We need alliances

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
Best answers
0
Wow almost missed this with all the derailing, thats a good find !
You truly live up to your custom rank :party:
There are many things left in the code that wasn`t really used, or was and got scrapped. Some got removed, some are still there.
Hopefully this gets back on track and we keep getting updated from mexxico about the subject.
Thanks :smile:! It's true, there's a lot in the code that was probably scrapped, but at least some of it will likely get added later, such as npc marriages and lord duels.

I don't really know the exact effects of it but with a quick search I found this post which mentions a small effect:
Yeah, I think that's there to make the player's faction have a higher number of average lords available at any one time, so that the player has more opportunities to summon lords to their army, without also diminishing the ability for AI lords to summon armies when they aren't in the players faction.
 

Blood Gryphon

Knight at Arms
WBVC
Best answers
1
I don't really know the exact effects of it but with a quick search I found this post which mentions a small effect:
Yeah like I said I think the only impact is to voting and influence spent, but not how the AI logic functions on the campaign map (could be wrong of course). @Bannerman Man , I mean C# Slueth, seen anything that would impact AI campaign logic of player kingdom clans?
 

scarface52

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Yeah like I said I think the only impact is to voting and influence spent, but not how the AI logic functions on the campaign map (could be wrong of course)
I think you misunderstood the post I quoted. That post talks about how much AI spends their influence while summoning armies. @Bannerman Man summarized it's effect in the above post.
Yeah, I think that's there to make the player's faction have a higher number of average lords available at any one time, so that the player has more opportunities to summon lords to their army, without also diminishing the ability for AI lords to summon armies when they aren't in the players faction.
 

Blood Gryphon

Knight at Arms
WBVC
Best answers
1
I think you misunderstood the post I quoted. That post talks about how much AI spends their influence while summoning armies. @Bannerman Man summarized it's effect in the above post.
Nope I understand that (less voting is another thing), what I'm confused about is what that has to do with AI defensive logic on the campaign map which is what my OP that you replied too was about. I don't think those differences between AI and player kingdoms are making a difference there and its just the AI fundamentally that doesn't proactively defend.
 
Last edited:

scarface52

Knight
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Nope I understand that (less voting is another thing), what I'm confused about is what that has to do with AI defensive logic on the campaign map which is what my OP that you replied too was about.
Oh, I just wanted to remind you that since you tested it with your own kingdom there might be factors we do or do not know that effects the outcome of your test. Nothing against your point about AI's defense logic.
 

Fietta

buıʇʇǝs uoıʇɔǝɹıp ʞɔɐʇʇɐ
Subforum Moderator
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Firstly, the thread has been rather constructive and has received replies from developers, good job! On the other hand, there are too many people who have an obvious emotional connection to their opinion, which is fine, however, let's just calm down please. Calm with the bickering.
 

Blood Gryphon

Knight at Arms
WBVC
Best answers
1
Oh, I just wanted to remind you that since you tested it with your own kingdom there might be factors we do or do not know that effects the outcome of your test. Nothing against your point about AI's defense logic.
Oh yeah thanks! I absolutely lost faster because I didn't help, AI are slightly limited by being in my faction for building armies, and the big one I think is them not voting as much. I assume it means they will ask for peace less in a player kingdom, which means if im not starting the vote and just reacting my kingdom wont self preserve as much. I'm totally cool with that because I think more power should be in the players hands.
 

Bannerman Man

C# Sleuth
Knight
Best answers
0
@Bannerman Man , I mean C# Slueth, seen anything that would impact AI campaign logic of player kingdom clans?
That's a huge question, lol. But here is one case of the player's party having greater influence over enemy AI than other npc parties would. One of the conditions that makes npcs decide to patrol around a settlement is the so called "alarm state" of the settlement. When an enemy party (including bandits) is near one of the faction's settlements, it will increase the alarm state of the settlement on each hourly tick. The alarm state will raise faster or slower depending on a number of factors. A party's total strength is one of those factors, and the player's party is considered stronger (by at least double) than an equivalent npc party, so enemy npcs will therefore react to the player invading the enemy's land quicker than they would for other hostile npcs. It's really tough to say how drastic of an effect this actually has, but it does make at least some difference. If there are no hostile parties in the area of a settlement (within 10 distance units), the alarm state will slowly decrease over time. This system causes npcs to prioritize patrolling settlements with a lot of hostile parties in the vicinity.

 
Last edited:

Blood Gryphon

Knight at Arms
WBVC
Best answers
1
That's a huge question, lol. But here is one case of the player's party having greater influence over enemy AI than other npc parties would. One of the conditions that makes npcs decide to patrol around a settlement is the so called "alarm state" of the settlement. When an enemy party (including bandits) is near one of the faction's settlements, it will increase the alarm state of the settlement on each hourly tick. The alarm state will raise faster or slower depending on a number of factors. A party's total strength is one of those factors, and the player's party is considered stronger (by at least double) than an equivalent npc party, so enemy npcs with therefore react to the player invading the enemy's land quicker than they would for other hostile npcs. It's really tough to say how drastic of an effect this actually has, but it does make at least some difference. If there are no hostile parties in the area of a settlement (within 10 distance units), the alarm state will slowly decrease over time. This system causes npcs to prioritize patrolling settlements with a lot of hostile parties in the vicinity.

Yeah sorry about that lol. You found a beautiful example tho. I imagine weaker factions could bump this modifier up to act much more defensively while stronger factions would use the lower rate. Could it be this simple?
 
Last edited:

Anushtegin

Regular
Best answers
0
I think that internal conflict would better curb snowballing than alliances. Based on what mexxico has said, and issues pointed out by some of the community members, making and breaking alliances might pose too many issues considering how interconnected the systems are.

However, if there was a mechanic where the larger a nation gets the less stable it becomes would serve to break up a nation that grows too big too fast, essentially stymying rapid growth by any nation.
i also think the best way to go about fixing snowballign is a rebellion system. someone else earlier already mentioned alliances in this timeframe being rather unprecedented, and with the few factions in the game would be completely imbalanced. it would also be more hsitorically accurate, as large empires tend to fall apart after just a few generations.

that said, i wouldn't mind more co-ordination and co-operation between factions that are at war with the same enemy. also minor factions should prefer joining weaker kingdoms.
 

bodhi

Sergeant
Best answers
0
I mean, come on, if TW are serious about things...alliances have to be a thing at some point. It's standard for any other similar game (Total War, Crusader Kings, etc). Just rip code from CK3's folder and adapt...can't be too difficult :smile:

edit: my god, even Dynasty Warriors has allies...looool, but not M&B? come on!! hehe, i'm dying here.
 
Last edited:

Wolfmensch007

Veteran
Best answers
0
I mean, come on, if TW are serious about things...alliances have to be a thing at some point. It's standard for any other similar game (Total War, Crusader Kings, etc). Just rip code from CK3's folder and adapt...can't be too difficult :smile:

edit: my god, even Dynasty Warriors has allies...looool, but not M&B? come on!! hehe, i'm dying here.
100% i agree with you, but Taleworlds has serious problems in implementing this feature, as it has been more complex then they initally thought or to put it into other words, they simply arent able to do it as this level of coding is beyond their skill level.

I also think that we need more factions to make alliances work out so we get a more balanced game and not just one mega blob fighting another.
 

bodhi

Sergeant
Best answers
0
I also think that we need more factions to make alliances work out so we get a more balanced game and not just one mega blob fighting another.
i don't know, but couldn't the minor factions/nobles within each kingdom ally between themselves? In CK2+3 you can ally with Counts (and even minor Barons!) within a larger kingdom and call them to your wars too. Bannerlord has plenty of scope for alliances but they will need to be more ambitious with their concept of war. not just simple Kingdom vs Kingdom blob wars.

maybe only a few in TW have that kind of ambition tho..
 

burh321

Recruit
Best answers
0
Yes, game needs alliances. This was obvious and most of us come to this conclusion at diplomacy developments thread.

I offered alliances idea to armagan too. It is “partly accepted” but we will talk about details at October. I offered when there is an alliance 2+ allied factions should be able to make a siege to a fortification together or they should join battles on map when allied kingdom party is attacked or they can defend allied settlements or they can get more open slots at settlements of allied kingdom + we should find negative side effect(s).

This feature will probably increase battle variety on game which will result in better gameplay experience and it will be slow down snowballing (if nobody make alliance with most powerful factions) which again results in better and more balanced gameplay experience.

Imo biggest problem of alliances feature will be “what will be its negative effect?” What will stop factions making alliances all the time? There should be a cost or some other negative effect. Otherwise making alliances will be always logical. One possible solution is there can be a cost which both allied factions pay and it can be more expensive when factions are stronger. There can be more side effects.
I think there are alot of negative effects that could be implemented. Simply make it so that if a faction is being defeated, make them seek outside help. Simple as that. Then maybe make it so that if a huge faction makes alot of alliances it has a negative effect on that leaders reputation. Like the world sees him as a coward or whatever. And clans in that kingdom is ashamed of being ruled by him, and maybe betrays him or plots against the him. Bad reputation could also maybe make the rest of the world want to attack them and make alliances with the remaining factions, which in turn could make it into a 2v2, which would be cool. And maybe also make it so that if you decide to break an alliance and attack that faction make you get worse reputation (deceitful, dishonorable), and people with opposite traits dislike you. Clans in your faction dislike you and maybe start to plot against you and makes demands. Honorable leaders wont make alliances with you out of fear of being betrayed, so its harder to make alliances the more you break alliances, which could result in the world teaming up against you. Another suggestion could be to make certain clans in a kingdom hold grudges against clans in another kingdom. And so if you decide to ally with a kingdom certain clans in your kingdom are going to be extremely displeased to be forced to fight together with people they despise.
 

Wolfmensch007

Veteran
Best answers
0
i don't know, but couldn't the minor factions/nobles within each kingdom ally between themselves? In CK2+3 you can ally with Counts (and even minor Barons) within a larger kingdom. Bannerlord has plenty of scope or alliances but they will need to be more ambitious with their concept of war. not just simple Kingdom vs Kingdom blob wars.

Seems there are only few in TW with that kind of ambition tho, mexxico being one.
But now you are making it more complex than it already is, taleworlds wont be able to implement it if they cant already implement the simplest form of alliances only between kingdoms.

Dont get me wrong i agree with your solution and would like to see it in game. I am sure we wont get new factions, so this is basically the only option left for TW, If they want alliances to work out. But i also know that they are too incompetent (not meant to be mean) to implement more simplier forms of alliances.

Considering the stuff i said above i dont think that alliances will be implemented at all in the game.
 

bodhi

Sergeant
Best answers
0
But now you are making it more complex than it already is, taleworlds wont be able to implement it if they cant already implement the simplest form of alliances only between kingdoms.

Dont get me wrong i agree with your solution and would like to see it in game. I am sure we wont get new factions, so this is basically the only option left for TW, If they want alliances to work out. But i also know that they are too incompetent (not meant to be mean) to implement more simplier forms of alliances.

Considering the stuff i said above i dont think that alliances will be implemented at all in the game.
It's a damn shame. This game has soooooo much potential, in so many areas. urgh, i don't know what to say.
 

Dr-Shinobi

Knight
Best answers
0
It's a damn shame. This game has soooooo much potential, in so many areas. urgh, i don't know what to say.
Well you have Star Citizen for that so no problems if we are talking about fulfilling all the potentials :wink: Personally i dont see that Alliances right now should be prioritized but Diplomacy and Interactions with the lords as well as the Bandit interactions and take overs as they promised. The good old stuff that usualy are in a M&B game so to speak as feasts, better romancing, prison breaks, better castle battles with different stages inside the castles and towns etc etc But well they are prob to incompetent as someone said here since this game looks like its coded as Pong so i guess they dont know what they are doing at all ^^
 
Last edited:

Wolfmensch007

Veteran
Best answers
0
It's a damn shame. This game has soooooo much potential, in so many areas. urgh, i don't know what to say.
I know that feeling bro. I dont know what is worse Taleoworlds not recognizing the potential of bannerlord or just simply not able to implement stuff because of incompentence.
 

Space Lawyer

Recruit
Best answers
0
Keep your slander to yourself and try to stay on topic.

Accusing me of being "not nice" or creating a "hostile environment" for asking how a game company will implement a major feature such as Alliances in what will be a 4-5 month window is the very definition of creating a "hostile environment". I don't know what criteria there is for awarding a moderator badge but you may want to consider turning yours in.
I will have you know that accusing others of slander is a well-defined tart in and of itself. Such slanders as yours are generally frowned upon by SCROTUS, see for example New York Times v. Sullivan and Hustler v. Falwell. In this case as a limited-purpose public figure in the Mountain Blade community you have to demonstrate "actual malice" which you haven't done. Your tart would fail or as the late great Notorious RBG would say in her decisions 'your soufflé failed to rise.'

You should also be aware that the doctrine of hostile environment is also strictly defined. No, it doesn't have to do with our universal enemy global warming making our environment hostile! Oncale vs. Sundowner says that hostile workplace protections aren't a general civility code. The author of the unanimous court's decision? Ruth Bader Ginsburg's good friend, Antonin Scalia (also dead). I rest my case!

I know what I'm talking about. I have a GED in law from a well-respected Pennsylvania school board. I have extensive experience representing Yankee Candle resellers on Etsy.

Please don't worry though! I want you to rest assured that thanks to Atkins v. Virginia you cannot face serious consequences for these.
 
Last edited: