War... War never changes

Would you like peace breaks between war periods in single player

  • Yes

    Votes: 34 65.4%
  • No

    Votes: 1 1.9%
  • Maybe, depending on how they were implimented

    Votes: 17 32.7%

  • Total voters
    52

Users who are viewing this thread

flarebright

Recruit
So on and off i spend a lot of time having fun in Bannerlord so far. And this game has a lot of potential for growth and improvement both because of developers and modders.

But something i noticed in my personal single player experience is that there is too much constant war. Now don't take me wrong, war is fun and a huge part of this game experience. The thing is, at least for me if there are no breaks in war it becomes ... a bit stale. Sure the factions you fight change from time to time. But your kingdom seems to be constantly at war, most of the time with multiple factions. And without breaks of peace it becomes sort of same experience. In a weird way too much constant war seems to take away from war experience. It also severally limits roleplay opportunity as even if there were tons of awesome deep lore quests to do, it's hard to justify taking time helping local farmers when than city over there is under siege and in war time there is always some city or castle under siege not to mention the constant raids.

I think what this game could really benefit in single player content is periods of peace between wars. We can still have intense war periods against multiple factions at ones, but in my opinion the periods of peace in between them would make over all experience richer...

Not sure of the best way to implement it without making player diplomacy OP in abusing the diplomatic peace for maximum gain. Maybe have Calradia wide recognized peace months/seasons or something.

Anyway just sharing my personal feedback here. No idea if anyone else in community feels the same way. I could be way of base here. Going to toss a quick poll in this post in case other people want to share opinion on this topic.
 

Some Rando

Recruit
I wouldn't want enforced peace breaks automatically between every war, but I would like the AI to be a bit less hawkish in declaring wars willy-nilly. If all the lords are low on troops, maybe don't declare war until they restock on troops? Maybe if you're already at war don't declare a new one?
 

Ni

Veteran
M&BWBWF&SVC
I'd be for a slightly more peaceful game. Constant war having battle after battle does get stale after awhile. Even if I somewhat sit out of a war, a lot of times I'm still riding to the defense of my villages that seem to constantly get attacked, or riding to help break up a siege. It would be nice to sometimes just park my army somewhere and ride around with a small group, training skills and troops, improving relations, trading, etc.I was thinking the other day that it might be cool if factions only very rarely declared war during the winter, but might be slightly more inclined to attack come springtime. Even the Vikings stayed put for the most part during winter months.

I don't want the peace to last as long as it sometimes did in Warband though. I remember joining a faction that was at war only to have them declare peace and then not fight for a good half a year or more. And since Warband didn't hand out castles and towns like candy, you really needed a lot of wars to build up your reputation. I suppose in hindsight I could have attacked a trade caravan or village.
 

Dabos37

Sergeant Knight at Arms
Yep, I do agree with main opinion. According to some data you can find in the las pages of snowballing thread, 1.6.1 will probably bring an increased peace time but it is not confirmed yet and maybe changes.
 

Chenga88

Recruit
Srsly what genius thought that constant war is fun, I dont have even time to visit any of my cities and check their development which leads to rebellion, so basically opposite faction will ask for peace when it loses all its soldiers and pay tribute which will last for about 40 days and then declare war as soon it refresh its troops and if you suggests to pay tribute for peace you'll lose around 1k of influence if you refuse going in war wit weaker faction while in war in same time with strong faction and having rebellion all over you'll lose 1k of influence again, Like what moron thought this is going to be fun gameplay?
 

Ni

Veteran
M&BWBWF&SVC
Srsly what genius thought that constant war is fun, I dont have even time to visit any of my cities and check their development which leads to rebellion, so basically opposite faction will ask for peace when it loses all its soldiers and pay tribute which will last for about 40 days and then declare war as soon it refresh its troops and if you suggests to pay tribute for peace you'll lose around 1k of influence if you refuse going in war wit weaker faction while in war in same time with strong faction and having rebellion all over you'll lose 1k of influence again, Like what moron thought this is going to be fun gameplay?
I don't think I completely understand how the tribute works for this game either. I've been in wars were we were over 2k stronger than the opponent, killed many more of them than they killed of us, had a dozen prisoners compared to their 1 or 2 ( I let mine go for the skill and relationship gains), have successfully taken a castle or town or both without losing any, and someone wants to make peace and pay them 2k a day! Or maybe that's what the enemy wants from us, either way it doesn't make much sense to me.
 

Chenga88

Recruit
I don't think I completely understand how the tribute works for this game either. I've been in wars were we were over 2k stronger than the opponent, killed many more of them than they killed of us, had a dozen prisoners compared to their 1 or 2 ( I let mine go for the skill and relationship gains), have successfully taken a castle or town or both without losing any, and someone wants to make peace and pay them 2k a day! Or maybe that's what the enemy wants from us, either way it doesn't make much sense to me.
At later game gold isnt a problem its a influence that is necessary to gather army that isn't in your party and make council decision. This is first time I've played this patch so I didnt know what exactly to except. I nearly wiped out Aseria and got prompt out that they are exhausted from war and accepted they surrender and moved up north to Batania and Valandia, as soon as Aseria hired new retenues they declared again. Like am I supposed to fight war on 6 fronts ? like what idiotic council wouldnt agree to focus on one enemy, instead I have to lose massive influence on convincing to pay tribute so I wouldnt have to run back and prevent siege on opposite side of map. And in same time they want to declare war against North Empire I guess cuse they have only 2 cities and few castles and if you dont agree there goes another 1k of influence. Instead of just keep paying them gold for the moment until current war goes on. If you do decide to play I recommend you once you start fighting against one faction, wipe them out literally because they'll keep coming every 40 days or so, you'll bearly have time to refresh your army never the less visit any of your cities and see their food or happiness. I'm not sure what will happen if war progress come to -100 but game also expect you to resolve Istinia quest like intercepting caravan that move with speed of lighting with around 180 elite soldiers. And there is so many other things I could add like as soon as you make your Kingdom someone immediately declare war against you and move with 1k+ army on your city/castle siege, there is no time to go and visit some of clans to attempt convincing them in joining you. And what a heck is point of doing isitna quest when it dosnt help at all. You are war at all times.
 
Last edited:

flarebright

Recruit
At later game gold isnt a problem its a influence that is necessary to gather army that isn't in your party and make council decision. This is first time I've played this patch so I didnt know what exactly to except. I nearly wiped out Aseria and got prompt out that they are exhausted from war and accepted they surrender and moved up north to Batania and Valandia, as soon as Aseria hired new retenues they declared again. Like am I supposed to fight war on 6 fronts ? like what idiotic council wouldnt agree to focus on one enemy, instead I have to lose massive influence on convincing to pay tribute so I wouldnt have to run back and prevent siege on opposite side of map. And in same time they want to declare war against North Empire I guess cuse they have only 2 cities and few castles and if you dont agree there goes another 1k of influence. Instead of just keep paying them gold for the moment until current war goes on. If you do decide to play I recommend you once you start fighting against one faction, wipe them out literally because they'll keep coming every 40 days or so, you'll bearly have time to refresh your army never the less visit any of your cities and see their food or happiness. I'm not sure what will happen if war progress come to -100 but game also expect you to resolve Istinia quest like intercepting caravan that move with speed of lighting with around 180 elite soldiers. And there is so many other things I could add like as soon as you make your Kingdom someone immediately declare war against you and move with 1k+ army on your city/castle siege, there is no time to go and visit some of clans to attempt convincing them in joining you. And what a heck is point of doing isitna quest when it dosnt help at all. You are war at all times.
A grace short peace period after forming your kingdom might be a good idea.

And completing bannerlord quest line should provide some kind of bonus to forming new kingdom otherwise it's pointless. But there is enough to discuss about issues with that quest to merit it's own thread (or several).
 
I don't think I completely understand how the tribute works for this game either. I've been in wars were we were over 2k stronger than the opponent, killed many more of them than they killed of us, had a dozen prisoners compared to their 1 or 2 ( I let mine go for the skill and relationship gains), have successfully taken a castle or town or both without losing any, and someone wants to make peace and pay them 2k a day! Or maybe that's what the enemy wants from us, either way it doesn't make much sense to me.
In your case, it may be a situation were the opponent still considers he has the strenght to fight back, but is ok to make peace if your kingdom accepts to pay a tribute.
So basically what you see is maybe the voting about accepting a peace proposal from the ennemy (requesting a tribute payment).
TW is working on the way peace proposals are communicated to the player because it ofently leads to confusion/misunderstanding.
 
I've been playing on 1.6.0 and experienced the opposite, compared to my playthrough a while ago. In my honest opinion the war/peace now has a much better balance. I've been playing for the southern empire and been at war with at most 2 factions at a time and most of the time just 1 faction. The wars arent on/off but rather a long period of time, allowing either one faction to try and gain the upperhand. And inbetween wars there have been long periods of peace in which me and my parties gain strength, build our castles, recruit troops and trade.

I think this thread made by @mexxico can shine a little more light on the matter, questions asked in that thread about peace/war almost always gets answered.
 

flarebright

Recruit
I've been playing on 1.6.0 and experienced the opposite, compared to my playthrough a while ago. In my honest opinion the war/peace now has a much better balance. I've been playing for the southern empire and been at war with at most 2 factions at a time and most of the time just 1 faction. The wars arent on/off but rather a long period of time, allowing either one faction to try and gain the upperhand. And inbetween wars there have been long periods of peace in which me and my parties gain strength, build our castles, recruit troops and trade.

I think this thread made by @mexxico can shine a little more light on the matter, questions asked in that thread about peace/war almost always gets answered.

I am playing 1.6.0 too and ever since joining a kingdom did not have a single day of peace. At best there were times when we were in war with "only" one faction instead of 2-3. I am curious which faction did you joined. Maybe there is more hippy minded faction or something :smile:. I tried 1.6 with Khusait and Aseri.

The thread you linked is very interesting. Thank you for that. Actually reading through that thread there is detailed post abotu who delcares war and it doesn't seem like any AIs are more peaceful than others (although some are more common targets for war dec)
 
I am playing 1.6.0 too and ever since joining a kingdom did not have a single day of peace. At best there were times when we were in war with "only" one faction instead of 2-3. I am curious which faction did you joined. Maybe there is more hippy minded faction or something :smile:. I tried 1.6 with Khusait and Aseri.

The thread you linked is very interesting. Thank you for that. Actually reading through that thread there is detailed post abotu who delcares war and it doesn't seem like any AIs are more peaceful than others (although some are more common targets for war dec)
Aserai should be the closest to "hippy minded faction". But it is only a question of geographical factor, not a cultural thing.
Playing Empire would be the most busy gameplay because it is sharing more borders.
It really depends on how the world map evolvles too...
 

flarebright

Recruit
Yea i suspect players are often victims of our success. In my Aseri play through we conquered Onira and suddenly multiple empire factions and Khusaits are like "welcome to the jungle kido".
 

iRkshz

Regular
So on and off i spend a lot of time having fun in Bannerlord so far. And this game has a lot of potential for growth and improvement both because of developers and modders.

But something i noticed in my personal single player experience is that there is too much constant war. Now don't take me wrong, war is fun and a huge part of this game experience. The thing is, at least for me if there are no breaks in war it becomes ... a bit stale. Sure the factions you fight change from time to time. But your kingdom seems to be constantly at war, most of the time with multiple factions. And without breaks of peace it becomes sort of same experience. In a weird way too much constant war seems to take away from war experience. It also severally limits roleplay opportunity as even if there were tons of awesome deep lore quests to do, it's hard to justify taking time helping local farmers when than city over there is under siege and in war time there is always some city or castle under siege not to mention the constant raids.

I think what this game could really benefit in single player content is periods of peace between wars. We can still have intense war periods against multiple factions at ones, but in my opinion the periods of peace in between them would make over all experience richer...

Not sure of the best way to implement it without making player diplomacy OP in abusing the diplomatic peace for maximum gain. Maybe have Calradia wide recognized peace months/seasons or something.

Anyway just sharing my personal feedback here. No idea if anyone else in community feels the same way. I could be way of base here. Going to toss a quick poll in this post in case other people want to share opinion on this topic.
I agree with you, especially considering the fact that war can be interesting (and dangerous) and stupid - like when an AI loses all its nobles, all t4-6 troops, half of the fiefs, but continues to fight, although it only has recruits ( t1-t2 troops)... such a stupid war is very annoying
 

Marbles20

Recruit
I don't think I completely understand how the tribute works for this game either. I've been in wars were we were over 2k stronger than the opponent, killed many more of them than they killed of us, had a dozen prisoners compared to their 1 or 2 ( I let mine go for the skill and relationship gains), have successfully taken a castle or town or both without losing any, and someone wants to make peace and pay them 2k a day! Or maybe that's what the enemy wants from us, either way it doesn't make much sense to me.
Sadly the Raid stat in the war breakdown has far more weight on tribute and willingness for peace than successful sieges or lords currently captured. Its one of the reasons khuzait were always steamrolling others before their kingdom bonus nerf. They could raid and replenish far faster than anyone without getting caught, making peace always come on their terms. So if you are really looking for peace you or the other lords have to raid like hell, which ironically will severely deteriorate your relations with the other kingdom's lords.
 

black_bulldog

Knight at Arms
WBWF&SVC
Sadly the Raid stat in the war breakdown has far more weight on tribute and willingness for peace than successful sieges or lords currently captured. Its one of the reasons khuzait were always steamrolling others before their kingdom bonus nerf. They could raid and replenish far faster than anyone without getting caught, making peace always come on their terms. So if you are really looking for peace you or the other lords have to raid like hell, which ironically will severely deteriorate your relations with the other kingdom's lords.
Which is about is counter-intuitive as can be. I mean if you're kicking tail and taking settlements the ai should want to stop your halt either through fighting or a peace treaty. Raiding shouldn't be counted towards tribute and willingness for peace if anything excessive raiding should make attempting peace harder.
 

Redsniper6

Recruit
In Warband they had it so after a war with one faction there was a cooldown period before you could even consider going to war again with that same faction. If something like that was implemented I think it could help with having constant war and, perhaps allowing factions to set up peace treaties and/or alliances could be beneficial as well to help counter constant war in the game.
 

ShadyDoves

Recruit
So on and off i spend a lot of time having fun in Bannerlord so far. And this game has a lot of potential for growth and improvement both because of developers and modders.

But something i noticed in my personal single player experience is that there is too much constant war. Now don't take me wrong, war is fun and a huge part of this game experience. The thing is, at least for me if there are no breaks in war it becomes ... a bit stale. Sure the factions you fight change from time to time. But your kingdom seems to be constantly at war, most of the time with multiple factions. And without breaks of peace it becomes sort of same experience. In a weird way too much constant war seems to take away from war experience. It also severally limits roleplay opportunity as even if there were tons of awesome deep lore quests to do, it's hard to justify taking time helping local farmers when than city over there is under siege and in war time there is always some city or castle under siege not to mention the constant raids.

I think what this game could really benefit in single player content is periods of peace between wars. We can still have intense war periods against multiple factions at ones, but in my opinion the periods of peace in between them would make over all experience richer...

Not sure of the best way to implement it without making player diplomacy OP in abusing the diplomatic peace for maximum gain. Maybe have Calradia wide recognized peace months/seasons or something.

Anyway just sharing my personal feedback here. No idea if anyone else in community feels the same way. I could be way of base here. Going to toss a quick poll in this post in case other people want to share opinion on this topic.
I LOVE THIS GAME TY TW. Also agree with the main opinion here. Council refuses to sue for peace (who would actively seek total war at all times), at war with 6 factions playing my own kingdom. I decimate them over and over, and pay influence when possible to make peace, but I starting to run out as my empire expands. There is not enough time to go around and recruit new lords, stop cities from rebelling / build economies because of the constant fighting. Losing an entire army would be devastating to a kingdom, losing multiple armies and cities would be catastrophic. Yet the AI never sue for peace, because if you don't execute or imprison everyone they come back with a new army in a few days time. Young men and women warriors do not grow on trees IRL, it takes years for someone to grow up to an acceptable age for soldiering, not to mention economies would not function if everyone was dead. This is not RL but it is insane how fast armies are replenished. My campaign feels like an endless and stale horde mode of zealous enemies who have no regard for the lives of their people, strategy, or logic in waging war. Why are my council lords unwilling to sue for peace when a fifth or sixth or seventh nation declares war and threatens the boundaries of their fiefs, or after the army they are carelessly leading is utterly destroyed, or their new town rebels?

  1. Change parameters allowing enemy AI to sue for peace based on kingdom comparison stats in a more realistic fashion. EX. I am at war with SE, 5000 to 1000 casualties, I have 17 prisoners they have 0, 32 towns to their five, yet they will not capitulate?
  2. Possibly make victory conditions when going to war, a claim on a city, killing a certain # of enemy soldiers or defeating a specific lord in battle, raiding a certain amount. When conditions are met a peace negotiation automatically begins, and is considered and weighed by both parties before being decided.
  3. Increase war exhaustion from losing battles and failed sieges.
  4. Allow enemy lords to break with faction and join you, maybe because of similar shared traits or friendship or renown? maybe they come and ask for money or fief and if you accept they join? Same with mercenaries, why should a king have to track down a peasant commander, they should find you and offer their services. At least have a way to contact people (letters? messengers?)
  5. Self-promotion of units to lord status. If I have a banner knight that gets 10 kills and knocks out a lord in a decisive battle, why cant I give him or her a lordship? Rather have them watching my back then that devious cruel turncoat.
  6. Option to have towns take food directly from me or stash so they don't starve and rebel. I have thousands of units of food saved up but I cant stop a newly acquired town from starving? horses and weapons and armor in stash ----> option to increase experience of garrison units. Why sell hundreds of weapons when I could outfit the peasantry to be more deadly?
  7. Have some sort of political control feature where if you have more control over clans in kingdom you dont have to use as much influence to make decisions.
  8. Please let me control who gets fiefs, not just a seemingly random assortment of three lords. Of course I want that prosperous city in that strategic location, I am the most powerful clan in the world and your rightful king! Obvi this would make some mad but is totally within the realm of a monarch's powers.
  9. Lords in own kingdom should have to use influence to go against your decisions too, so I could exhaust their pool then they couldnt challenge me for a while.
Like I said, love the game, just hoping it gets some end-game quality of life improvements so I can enjoy other aspects of game in between the eternal bloodshed that occupies the lives of most Calradians.
 
Top Bottom