Suggestion: Countries, Kings and Queens.

[FateWeaver]

As the world gets expanded and grows I think it would be cool if lands and nobles could be governed by Kings and Queens, one royal family per country, with nobles either staying loyal or attempting to seise the throne themselves through plots. An Emperor or an Empress could be interesting to, instead of having multiple kings and queens running around multiple countries.
Edit: To be clear, I am talking about npcs here.
And it would look nice on the map with multiple countries having different colours for their borders.

[Bomoo]

That's coming in the next update, apparently.

[FateWeaver]

In the update that is coming in february? None of the things I suggested are in that update.
No countries, no kings and queens, or Emperors and empresses.

[Sheytanaslan]

Or you could simply have a bunch of counties and no King at all in the realm, but will YOU be the Kingmaker by aiding one of the errant counts seeking to claim the throne? And enriching yourself and you mercenary company in the process.

[M.Johnson]

Mount & Blade turn based is what I'm expecting in 1.0.
Which is a good thing.

[holy-death]

You will have countries in a sense that villages/towns/castles, etc. will be owned by different noble houses.

[FateWeaver]

Originally posted by holy-death:

You will have countries in a sense that villages/towns/castles, etc. will be owned by different noble houses.

Yeah, I know, that will come in the next update, but what I was thinking of went beyond that, one extra tier of government. Love your Arthas avatar btw, man I miss Warcraft 3.

[FateWeaver]

Originally posted by matthewjohnsonisnot:

Mount & Blade turn based is what I'm expecting in 1.0.
Which is a good thing.

Aye, same, except dark fantasy, which I prefer. The World is boring without monsters, like seriously, if I could fill our real world with monsters I would.

[FateWeaver]

Originally posted by Sheytanaslan:

Or you could simply have a bunch of counties and no King at all in the realm, but will YOU be the Kingmaker by aiding one of the errant counts seeking to claim the throne? And enriching yourself and you mercenary company in the process.

I really hope something like that will be possible in the final game.

[Sarissofoi]

I hope that there will be option to enter for longer service to some house/faction and help them to dominate country. Having friendly kindgom as a operational base would help thing.

[M.Johnson]

I'd like to be able to be givin land and titles, open up more of a end game, if thats the path you wish to take.
The closer this gets the mount and blade, the better I say.

[rio]

Originally posted by Sarissofoi:

I hope that there will be option to enter for longer service to some house/faction and help them to dominate country. Having friendly kindgom as a operational base would help thing.

I strongly believe we're getting something like this in Feb

[Sheytanaslan]

Originally posted by matthewjohnsonisnot:

I'd like to be able to be givin land and titles, open up more of a end game, if thats the path you wish to take.
The closer this gets the mount and blade, the better I say.

Hope so.

[Overhype Studios]

Hi guys, quickly dropping in to add something to the whole country and nobility thing.
Increasing the interaction between your merc party and the leaders of various factions is definitely something we would love to have in the game at some point. Maybe by having "campaigns" that are basically like a longer series of connected contracts or something similar but i can not say when and if this will come.

However, i dont want to kill the buzz here but Battle Brothers will probably never be a kingdom- or empire-simulation like crusader kings or MB. If you look at Mount and Blade a core aspect is the player rising through the ranks of royalty and acquiring land, titles, troops and so on. This only works when deciding on a kingdom to join and pledge loyalty to a ruler and serve him. Our game is about a mercenary company that usually works for the highest bidder - that is a big difference in the scope of the game. A mercenary company is by definition only loyal as long as a contract runs and it is paid. Being loyal to someone who does not pay directly is not something a mercenary company will usually do.

Adding more freedom of choice to a game is often a good thing and we would be happy if we could give the player more options on how to play the game. Unfortunately, with limited resources you have to make the cut somewhere and this is why we have to focus on the mercenary aspect of the game first. There is just no way we can got both of these playstyles into the game in a way that is satisfying.

I hope you guys can see the reasoning behind this and are not too disappointed but i rather be honest about this and let me add that i am personally also a big fan of M&B.

[Sheytanaslan]

Originally posted by Overhype Studios:

Hi guys, quickly dropping in to add something to the whole country and nobility thing.
Increasing the interaction between your merc party and the leaders of various factions is definitely something we would love to have in the game at some point. Maybe by having "campaigns" that are basically like a longer series of connected contracts or something similar but i can not say when and if this will come.

However, i dont want to kill the buzz here but Battle Brothers will probably never be a kingdom- or empire-simulation like crusader kings or MB. If you look at Mount and Blade a core aspect is the player rising through the ranks of royalty and acquiring land, titles, troops and so on. This only works when deciding on a kingdom to join and pledge loyalty to a ruler and serve him. Our game is about a mercenary company that usually works for the highest bidder - that is a big difference in the scope of the game. A mercenary company is by definition only loyal as long as a contract runs and it is paid. Being loyal to someone who does not pay directly is not something a mercenary company will usually do.

Adding more freedom of choice to a game is often a good thing and we would be happy if we could give the player more options on how to play the game. Unfortunately, with limited resources you have to make the cut somewhere and this is why we have to focus on the mercenary aspect of the game first. There is just no way we can got both of these playstyles into the game in a way that is satisfying.

I hope you guys can see the reasoning behind this and are not too disappointed but i rather be honest about this and let me add that i am personally also a big fan of M&B.

We;; if nothing else you see there is a customer interest in this aspect, and perhaps its a DLC or expansion idea. Anyway thanks for the honesty.

[Sarissofoi]

Originally posted by ;458606248639551514:

Hi guys, quickly dropping in to add something to the whole country and nobility thing.
Increasing the interaction between your merc party and the leaders of various factions is definitely something we would love to have in the game at some point. Maybe by having "campaigns" that are basically like a longer series of connected contracts or something similar but i can not say when and if this will come.

However, i dont want to kill the buzz here but Battle Brothers will probably never be a kingdom- or empire-simulation like crusader kings or MB. If you look at Mount and Blade a core aspect is the player rising through the ranks of royalty and acquiring land, titles, troops and so on. This only works when deciding on a kingdom to join and pledge loyalty to a ruler and serve him. Our game is about a mercenary company that usually works for the highest bidder - that is a big difference in the scope of the game. A mercenary company is by definition only loyal as long as a contract runs and it is paid. Being loyal to someone who does not pay directly is not something a mercenary company will usually do.

Adding more freedom of choice to a game is often a good thing and we would be happy if we could give the player more options on how to play the game. Unfortunately, with limited resources you have to make the cut somewhere and this is why we have to focus on the mercenary aspect of the game first. There is just no way we can got both of these playstyles into the game in a way that is satisfying.

I hope you guys can see the reasoning behind this and are not too disappointed but i rather be honest about this and let me add that i am personally also a big fan of M&B.

This is fine.
You mention campagins and this sound great. Also working with one faction long enough and getting on their good side should grant some benefits. Sure player still is stinky mercenary but at last he is known well and can be trusted(in some things). Having some lords that own player favors would be helpful at last.
Even if they have no more contracts to do.
Also it would help if here could be options to put some retired battle Brother in position of influence.