Too many armies

[StewVader]

The whole influence system is poorly developed. Its a bad global currency/mana system that should probably completely thrown out and replaced with a system that uses Influence + Relation + Reputation (because this makes way more sense and can provide for more content, and more immersive gameplay)

Influence/Relation/Reputation (IRR) could determined on a 1 to 1 scale with different levels (between the player and NPC, Fiefs/Organizations and Kingdoms). You should/lose gain IRR by doing quest for people, fiefs, and Kingdoms at all three levels and your IRR at these levels allows for different mechanics / events.

And that's just spit balling a more interesting system idea (imo) in a few seconds. Imagine if they actually put some real time and energy into a immersive influence, relation, reputation system for the player.

 

[EternalHeathen]

In the situation you just described, I see several tactical options on what to do. Rhagea is away with the army, you aren't in that army and Monchug is coming. Awesome! What to do? Defend in what is likeliest his first castle to siege? do I have enough men to do so? Maybe sacrifice the first initial castles and take a stand in the nearest town, more men and better chance of winning? Have all my clan members join Rhagea's army or do I have enough to take a giant gamble? instead of waiting for his attack, I could siege a small castle somewhere far in Khuzait territoy with the intend of making Monchug have to pick between attacking or defending. With diplomacy in the game, you could maybe even possibly convice Lucon or Ragnvald to attack the Khuzaits from behind. If you managed to protect the territory from a Khuzait attack while the Empress is away, pretty sure she would marry you on return ahah.

Honestly, I would love something like that.

But it's what we said, the AI would need to be changed. With the AI at the moment, pretty sure the Khuzaits would put everything in offense making you restricted to a couple of tactical choices.

Furthermore, with the current ai, if they see you sitting in the castle/town they want to siege, they'll just pick another one. It's almost impossible to do a defensive siege that you have chance to win, especially with the siege ai problems. So, yeah, ai fixes still seem more important to me than artificial limitation of armies.

I totally agree with OP. I was working on a new influence system (and new fief system) because I felt exactly the same. I don't know if I will finish it because few people seemed interested, but essentially it would make lords with cities able to call subordinated lords from surrounding castles linked to the city. The king would be another powerful duke, only he would be the ruler on top of that.
So there would be less armies, and those armies would be gathered by powerful lords only.

influence system

Now this idea I like! Seems more based in historical reality, higher lords calling on lower lords(not a history buff, am I wrong?). This wouldn't be an artificial limiter like just ruler/marshal, and would lead to... that fancy word that gets thrown around sandbox games for stuff happening naturally.
So town owners can call an army, but are limited to the clans in their range of control? As a kingdom starts to expand, it would potentially be able to field more armies. I would layer this with a clan leader being able to call his clan together as well. This would leave the player, who starts out behind the power and holdings curve, the ability to make an army with companion parties if needed. Would also start a nice framework for internal clan wars and conflicts, which would be cool. Major doomstack armies would be limited to the king and/or marshal, if implemented.
Still not what the op wants, I guess, and I think I just ran past your idea a bit. Haha, yeah, there'd be even more, but maybe smaller, armies?

 

[GitiUsir]

The idea is power flows from fiefs. No fief = no power. Recruitment is only possible if the lord owns a fief. Clans without fiefs lose power and become ronin, pretty much gang leaders. Even a ruler clan can lose their city (by war or politics) and become a ronin clan losing the kingdom.

I like the idea of influence-relation being the main currency. Influence means power while relation means invested power. If a clan supports another clan in getting a fief, it gains relation with those so in future decisions they can count on those relations as a kind of power too..

 

[EternalHeathen]

The idea is power flows from fiefs. No fief = no power. Recruitment is only possible if the lord owns a fief. Clans without fiefs lose power and become ronin, pretty much gang leaders. Even a ruler clan can lose their city (by war or politics) and become a ronin clan losing the kingdom.

I like the idea of influence-relation being the main currency. Influence means power while relation means invested power. If a clan supports another clan in getting a fief, it gains relation with those so in future decisions they can count on those relations as a kind of power too..

Working off what the base game already has, a less artificial limiter could be relation. If I remember right from warband, if a particular lord really didnt like you, he wouldn't join your army, marshal, king or otherwise. Of course, we'd need more methods to raise relation then we currently have in game as well.

 

[mfuegemann]

I do like the Marshal concept to form armies. You still have Your companions to form a larger clan warband.

 

[EternalHeathen]

I do like the Marshal concept to form armies. You still have Your companions to form a larger clan warband.

Ooooooooh, warbands! Armies can be lead by king/martial, using influence to call lords, but only those lords with positive relation. Clan leaders can create warband, but only with clan parties that have positive relation. Seems like a nice compromise.

 

[kyle_usmc]

Well if prisoners would actually stay imrisoned for more than 5 minutes I think the system would work fine because after a few battles the number of armies would shrink considerably, but I could see a two army at one time limit or something like that.

 

[kyle_usmc]

or maybe the king could designate like two marshalls, or do just the king and his marshall could call armies

 

[GitiUsir]

Working off what the base game already has, a less artificial limiter could be relation. If I remember right from warband, if a particular lord really didnt like you, he wouldn't join your army, marshal, king or otherwise. Of course, we'd need more methods to raise relation then we currently have in game as well.

Yes I like it. In the end it comes to what clans like each other and how they form more or less stable alliances. In Warband the player could do the same, building up relations with honorable lords which would be his supporters in late game. In this system you may consider a ronin honorable clan more desirable partner than a powerful treacherous clan. But it will be a hard choice because power means something. They can refuse to bring their army to a campaign, they can support their own partners and they can destroy the kingdom if they want to.

To raise relations you need to consider carefully who you are supporting, what promises you made... Maybe you will have to fight in a losing battle if you are loyal to your allies. Maybe you will lose everything you have but you will keep those valuable relations. And all this should change your traits as well as other clan leaders traits. You would be a treacherous politician or an honorable martial lord so to speak.

About the marshal thing, it could work if the king chooses to delegate command to a major clan leader in a campaign. Their relations should be good enough and the king should trust the other clan leader. But this would be unlikely to happen because major clans tend to clash.

Anyway sorry to bring the thread to my project because I can't think in another way at the moment. You guys may continue further discussion as if it didn't happen.

 

[BannerJamminRaps]

Ooooooooh, warbands! Armies can be lead by king/martial, using influence to call lords, but only those lords with positive relation. Clan leaders can create warband, but only with clan parties that have positive relation. Seems like a nice compromise.

Yeah.. seconding this style of thing.

Could even tie in the Banner quest, allowing the player to create armies rallied behind the banner once you hit the completed banner and start conspiracies ticking.

Other solutions might involve the ability to form an army being dependent on being in conflict with a major faction.

Unless you are.. can't form an army.. gp band together to beat up those minor factions and their warbands.