Minor suggestion: let us stop same clan parties from raiding

[✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw]

My relation is constantly going down with everyone because my clan's parties are constantly setting the entire world on fire. I'm the clan leader. I should be able to bring down the hammer on those guys.

[AfLIcTeD]

You will also lose relations when enemies raid your villages too. Gets annoying after a while when lords just constantly raid your villages and you just get spammed with relationship losses.

[Lucasia]

Originally posted by ✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw:

My relation is constantly going down with everyone because my clan's parties are constantly setting the entire world on fire. I'm the clan leader. I should be able to bring down the hammer on those guys.

I agree. It's also good for roleplaying. I even wish we could try to ban lords from raiding if we are powerful kings.

[Tempered]

What I find the most annoying is your own kingdom deciding to raid the villages of the castle you are besieging.

[AfLIcTeD]

Originally posted by Tempered:

What I find the most annoying is your own kingdom deciding to raid the villages of the castle you are besieging.

I had that happen, took the castle and lost relations with my factions clan as they finished the raid.

[Edmund Greyfox]

This is why i don't let parties run around on their own. They are either part of my army, or the troops have been put back into a garrison and the party disbanded.

[TaleWorlds Community Team]

Thank you for sharing your feedback and suggestions! They have been noted and forwarded to the development team.

[Booba]

I’d rather not stop them entirely. Make it so that a character: noble or companion, raids villages only if they have the right trait or combination of traits.

I don’t think a player should be able to stop a cruel and devious character from slaughtering villages wholesale with a simple command.

[✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw]

Originally posted by Scuba Steve:

I’d rather not stop them entirely. Make it so that a character: noble or companion, raids villages only if they have the right trait or combination of traits.

I don’t think a player should be able to stop a cruel and devious character from slaughtering villages wholesale with a simple command.

They are in my clan, under me. You better believe I should be able to force them to at a single command. Have you ever played CK2? People under you, when you tell them to do something have the acceptance modifier "Dare not refuse". Why do you think that is?

[Sinsling]

Originally posted by ✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw:

Originally posted by Scuba Steve:

I’d rather not stop them entirely. Make it so that a character: noble or companion, raids villages only if they have the right trait or combination of traits.

I don’t think a player should be able to stop a cruel and devious character from slaughtering villages wholesale with a simple command.

They are in my clan, under me. You better believe I should be able to force them to at a single command. Have you ever played CK2? People under you, when you tell them to do something have the acceptance modifier "Dare not refuse". Why do you think that is?

Because they a brain dead meat bags?

Loyalty should be determined by traits and relationship, with more ways to earn relation with same-clan people. Add in the ability to reprimand clan members who disobey(temporarily forces them to obey at -relationship) or otherwise let the player handle them by removing their command/ext.

[Booba]

Originally posted by ✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw:

Originally posted by Scuba Steve:

I’d rather not stop them entirely. Make it so that a character: noble or companion, raids villages only if they have the right trait or combination of traits.

I don’t think a player should be able to stop a cruel and devious character from slaughtering villages wholesale with a simple command.

They are in my clan, under me. You better believe I should be able to force them to at a single command. Have you ever played CK2? People under you, when you tell them to do something have the acceptance modifier "Dare not refuse". Why do you think that is?

Speaking as a person, a living, breathing, thinking human being, I have my own motivations for doing things. If I were cruel and devious, I would hardly respect an order to not enrich myself when you’re not around to watch me. Similarly, as an honorable man, I would no sooner raid a village than I would diddle your wife.

Forgive me for wanting characters in a video game to act like people and not like magnets shifting polarity based on the click of a button.

[✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw]

Originally posted by Sinsling:

Originally posted by ✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw:

They are in my clan, under me. You better believe I should be able to force them to at a single command. Have you ever played CK2? People under you, when you tell them to do something have the acceptance modifier "Dare not refuse". Why do you think that is?

Because they a brain dead meat bags?

Loyalty should be determined by traits and relationship, with more ways to earn relation with same-clan people. Add in the ability to reprimand clan members who disobey(temporarily forces them to obey at -relationship) or otherwise let the player handle them by removing their command/ext.

They aren't brain dead, quite the opposite. They are smart enough to know that if they refused my command, they would die. That's why the "dare not refuse" modifier exists. And yes, you should be able to reprimand them. But what I'm saying is that any logical person would obey if their liege told them to stop.

[✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw]

Originally posted by Scuba Steve:

Originally posted by ✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw:

They are in my clan, under me. You better believe I should be able to force them to at a single command. Have you ever played CK2? People under you, when you tell them to do something have the acceptance modifier "Dare not refuse". Why do you think that is?

Speaking as a person, a living, breathing, thinking human being, I have my own motivations for doing things. If I were cruel and devious, I would hardly respect an order to not enrich myself when you’re not around to watch me. Similarly, as an honorable man, I would no sooner raid a village than I would diddle your wife.

Forgive me for wanting characters in a video game to act like people and not like magnets shifting polarity based on the click of a button.

This isn't the modern world. Simply put, it's a feudal society. There are tiers. As the clan leader, you are WAY above the people leading your parties. In that world, everyone under you would be afraid of you because they know that you could have them killed in the blink of an eye. So yes, regardless of how they feel about your command, they would obey if they were smart.

[Sinsling]

Originally posted by ✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw:

Originally posted by Sinsling:

Because they a brain dead meat bags?

Loyalty should be determined by traits and relationship, with more ways to earn relation with same-clan people. Add in the ability to reprimand clan members who disobey(temporarily forces them to obey at -relationship) or otherwise let the player handle them by removing their command/ext.

They aren't brain dead, quite the opposite. They are smart enough to know that if they refused my command, they would die. That's why the "dare not refuse" modifier exists. And yes, you should be able to reprimand them. But what I'm saying is that any logical person would obey if their liege told them to stop.

because noone in all the history of the dark ages ever disobeyed their liege?

Obviously if you catch the delinquent party you should by all rights be allowed to execute, reprimand, praise, or otherwise interact with the offending party.

If you don't know who did it, time to play clue.

It is a system that could use a lot of work imo than a simple yes/no button.

[Booba]

Originally posted by ;2948125678391409908:

This isn't the modern world. Simply put, it's a feudal society. There are tiers. As the clan leader, you are WAY above the people leading your parties. In that world, everyone under you would be afraid of you because they know that you could have them killed in the blink of an eye. So yes, regardless of how they feel about your command, they would obey if they were smart.

The modern world has nothing to do with it, why even bring it up? Or do you think that laws and courts didn't exist in feudal society?

I have no problems with the game implementing an "execute this vassal" option that creates a "dare not refuse" trait, dissuading vassals from disobeying in the future. Feudal society being what it was, courts and laws being as effective deterrents to the whims of the rich and powerful then as they are now, I think that makes sense. Provided of course, you also get the "cruel" trait for murdering a vassal based on nothing more than the displeasure of your enemies, resulting in the inability to recruit honorable and virtuous companions, marry honorable and virtuous characters, and taking a massive, permanent morale penalty for demonstrating to your troops that not only do you dislike them getting rich off war, but that you'll kill them for wanting to do it.

And I think there should be a good chance that the devious and cruel vassal, instead of answering the summons for his execution, marches his warband far, far away, defecting to another kingdom or becoming a bandit.

That sounds about right.

[✪︎DΞ︎AD_iwnw]

Originally posted by Scuba Steve:

Originally posted by ;2948125678391409908:

This isn't the modern world. Simply put, it's a feudal society. There are tiers. As the clan leader, you are WAY above the people leading your parties. In that world, everyone under you would be afraid of you because they know that you could have them killed in the blink of an eye. So yes, regardless of how they feel about your command, they would obey if they were smart.

The modern world has nothing to do with it, why even bring it up? Or do you think that laws and courts didn't exist in feudal society?

I have no problems with the game implementing an "execute this vassal" option that creates a "dare not refuse" trait, dissuading vassals from disobeying in the future. Feudal society being what it was, courts and laws being as effective deterrents to the whims of the rich and powerful then as they are now, I think that makes sense. Provided of course, you also get the "cruel" trait for murdering a vassal based on nothing more than the displeasure of your enemies, resulting in the inability to recruit honorable and virtuous companions, marry honorable and virtuous characters, and taking a massive, permanent morale penalty for demonstrating to your troops that not only do you dislike them getting rich off war, but that you'll kill them for wanting to do it.

And I think there should be a good chance that the devious and cruel vassal, instead of answering the summons for his execution, marches his warband far, far away, defecting to another kingdom or becoming a bandit.

That sounds about right.

Yes that sounds like a good idea. Let them run off and be bandits if they want. My point will still be enforced that they would obey if they knew what's good for them. Becoming a bandit would give me yet another reason to just kill them.