, the wars would not become endless and the 1 vs 2 wars would be more fair.

+1 Brilliant!
 

Danny5

Sergeant at Arms
Among my ideas for the mechanics of warfare that I did not detail in my brief opening comment :v. It is that the wars should be for border areas and small advances of territory.

For example, sturgia would initially declare war on the northern empire to expand its territory, then the AI would determine which territory. It would analyze the neighboring territories to sturgia and select a castle and a city to conquer. It has the Amprella or Epicrotea area initially.

The player will be warned "sturgia declares war to conquer X place" and if you are participating in this war, depending on which side you are, in the icon of the city, castle and villages in the area a sword or shield will appear indicating the area of war. Your allies would loot only the area affected by the war, you would gain influence by being in the war zone. Your allies would seek to build armies near the war area and remain in it, to conquer and defend it.

Wars would end by objective accomplished and attrition, if the invader does not achieve his goal, attrition will begin to give him reasons to go to peace, if the defender loses the territory and cannot reconquer it, he will give up due to attrition. The attrition should be due to the amount of casualties, or perhaps a new mechanics, war morale, casualties of soldiers, dead nobles, imprisoned or freed nobles, great battles won, all of this would affect civil and noble support for the war. When it reaches a very low value, peace is sought.

Beyond giving a bit of order and meaning to the war, it would be quite exciting. The great battles and skirmishes would take place in a specific area of the map, the chaos would not spread to the entire map, the wars would not become endless and the 1 vs 2 wars would be more fair.
Nice +1
 
Top Bottom