What do you think about population?

[adrakken]

I would say no because this game is not remotely "realistic". It would in the end cut the game way too short if 5 of the kingdoms are in constant warfare gutting their population and then the 6th rolls them all when they are weak..or...make the game insanely boring. Do you want to have to do absolutely nothing for 20 in game years because there is no population anywhere from constant warfare and no one can raise an army? That does not sound fun.

There is the problem. Good idea on paper only.

 

[Wulfsdottir]

I would say no because this game is not remotely "realistic". It would in the end cut the game way too short if 5 of the kingdoms are in constant warfare gutting their population and then the 6th rolls them all when they are weak..or...make the game insanely boring. Do you want to have to do absolutely nothing for 20 in game years because there is no population anywhere from constant warfare and no one can raise an army? That does not sound fun.

There is the problem. Good idea on paper only.

That's the point. They should NOT be in constant warfare thinking about not to gut their whole population. Population pool should make them "think twice" before going to war.

And yes, you are right. No war will make the game boring if the game will have nothing to do during the peace time. That's why I think that features like these must come together with others that allows player of more variety in peace-time management of her kingdom/fief/clan whatever. There must be something to do in both war times and peace times

Constantly running around chasing looters to upgrade my recruits is as boring (if not more) at the moment.

 

[adrakken]

That's the point. They should NOT be in constant warfare thinking about not to gut their whole population. Population pool should make them "think twice" before going to war.

Again, I have zero that means none BTW, desire to play a game where I have to sit and do NOTHING for 15-20 in game YEARS for a new generation to grow up so I can actually play this COMBAT based game. I can play 4x games if I want boring. That level of realism has no place in the base game.

Now if you created a MOD that added that feature I would cheer for its success for you and those that want it in their game.

 

[archaicwarrior]

I would say no because this game is not remotely "realistic". It would in the end cut the game way too short if 5 of the kingdoms are in constant warfare gutting their population and then the 6th rolls them all when they are weak..or...make the game insanely boring. Do you want to have to do absolutely nothing for 20 in game years because there is no population anywhere from constant warfare and no one can raise an army? That does not sound fun.

There is the problem. Good idea on paper only.

You don't need to be Spartans .. then vanish through lack of population. Internal friction between population classes can cause interesting conflicts - no need for constant wars.

And where are all the Refugees after all these wars ! ? We should have HERDS of viking (sturgs) and Brits (Batts) refugees wandering around Calradia. Offer them entry into your faction, get a major boost to populations. I remember one king .. Romulus i think his name was, he passed a law allowing criminals to become Roman citizens , to boost population .. he was overrun with men from the wilds. Now all he needed was women .. hmmmm.

Here's a sample of a City view screen, showing the Roman population divided by class, and their stats.

.

 

[adrakken]

You don't need to be Spartans .. then vanish through lack of population. Internal friction between population classes can cause interesting conflicts - no need for constant wars.

And where are all the Refugees after all these wars ! ? We should have HERDS of viking (sturgs) and Brits (Batts) refugees wandering around Calradia. Offer them entry into your faction, get a major boost to populations. I remember one king .. Romulus i think his name was, he passed a law allowing criminals to become Roman citizens , to boost population .. he was overrun with men from the wilds. Now all he needed was women .. hmmmm.

Here's a sample of a City view screen, showing the Roman population divided by class, and their stats.

1. Name a time when there were viking "refugees" during their 400+ years of invading the rest of Europe.
2. Name a time when there were British "refugees" in Europe during their 1300+ years of wars with France and other parts of Europe.
3. Why are you using Rome as an example when Rome is one of the most unique cities in history...next to no other European power allowed the places they conquered to come settle in their city and even grant many of them citizen status. Even the cities founding was very unique in history.

Again. If this was done in a mod, I would cheer for it for those that want it...but I am 100% against it for the base game. It would radically alter what M&B is and make it too much like a boring 4x game which is where this idea comes from.

 

[Wulfsdottir]

Again. If this was done in a mod, I would cheer for it for those that want it...but I am 100% against it for the base game. It would radically alter what M&B is and make it too much like a boring 4x game which is where this idea comes from.

We got it. You're against it. Some people like the idea, some not. I'm alright with it.
But as for "4x game which is where this idea comes from" I don't have a slightest idea what do you mean, or what's 4x game.

You don't need to be Spartans .. then vanish through lack of population. Internal friction between population classes can cause interesting conflicts - no need for constant wars.

And where are all the Refugees after all these wars ! ? We should have HERDS of viking (sturgs) and Brits (Batts) refugees wandering around Calradia. Offer them entry into your faction, get a major boost to populations. I remember one king .. Romulus i think his name was, he passed a law allowing criminals to become Roman citizens , to boost population .. he was overrun with men from the wilds. Now all he needed was women .. hmmmm.

Here's a sample of a City view screen, showing the Roman population divided by class, and their stats.

.

These level of detail would be awesome. But I'd be glad if they'd at least give us basics.

 

[adrakken]

We got it. You're against it. Some people like the idea, some not. I'm alright with it.
But as for "4x game which is where this idea comes from" I don't have a slightest idea what do you mean, or what's 4x game.

Yet notice how I seem to be the only one calling for it to be a mod so everyone gets what they want...

A 4x game is a turn-based RTS. Civilization, Europa Universalis, Stellaris, age of wonders, imperator rome...the original being Master of Orion way back in 1993.

 

[Wulfsdottir]

Yet notice how I seem to be the only one calling for it to be a mod so everyone gets what they want...

A 4x game is a turn-based RTS. Civilization, Europa Universalis, Stellaris, age of wonders, imperator rome...the original being Master of Orion way back in 1993.

Have played non of those games.
Strategies I played were Age of Empires, Crusader Kings, Total War series mostly. But the idea has nothing to do with them.

 

[adrakken]

Have played non of those games.
Strategies I played were Age of Empires, Crusader Kings, Total War series mostly. But the idea has nothing to do with them.

which is why I keep saying those games are boring, 4x games bogs everything down in micro-managing because they are turn based. Its one of the reasons why most are not popular and action RTSs like the ones you name are more loved.

If there is a push to have this idea created in a mod, I would even attempt to help them make it just to see if it could be done.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

which is why I keep saying those games are boring, 4x games bogs everything down in micro-managing because they are turn based. Its one of the reasons why most are not popular and action RTSs like the ones you name are more loved.

Have you every played any of the 4x titles you're talking about for more than ten seconds?

 

[adrakken]

Have you every played any of the 4x titles you're talking about for more than ten seconds?

Sadly yes I have played 2 of them. I only bought the second one, Stellaris because it was space based and had a Star Wars total conversion mod. Have you ever presented an actual refute to an arugment before or just dismissals and character assassination attempts? either way, my points still stand. This game is not like 4x games and should not be made like one outside of mods.

 

[Honved]

Again, I have zero that means none BTW, desire to play a game where I have to sit and do NOTHING for 15-20 in game YEARS for a new generation to grow up so I can actually play this COMBAT based game.

I have little interest in playing a game where defeating the opponent over and over means absolutely nothing, because they continue to come back again with fresh troops recruited out of thin air.

If the wars were at least limited so not everyone is fighting multiple wars all the time, and SOME kingdoms were actually at peace for 30-50% of the time, it might be a good balance. If you want to fight constantly, either hire out as a mercenary, join one of the more aggressive factions, or take on bandits between wars. If you want more kingdom management and politics, join one of the less aggressive factions. You CAN have both options in this game, if it's designed to provide a few meaningful differences between factions.

The ability to recruit from a village should be limited, with the owner having almost unlimited ability to recruit (if it runs out of peasants, it's your own fault), faction members and those friendly to the village having reduced access (practically nil below some minimum population figure, increasing as the population grows), and neutral parties having extremely limited ability to recruit, and only if the village has excess population above some minimum. Enemies should NOT be allowed to recruit; would you give weapons to a forcibly conscripted enemy and then expect them to support you in combat? Expect a stab in the back instead.

The idea is that if there are too many wars, army sizes begin to shrink until lords can't gather a large enough field army to take another castle or town (sieges should be painfully expensive in both manpower and supplies for the attacker), in which case there's no point in continuing the war for the aggressor. The AI needs to end wars when (or before) it becomes pointless. Population growth rates need to create enough excess population to recruit in order to start another war in 3-6 months or so. 6-12 months of war, followed by 3-6 months of peace, depending on casualties and the aggressiveness of the faction. This is not the late middle ages, where you have 15-100 year wars, it should be a series of raids and brief campaigns for a single season, then return home to plant or harvest.

 

[adrakken]

I have little interest in playing a game where defeating the opponent over and over means absolutely nothing, because they continue to come back again with fresh troops recruited out of thin air.

M&B should not be made into something it has never been to suit those that clearly bought a game they know nothing about especially for people that only care about themselves when other options are available to get it. Modding.

Perhaps you should spend some time on a 4x games forums demanding they make it more like Grand Theft Auto because you hate 4x games. Or tell an RPG maker to make their game more like Sonic the Hedgehog because RPGs dont have enough action. Sounds like a fun way to spend your time.

 

[Wulfsdottir]

M&B should not be made into something it has never been to suit those that clearly bought a game they know nothing about especially for people that only care about themselves when other options are available to get it. Modding.

I play M&B since it's first release back when there wasn't even Warband yet. With and without mods. But even if someone's new to the game that doesn't make their opinion less of a thing. The forum's for discussion and suggestions. We discuss and suggest. You don't like the idea. We are all fine with it. More people seem to be into it though. Which should be fine for you too. Some of us want the game to be better than the earlier titles were. Years have gone. Technology went forward. Surely we have the right to WISH something.

No need to throw accusations and shaming anyone who aren't on the same side as you.

 

[Wolfsblut]

No.
The game already can't handle half of its systems, the last thing it needs for the next 12-18 months is more of it.

 

[Wulfsdottir]

I have little interest in playing a game where defeating the opponent over and over means absolutely nothing, because they continue to come back again with fresh troops recruited out of thin air.

This. It takes away the sense of achievement. You become sterile to enjoy defeating your enemy because it means nothing.

And that's why I think that there must be OTHER activities, more interesting quests and that promised crime-system maybe and then some more for gamers who are bored during peace times. So EVERYONE can have everything they want.

 

[Mama Luke]

I really think that the player should only be able to recruit mercenaries until they have their own fief, I also wish lords could only recruit from their own fiefs. Of course, this would take a re imagining of the recruitment process. So for example, fiefs would have certain limits on how many soldiers could be recruited for each lord, etc. Lords with few fiefs would naturally have less soldiers. Infinite soldier supply is just silly. There should be ways to hurt a faction by killing a lot of their soldiers which makes them not want to go to war for a long time. Of course, someone else might take advantage of this.

I have little interest in playing a game where defeating the opponent over and over means absolutely nothing, because they continue to come back again with fresh troops recruited out of thin air.

If the wars were at least limited so not everyone is fighting multiple wars all the time, and SOME kingdoms were actually at peace for 30-50% of the time, it might be a good balance. If you want to fight constantly, either hire out as a mercenary, join one of the more aggressive factions, or take on bandits between wars. If you want more kingdom management and politics, join one of the less aggressive factions. You CAN have both options in this game, if it's designed to provide a few meaningful differences between factions.

The ability to recruit from a village should be limited, with the owner having almost unlimited ability to recruit (if it runs out of peasants, it's your own fault), faction members and those friendly to the village having reduced access (practically nil below some minimum population figure, increasing as the population grows), and neutral parties having extremely limited ability to recruit, and only if the village has excess population above some minimum. Enemies should NOT be allowed to recruit; would you give weapons to a forcibly conscripted enemy and then expect them to support you in combat? Expect a stab in the back instead.

The idea is that if there are too many wars, army sizes begin to shrink until lords can't gather a large enough field army to take another castle or town (sieges should be painfully expensive in both manpower and supplies for the attacker), in which case there's no point in continuing the war for the aggressor. The AI needs to end wars when (or before) it becomes pointless. Population growth rates need to create enough excess population to recruit in order to start another war in 3-6 months or so. 6-12 months of war, followed by 3-6 months of peace, depending on casualties and the aggressiveness of the faction. This is not the late middle ages, where you have 15-100 year wars, it should be a series of raids and brief campaigns for a single season, then return home to plant or harvest.

I fully agree with you guys. I hope TW make note of these suggestions which can make the game much better than what it is now.

 

[adrakken]

Surely we have the right to WISH something.

Surely those that dont want it in the base game have the right to not want it also. ?

And once again I point out that only I am pointing out that everyone can have what they want which proves I am not "shaming" those on the other side. One doest not provide a solution to get someone what they want if they are just attacking someone...a mod that adds this gives those that want a game very different from what everyone else wants will solve this. Altering the very game itself only serves a tiny portion of the player-base. This change is so drastic, not even mods attempted to bring it, that is how out of place it is in M&B. If that doesnt tell you something, nothing will.

 

[Sheepify]

What makes you say that? I've always considered recruiting costs to be on the cheaper side.

I guess I miscommunicated somehow but that's actually my problem with it.

One issue I think the game has is that it's too easy, for better or for worse, for the player to make it from commoner to vassal while completely ignoring quests, and therefore missing out on the important boost to notables' relations and influence levels. Once they make it to the vassal stage and they suddenly need more access to recruits, they feel like it's a step backwards in their momentum to drop everything and go complete some quests.

I agree. Even suggested that recruitment be tied to obtaining permission from a settlement's lord to encourage faster utility from relation increase with notables (and address a few other issues that current implementation was struggling with).

That's completely understandable, because not everyone enjoys doing quests, and no matter how much effort the designers put into them, procedurally generated quests will always get stale at some point. The game does not offer many alternatives to increasing notables' influence and relations in this respect.

Which it should. Though, honestly, Daggerfall ran on procgen of handful of quests, and if anything they were a mechanic I had hoped to see expanded on in later TES titles (and no, "Radiant" quests don't really count since they were about as basic as Daggerfall's quests, without the latter associated procgen dungeons, however problematic they could end up being).

To be honest, the game seems to actively remove any potential for "emergent gameplay" interactions in that respect. Since nobles respawn with high-tier units capable to creaming most looter, if not all bandit groups (which themselves are so rudimentary implemented they are yet another disjoined element that just serves one purpose as xp pinatas, because good luck finding even that mythical "villagers vs looters" fight, much less getting to it before it is auto-resolved...) are not a threat to them (thank you, complaining Reddit dweebs!). So your only non-quest potential is pretty much already on the vassal-level stage, where you CAN join lord-on-lord battle with enough impact on the result to get some relationship points. Since it does not matter how much help you provide a lord's fiefs (I also made a suggestion that the relationship rewards should cascade up the "chain of command" for partial gains with fief owners, their overlords all the potential way to faction leaders if the base gain is high enough), directly-given quests are the only meaningful way to improve relationship with them. Which is really crummy way of going about it, because if you save that village from bandits (or whatnot), that lord should at least get a tiny "well, this rando just saved me some much-needed income, that's nice" recognition of player's actions.

There's also the fact that npcs' notable relations are not yet set, so for the time being they get a cheat instead, leaving the player at a recruiting disadvantage.

Welp, we'll see how this plays out in the long term and whether it'll even see implementation. That'd be nice.

With the way the code is currently written, prosperity/hearths could easily be factored in as a multiplier to the probablity of spawning or upgrading notables' troops each day. Whether or not the AI could be programmed to properly consider the effect prosperity is having on their recruiting rates and plan accordingly is a different subject though, as Apocal said. If the AI could be made to understand how to use it, maybe the devs could implement an "emergency conscription" mechanic that boosts recruit spawn and upgrade rates for a short period of, say, a couple weeks, followed by a much longer period of reduced spawn rates to simulate a depletion of manpower. They can always make more policies similar to Cantons as well.

Honestly, I'd expect at least some recognition by the AI that the fief they are raiding (or ignoring being raided) are THE source of logistical backing of their war efforts, even if not right now than potentially quite soon.

Quick anecdote from my current (well, set aside because I've got to the point where I pick Bannerlord up, play a few minutes, then realize the futility of it and go do something else) playthrough. I was derping around getting new batch of Battanian and Sturgian recruits for my "independent" faction currently at war only with Western Empire battered to one town and castle far away enough I don't effective have to worry about any hostile incursions. I saw Raganvad's "respawn" party, already with 40+ recruits, heading toward Rodobas while Varcheg was under siege by Northern Empire. Went there first because those recruits were mine, by Jove. When I started the trek to another village, Varcheg got captured. Ragamuffin kept on his way toward Rodobas (Olek's fief before the flip, IIRC), then proceeded to raid the village.

I mean... OK. It's Raganvad. But, dude, you didn't even wait for Varcheg to change the livery on banners around the town before going on your merry way to destroy the lives of what just a moment ago were your own subjects, and probably would be your subjects again if you weren't such an utter tool when it comes to war strategy.

Lords, in general, pay no attention to base culture of villages (and they damn well should, at least for some character traits!) when it comes to raiding. They don't pay attention to anything outside of current ownership, which also means that, when you as a player finally get a fief awarded, it's probably going to be a useless ruin.

I'm not expecting neural network level behavior from Taleworlds, but they could at least hard-code raiding preference toward more distant targets, so recently captured settlements don't constantly flip-flop simply because there's no way to keep decent garrizon in them, and but a stop on "lol, silly former peasant of mine, you're now enemy property, gib lewt" behavior.

Interestingly, the first thing the code checks for when generating new recruits each day is whether or not the settement is in active rebellion. I don't know exactly what the rebellion mechanic will entail, but I'm sure loyalty will tie in somehow. If a fief is starving and its villages are looted, it's usually losing loyalty every day, which may trigger a rebellion in the future and cut off the recruiting pool from the owning faction. So a faction that is suffering from a grueling war will probably have many of their fiefs in internal turmoil and their total manpower will be reduced, creating an effect similar to a "population" pool. Not to mention, you can already raid enemy villages to reduce their recruiting pool for about 2 weeks. As far as I can tell, npcs totally avoid travelling to raided villages, so the bug that allows them to recruit from raided villages only comes into play when the player enters a raided settlement with an army in tow.

Saw it done several times in 1.4.1 by independent lord party just visiting "raided" village and getting the + Recruits message over them, so don't know if this was just fixed in latest patches, doesn't work as it should, or isn't implemented.

 

[Sheepify]

1. Name a time when there were viking "refugees" during their 400+ years of invading the rest of Europe.

Normans and the Rus would like to have a word, I guess? Though I guess we'll get into a *****fest about what constitutes a "refugee" next.

2. Name a time when there were British "refugees" in Europe during their 1300+ years of wars with France and other parts of Europe.

They were around. They even formed their own mercenary companies, for that matter, that frequently relied on English disapora for reinforcements.

3. Why are you using Rome as an example when Rome is one of the most unique cities in history...next to no other European power allowed the places they conquered to come settle in their city and even grant many of them citizen status. Even the cities founding was very unique in history.

Uh... are you even aware that nationalism is a very recent invention, and people in middle ages had completely different view on it?

Hell, a lot of medieval Poland and Bohemia got settled by ethnic Germans, on invitation of the respective countries' rulers (and very favorable rights which, ironically enough, were literally modelled on Roman laws: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magdeburg_rights). Simply because at that time (especially after the Black Death), a pair of working hands was very valuable, whatever the native tongue it came with.

A 4x game is a turn-based RTS. Civilization, Europa Universalis, Stellaris, age of wonders, imperator rome...the original being Master of Orion way back in 1993.

Uh... what?

First of all, I guess you're unfamiliar with tiny franchises like Sins of the Solar Empire, or anything from Parado- uh. Wait...

4x games can be real-time, or can be turn-based. They have little to do with "RTS" as such, even if technically the label applies to any real-time-4x title (especially since a lot of games labeled "Real Time Strategy" operate on a tactical, not strategic, level). The complexity of implementation is generally lower in RTS titles simply because there's a time element in it that prevents player from absorbing and processing complex information, though pausable-RTS titles like basically anything out of Paradox make it possible (if more cumbersome for multiplayer implementation).

Anyway, just because something is complex doesn't mean most of the complexity can't happen behind the scenes. More complexity does mean much greater capacity for creation of "living" world that doesn't just react to player's actions, but also affects then by autonomous developments in the "world."

Edit: Also, for that matter, 4x games existed long before MoO: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_4X_video_games