Up for Discussion #1 - Mission Trees

Users who are viewing this thread

t0hli

Recruit
This is a duplicate of a post I made on Reddit. I'd like to hear your opinions on it.

Intro​

I decided to create a new post series in this forum called Up for Discussion, to discuss the ideas I would like to be included in the game. We will also be talking about your ideas and how implementation would be.

I don't know is the posts in this series will be frequent or consistent, but I think it will go on for a few episodes.

Today's Idea - Mission Trees and Decisions (and Perks)​

In Bannerlord (and Warband) kingdoms really have no business of being alive. What I mean is, there is no reason for them to continue their existence. In real life every kingdom, empire and country in the world have some sort of thing keeping them going, at least since the French Revolution. Before that, countries (in this post, I'll be using country synonomously with kingdom, empire etc.) with some sort of goal were the main actors, and ones without were generally just small places that didn't have much impact or were vassals for a bigger kingdom.

Europa Universalis 4 simulates this relatively well with mission trees. Every country has some set of missions that have certain requirements they have to complete before the mission can be achieved e.g. conquer X land or have 50,000 soldiers.

Countries also make some decisions during the game, those who've played EU4 will know that these decisions are sort of "pop ups" that the player and AI (virtually) get, where they make a decision that has some consequences e.g. "should my country become a vassal under the Ottomans or should I stay independent of them", for Crimea.

The missions give each country a set of things to do throughout the game, until the end of the game. Some countries have shorter and worse mission trees, but this is due to them generally being much smaller and less popular countries. For example a small Indian country who has low real life historical significance will probably have a shorter mission tree compared to, let's say, France.

Of course the player and AI don't necessarily have to follow the mission tree, a player can just "blob", i.e. constantly conquer everything, or play tall, i.e. not conquer much but instead improve their economy through massive amounts of trade.

The decisions each country get are same for every playthrough, but the decision they make change on each playthrough, and allow the game to have virtually infinite replayability because of the difference each choice makes. Let's say there are only 5 countries each with 5 decisions to make throughout the game, that's 2^25 different ways the game can play out, if my math is serving me correct. If not, correct me please, but I'm sure it's still quite a few ways it can play out even if it's not that number.

Perks are not something I want to focus on as they're more suited to a game like EU4, but I'll still talk about it a bit. Each country collects some amount of points in 3 different types. As they do that, they are able to increase "technology level"s in those 3 types. As they increase technology, they are able to purchase a set of buffs over time, called ideas. For example "Quantity Ideas", over time and as you collect points, allow you to get a buff in the total amount of people you can have in your army reserves, hence the "Quantity" in it's name. Of course this isn't a fully detailed explanation, but I think it's sufficient.

How it can be implemented in Bannerlord​

You're probably already getting some ideas, and I'd like to share mine.

As I said, Bannerlord kingdoms don't have any purpose other than to fight and paint the map. They don't ally with eachother, don't have national goals other than to conquer the entirety of Calradia, don't have any relations - just war.

I propose 3 different ways the mission tree and decision system can be implemented in Bannerlord.

1- Vanilla EU4

Each kingdom has a single but branching mission tree that they try to complete all the way down to the bottom. This still gives a kingdom a sense of purpose, but provides a more linear experience and each playthrough will be same disregarding the fact that one kingdom's mission might stop the other one from completing it. Of course disregarding this is not realistic, but the game has to have variety even without "plot armor".

Random events in the world AND player actions will poke a stick into the progression of each mission tree. Example:

The player recruited a huge percentage of the soldiers in a kingdom's land? That kingdom had a mission where the total amount of soldiers should be 4500, but now they're stuck at 4200 which is delaying their progression by a few weeks!
or
Bandits are stealing all the food near the capitol of a kingdom? Now the King can't raise his army because he won't be able to feed them! The closest source of food is in enemy territory, and if he tries to bring food from the next kingdom, it will be very very expensive. Does the King pay the money, risk bankruptcy but still raise the army that might destroy the enemy and bring them riches, whilst bandits roam around his kingdom? Or does he choose to delay the war until he can subdue the bandit threat and get some food into his soldier's bellies, with the risk of the enemy taking the fight to them?
Having some sort of purpose for a kingdom automatically brings in tons of flavor, because there is a goal to strive for and blockades that might come up. Random events spice the thing up even more because it introduces variety even if there is a "tunnel vision" mission structure. One kingdom slowing down even a little bit can create chaos and each kingdom will need to adapt to what's going on in the world.

The decision I exemplified above is not what I meant by the decision system I was talking about before. These decisions will be, mostly, fixed. They might be connected to a direct result of a mission, or they might come up in predefined points of the game. Example, this is from the perspective of the Vlandian King's AI:

Vlandia has a decision to make:
Your lords have been attacking trade caravans of that nation we don't like (e.g. Sturgia) for years, whilst the Sturgian King is not replying to those attacks and not declaring war over them, they and their new allies certainly don't like it. Sturgia's new allies are whispering into the King's ear that he should retaliate, and he is thinking things through.

Decision 1 - Continue to attack Sturgia's caravans
My lord, if we continue to attack Sturgian caravans we will be hurting our trade with them by 14743 Denars. Also, our relations with Sturgia will be decreasing by -2 every week. Our relations with Sturgia's allies will decrease by -5 every week. Once we reach -100 relation with any one of them, they will declare war.
However my lord, us attacking Sturgian caravans please our allies, Khuzait and Battania, quite a bit. Because of this, our relation with them will increase +2 every week, and our trade with them will increase by 8195 denars. Battania also promised to support us in a possible war with the Sturgians if they attack. Sturgians hold the city(s) of Revyl and Varcheg, which is/are a part of our national mission.
Decision 2 - Seize the attacks on caravans
My lord, if we seize our attacks on the Sturgian caravans, the damage caused to our trade will be removed by 14743 denars. Sturgia and her allies will gain a one-time +10 relations with us.
However, our allies Khuzait and Battania will not be happy with this decision, and we will get a one-time -5 relations hit with them. Trade with Khuzait and Battania will continue, but with no extra gains.
Can you see how much of a difference this makes? Depending on how good they are doing, the Vlandian AI will choose one of these options that have benefits and consequences. If their army is weak, Vlandia might not choose to go to war with Sturgia and instead gain some more money. If they are strong, they will not focus on the money loss but more on the mission they are trying to accomplish.

2 - Multiple Mission Trees

Unlike option 1 where there is a single mission tree a kingdom tries to follow, there are 5 different mission trees for each kingdom. Which one the kingdom is going to follow is randomly selected at the start of the game. This way, each kingdom has a different mission tree that they're trying to follow in every playthrough.

Combined with the things that add variety that we discussed in option 1 (they are the same here), the game has a huge number of possibilities now.

Example:

They don't need to be this well-defined and mutually exclusive, but for the sake of simplicity I will describe it this way:
1 - Military Mission Tree: The goal is to paint the map, and the missions are related to this.
2 - Financial Mission Tree: The goal is to become a financial hegemony, not paint the map. Trading, diplomacy, production is much more important to the kingdom whose mission tree is this.
3 - Cultural Mission Tree: The goal is to become the cultural center of Calradia. You are always a few steps ahead in terms of scientific knowledge, siege equipment technologies, sword and armor technology, agricultural techniques, skill books, democracy. You use this hegemony to your advantage, either by selling your knowledge for a high price or using your cultural intelligence to dominate the continent.

and so on.
As I said, they don't need to be mutually exclusive goals. They can be a mix of all these mission trees, either fully heterogenous or with some homogenity.

This once again creates a whole new dynamic within the game and brings life to it. The random assignment at the beginning of the game makes each playthrough different.

Decisions will be the same as option 1, also based on your mission trees just like option 1.

3 - Dynamic Mission Trees

This is much much more difficult than option 1 and 2, but creates much more variety in playthroughs.

Basically, instead of having a single branching mission tree that countries try to complete no matter what, there will be multiple mission trees that kingdoms will follow depending on how they are doing.

How they choose the mission trees will not be random. Depending on their current status, the kingdoms will choose one mission tree for a 5 or 10 year period, just like real governments do.

Example:

You have a huge army? Military mission tree it is, you try to become a military hegemony on the continent for at least 5 or 10 years. No changing mission trees mid way through, you gotta keep going with it, even if you're getting destroyed.
or
Lots of money and cultural NPC's (we'll get to this in another post)? Cultural tree it is, no changing for 5 or 10 years.

The dynamic choice, again, brings variety to the game.

Decisions will be the same as option 1, also based on your mission trees just like option 1.

Conclusion​

First of all, I know this post is extremely long, and I really appreciate it if you've read it.

The implementation of mission trees will give kingdoms in game a life. What's in it for the player, you might ask.

For one, players will be living in a world that is more "alive". They will be able to influence how the world is running even with the small things like finishing the food supply of a kingdom for a while.

Secondly, if a player is attached to a kingdom, they'll be able to help the kingdom complete the missions in the mission tree. This gives the players something to do in the mid and end game. If the player has their own kingdom, maybe a type of mission tree can also be given to the player, just not sure how right now and I'm pretty tired of writing. Maybe the player can choose from one of the 5 that we discussed in "Multiple Mission Trees".

I think this is it for this post. Even thinking about it excites me but I'd love to know your thoughts as well.

Make sure to comment your feedback, thanks!
 
@RoomTerrorist
I think it will be more for the AI, for them to have some sort of purpose during the campaign. I always thought of it more as a background thing, instead of a fully explicit system like EU4.
I don't think I understand what you mean by interfering with battles. The allies they choose and the wars they participate in will definitely be influenced by their mission trees. But it won't affect battle mechanics, except for how aggresively each kingdom upgraded their armies.

One idea is that if a kingdom has a military mission tree, their armies will either be
a. larger in size
b. they will develop their recruits quicker than other kingdoms, leading to more quality.
Of course the size of an army will definitely slacken the quality standards, and a higher quality army will be a bit less in size.

Another part of this idea is that let's say a kingdom has a cultural mission tree. They will avert wars much much more, and their total army size will be smaller, but the quality will be incredibly high. This would be because the cultural kingdom attracts much more noble knights and warriors than other kingdoms. This could even be expanded with these knights giving training to other armies/soldiers/the player. The knights in the cultural kingdom can also not be better fighters, but much better tacticians. So a 50-man, 6.5/10 quality and 10/10 tactics knight squad vs. a 300 man, 8/10 quality but 3/10 tactics army could battle, and it would be a close one.

I think giving the AI a mission tree and letting them play it out would be great. Even if each kingdom got the same mission tree every time, I don't think each playthrough would be the same - even though I said that might be the case in my original post.
 
Back
Top Bottom