Waring factions should not be able to bypass choke point castles to invade enemy territory

[bbaydogdu]

I agree with the main idea but it would be very ugly if a simple warning message stop armies to move further. You should be able to go where ever you want but not without the consequences. Game shouldn't stop you just because it's the rule. This can be done very realistic and challenging. You shouldn't be able to resupply from enemy villages without resistance. Troops can starve to death much quicker. Armies that went beyond the supply line should move much slower. Troops should be less willingly to fight. A decent supply system is needed. Supplies should be gathered by small parties. Terrain must effect the supply rate. If you are in the mountains or forest you should get less supplies compared to amount of supplies you get when you are in the plains. Castle garrisons should patroll around the area. Your existence should alarm the nearby armies since you are weak and vulnerable to attack due to lack of supplies. Actually I use this tactic very often if I'm going to face a large army. I chase them and rotate them as I like. After some time they run out of food and start losing men incredibly fast. When they lost nearly half of the size I attack and destroy the entire army. This should also be used by ai. Think about you are in the enemy territory beyond your supply lines. You are moving slower. Army of 1000 men chasing after you and waiting for you to starve to death and they can catch you whenever they want. There is no village to buy any food. If you try to raid a village for food you'll get ambushed. Even the idea of it makes me excited

 

[Faulty]

No, armies did not "bring their own supplies" they supplied themselves in the local provinces they were traveling through, much of the time by raiding them. Raiding was an accepted and encouraged means of obtaining supplies while on conquest. War time supply lines werent utilized yet. Further, each soilder was expected to feed himself. Midevil armies werent professional armies like those of rome. They mostly consisted of pesants. There is kinda a reason it is known as the dark age. The fall of rome set society back hundreds of years. Concrete wasnt rediscovered for something like 500-1000 years.

Armies in Bannerlord bring their own supplies

 

[AmateurHetman]

Another option is that there should be harsh penalties for taking a settlement that isn’t directly adjacent to your main territory.

for example Caravans and other trade won’t be able to reach the settlement if it’s surrounded by enemy settlements. That way the settlement’s economy/prosperity, garrison and food supply do not grow.

 

[Gambles]

Or ya know, you could just add an attrition system for being in enemy territory when at war like most other strategy / 4x games. Have it decrease food and moral quicker or increase upkeep or something. Would make traveling deep through enemy lands costly.

 

[Faulty]

Or ya know, you could just add an attrition system for being in enemy territory when at war like most other strategy / 4x games. Have it decrease food and moral quicker or increase upkeep or something. Would make traveling deep through enemy lands costly.

Magic damage

 

[Beau Vine]

Another option is that there should be harsh penalties for taking a settlement that isn’t directly adjacent to your main territory.

for example Caravans and other trade won’t be able to reach the settlement if it’s surrounded by enemy settlements. That way the settlement’s economy/prosperity, garrison and food supply do not grow.

Or ya know, you could just add an attrition system for being in enemy territory when at war like most other strategy / 4x games. Have it decrease food and moral quicker or increase upkeep or something. Would make traveling deep through enemy lands costly.

Aren't both of those already covered? Grain costs double and will be harder to come by as villages are pillaged and parties don't kill off bandits. And if we have settlements inside enemy lines they'll be constantly burned down.

 

[Gambles]

Aren't both of those already covered? Grain costs double and will be harder to come by as villages are pillaged and parties don't kill off bandits. And if we have settlements inside enemy lines they'll be constantly burned down.

Somewhat, but it's clearly not enough if armies can march past multiples fiefs and attack a town in the heart of a faction and besiege it for a week without much trouble, as some people seem to be suggesting.

 

[Re1zMaster]

In some warband mods that i remember of, this was kind of implemented as the lords would put very large patrols to the borders/chokepoints.

 

[Beau Vine]

Somewhat, but it's clearly not enough if armies can march past multiples fiefs and attack a town in the heart of a faction and besiege it for a week without much trouble, as some people seem to be suggesting.

What gives me hope is the (optimistic) assumption that because skills are not implemented, current system is the main framework simplified so much, that as they add features it'll not cause a bunch of cascades of effects caused by trying to balance the raw framework.

Right now they seem to get missing grain from the Resource Faery - as evidenced by them eating our horses if we join the army without accounting for need to feed all of it. This in turn seems related to their tendency to hire all recruits indiscriminantry. Until skills are implemented for NPCs and PCs evenly though - they also miss out on perks player can use to help lower demand, they buy out beer which doesn't count towards foodstuffs.

As for the tendency to get deep within enemy lines - it might be connected to AI always knowing where there are low garrisons. And that itself is so eploitable that it's bound to be patched out.

 

[Hugo_Stiglitz]

Lack of any type of supply lines being required could be an issue. Unlike Total War games, which are turn based, Mount and Blade is much more dynamic so I dont see supply lines being able to come into play. AI's behavior on the campaign map would have to be completely overhauled to facilitate supply lines I'm afraid.

 

[dykjozo]

Little offtopic, but AI works in misterious ways and the game would need serious rework to all work properly as many of you suggest here..
1) generally castles/ towns should have more food stocked, so it can stay under siege for lets say two weeks without starvation? Most of the castles does not keep sufficient supplies, even when they are on borders and most likely to be besieged..
//remember in warband when you wanted to starve-out settlement it would take 30 days, although the days seemed longer
(seen somewhere they are working on balancing the link between prosperity and food supply)
2) sieging town in heart of the faction is stupid, might be fixed by patrols, maybe higher food consuption, food might weight more/ have higher penatly on speed, cohesion debuffs when deep in enemy teritorry?
// Believe it can be done on purpose, not sure about town, but somehow take castle behind enemy lines as base of the operations, for raids. Know about instacne of taking such castle in hussite wars at czech/silesia border, hussites taken castle on their raid of silesia, keeping it even tho their main army moved back, being in the sea of enemy territory, but they managed to start small raids from then, and gave it up after some months of siege in exchange for safe passage, because it was well defended, even though it was already time of gunpowder. Sieges very nasty bussiness, not worth taking by force most of the time, though in this game it is quite different.
Maybe slow down building of the camp and siege engines, make gates stronger, especially the 2nd one, to have proper use of the murder holes, ladders should either spawn at camp, or simulate troops lost from moving the equipment like it was in the viking conqest.
3) few times seen two armies of enemy kingdoms passing each other, without engaging in fight, maybe add trigger to recalculate the target when they spot enemy army.

 

[durbal]

I think armies mostly took animals and food such as grain with them on wagons, lived off the land, and plundered villages for supplies so I don't see why not capturing castles would destroy your supply line.

Larger armies couldn't live off the land and Bannerlord armies being smaller is just part of the scale for technical reasons there were also not castles that could only garrison 300 men, for instance). Supply lines were very important for more than food. Weapons and ammunition weren't just lying around to forage, for example. Carrying all of this without resupply meant a larger baggage train which carried its own logistical issues. Armies also had to rest, and doing so in enemy territory meant the threat of ambushes, raids, etc.

Another very important factor of not having a castle at your back was to secure a means of retreat. Being deep in enemy territory without a way to retreat meant you weren't able to choose your engagement since so as soon as an enemy engaged your army you couldn't retreat to safety and if you began to lose your army was doomed. It also meant you were prone to being surrounded. I'm sure this had quite an effect on morale. So yeah, basically it was pretty dumb to try to get deep into enemy territory -- especially because what would the goal be? Siege some other castle?

I suggested that armies should need to rest and this would help with how deep armies could reliably enter enemy territory since they'd be very susceptible to attacks if they try to rest in enemy territory (https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...d-need-to-rest-camp-from-time-to-time.419953/).