I think the line of thinking behind it was "i have the advantage, why should i stop", it's certainly what the player would do, let's face it, as soon as you get your own kingdom in Warband it's just one war after another with barely enough time to garrison the conquered holdings, mainly because the AI will declare war on you for being unworthy to rule, and straight at the point when they recognize you are worthy to rule they start declaring war on you to curb your expansion. Issue seems to be that in Bannerlord every AI will do what the player in Warband would do, and get treated accordingly, if they are winning why should they stop, if they are loosing they may want a truce but if they can't turn the tide(which, for reasons mentioned in the OP is difficult, since loosing one or two holdings will cripple any faction) there is no reason for the enemy to accept. Its very logical really, under the circumstances, the machine is not broken is what i'm saying, it's doing the logical thing, but in the process the player is cut out of the loop.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Why factions snowball? Realistic behavior in unrealistic environment.
- Thread starter samoja
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
I think the line of thinking behind it was "i have the advantage, why should i stop", it's certainly what the player would do, let's face it, as soon as you get your own kingdom in Warband it's just one war after another with barely enough time to garrison the conquered holdings, mainly because the AI will declare war on you for being unworthy to rule, and straight at the point when they recognize you are worthy to rule they start declaring war on you to curb your expansion. Issue seems to be that in Bannerlord every AI will do what the player in Warband would do, and get treated accordingly, if they are winning why should they stop, if they are loosing they may want a truce but if they can't turn the tide(which, for reasons mentioned in the OP is difficult, since loosing one or two holdings will cripple any faction) there is no reason for the enemy to accept. Its very logical really, under the circumstances, the machine is not broken is what i'm saying, it's doing the logical thing, but in the process the player is cut out of the loop.
Turbofjes
Recruit
What is needed is a reason for the winning faction to stop. Such as having to pacify the peasantry in newly conquered settlements, losing support from vassals who have no stake in the war, economic strain on their own settlements, cultural dissent, etc.
There are so many things that could go wrong for a rapidly expanding realm.
Talking about realism - It is not real to have unlimited manpower for recruiting. It is real to face civil war with more and more lords with individual desires and clashes between clans. It should be real for AI lords to emerge as independent kingdoms, just as the player could. When the kingdom emerges into empire have to have different challenges. Keeping together a big empire is enough challenging so making any new territory acquisition will be serious problem, and not a benefit.
CrossBOW
Recruit
+1
After steam rolling some lord finally I think I get the $$$ part a bit. It's a massive power leap once you can beat them without much losses, you suddenly have money and horses galore and are sitting pretty for the next lord you come across and before you know it you have more money then you can spend and can stock pile extra troops just in case.
Just in case this gets seen by someone in a position to change things. I have further developed my idea of season and fighting.
Campaign seasons should be spring and summer. The only change here is the troop levies show up in spring.
Fall comes and you get a pop up to keep or release your levies. If you keep your levies then they cost 2x and you take a hit on all villages in food by a certain amount.
During winter the cost is 2x cash and 4x supplies to keep campaigning. There is also a morale penalty for fighting during this time.
We introduce a few new concepts.
Levy troops are troops that show up to fight and form the bulk of your troops. These troops are subject to all the above.
Levy troops go home in the fall to harvest crops and spend time with families. They show up again in the spring to fight for their lord. They are paid less but do not stick around. Unless paid more. Keeping them in fall and winter will impact your lands.
You also have core/retinue troops these should be about 10% of main troops and stick around all the time. They cost more but there are fewer of them.
Now an unlanded player would have the same issue unless he chooses to purchase the service outright. This will be expensive but allow you to keep your troops in your army year-round.
The numbers can be done by someone with knowledge of the interworkings.
But this is how forces worked during the middle ages. Which is why it was so hard to see holdings change hands. The current way is how it was done later with, standing armies.
Campaign seasons should be spring and summer. The only change here is the troop levies show up in spring.
Fall comes and you get a pop up to keep or release your levies. If you keep your levies then they cost 2x and you take a hit on all villages in food by a certain amount.
During winter the cost is 2x cash and 4x supplies to keep campaigning. There is also a morale penalty for fighting during this time.
We introduce a few new concepts.
Levy troops are troops that show up to fight and form the bulk of your troops. These troops are subject to all the above.
Levy troops go home in the fall to harvest crops and spend time with families. They show up again in the spring to fight for their lord. They are paid less but do not stick around. Unless paid more. Keeping them in fall and winter will impact your lands.
You also have core/retinue troops these should be about 10% of main troops and stick around all the time. They cost more but there are fewer of them.
Now an unlanded player would have the same issue unless he chooses to purchase the service outright. This will be expensive but allow you to keep your troops in your army year-round.
The numbers can be done by someone with knowledge of the interworkings.
But this is how forces worked during the middle ages. Which is why it was so hard to see holdings change hands. The current way is how it was done later with, standing armies.
They're also missing the fact that heavy casualties in ANY war is reason enough to call it quits, save your gains and sue for peace. In Bannerlord most factions will continue to fight and war even if they have suffered IMMENSE defeats and casualties. That shouldn't be happening and the CWA mod goes a long way towards fixing that by adding a % chance to sue for peace for every 100 casualties in war.
I think traveling through foreign territory (hostile or neutral) in order to assault that 'one' super weak castle or town, just because it's weaker than one of your own original towns that the enemy recently conquered and put a strong garrison in, should be heavily disincentivized. The AI should prioritize reconquering its original settlements highest above all else, and only after that consider conquering new territory not part of its original settlements.
