The inability to destroy enemy kingdoms is a design flaw

[Caelib]

So after playing the game for several hundred hours, I discovered that it is simply not possible to truly defeat an enemy kingdom, despite having taken control of all cities and castles owned by that kingdom.

This is a major design flaw, especially since the lords from said kingdom spend all their time raiding villages and are just a horrible nuisance to gameplay.

The game mechanics should be changed that once a kingdom loses all of their cities and castles, they should be disbanded and those clans should either have to become disbanded, mercenaries or vassals of another kingdom. Ideally, clans from defeated kingdoms would be easier to recruit into your own kingdom as well - or least for the kingdom that defeated them (join us, or die).

The idea of conquest in this game is lost on the fact that kingdoms cannot be destroyed and I've personally just lost interest in the game after learning this sad truth. I was very excited after battling a kingdom for weeks that when we finally defeated their last stronghold - the reward was utter disappointment that all of this work means nothing.

[Malus]

Mods can do that. Kingdom degration is a thing in a few mods I believe.

[jasonmv]

Geez, glad I read this. Very disappointing as this is the point of the game from what I can tell. If the kingdom is never destroyed, then it's just endless battle forever lol. Time to start executing lords!

[Kharn the Bloody]

Originally posted by jasonmv:

Geez, glad I read this. Very disappointing as this is the point of the game from what I can tell. If the kingdom is never destroyed, then it's just endless battle forever lol. Time to start executing lords!

There's a couple really nice mods out there that help with this. I'm a returning player from 2020/Early Access just recently but saw the mods on Workshop. Not sure what they're called. Anyway, one adds a lot of new small, independent factions so that you don't end up with one AI faction becoming a superpower really fast. There are other mods that let you totally wipe out factions. Yet another mod, Improved Executions or something like that, where executing enemy Lords isn't so painful.

[Morkonan]

Originally posted by Caelib:

...
The game mechanics should be changed that once a kingdom loses all of their cities and castles, they should be disbanded and those clans should either have to become disbanded, mercenaries or vassals of another kingdom. Ideally...

"Ideally" defeated Factions should then generate a possibility, albeit a slight one, that a Rebelling Town would generate a "Rebel Faction Leader" of that faction type.... Potentially allowing for the successful return of a defeated Faction if xx period of time expires and the Town is still successfully rebelling/turmoil/etc. "Ideally," that probability would all but disappear after a significant amount of time has passed.

"Ideally," speaking, that is... :)

(IOW - Doing some mechanics-blending with Bannerlord's pointless, worthless, and ungoodthunked "Rebellion" mechanics to make them potentially interesting with the combination of a version of Warband's "Claimant" mechanics, which is something that some Warband fans have wanted to see in Bannerlord. But, that's just all my opinion and that isn't very highly regarded by anyone who has the power to affect change... :))

[Ruffio]

Imagine England today if "Alfred the great" did just slink away into history after he had to flee after the Danes attack on Chippenham in 878. You can take someones land and occupy it but it doesn't mean the fight is over. If you want to subjegate/eliminate you enemies in Bannerlord, then either recruit their clans or kill them off. Imho the former is better as your kingdom become stronger from it,

[Caelib]

Originally posted by Ruffio:

Imagine England today if "Alfred the great" did just slink away into history after he had to flee after the Danes attack on Chippenham in 878. You can take someones land and occupy it but it doesn't mean the fight is over. If you want to subjegate/eliminate you enemies in Bannerlord, then either recruit their clans or kill them off. Imho the former is better as your kingdom become stronger from it,

Yeah, that is definitely an alternative ... but executing lords has consequences that make the game unplayable and I am just not a fan of using mods due to the dependencies with updates.

[Ruffio]

Originally posted by Caelib:

Originally posted by Ruffio:

Imagine England today if "Alfred the great" did just slink away into history after he had to flee after the Danes attack on Chippenham in 878. You can take someones land and occupy it but it doesn't mean the fight is over. If you want to subjegate/eliminate you enemies in Bannerlord, then either recruit their clans or kill them off. Imho the former is better as your kingdom become stronger from it,

Yeah, that is definitely an alternative ... but executing lords has consequences that make the game unplayable and I am just not a fan of using mods due to the dependencies with updates.

Recruit them. It doesn't cost that much once they have no fiefs, and you end up with more manpower fighting those you don't. Just be generous share fiefs with them so the get income to actually be effective as well.

[King Loko]

Originally posted by Caelib:

So after playing the game for several hundred hours, I discovered that it is simply not possible to truly defeat an enemy kingdom, despite having taken control of all cities and castles owned by that kingdom.

This is a major design flaw, especially since the lords from said kingdom spend all their time raiding villages and are just a horrible nuisance to gameplay.

The game mechanics should be changed that once a kingdom loses all of their cities and castles, they should be disbanded and those clans should either have to become disbanded, mercenaries or vassals of another kingdom. Ideally, clans from defeated kingdoms would be easier to recruit into your own kingdom as well - or least for the kingdom that defeated them (join us, or die).

The idea of conquest in this game is lost on the fact that kingdoms cannot be destroyed and I've personally just lost interest in the game after learning this sad truth. I was very excited after battling a kingdom for weeks that when we finally defeated their last stronghold - the reward was utter disappointment that all of this work means nothing.

The whole game design is bad

[MasterShake]

Originally posted by Ruffio:

Recruit them. It doesn't cost that much once they have no fiefs, and you end up with more manpower fighting those you don't.

Technically speaking in the very end I had to save up to 4kkk to my name for the talk to even trigger and around 2kkk to recruit those homeless, powerless, literally brigands not lords anymore, who lived from one dungeon till another. That's for top charm character and their low realtions with their "king" (up to "enemy"). The only reason they kept surviving is game straight up cheating and giving them free money and troops, they simply can't afford or train realistically. Even merc clans joining their side is nonsense, because factions w/o fiefs and wealth just shouldn't be able to afford ridiculously expensive (at that point) mercs. Not saying, that for mercs it should be damn straight obvious, what should happen, once they choose such employee (yes, they get smashed too and deprived of all the wealth and troops, they gathered, almost immediately).
Sorry, but with execution mechanic being penalized up to non-playable degree for sane people, this is just cheap and flawed concept, here I just have to agree with "that" side.

I partly agree with the historical example and possibility of rebellions and freedom fighting, but this only works when native folks loyalty is questionable or straight on the rebels side. When the village is prosperous and loyal to its pwner faction, it will hardly provide resources to waste, people to die or even sanctuary to hide. Not on the regular basis, when these now-so-called "lords" go out, get smashed constantly and return for the tenth bloody time after all their men got killed. Especially not, if all what these mfkers do for freedom fighting is keep raiding said villages! No, the concept is flawed and does not deserve justification.

[Ruffio]

Originally posted by MasterShake:

Originally posted by Ruffio:

Recruit them. It doesn't cost that much once they have no fiefs, and you end up with more manpower fighting those you don't.

Technically speaking in the very end I had to save up to 4kkk to my name for the talk to even trigger and around 2kkk to recruit those homeless, powerless, literally brigands not lords anymore, who lived from one dungeon till another. That's for top charm character and low realtions with their "king". The only reason they kept surviving is game straight up cheating and giving them free money and troops, they simply can't afford. Even merc clans joining their side is nonsense, because factions w/o fiefs and wealth just shouldn't be able to afford ridiculously expensive (at that point) mercs.
Sorry, but with execution mechanic being penalized up to non-playable degree for sane people, this is just cheap and flawed concept, here I just have to agree with "that" side.

I partly agree with the historical example and possibility of rebellions and freedom fighting, but this only works when native folks loyalty is questionable or straight on the rebels side. When the village is prosperous and loyal to its pwner faction, it will hardly provide resources to waste, people to die or even sanctuary to hide. Not on the regular basis, when these now-so-called "lords" go out, get smashed constantly and return for the tenth bloody time after all their men got killed. Especially not, if all what these mfkers do for freedom fighting is keep raiding said villages! No, the concept is flawed and does not deserve justification.

All factions got a hidden bank. It hold typical a couple million. Once it's drained the faction is BROKE, Income from their fiefs etc deposit into it, and expenses poor clans got in the faction draw from it. Mercs get paid from it etc. Kinda like your wallet cover expenses for your other parties, garrisons etc.

Once they out of fiefs they out of income and will eventually bleed dry. Their parties end up little more than mid sized bandit parties.

You om the other hand can Cheese big time the wealth on your clans in your own kingdom. Give them tons of stuff and they will sell it in a town unrestricted by how much dinars the town got.

I take it your country never been occupied. Sabotage (raids) that harmed the occupation force affected civil population as well. Raiding villages in Bannerlod hurt the one holding the fief.

[MasterShake]

Originally posted by Ruffio:

Once they out of fiefs they out of income and will eventually bleed dry. Their parties end up little more than mid sized bandit parties.

I've waited for a long long time to get at least some proof of it or contrary. Everyone is present and still running around and hiring mercs despite having NO income, oldest for two decades already. If that's how it's done, it's done bad. Period.

Originally posted by Ruffio:

I take it your country never been occupied. Sabotage (raids) that harmed the occupation force affected civil population as well. Raiding villages in Bannerlod hurt the one holding the fief.

I take it yours never been. For you would know, that sabotaging and killing civil population is not what their own folks normally do. And if they do, that means they either on different sides already or that would be the very thing very soon. And acts of terrorism against certain, loyal to invaders people is one thing, burning down whole villages is quite another. You do the latter and your local support hits the ground in no time. Good luck rebelling w/o it.

Regardless, being caught such "saboteurs"/"raiders" normally get death sentence, preferably right on spot, and no questions asked anyhow. We as players are forced not to be able to do this. Then they keep running away from cking castle dungeons like nothing. That is wrong and flawed design.

[Ruffio]

Originally posted by MasterShake:

Originally posted by Ruffio:

Once they out of fiefs they out of income and will eventually bleed dry. Their parties end up little more than mid sized bandit parties.

I've waited for a long long time to get at least some proof of it or contrary. Everyone is present and still running around and hiring mercs despite having NO income, oldest for two decades already. If that's how it's done, it's done bad. Period.

Originally posted by Ruffio:

I take it your country never been occupied. Sabotage (raids) that harmed the occupation force affected civil population as well. Raiding villages in Bannerlod hurt the one holding the fief.

I take it yours never been. For you would know, that sabotaging and killing civil population is not what their own folks normally do. And if they do, that means they either on different sides already or that would be the very thing very soon. And acts of terrorism against certain, loyal to invaders people is one thing, burning down whole villages is quite another. You do the latter and your local support hits the ground in no time. Good luck rebelling w/o it.

Regardless, being caught such "saboteurs"/"raiders" normally get death sentence, preferably right on spot, and no questions asked anyhow. We as players are forced not to be able to do this. Then they keep running away from cking castle dungeons like nothing. That is wrong and flawed design.

With 2 perks. One from riding, and one from scout. You can collect enemy lords like pokemons and they wont escape your party.

I abuse those perks to much. I go for unlock them asap, then I slowly grind my way through capture lords of a faction before I more or less unrestricted take their fiefs before even form a kingdom. Problem arise when other factions might swoop in and benefit on your grind.

Not to go historical, but the homefront resistance here in Norway during ww2 did sabotage actions where civilians got killed. Or who got killed by the occupation as punishment/revenge. I see raiding in the game as a means to hurt you, not necessary the population of the village. But hey, different views and opinions...

[MasterShake]

Originally posted by Ruffio:

With 2 perks. One from riding, and one from scout. You can collect enemy lords like pokemons and they wont escape your party.

True, but why should it be mandatory? There are also perks for grovernor, but again - same question, what kind of madness is it, that throwing people in dungeon even in the castle, that is literally high security military point/prison by design, means nothing without special perks, I have to develop. Try to open one of those doors from the inside with your bare hands just once, less ecsape completely, with armed guards everywhere and gates shut. I'm not saying that is impossible, but it's exception for medievals, not a common ride. Leaders tried their best not to get captured and capture other leaders for a good reason, even if it wasn't about heads chopping.

Originally posted by Ruffio:

I abuse those perks to much. I go for unlock them asap, then I slowly grind my way through capture lords of a faction before I more or less unrestricted take their fiefs before even form a kingdom. Problem arise when other factions might swoop in and benefit on your grind.

That's good and well, but this is irrelevant. The fiefs and battles are not the problem, it is what the game created about. It is totally doable to paint the map without bothering with prisoners. The problem, we discuss, is about logic and reasoning. Keeping up acting warbands, horsemen especially, is both quite an expense (you need to pay and feed and motivate them) and burden (because you don't raise loyal armed professionals from the ground after you get them killed on regular basis, no matter how lordly and noble you are).

Originally posted by Ruffio:

Not to go historical, but the homefront resistance here in Norway during ww2 did sabotage actions where civilians got killed. Or who got killed by the occupation as punishment/revenge. I see raiding in the game as a means to hurt you, not necessary the population of the village. But hey, different views and opinions...

Again I see quite a difference between local collateral damage due to sabotage of an infrastructure object or punishment and burning down the village and robbing their stock blind. No doubt the former happened (and was/would be still frowned upon), but the latter is pure act of war (crime). There's no return from such. EVEN if you don't kill people directly during such raid, you may condemn them all to die along with children and elderly due to cold and hunger. No local society would appreciate such or accept your claims any further.

I appreciate insight and another good example, tho indeed we may have different views on it. Thank you.

[Ruffio]

Originally posted by MasterShake:

Originally posted by Ruffio:

With 2 perks. One from riding, and one from scout. You can collect enemy lords like pokemons and they wont escape your party.

True, but why should it be mandatory? There are also perks for grovernor, but again - same question, what kind of madness is it, that throwing people in dungeon even in the castle, that is literally high security military point/prison by design, means nothing without special perks, I have to develop. Try to open one of those doors from the inside with your bare hands just once, less ecsape completely, with armed guards everywhere and gates shut. I'm not saying that is impossible, but it's exception for medievals, not a common ride. Leaders tried their best not to get captured and capture other leaders for a good reason, even if it wasn't about heads chopping.

Originally posted by Ruffio:

I abuse those perks to much. I go for unlock them asap, then I slowly grind my way through capture lords of a faction before I more or less unrestricted take their fiefs before even form a kingdom. Problem arise when other factions might swoop in and benefit on your grind.

That's good and well, but this is irrelevant. The fiefs and battles are not the problem, it is what the game created about. It is totally doable to paint the map without bothering with prisoners. The problem, we discuss, is about logic and reasoning.

Originally posted by Ruffio:

Not to go historical, but the homefront resistance here in Norway during ww2 did sabotage actions where civilians got killed. Or who got killed by the occupation as punishment/revenge. I see raiding in the game as a means to hurt you, not necessary the population of the village. But hey, different views and opinions...

Again I see quite a difference between local collateral damage due to sabotage of an infrastructure object or punishment and burning down the village and robbing their stock blind. No doubt the former happened (and was/would be still frowned upon), but the latter is pure act of war (crime). There's no return from such. EVEN if you don't kill people directly during such raid, you may condemn them all to die along with children and elderly due to cold and hunger. No local society would appreciate such or accept your claims any further.

I appreciate insight and another good example, tho indeed we may have different views on it. Thank you.

You don't need those perks mandatory. It give room to play the game different. Some prefer to just execute every enemy too.

This supposedly medieval times. War crimes not really a thing. I doubt the English labeled my viking ancestors as such. When Napoleon went into Russia and found little else than scorched earth and starvation for his troops. I'm quite sure a whole lot of civilians did suffer in the process,

[MasterShake]

Originally posted by Ruffio:

This supposedly medieval times. War crimes not really a thing. I doubt the English labeled my viking ancestors as such. When Napoleon went into Russia and found little else than scorched earth and starvation for his troops. I'm quite sure a whole lot of civilians did suffer in the process,

Those civilians were the ones, who kicked his arse, on the way and back. Guess stuff was more complicated, we'll never know, cause ain't like russian serfs bothered with documenting those events or self-reasoning in any presice manner. The history tho tells us, that such and similar happened to every bloody idiot, who decided to bother russian lands, with exception of mongols probably, who were more like force of nature, who didn't bother capturing lands, being only interested in tribute, and left on their own, when got severely weakened.

War crimes are not a thing as we know it, but if John from the village A participates in robbing and burning down the house of Jan, who lives in the village B, and maybe Jan's brother gets killed, because he was a militia guy, this is feud.

Originally posted by Ruffio:

You don't need those perks mandatory. It give room to play the game different. Some prefer to just execute every enemy too.

You need, if you want some kind of order aftermath. Peace is a lie, it only alliows them to recruit better troops (YOUR troops basically, from YOUR fiefs) and declare war at you again. Executing such enemies brings severe penalties within YOUR faction, no matter the culture and war update, it logically shouldn't. Again, the thread was about common sense, not about cheesing/abusing (when design is decent, there's, frankly, no need of such every bloody move and day).