You're not the king of your kingdom

[Ananda_The_Destroyer]

I love how Bannerlord has all these kingdom/vassal/army problems but incredibly Liberal squatter's rights. Just take a town as a lone Clan and everyone but the faction you took it from ignores you forever (as far as I know). You can even make peace with the faction and they don't seem to attack you gain.....
But you make yourself a kingdom and suddenly everyone is after you and peace is just them taking the money and run!

Idunno I guess that's how it is IRL too sometimes. Some warlord takes over some 3rd world town and...... ....... ..... but as soon as they declare the independent republic of poo poo pee pee Oh no send in the bombs we got a new dictator!

 

[Timmortal]

The game is egalitarian, it is not a monarchy. What are they thinking here?

What the game is not egalitarian, atm is far more of a timocracy. Also most of the emperors of Rome could do nothing much without the approval of the senate, except for a few of the famous dictator emperors ofcourse. Most other societies of the time had elected kings.

 

[stevehoos]

What the game is not egalitarian, atm is far more of a timocracy. Also most of the emperors of Rome could do nothing much without the approval of the senate, except for a few of the famous dictator emperors ofcourse. Most other societies of the time had elected kings.

"Elected kings," What are you talking about..? Voting for who gets a fief is democratic. It has nothing to do with medieval monarchies.

 

[Timmortal]

"Elected kings," What are you talking about..? Voting for who gets a fief is democratic. It has nothing to do with medieval monarchies.

yes, kings/chiefs were most often elected by the counsil of lords, often they agreed to the kings chosen heir, so as not to cause discord. but not always, the hereditary gods chosen type monarcy is a later thing. from the mid/late middelages.

 

[Timmortal]

"Elected kings," What are you talking about..? Voting for who gets a fief is democratic. It has nothing to do with medieval monarchies.

also just because voting and election takes place does not mean its democratic, demos means people. democracy is when the common people gets to vote, not just the lords.

 

[Scottx125]

I've gotta admit I don't like the way the system works at the moment. The voting system is fine but ultimately the kings decision should be final. You as king should be able to over-ride the council decision, supporting the council gives you a large boost of relation with the winner and low negative relation modifier with the losers, you should have a choice to remove that penalty if you agree to give the losers compensation in terms of money or influence. If you go against the council, you should take a moderate relation hit with the council choice and all council choice voters, whilst gaining a large boost with your chosen winner. Other losers are treated with the same negative relation as earlier but gain a tyrant negative modifier on top, so you can choose to give them money to negate the first relation penalty but you can't get rid of the tyrant one, that takes time and personal effort to raise relations through other means.

There's potentially loads of stuff that could be done with kingdoms, but most likely we'll have to wait for modding tools. I can't wait to see a CK2 style system implemented. Having Kings be able to be over-thrown every few months, set trade policies and more laws to tailor your nation to a certain set of circumstances will be cool. Also, being able to marry into the royal family and inherit the throne via your heir would be epic. Imagine having 90+ relation with a king, marry your son (also need high influence) to their daughter, then you play as consort (you keep your land and gain a few extra powers), then play as your child and inherit all the lands and the title of King. Then do it with another friendly kingdom, perhaps needing high charm, good relations both with the kingdom and it's liege, and then having a skill that allows personal unions resulting in a merged kingdom.

 

[imgran]

also just because voting and election takes place does not mean its democratic, demos means people. democracy is when the common people gets to vote, not just the lords.

Exactly, rule by the nation's elite/noble/bureaucrats is Republicanism, not Democracy.

 

[stevehoos]

Exactly, rule by the nation's elite/noble/bureaucrats is Republicanism, not Democracy.

The point is that a medieval system through elected representatives or " bloodline elite nobles" voting on decisions (which is a democratic idea) has 0 to do with time period monarchies. The king had total power.

 

[Timmortal]

The point is that a medieval system through elected representatives or " bloodline elite nobles" voting on decisions (which is a democratic idea) has 0 to do with time period monarchies. The king had total power.

that is simply not true, there were some absolute monarchies, but most of them were the later period of the middle ages. And it was not always as much of a vote as a room of lords coming to an agreement. Most often the king only ruled on the will of the majority of the lords.

 

[Apocal]

The point is that a medieval system through elected representatives or " bloodline elite nobles" voting on decisions (which is a democratic idea) has 0 to do with time period monarchies. The king had total power.

Whoever or whatever told you this was wrong.

 

[stevehoos]

Whoever or whatever told you this was wrong.

Yes, an entity was my source.

that is simply not true, there were some absolute monarchies, but most of them were the later period of the middle ages. And it was not always as much of a vote as a room of lords coming to an agreement. Most often the king only ruled on the will of the majority of the lords.

The king still made the calls because he controlled the state . This is laughable. All the land in a kingdom was the king's. Do you understand? The king would give some of the land to the lords or nobles who fought for him. There was no vote. I don't know what you all are sniffing.

 

[Breebelbox]

Talking about historical accuracy is very interesting but considering the fact that your vassals are stupid and suicidal, it is completely pointless. If they were more intelligent, they should have more influence. But since they just go on suicide missions, don't defend their thiefs and bring war after war upon you, it is necessary to be able to overrule them as a king to have any kind of reasonable late game.

 

[Urbanski]

You are not a king / queen, in BL you are middle management in a dysfunctional organisation.

You have a bunch of rather stupid AI lords that do what they want when they want without any form of logic. You can't really interact with your lords or any other faction in any meaningful way other than combat or recruiting them into your army.

This is the part of the game that really needs the most work, diplomacy needs to be brought in and the kingdom management needs to be greatly enhanced, otherwise BL is just a random medieval battle simulator (a good one though)

 

[Timmortal]

Yes, an entity was my source.

The king still made the calls because he controlled the state . This is laughable. All the land in a kingdom was the king's. Do you understand? The king would give some of the land to the lords or nobles who fought for him. There was no vote. I don't know what you all are sniffing.

I say again, the type of absolute monarchies you are talking about mostly showed up in the later periode of the middelages and the period after. Before that the king needed the lords to hold control far far more, they had the men under arms he needed, he could field af good army himself, but nothing like the combined lords could. Lords owned their own land or aleast had control over it. Also there were many kingsdoms in europe, some of them very different from others in terms of the power the king held and these power dynamics changed over time aswell. You on the other hand claim that all kingdoms were the same and that the king always had absolute power and then claim that others must be sniffing something, you seem to have a generel lack of knowlegde about history, but you likely also think that Bannerlord is representing the 1500-1600 period. When its closer to 400-1200 when taking in its cultures. Will you claim next that the senate never had any power and never voted on anything? Theres several references to the senate in Bannerlord.

 

[pTivo]

Wow i was just crying about the bug of diplomacy and this topîc is gone so far... Btw i appreciate this kind of argument.

I agree with Timmortal. And for resume, in countries close to the Old Rome Republic, politics were more likely monarchy/oligarchy with a powerfull king and stuf like that. Also in the antic Rome, senate had some power, but do not forget that his role was not really clear because of imperators and coups. Feudalism (where lords takes a major place) flourished in Medieval Europe between the 9th and 15th centuries. So the game take place between these 2 periods

 

[stevehoos]

I say again, the type of absolute monarchies you are talking about mostly showed up in the later periode of the middelages and the period after. Before that the king needed the lords to hold control far far more, they had the men under arms he needed, he could field af good army himself, but nothing like the combined lords could. Lords owned their own land or aleast had control over it. Also there were many kingsdoms in europe, some of them very different from others in terms of the power the king held and these power dynamics changed over time aswell. You on the other hand claim that all kingdoms were the same and that the king always had absolute power and then claim that others must be sniffing something, you seem to have a generel lack of knowlegde about history, but you likely also think that Bannerlord is representing the 1500-1600 period. When its closer to 400-1200 when taking in its cultures. Will you claim next that the senate never had any power and never voted on anything? Theres several references to the senate in Bannerlord.

The king owned the land, and he decided what to do with it. I don't know what this paragraph is even trying to convey in context to the voting in Bannerlord's fief policies and to history. You seem to be deeply confused about Roman history as well; the constitutional balance of power shifted from the Roman Senate to the Roman Emperor. The Emperor held the true power of the state and senate, his power was absolute. This is not the Republic period.