Titles and feudal hierarchy

[Supply Side Jesus]

Titles and feudal hierarchy

In Mount & Blade all nobles are pretty much the same, you have clan tiers, but even then one noble is as good as another. Historically, this was not the case - you had nobles (like Dukes) that held a lot of power and you had nobles (like Barons) that held very little power.

I propose rethinking nobility in the game to make it more tiered. I suggest each city in the game associated with Duchy (i.e. Duke of Epicrotea) under which resides Barony (i.e. Baron of Mecalovea). Now, instead of flat hierarchy (e.g. everyone answers to the king), you have multi-tier hierarchy - King controls Dukes who control Barons.

The idea that one Duke can declare war on another within the same country (with the King having power to spend influence to stop it). This will also introduce a downside to getting involved in external wars - if you army is wiped, your rivals can attack you.

Last but not least - to capture any territory both castle and city has to be captured, if only one is held it is considered "occupied" and will revert to original owner in case of peace.

The next step would be to implement taxes and assigning title to companions within this framework.

[Scottx125]

Honestly sounds far more hassle than it's worth. It sounds good, but in reality I'd imagine it'd be tedious. This isn't CK3. At most I'd say it'd be better to use the existing voting system for new edicts to propose new law groups like tax rate etc. They won't require influence for upkeep but high tax rate will slow growth and trade, and will be disliked by vassals where as low trade will obviously net you less money but improve trade and settlement prosperity growth.

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by Supply Side Jesus:

Titles and feudal hierarchy

I've always wanted something like this for "Warband II."

...I propose rethinking nobility in the game to make it more tiered. I suggest each city in the game associated with Duchy (i.e. Duke of Epicrotea) under which resides Barony (i.e. Baron of Mecalovea). Now, instead of flat hierarchy (e.g. everyone answers to the king), you have multi-tier hierarchy - King controls Dukes who control Barons.

Exactly!

Though, the "King" still needs to be "King." It's a gameplay/mechanic thing that helps focus play on factions.

I'd want a simpler system, with Knights presiding over Villages, Barons over Castles, Dukes over Towns. There'd be a "loyalty" sort of mechanic where those who owe fealty to their superior are more likely to accompany/side-with/favor them.

The point being that there could be a "power bloc" mechanic where notable Dukes could become very influential characters. The player would participate in this struggle for power, as well, and would find their efforts rewarded not just by gaining some extra money and influence from a fief, but by practically being handed a group of Knights and a Baron or two... that they THEN have deal with, make "happy" and earn the loyalty of...

As it stands now, we've actually received a much less rewarding and engaging intra-faction mechanic than we had in Warband. In Warband, at least you had to go find and talk to other Lords in order to gain their support. In Bannerlord, you... basically just dump points on a screen with no "engagement" with any Lords in any sort of "political" meta-play.

There's very nearly NO "metagame" in Factions. Honestly, I really can't think of any metaplay with NPC characters that is meaningful other than marriage mechanics.

That... sucks. And, it makes me sad just thinking about it.

Back on the old Bannerlord forums I argued for a more involved Feudal system as well. I wouldn't want anything too complex, certainly wouldn't think intra-faction "wars" would be desirable for Bannerlord's scope-of-play, but honestly and sincerely support any action that is in favor of adding more "feudalism" to a game that is... feudalistic.

Promoting more engagement with the NPCs and the "game" in general as well as placing more value on the player's chosen faction choice is a much better thing for them to focus on than... "Blacksmithing."

If a player spends blood, treasure, and gameplay time building up their titles and gaining the support of many Barons and Knights as a Duke, the consequences of abandoning the faction they've worked so very hard to improve their status within are very... dire and costly.

Right now... nobody gives a crap if you leave a faction and declare yourself and there is very little negative impact for doing so, IMO. Certainly, it should have a greater impact than it did in Warband and there should be greater gains to be had by staying loyal, too.


In very many ways, this is not a game designed to be worthy of a "Warband II" title. It's not that it doesn't look better, doesn't have a few differences, but it just doesn't focus enough on adding "deeper" mechanics the player can engage with. It adds "different" mechanics, not necessarily "deeper" or more meaningful ones.

[Morkonan]

Adding something, separately -

Bannerlord is apparently focused on a much longer sort of playthrough than Warband. That's great!

But, the problem is that the game's mechanics are not focused to be engaging enough for a long-play game... They just aren't.

As a result?

The game begins to feel "grindy" very quickly for a "long-play" game. That is... bad.

So, the solution is to add a variety of in-game goals the player can pursue. And... the concept of a "Feudal System" being more present in Bannerlord than it is acts to give a player the sort of MetaPlay needed for long-play games.

In fact, a player pursuing this meta and gaining the support of their own retainers as well as that of other strong Lords/Dukes/Whatever may be something that enables the final "end-game" scenario of ultimate victory over a faction or even the "map."

How many players here encounter a grindy end-game where victory appears to be possible only with RNG being a heavy favorite rather than the character's direct actions?

And, what if one could give "Orders" to one's retainers? What if those orders would be obeyed, more or less enthusiastically by retainers based upon how they felt about the player and what their own loyalty to the player was worth? It'd build up a sort of meta the player could negotiate with during this much longer-play version of Warband.

Or.. not.

The player could bypass the mechanic, only paying slight attention to it, and use a much more difficult to achieve "brute force method" if they chose to do so.

[Supply Side Jesus]

Originally posted by Scottx125:

This isn't CK3.

Without more complicated political system that at least makes in-fighting possible, snowballing will keep happening.

[Lera]

I agree.
There need to be more ranks within a kingdom.
It's just either Mercenary, Vassal or Noble. Nothing else.
It destroys the immersive medieval setting that there is literally no other politics involved in a game like this that has massive potential becoming the best medieval game out there.

[Sinsling]

I think fleshing out the pre-vassal party system, bloodline+marriage systems, and adding the ability to spend influence to interfere with other noble's relations(ie send a high roguery companion to do subterfuge) would do plenty for this without tacking on a new system that will need testing and bugfixing.

Right now I'd like to see what is in the game tidied up and made to meaningfully work before a new, complex system comes along and sidetracks everything.

[Supply Side Jesus]

Originally posted by Scottx125:

... in reality I'd imagine it'd be tedious. This isn't CK3.

The key to CK3 immersive game play is that each tier of 'actors', from counts to emperors, have their own set of interests and goals. An oversimplification that led to a lot of problems in M&B2 is that all lords work in unison toward the same goal and not against each other. This results in a simple math - more lords is always better. If you can keep them by capturing castles. This makes it hard to stop a run-away train of "more".

The alternative is exactly opposite from tedious - you have your set of goals and sometimes your personal decision is to screw over your own team to gain internal advantage. This creates a lot of depth.

[Hatchero]

In a mod for Warband (108 Heroes) there was titles /ranks and your char could even climb these ranks. +party size with a weekly wage for the rank. Military and Civilian ranks. Perhaps several ministers hanging about in the lords halls which have function (like diplomacy). Also in beta chars die from villages and cities and currently no way to replace them, perhaps this could be a way to appoint new notables.

[Doc Savage]

Originally posted by Supply Side Jesus:

Originally posted by Scottx125:

This isn't CK3.

Without more complicated political system that at least makes in-fighting possible, snowballing will keep happening.

Snowballing is only a problem when the winning blob is a color that isn't the players...

Latest iteration of 1.5.1 and I have gone years without a war siding with a humbled Derthert. (who has lived long enough to see the lower 1/3 of his empire surgically removed instead of dying off in the first years)

On the same map Special K has stretched a bit through the center and the AssaredefinitelynotI have taken exception and kept them busy for a decade plus.

The Empires have tried intermittently to get these lands back, but are too busy fending off each other to be successful. It's been rags to riches to rags for the rag Queen who now just shouts at the enemy armies that camp on her lawn and the Epicenter of the world now basically a city state. The Western side of the world fares far better holding their own against all comers and losing only one city thus far. (or 2. It could be 2...)

The Encyclopedia Battania salesmen have been quietly expanding territory and the Sturg have managed to keep 5 cities going and are still fielding armies as capable as anyone else. I have done nothing to actively protect or promote either of them, so it's nice to see the Sturg being capable instead of a doormat.

As a Merc, there have been a few decent wars to cash in on but I'd hate to be tied to anyone as Vassal right now. If I was with my current situation I'd be cold and broke trying to float a drafty castle in the east end of nowhere waiting for our fearless leaders to decide to try it all again. (the new slogan: "This time for sure..!")

Not perfect by a long shot, but it really shows how badly basic diplomacy is needed without the constant war of earlier updates and that there's a decent foundation underneath it to implement upon.

Cheers..!

[𝔗𝔢𝔞 ❀]

A large clan with lots of territory really punches above lesser clans. They may seem all the same if you are easily thrashing them. With death enabled an interesting thing can happen, that those lords that keep away from the worst fighting can move up relative to old established clans with most being dead.