I hope that they add a penalty for mix culture party

[TomOfFinland]

If I remember correctly, warband had something like this.
So basically if you have units from all the factions in your party, your morale would take a big hit since they would obviously not get along so well.
Maybe allow mercenaries do this without a penalty, but once the player / another noble joins a faction, then they would only be able have their own faction units in their party without a morale penalty.

I think that the late game looks very ridiculous when all the nobles in each faction have parties consisting of every possible unit they can find.
It's especially annoying since I personally don't use the unit banners to show who are my guys and who are the enemies.
This is absolutely fine at the beginning and in the mid game, but late game its horrible especially during night battles.

[stecph]

The moral hit happened only if you forced said troops to fight against their former faction (same culture), the mixed troops never was an issue, quantity was...
Having said that, I totally agree that they should put that debuff back into the game.
And as they are at it, put back the ranged debuff at night....it seems like they are watering down the game for the "meme generation";-)

[Badger BrownCoat]

Originally posted by Peltsi:

If I remember correctly, warband had something like this.

You have a point; would you consider an opposite PoV or at least a caveat?

Originally posted by Badger BrownCoat:

...
Seeing as how the "central" culture in this setting is empire-
i mean ,central to the setting is the story of their " 3 kingdoms" period fall... ( well in M&B lore; they fell )
... it might not be ideal to punish for using other cultures recruits-
since both the "roman" west and "byzantine" East Roman empires- with this empire looking awfully eastern roman to me in influences ( hi, theodora <3 ) ;
both were heavily reliant on auxilaries and client states and foreign mercs...
( guess what most actual cataphracts were and were recruited from?)

--- i did put a video about the period this is close to up-
and it goes into when that *did* become a problem, and how they fixed it-
but- i don't think anyone cares ---

if the game is about the not-quite byzantine "empire of Caladria";
consider that at least for "Not-Theodora" ( Rhaggea ) ;
( an event referneced in game heavily under a slightly different name, at a slightly different hippodrome ) - the fact they had MORE trust worthy foreigns with them was KEY:

Sir- a point you - and maybe others who were on this thread - might find interesting.

Researching the Nika riots- attempted coup-
I was unaware that *before* that coup, the Patricians had attempted a previous assassination of Justinian...
yeah, Lucon, we're onto you ; you sorry POS

--- ANYWAY:
according to what I'm on right now; they could only rely on Thracian & Goth auxilaries...
because- like the use of Janissaries , Mamluks, Varangians& 10 other examples- people not from your culture- are loyal to YOU not their family which is *also* involved in politics.
( when that can backfire is another discussion, right Dong Zhou? )

It connected to stuff I already knew, but- i was TOTALLY unaware the coup was put down by auxilaries.

Also- apparently, one does NOT efff with the Purple Empress.

[Vindred]

I agree that such a penalty would make perfect sense, and sounds like a good excuse for a leadership perk. I also think it's a bit amusing that peasants can automatically work with professional soldiers with no problems.

[ScottMass]

Maybe only apply a debuff if you hire units from a faction you are currently at war with but any recruited before the war should not have the debuff applied.

[Badger BrownCoat]

ps, aside from the Dong Zhou joke:

let me briefly mention Stilicho...
half-roman, half-vandal general.
Loyal - and honorable - to a fault.

They murdered him.
Doing so meant most of the Vandals- an important part of the local military-
said "go to hell" - and switched sides.

they did this WHILE the vengeful, effed- over Goths were on their way to Rome.

..why bring this up? for one, it's "on the other hand";
but also because I have a strong suspicion that issues like this are going to be *key* to the setting
and to the later versions of Arzagos' conspiracy side of the main quest-
you can say "fantheory"; or you can suspect I mod and look at some suspicious as yet unused placeholders in the files... either way;

what I want to add is, isn't THAT set of implications alot more deep & interesting than arbitrarily punishing the player for doing--- what every meaningful military has done?
( yes, Huns and Mongols as well; sorry TotalWart- shouldn't have fired the history professor )

Tell me the Ghurka, the Varangian, and 30 other examples get a morale penalty.
Famously ROCK SOLID

[TomOfFinland]

Originally posted by Locklave:

So screw everyone over for moral early game and it have no effect at all late game. Early game already sucks enough without making it worse.

No.

Leadership late game makes moral 100, always 100.

Well wouldn't the leadership be changed exactly thanks to this??
It wouldn't be 100 anymore if the game punished for multicultured party.

[Vindred]

Originally posted by Badger BrownCoat:

punishing the player for doing--- what every meaningful military has done?

The fact that every meaningful military has practiced it does not seem to be the same thing as evidence that it produces no negative effects.?

[Badger BrownCoat]

Originally posted by Vindred:

Originally posted by Badger BrownCoat:

punishing the player for doing--- what every meaningful military has done?

The fact that every meaningful military has practiced it does not seem to be the same thing as evidence that it produces no negative effects.?

I think i covered both positive effects- and posisble drawbacks.

But, generally speaking, these troops are often *more* reliable and higher morale
or, as I said:

Tell me the Ghurka, the Varangian, and 30 other examples get a morale penalty.
Famously ROCK SOLID

[TomOfFinland]

Originally posted by Vindred:

Originally posted by Badger BrownCoat:

punishing the player for doing--- what every meaningful military has done?

The fact that every meaningful military has practiced it does not seem to be the same thing as evidence that it produces no negative effects.?

In most cases the other cultures were forced to fight for the conquerors. I don't think that has a positive effect on morale.

Also I wouldn't mind this at all if the troop trees were much more similar. But since every faction is visually so different from each other, I feel like the mixed parties break the atmosphere of the game.

[TomOfFinland]

Originally posted by Badger BrownCoat:

Originally posted by Vindred:

The fact that every meaningful military has practiced it does not seem to be the same thing as evidence that it produces no negative effects.?

I think i covered both positive effects- and posisble drawbacks.

But, generally speaking, these troops are often *more* reliable and higher morale
or, as I said:

Tell me the Ghurka, the Varangian, and 30 other examples get a morale penalty.
Famously ROCK SOLID

You talk about the Ghurka, Varangians etc. but don't mention that they were in most cases (like the varangians) mercenaries. Paid professionals.
It's way different from a recruited villager or a recruited prisoner.

[Badger BrownCoat]

Originally posted by Peltsi:

Originally posted by Vindred:

The fact that every meaningful military has practiced it does not seem to be the same thing as evidence that it produces no negative effects.?

In most cases the other cultures were forced to fight for the conquerors. I don't think that has a positive effect on morale.

People levied or conscripted- of any culture-
generally have poor morale- they don't want to die for what isn't their cause -

but, again, that's not a culture issue.
provably, auxiilary units and foreigns have provided loyal, reliable troops for many militaries-
and armies relying on levy and conscript units of their own cultures .. have had some bad results.

You're ignoring quite a bit of logic and histroy and proven practice in order to stick with a disprovable correlation.
the correlation is "conscripted" rather than "other culture"...

tell me how bad the morale of the Jannisaries was again?
You know, the slaves?
Or the Mamluks? ( and yes, in time they would *become the ruling class,
but i did mention- possible ramifications.

The point is;
military history - shows us how often these kind of troops- even slaves!- were often VERY reliable, the OPPOSITE of low morale.

I provided another POV;
quite a bit of evidence;
and a reason it might not fit the game setting.

You can ignore military history if you like, ( to be fair, most games do , and most gamers are far more attached to hollywood-style "tropes" than to anything like 'history') and you can favor "how it was done in a game I'm comfortable with" over the experience of the actual- successful empires of the past and militaries of the present :surely you know more about war than they -
... and that's quite fine.

I presented both military history reasons- and " this game has a different setting" reasons for why that might not be ideal for BL.

Take it or leave it ;)

[TomOfFinland]

Originally posted by Badger BrownCoat:

Originally posted by Peltsi:

In most cases the other cultures were forced to fight for the conquerors. I don't think that has a positive effect on morale.

People levied or conscripted- of any culture-
generally have poor morale- they don't want to die for what isn't their cause -

but, again, that's not a culture issue.
provably, auxiilary units and foreigns have provided loyal, reliable troops for many militaries-
and armies relying on levy and conscript units of their own cultures .. have had some bad results.

You're ignoring quite a bit of logic and histroy and proven practice in order to stick with a disprovable corelation.
the correlation is "forced" rather than"other culture"...

tell me how ba dthe morale of teh Jannisaries was again?
You know, the slaves?
Or the Mamluks? ( and yes, in time they would *become the ruling class,
but i did mention- possible ramifications.

The point is;
military history - shows us how often these kind of troops- even slaves!- wee often VERY reliable, the OPPOSITE of low morale.

I provided another POV;
quite a bit of evidence;
and a reason it might not fit the game setting.

You can ignore military history if you like, ( to be fair, most games do , and most gamers are far more atatched to hollywood-style "tropes" than to anything like 'history') and you can favor "how it was done in a game I'm comfortable with" over the experience of the actual- successful empires of the past and militaries of the present :surely you know more about war than they -
... and that's quite fine.

I presented both military history reasons- and " this game has a different setting" reasons for why that might not be ideal for BL.

Take it or leave it ;)

I agree completely with you on the history part. I don't mind those things in games like total wars or crusader kings or any other.
But in mount&blade the culture penalty really is a thing to consider about since the world is so small, the cultures are so different and the troop trees are so different from each other. Atleast make it an campaign option that the AI also has to abide to and knows how to do it.

[Orclover]

Morale penalty for factions fighting same faction? Maybe, but probably removed with the right skill perk.

Morale penalty for armies consisting of multiple nationalities? LOL no. Thats actually incredibly common throughout history. Its actually more uncommon NOW than ever in history. When the french aristocracy fought the english they brought several thousand itallian crossbowmen to help. This was just how wars were done, no odd morale problems about it.

If you want to give penalties for mix nationality armies then you are actually contradicting history and making the game LESS realistic.

Heck dont even get started on the mixed nationalities of the armies Xerxes or The friggin Mongols used, now those were melting pots.

[Vindred]

Originally posted by Badger BrownCoat:

I think i covered both positive effects- and posisble drawbacks.

You covered some examples of those things, yes.

But you're ignoring simple things like the fact that people who speak different languages can't understand anything other than field orders from the same commander. No negative consequences to the effectiveness of the unit if half your soldiers speak punjabi and the other half faroese?

Or what about a micro example of two soldiers who really hate eachother, versus two soldiers who grew up in the same hometown and married one anothers' sister. No difference? Same effectiveness? Same cohesion?

There's no doubt you could make it work. But you'd be making it work.

I'm not convinced that there should be no arbitrary debuff to cross-cultural armies or a buff to culturally homogenous ones.

[Badger BrownCoat]

post-script:

"possible ramifications" had been mentioned...
signed out of steam with a "take it or leave it"
and while this only reiterates the" Dong Zhou" joke earlier:

if one is actually interested in learning instead of merely arguing an untenable point based on their pre-judgements;

here's ... the video waiting for me when I signed out of steam:

the more-interesting ramifications i mentioned earlier.
what a co-incidence.

these troops were not known for bad morale, in my readings.
but- there are *other* concerns....
i'm looking at YOU arzagos-the-conspirator
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSmnSksHyzo