Would the regions system open the door for ZOI control of castles, cities, and settlements

Currently viewing this thread:

Shun

Squire
WB
In the new Development update video #7, TW introduced a new Battle Terrain System, whch basically divides the world map into regions and uses those regions to detemine the type of map a battle will be fought on at that part i the world - as far as I understood, to a greater granularity as does the system in place now, which only uses general archetypes (forset, plains etc.).

Now. As far as I can tell, these regions are numbered, meaning they are uniquely indentified. Region one will seems to be at the farthest northwest of calradia, in vlandian territory.
I was thinking, that the system used to locate and identify the owner culture of regions being considered for a specific battle scene could be used to implement strategic advantages for castles, cities etc. Each castle could have a zone of influence, which consists of the regions surrounding it. In these regions some different positive or negaive effects could come into play (tactical advantages in battle for the owner culture of the castle, supply /morale loss for navigating enemy terrain, etc.)

Many posters here have already made a wealth of suggestions which strategic and tactical advantages castles and cities could have; many better thought out and more in depth then the ones I outlined above.

The point I am making is, that the region system can be the missing part, enabling the game to know about to whom a piece of land belongs, which AFAIK was not possible before.


Check the video at 2:07 to see the map divided into regions for yourself:
.
 

D0c1

Knight at Arms
easiest thing to add is castle (maybe town too) garrison joining battles in its region
 
Don't be hypnotized by those regions, their use is solely to determine a battle map and nothing else.
A castle garrison could sally out and help an ally in battle purely based on simple distance (and possibly relations), there's no need for regions at all.
Conversely, a sophisticated ZOC mechanism could be built on an entirely different and specialized set of regions.
 

Shun

Squire
WB
Don't be hypnotized by those regions, their use is solely to determine a battle map and nothing else.
A castle garrison could sally out and help an ally in battle purely based on simple distance (and possibly relations), there's no need for regions at all.
Conversely, a sophisticated ZOC mechanism could be built on an entirely different and specialized set of regions.

The idea came to me because I remembered reading somewhere that the game has no way of telling if the location of a battle belongs to the lands of a specific faction. What followed was wishful thinking :smile:.

I appreciate your input and agree with your points.
 
The idea came to me because I remembered reading somewhere that the game has no way of telling if the location of a battle belongs to the lands of a specific faction.
This can be calculated in a simple way, the closest settlement determines the ownership of a battle site. This same calculation can be used to paint borders etc. (Note: they won't be pretty, as they won't follow terrain features that act as natural borders.)

Of course it's better if there is another set of map regions centered on settlements that determine which map tile belongs to which settlement and consequently to which faction. The regions would be hand-drawn and border on rivers and other natural features.
So your idea is valid and Taleworlds should probably do this. This also allows the drawing of nice dynamic borders on the map that look natural.
 

five bucks

Sergeant
I don't think we need any complicated zone of control mechanics, but it would be great if castles could automatically generate patrols to look for enemy parties and bandits. That would do it without requiring any abstraction.
 

vonbalt

Knight at Arms
WBNWVCM&B
I don't think we need any complicated zone of control mechanics, but it would be great if castles could automatically generate patrols to look for enemy parties and bandits. That would do it without requiring any abstraction.
I would like zones of control to be a natural thing understood by the AI and not invisible walls (oh no a castle in this plain, you can't march around it whatsoever!).

If the AI needed supply caravans to keep armies in the field and understood that bypassing castles would mean their supplies would be raided by patrols sallying out from them it would make them take bordering fiefs one at a time in most cases, only if they had certainty they could hold for a few days without extra supplies and there was a too tempting target should they bypass this rule.
 
This would make more sense if the map required it, I think an easier way is make towns "attached" to castles, and you/the AI would need to siege down at least 2 castles to be able to initiate a siege of a town. Of course, that notional abstraction layer would piss off casual players unless there was something more concrete - such as automatic patrols / parties created from the garrison/militia of the castles that would join onto defending AI armies.

The map does not also lend itself to these ZoC's - if every land passage was such that you *had* to go by a castle - then it would make even more sense. I do not see TW devoting a ton of dev cycles towards refactoring the campaign maps, but I hope ZoC may be taken up. Mostly likely all three (map design, castle partrols/parties, and ZoC) being implemented by mods.

In theory there is a "light" ZoC where the AI has to make the decision to keep the Army together and pull garrisoned troops out after taking losses in a battle. Though there is a lack of "moderate losses" in field battles - you only see this when the AI fails to siege down a castle, has to attempt to pull troops, then gets waylaid by another reinforcing Army.
 

Apocal

Master Knight
The point I am making is, that the region system can be the missing part, enabling the game to know about to whom a piece of land belongs, which AFAIK was not possible before.
The game knew before, via measuring distance to nearest settlement.
This would make more sense if the map required it, I think an easier way is make towns "attached" to castles, and you/the AI would need to siege down at least 2 castles to be able to initiate a siege of a town. Of course, that notional abstraction layer would piss off casual players unless there was something more concrete - such as automatic patrols / parties created from the garrison/militia of the castles that would join onto defending AI armies.
It would piss off a lot more than casual players because it would put more stress on weaker elements of the game, namely the AI's targeting. It is entirely possible to have a town and its neighboring two castles split between two or three factions, for one example of a maddening (and likely) situation.
 
The game knew before, via measuring distance to nearest settlement.

It would piss off a lot more than casual players because it would put more stress on weaker elements of the game, namely the AI's targeting. It is entirely possible to have a town and its neighboring two castles split between two or three factions, for one example of a maddening (and likely) situation.
I would think TW could implement that the ZOC only works if they bound to castles depending on war. It wouldn't make sense for a castle in the hands of a faction you're not at war with being in-scope for having to take the town. It would add even more importance to border skirmishes where the AI would likely congregate. Not saying it wouldn't be complicated, and from what we have seen, any refactor to the Army decision making logic usually leads to things being stupid.
 

n0ttsweet

Recruit
I don't think we need any complicated zone of control mechanics, but it would be great if castles could automatically generate patrols to look for enemy parties and bandits. That would do it without requiring any abstraction.
I've been using the Improved Garrisons mod lately and I LOVE it.

I hate late-game bandit patrols nuking all my villagers parties and stifling growth. I also hate having a single enemy party of like 50 dudes pillage a town.

Now, I can make a patrol of 50 battanian heros and 50 legos that decimate everyone in sim battles. lol
 

Aurex

Regular
WB
I would settle for the ability to interact with the battlefield in some meaningful way.
Do I have the jump on an enemy about to cross a bridge or pass through a dense forest? I'd love to be able to position my troops beforehand, perhaps with the enemy being caught in a very unfavorable position (same thing when I'm caught in the same predicament, of course!) Something like Total War. I also like the idea of a drawn line signifying the area of control and influence of a kingdom as if it was a real border drawn on a paper map. I know, I'm dreaming here... but hey.
 
Dude, they planned and explicitly axed just that "ambush" feature because they couldn't design it right and found their design annoying to their short attention span stress tester Callum. It was in one of them devblogs.
 
Don't make it so complicated.
We only need a few steps to let castle/cities have control over their region
1. implement legion quest, a feature in late pre-release dev diaries but not in game
2. rebalance supply system so a legion cannot carry so many supplies that they do not need to refill their inventory from forming to disbanding
3. then legion have to and is able to send sub-troops to gather supply
4. let settlement be able to send out partrols
5. partrols can clearout bandits or fight enemy troops
6. then entering this region is now risky for small enemy troops, including supply-gathering troops. Action of large enemy legion is also restricted because of supply line issues.

this is medieval warfare, not modern warfare, army can hardly maintain control over a large region, or a long frontline, normally they did that in a point to point fashion, not plane to plane fashion
 
Last edited:
I've been using the Improved Garrisons mod lately and I LOVE it.

I hate late-game bandit patrols nuking all my villagers parties and stifling growth. I also hate having a single enemy party of like 50 dudes pillage a town.

Now, I can make a patrol of 50 battanian heros and 50 legos that decimate everyone in sim battles. lol
Not sure why, though after I installed improved garrison, bandits are cleared out, but Clear Bandit quest become more, just weird.
Dude, they planned and explicitly axed just that "ambush" feature because they couldn't design it right and found their design annoying to their short attention span stress tester Callum. It was in one of them devblogs.
Is that so? I can't remember if there is such devblog, may you provide a link to that?
Haven´t they already said that they won´t add a patrol feature?
I can remeber they have talked about that, but can't remember if it is out of consideration forever or only temporarily due to priority
 
Is that so? I can't remember if there is such devblog, may you provide a link to that?
No, but you can try. I don't know how to search their devblogs for keywords. There's plenty of old reaction threads bemoaning the axing. And plenty of futile ambush suggestion threads.
 

Terco_Viejo

Spanish Gifquisition
Grandmaster Knight
@NamingIsHard and for those of you who are interested:

As for the ambushes (I see there are still people who don't know what has been discarded and when; I don't blame them... it's a side effect of the bannerlord experience where you have to pick up little breadcrumbs until you reach the house made of goodies).

Evidently, just as it was decided to reject it in the past, there is a ( very remote ) possibility that they will rethink whether to implement it again or bring the concept back in some form. It is also true that its scrapping may have been caused by technical impediments. Without further ado, here is the official quote on the matter:

Ambushing was a planned feature, however, after implementing it, we found that it didn't really work well with the way our sandbox plays out, and ultimately, it wasn't much fun for the player.
(Callum, Jan 29, 2019)

As for the patrols issue; it is a premeditated rejection due to the fact that this mechanic/feature does not fit into the Taleworlds cosmology of how Bannerlord should work.
-To question -"So if you are in charge of party ai, is it possible to order parties to patrol an area?" mexxico Feb 23, 2021 said:

We suggested that but it is rejected.


These are the facts, the conclusions are yours.
giphy.gif


If anyone wants more breadcrumbs to get to the house made of jelly beans, drop by here. :iamamoron:🎻
 
Ambushing was a planned feature, however, after implementing it, we found that it didn't really work well with the way our sandbox plays out, and ultimately, it wasn't much fun for the player.
TBH, this just like typical TW comments on discarding features. Looks like it is talking about something at the first glance, but after a closer and careful inversitgation, it does not give any actual information, but only the result: discarded.
And more importantly, if no players have ever seen a demo about this feature, how do you konw it's not much fun for the players?
 

Calabanar

Sergeant
easiest thing to add is castle (maybe town too) garrison joining battles in its region

I'm not so sure about this idea because it could be very easily exploitable...

I suppose it all depends on how it is implemented, it would be fine if:
- the whole garrison didn't leave the castle to help farmers getting attacked. (otherwise, you could either bait the garrison and avoid a siege or simply besiege the castle while they are helping another party...)
- only part of the garrison joins the battle, so that if they lose, the castle doesn't become free real estate.

To be honest, I would much prefer having patrols around castles. They aren't connected to the garnison itself (unless you take them from there) so if they die the castle remains strong, plus it gives something else to fight than bandits and caravans.
 
Top Bottom