Bannerlord is really just a broken game.

Users who are viewing this thread

As someone coming from Warband and having beat that original campaign and several mods like PoP, Perisno and Gekokujo I like tens of thousands of fans was looking forward to the release of Bannerlord. In the early days when BL was announced I was still using "chans" with gaming threads and Warband was always just something everyone loved and we dared not hope for the actually arrival of Bannerlord.

But one day is arrived, first in dev vids and then in early access. I tried EE and I couldn't bear it because it was compared to Warband quite souless. EE was so unbalanced I just had no interest in getting very far so my first real attempt to make a go at "winning" only happened after things like cutscenes added a modicum of soul. I made the mistake of thinking the actually mechanics were balanced and working. However as everyone who actually plays the game knows it's not.

For reference in this playthough that I am giving up on I have 30 cities and 30 castles give or take, 15 above average sized clans and my own clan has something like 40 adults in it. But I will never actually win, for actually so many reasons, but I'll share as many as I can think of.

The AI voting system is horrible. They vote for all the wrong policies and all the wrong wars and try to force peace when you have most of their lords captured.
The AI voting system continually gives the same 3 AI losers all the fiefs and they do nothing to protect them, they don't garrison, they don't form armies to protect their estates,
in fact for some reason despite having over 100 nobles in other clans they fail to make armies to either defend or press an advantage effectively.
additionally the AI lords do not head the "offensive/defensive/balanced" war strategy at all, they just do what they want which is usually nothing at all.
The AI lords from opposing factions always have armies flooding into your lands no matter how many you capture there is always another army on the way.
At one point I had 200 NPC lords personally captured, this did basically nothing for reasons stated above. My own lords also constantly do nothing even though essentially none of them were captives.
When an AI ally lord proposes peace it doesn't even tell you the terms of the deal, and the terms are never fair anyways, some fiefless faction gets paid because you they constantly respawn with 50 soldiers and attack your villages and no matter what they are always on the get paid end of things.
Auto battle is really bad, you can lose 20 elite troops with a 1000 man army against some random 50 unit whatever.
Several times I was hit with negative -9812378927390237 reputation bugs while rescuing lords (usually I would reload a save)
Nearby Ally lords jump an army far too early causing a massive lose before I can get my army into range and sometimes I'm purposely waiting and don't want to engage at all.
Ally lords being called to an army will easily get distracted by very small enemy parties and chase them around for days before joining properly.
My clan party leaders donating 10%-ish of their own troops every time they empty an empty allied fief, yet my actually "allied lords" don't every arrive to garrison it.
Battles themselves are ridiculous, every single map the player is in a crappy spot, the AI is in a good spot, and if you on the offense often have to cross a large map and if that battle involves reinforcements THEIR reinforcements will appear behind you and YOUR reinforcements are back on the other side of the map.
When you tell your infantry force of 200 to charge they will split up into several groups, often half of them will turn back to chase down a mounted archer or something instead of crashing what is in front of them. If you give them a position to go to they WALK, if you tell them to CHARGE they run in all different directions, it's insane.
Merceny clans are auto recruited by enemy kings magically. If you manage to find the LEADER of one clan who ISN'T working, you might be able to hire them but they will be gone in a few days.
The player clan doesn't seem to work well after a while, none of my sons or nephews were able to have 4 children and I think it was more like 1 or 2.
Marriage offers also don't come often enough and you often are looking at at "????" for what is being offered.
NPC lords would offer you 60 year old widows to your 18 year old son, because well Bannerlord is half coded and half not.
My NPC clans were so awful, with 15 clans it was VERY lucky if I had 2 mediocre armies formed besides mine only clan member army, they never formed an army like enemy factions did meaning stacks of 1500-2000.
50% of kingdom policies are self destructive especially to war torn fiefs, yet the allied clans vote for them constantly.
There is a HUGE inflation in the number of lord in the world over time to rebel clans joining NPC lords, cause lol, that can't be allowed for the player.
Of course also native clans are having children and such so, it seems like there is almost twice as many lords as in the start of the game now.
For some reason it's not useful for the player faction, at least for me they do nothing, while NPC factions send everyone out to raid.
Force to make the choice of giving up 50 prisoners and making peace for a deal that's only going to last 5 days max or paying over 1000 influence.
Peace deals are just awful absolutely broken things, just as the voting system in general is just garbage.
Rebel clans are poorly conceived balance killers.
Cities in the no mans land end up with like 1000 prosperity and never recover because the AI doesn't invest/garrison it .
Poor, fiefless clans with high relationship cannot be converted at some point, I tried several and they just flat refuse, I own half the map but have something
like 20% of the available lords.
Why do family clan members have more attribute points then the player at the same level and hired companions have less than the player?
Finally the world map is just bad, with the Aseri and not-Viking having 2 ins and outs it's one more aspect of the endless wack -a-mole of BL.

TLDR: Bannerlord at it's base really has a lot of potential, but whoever is balancing it and putting the final touches on it needs to be fired.
Hopefully it gets sorted in the next year or so, I have my doubts because some of this stuff is just obvious and just needs to be tweaked but hasn't been fixed.
I dunno, maybe hire back whoever made Warband.

There is a bunch of things I missed on this list, but I've spent enough time on it and don't except anyone who is responsible for these things to somehow suddenly realize stuff needs to be fixed since I've seen plenty of posts just like going back forever.
 
Last edited:
TLDR: Bannerlord at it's base really has a lot of potential, but whoever is balancing it and putting the final touches on it needs to be fired.
Hopefully it gets sorted in the next year or so, I have my doubts because some of this stuff is just obvious and just needs to be tweaked but hasn't been fixed.
Couldn't agree more, it seems they took great effort to build a very solid stone foundation and then built a dung house on top.

There is a bunch of things I missed on this list
I would like to add that the whole influence system is garbage and should be scraped.
 
Merceny clans are auto recruited by enemy kings magically. If you manage to find the LEADER of one clan who ISN'T working, you might be able to hire them but they will be gone in a few days.
The player clan doesn't seem to work well after a while, none of my sons or nephews were able to have 4 children and I think it was more like 1 or 2.
Marriage offers also don't come often enough and you often are looking at at "????" for what is being offered.
NPC lords would offer you 60 year old widows to your 18 year old son, because well Bannerlord is half coded and half not.
My NPC clans were so awful, with 15 clans it was VERY lucky if I had 2 mediocre armies formed besides mine only clan member army, they never formed an army like enemy factions did meaning stacks of 1500-2000.
Of course also native clans are having children and such so, it seems like there is almost twice as many lords as in the start of the game now.
For some reason it's not useful for the player faction, at least for me they do nothing, while NPC factions send everyone out to raid.
Force to make the choice of giving up 50 prisoners and making peace for a deal that's only going to last 5 days max or paying over 1000 influence.
Peace deals are just awful absolutely broken things, just as the voting system in general is just garbage.
Rebel clans are poorly conceived balance killers.
Cities in the no mans land end up with like 1000 prosperity and never recover because the AI doesn't invest/garrison it .
Poor, fiefless clans with high relationship cannot be converted at some point, I tried several and they just flat refuse, I own half the map but have something
like 20% of the available lords.
Marriage is in a really weird place right now, my 17-year-old relatives keep getting marriage requests from people in their late fifties, and there is no real benefit from getting married except having kids who take forty actual years to get older. Companion clans are absolutely useless. Mercenary clans probably should not rely on relations and probably should accept being hired with the barter screen, a denar to weeks scale could be added as a tab to the barter screen to make it more interesting and useful for actual gameplay. Killing over ten thousand enemy troops should affect peace deals and not the lack of clans on my side.
 
And the worst part for me is this: although most of the things you describe above can be fixed, or at least be improved with mods, the world itself, the "living world" just feels so bland. No capital city to host feasts or tournaments in, no lords coming to beg to become part of your kingdom, no stocking your larder to make a great feast, no interactions with your governor to make them do things, etc,....

Just bland. It seems the developers decided to scrap all the little world building programming things that Warband had, the ones I mentioned above.
And then these other issues become MORE of an issue, because IF it is meant to ONLY be a medieval battle simulator, then the developers even managed to fail at that.
 
TLDR: Bannerlord at it's base really has a lot of potential, but whoever is balancing it and putting the final touches on it needs to be fired.
Hopefully it gets sorted in the next year or so, I have my doubts because some of this stuff is just obvious and just needs to be tweaked but hasn't been fixed.
I dunno, maybe hire back whoever made Warband.
Totally agree with your ending, it is so frustrating when you see the potential of the bannerlord's world an it keeps being rough and unpolish for so long. My conclusion is that their vision is a battle simulator, the world is just a container where you fight battle after battle... design to be in a never ending war, they won't improve the RPG part of the game.
 
The is very mediocre and still a bit buggy. When the excitement of battles wears off there isn't much game left. Not expecting much more from devs.
 
Warband was also very, very broken and had some insanely stupid stuff in it, but it was simple enough that you could ignore the busted mechanics by fighting battles efficiently, which is fun in itself.

Bannerlord on the other hand has implemented everything that crossed their mind including a perk tree and abstract influence currency that shouldn't have come within a 10,000km radius of this type of game, but most detrimentally they've given individual battles almost zero effect on the campaign.

You can still play Bannerlord more or less like warband but you have to wade through all this useless, non-combat trash to progress, which makes the bugs way more noticable. I would argue that Warband was way more of a mindless battle simulator than Bannerlord, which is why it was good. Bannerlord tries to be EU4, CK2, Total War, Fallout 4 and a bunch of other titles it had no business drawing inspiration from.
 
Warband was also very, very broken and had some insanely stupid stuff in it, but it was simple enough that you could ignore the busted mechanics by fighting battles efficiently, which is fun in itself.

Bannerlord on the other hand has implemented everything that crossed their mind including a perk tree and abstract influence currency that shouldn't have come within a 10,000km radius of this type of game, but most detrimentally they've given individual battles almost zero effect on the campaign.

You can still play Bannerlord more or less like warband but you have to wade through all this useless, non-combat trash to progress, which makes the bugs way more noticable. I would argue that Warband was way more of a mindless battle simulator than Bannerlord, which is why it was good. Bannerlord tries to be EU4, CK2, Total War, Fallout 4 and a bunch of other titles it had no business drawing inspiration from.
I would say Warband gave us enough world building to enrich the world without straying too far from the idea of being a battle simulator. Those added items not only gave a bit of world building but more importantly added some relief from battles so the player didn't fatigue of endless battles. There are side activities in Bannerlord to be sure, but even if they work correctly, all they end up feeling like to me is just fluff without any substance. They're just in the game to tick a box off not to enrich the game and are rarely integrated into the game well.
 
As someone coming from Warband and having beat that original campaign and several mods like PoP, Perisno and Gekokujo I like tens of thousands of fans was looking forward to the release of Bannerlord. In the early days when BL was announced I was still using "chans" with gaming threads and Warband was always just something everyone loved and we dared not hope for the actually arrival of Bannerlord.

But one day is arrived, first in dev vids and then in early access. I tried EE and I couldn't bear it because it was compared to Warband quite souless. EE was so unbalanced I just had no interest in getting very far so my first real attempt to make a go at "winning" only happened after things like cutscenes added a modicum of soul. I made the mistake of thinking the actually mechanics were balanced and working. However as everyone who actually plays the game knows it's not.

For reference in this playthough that I am giving up on I have 30 cities and 30 castles give or take, 15 above average sized clans and my own clan has something like 40 adults in it. But I will never actually win, for actually so many reasons, but I'll share as many as I can think of.

The AI voting system is horrible. They vote for all the wrong policies and all the wrong wars and try to force peace when you have most of their lords captured.
The AI voting system continually gives the same 3 AI losers all the fiefs and they do nothing to protect them, they don't garrison, they don't form armies to protect their estates,
in fact for some reason despite having over 100 nobles in other clans they fail to make armies to either defend or press an advantage effectively.
additionally the AI lords do not head the "offensive/defensive/balanced" war strategy at all, they just do what they want which is usually nothing at all.
The AI lords from opposing factions always have armies flooding into your lands no matter how many you capture there is always another army on the way.
At one point I had 200 NPC lords personally captured, this did basically nothing for reasons stated above. My own lords also constantly do nothing even though essentially none of them were captives.
When an AI ally lord proposes peace it doesn't even tell you the terms of the deal, and the terms are never fair anyways, some fiefless faction gets paid because you they constantly respawn with 50 soldiers and attack your villages and no matter what they are always on the get paid end of things.
Auto battle is really bad, you can lose 20 elite troops with a 1000 man army against some random 50 unit whatever.
Several times I was hit with negative -9812378927390237 reputation bugs while rescuing lords (usually I would reload a save)
Nearby Ally lords jump an army far too early causing a massive lose before I can get my army into range and sometimes I'm purposely waiting and don't want to engage at all.
Ally lords being called to an army will easily get distracted by very small enemy parties and chase them around for days before joining properly.
My clan party leaders donating 10%-ish of their own troops every time they empty an empty allied fief, yet my actually "allied lords" don't every arrive to garrison it.
Battles themselves are ridiculous, every single map the player is in a crappy spot, the AI is in a good spot, and if you on the offense often have to cross a large map and if that battle involves reinforcements THEIR reinforcements will appear behind you and YOUR reinforcements are back on the other side of the map.
When you tell your infantry force of 200 to charge they will split up into several groups, often half of them will turn back to chase down a mounted archer or something instead of crashing what is in front of them. If you give them a position to go to they WALK, if you tell them to CHARGE they run in all different directions, it's insane.
Merceny clans are auto recruited by enemy kings magically. If you manage to find the LEADER of one clan who ISN'T working, you might be able to hire them but they will be gone in a few days.
The player clan doesn't seem to work well after a while, none of my sons or nephews were able to have 4 children and I think it was more like 1 or 2.
Marriage offers also don't come often enough and you often are looking at at "????" for what is being offered.
NPC lords would offer you 60 year old widows to your 18 year old son, because well Bannerlord is half coded and half not.
My NPC clans were so awful, with 15 clans it was VERY lucky if I had 2 mediocre armies formed besides mine only clan member army, they never formed an army like enemy factions did meaning stacks of 1500-2000.
50% of kingdom policies are self destructive especially to war torn fiefs, yet the allied clans vote for them constantly.
There is a HUGE inflation in the number of lord in the world over time to rebel clans joining NPC lords, cause lol, that can't be allowed for the player.
Of course also native clans are having children and such so, it seems like there is almost twice as many lords as in the start of the game now.
For some reason it's not useful for the player faction, at least for me they do nothing, while NPC factions send everyone out to raid.
Force to make the choice of giving up 50 prisoners and making peace for a deal that's only going to last 5 days max or paying over 1000 influence.
Peace deals are just awful absolutely broken things, just as the voting system in general is just garbage.
Rebel clans are poorly conceived balance killers.
Cities in the no mans land end up with like 1000 prosperity and never recover because the AI doesn't invest/garrison it .
Poor, fiefless clans with high relationship cannot be converted at some point, I tried several and they just flat refuse, I own half the map but have something
like 20% of the available lords.
Why do family clan members have more attribute points then the player at the same level and hired companions have less than the player?
Finally the world map is just bad, with the Aseri and not-Viking having 2 ins and outs it's one more aspect of the endless wack -a-mole of BL.

TLDR: Bannerlord at it's base really has a lot of potential, but whoever is balancing it and putting the final touches on it needs to be fired.
Hopefully it gets sorted in the next year or so, I have my doubts because some of this stuff is just obvious and just needs to be tweaked but hasn't been fixed.
I dunno, maybe hire back whoever made Warband.

There is a bunch of things I missed on this list, but I've spent enough time on it and don't except anyone who is responsible for these things to somehow suddenly realize stuff needs to be fixed since I've seen plenty of posts just like going back forever.
Enable the Dev Console, make a Good Companion, this way and promote him to Clan Leader and you will see that your promoted Companion, does a better a job in many tasks, then any AI-only Clan Leader, the AI is really bad at managing their Perks, because they choose Perks, who does absolutly nothing on this Hero.
 
I've been lurking these forums for some time now, but this post made me register just to say I agree with pretty much everything OP said.

I obviously don't know the inner workings of TW, but it feels like Bannerlord's project lead is either very inexperienced or just simply does not exist. There are so many absurd, illogical design decision in the game it becomes kinda creepy. It seems to me like they just threw a lot of half-baked ideas into the mixer and pushed the button without even giving them a second pass. Just a couple of obvious pointers:

  • Why do you have a full-fledged dynasty mechanic with children and everything when the game's pace is not even remotely close to allow this mechanic to work? You can experience all game's features (battles, leveling system, party management, fief management, kingdom management) in just a couple of in-game years, but children require unfathomable 18 years to grow up. I never came even remotely close to see my kids become of age.
  • Why do you have a food supply system when pack animals provide effectively unlimited inventory space? In my last play-through I had a personal party of 500 and still carried enough food to last 3 in-game years. Excluding the need to constantly buy date fruit to have enough variety, this mechanic in completely pointless because the player is never even remotely close to run out. All it does is wasting developers' time because they have to make sure Bannerlord's idiotic AI parties carry enough food to not starve.
  • Why do we have a full-blown simulated economy if it barely influences war and the player has pretty much 0 ways to interact with it outside of "buy low, sell high"? They obviously spent a lot of time implementing this system and balancing it, but the end result is completely pointless. For unknown reasons the economy is not simulated for weapons and armor - no, this stuff magically appears out of thin air when recruiting/upgrading troops. Therefore, you can spend all day raiding wood and iron villages of your enemies, but it will not matter even the slightest. They are still gonna vomit armies after armies of fully-equipped soldiers. As for player's interaction - you would think that simulated economy means the ability to establish trade routes or just the most basic ability to tell your caravans to not trade with a specific kingdom to limit their economy, but nope.
  • Why do you remove the ability to issue commands to allied parties if your AI is completely braindead? At least in Warband we had some mechanism of circumventing AI inability to do anything even remotely intelligent, but in Bannerlord there's nothing.
  • Why do you have hundreds of perks when there are approx only 5 that are even remotely interesting? Why create a barrage of completely pointless effects that are so small that you don't even notice they're there. There's a good reason why "2% increase" became a meme in Bannerlord's community. Why not make every skill go from 0 to 100 and think of like 5 interesting perks for each?
  • Why do you implement your "encyclopedia for of war" system in the update featuring the new gang alleyway mechanic? This is the first time we actually have to pick companions with specific skills and traits for what is clearly an early-game activity, but you make it almost impossible unless you just know in advance which companions have high roguery. Or you can just mindlessly travel from city to city "discovering" all companions I guess. What could possibly be the reason for these two features being introduced in the same update?
And I can go on and on for all day long.

The worst part about all this is the fact that I cannot even blame them for trying to artificially bloat the game's feature list for the Steam page because some mechanics like simulated economy clearly took a lot of time, effort and care. It's more like nobody at TW doesn't possess even the slightest idea of what they're doing with Bannerlord. Which is a real bummer because the idea is fantastic and the game doesn't have any real competitors, so it really sucks that the implementation is... this.
 
Last edited:
Why make a good and deep game while you can get away with a shallow mess?
Since day 1 there have been a few fan...ops "users" camping the forums, defending the "undefendable", they have time to waste while the average fan of the franchise, either has a life, or is busy playing Warband. The result? the real fans cant be bothered and leave the forums, leaving the vocal minority fending off the so called "haters", who in reality are the real fans of the game.
All in all GG TW.
 
Warband was also very, very broken and had some insanely stupid stuff in it, but it was simple enough that you could ignore the busted mechanics by fighting battles efficiently, which is fun in itself.

Bannerlord on the other hand has implemented everything that crossed their mind including a perk tree and abstract influence currency that shouldn't have come within a 10,000km radius of this type of game, but most detrimentally they've given individual battles almost zero effect on the campaign.

You can still play Bannerlord more or less like warband but you have to wade through all this useless, non-combat trash to progress, which makes the bugs way more noticable. I would argue that Warband was way more of a mindless battle simulator than Bannerlord, which is why it was good. Bannerlord tries to be EU4, CK2, Total War, Fallout 4 and a bunch of other titles it had no business drawing inspiration from.
Exactly this.
 
I would say Warband gave us enough world building to enrich the world without straying too far from the idea of being a battle simulator. Those added items not only gave a bit of world building but more importantly added some relief from battles so the player didn't fatigue of endless battles. There are side activities in Bannerlord to be sure, but even if they work correctly, all they end up feeling like to me is just fluff without any substance. They're just in the game to tick a box off not to enrich the game and are rarely integrated into the game well.

I don't disagree, but I feel like most of the worldbuilding is just the players doing all the work in their own heads. Warband really isn't great for roleplay, people complained about warband the same way back when it released, this was in 2010-11 when big AAA open world games were first taking off, so having an open world RPG-like game, even a low budget game like Warband, without much to do besides combat was jarring for some people.

None of the quests in Warband were really much better than Bannerlord. Most of them were total rubbish fetch quests or the godawful "push these cows to X town". I think the main thing people think of when they talk about Warband being more immersive was just the feasts and campaigns. Even though warband feasts were basically an autism convention, simply meeting the people in your faction in one place was just enough to make them feel like one-dimensional characters and not just zero-dimensional static minibosses. It also drew a distinction in how you interacted with members of your own faction, and everyone else. Similarly it maintained some of the illusion that NPCs had to meet in person to be able to get information.

Similarly the campaigns in Warband were a decentralised group of separate armies who could all break off on their own. You would see in real time who the more aggressive, cowardly or disloyal lords were because they would run away from big armies or rush into battles or just get bored and go home. Plus the player had to actively follow an army rather than the glorified freelancer mod thing they have now.

Just these bare minimum levels of participation gave NPCs a thin veneer of being actual agents independent of the player. Player imagination does the rest. But that just goes to show how aggressively anti-roleplay Bannerlord is that you don't even get this veneer, and instead you get mechanics that destroy this illusion like influence, the transaction menu, perks, clans all acting like a hivemind, factional whatsapp etc etc.
 
Warband was also very, very broken and had some insanely stupid stuff in it, but it was simple enough that you could ignore the busted mechanics by fighting battles efficiently, which is fun in itself.

Bannerlord on the other hand has implemented everything that crossed their mind including a perk tree and abstract influence currency that shouldn't have come within a 10,000km radius of this type of game, but most detrimentally they've given individual battles almost zero effect on the campaign.

You can still play Bannerlord more or less like warband but you have to wade through all this useless, non-combat trash to progress, which makes the bugs way more noticable. I would argue that Warband was way more of a mindless battle simulator than Bannerlord, which is why it was good. Bannerlord tries to be EU4, CK2, Total War, Fallout 4 and a bunch of other titles it had no business drawing inspiration from.
Yes, this is it. Also, Bannerlord takes itself more seriously than Warband, though I don't know if it's a conscious design decision or a result of being a sequel (well technically a prequel). I actually prefer Bannerlord to Warband by quite a bit until the later stages of the game. Then, as you say, winning battles having little to no effect towards the later stages makes me stop enjoying the game.
Just these bare minimum levels of participation gave NPCs a thin veneer of being actual agents independent of the player. Player imagination does the rest. But that just goes to show how aggressively anti-roleplay Bannerlord is that you don't even get this veneer, and instead you get mechanics that destroy this illusion like influence, the transaction menu, perks, clans all acting like a hivemind, factional whatsapp etc etc.
Influence and hive-mind AI are definitely the biggest culprits (I don't understand what you meant by factional Whatsapp), but the never-ending tide of enemies and brain-dead war/peace votes by vassals on top of undying factions and the annoying tribute system just sucks away all the fun and the RP potential the game has. The late game feels more like you're mowing down hordes of mindless zombies rather than playing as a ruler of a kingdom with its own internal politics & intrigue. I've never seen a clan attempt to kick another clan out of the kingdom or seize another clan's territory. The kingdom policies also could've been a great addition for adding variety and RP (and still can be), but having so many policies without any mutual exclusivity or any consequence to vassal relations just makes them min-max tools for kings. I mean, ffs, even the in-game dialogue says that forgiveness of the debts is the abolishment of serfdom, yet you can adopt serfdom alongside it. Lords should have political leanings, and they should attempt to shape their kingdoms in their vision through policies.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree, but I feel like most of the worldbuilding is just the players doing all the work in their own heads. Warband really isn't great for roleplay, people complained about warband the same way back when it released, this was in 2010-11 when big AAA open world games were first taking off, so having an open world RPG-like game, even a low budget game like Warband, without much to do besides combat was jarring for some people.
I think overhaul mods and VC were the two reasons that people claim Warband was a better experience, because vanilla Warband was very lacking in roleplaying.
None of the quests in Warband were really much better than Bannerlord. Most of them were total rubbish fetch quests or the godawful "push these cows to X town". I think the main thing people think of when they talk about Warband being more immersive was just the feasts and campaigns. Even though warband feasts were basically an autism convention, simply meeting the people in your faction in one place was just enough to make them feel like one-dimensional characters and not just zero-dimensional static minibosses. It also drew a distinction in how you interacted with members of your own faction, and everyone else. Similarly it maintained some of the illusion that NPCs had to meet in person to be able to get information.
Warband feasts were about meeting lords and ladies there was no other reason for them except they gave the player a break from battles and could possibly find and start courting a new spouse. But many players can't take off the rose tinted glasses and make them out to be more than they were. Frankly I felt like they should've been so much more. 🤷‍♂️
Similarly the campaigns in Warband were a decentralised group of separate armies who could all break off on their own. You would see in real time who the more aggressive, cowardly or disloyal lords were because they would run away from big armies or rush into battles or just get bored and go home. Plus the player had to actively follow an army rather than the glorified freelancer mod thing they have now.
I always liked Warband's army system because it was a collection of vassals banding together, as opposed to the giant cluster**** of blobs that just ends up colliding together in Bannerlord. The base mechanics for forming armies really needed a relook early in ea.
Just these bare minimum levels of participation gave NPCs a thin veneer of being actual agents independent of the player. Player imagination does the rest. But that just goes to show how aggressively anti-roleplay Bannerlord is that you don't even get this veneer, and instead you get mechanics that destroy this illusion like influence, the transaction menu, perks, clans all acting like a hivemind, factional whatsapp etc etc.
I never liked the idea of an influence system even before ea. It's about the most shallow and one dimensional currency Taleworlds could've come up with, and as you say it destroys the illusion of roleplaying. Personally I wish they would've gotten rid of it but it's mechanics were so deeply embedded in the game it would've required a major overhaul to do so.
At times this game feels like you're fighting the game mechanics more than fighting the ai because so many mechanics just feel anti-player to me. Idk if that's because of Taleworlds inexperience or that they just don't give a :poop: but it's the main reason I stopped playing this game.
 
Warband was a sandbox not particular steep in RPG elements but it had enough so that you could enjoy it.

1. a nobody becomes a minor vassal becomes a marshal becomes a powerful lord becomes a rebel king becomes an emperor.
2. marriage -- recently cut scenes got added to BL, that's actually what drew me back into trying to play it.
3. I'll drink from your skull!
4. A kingdom at peace, with feasts and butter. (this made a nice game play loop betweeen being at war and having a moment of peace and building up forces)
5. Kings and lords who seemed somehow to have a personality. (I always felt nervous waiting for that new lord to arrive to my feast that was like a 1400 reknown that I needed to rep up before I could progress safely further, the balance of keeping everyone happy was up to the player and it was glorious)

I'm not sure anyone was claiming Warband was a perfect rpg above or not, for a sandbox it was very roleplayable, but that's not really the issue of this thread.

The issue of this thread is:
At the real half way point when you own half the map, the balance is so ****ed by b******t that you can't hope to finish. 🤷‍♂️
That's not a problem in Warband. :smile: You just have to commit the time and manage it. It's also one of the most important and missing aspects of BL that WB does great and that's #4 and #5 from above, I honestly can't believe they don't have this in BL.


What I wanted out of BL was
1. improved graphics
2. improved UIs (QoL)
3. improved combat
That's basically it, and while we got to some degree, they killed everything else.
 
Last edited:
Warband's expectations were low - there was nothing really like it so it was all 'fresh' and any features/quirks (ie feasts meme) were memorable things; despite its own flaws and shortcomings (especially looking at it ~15 years later). Warband was also essentially a great 'DLC' to the base M&B about a year (?) in between them; with mods from then on (including the official VC) making any addition/QoL changes to that even greater.

So yes, BL does have better (still dated compared to 2010 games) graphics, nicer UI (questionable), and combat AI efficiency; I really can't understand how that would take ~10+ years to do as an 'updated' version of WB. If it came out maybe ~5 years from WB - absolutely no issues, wonderful, can't wait to see mods make something greater like it did for me in WB.

But they wanted to add so many 'features', and some still TBD or needs fixing (a lot of balance/QoL) after 'full release' now ~6months in.
Some issues that were noted at the start of EA most of us probably forgot about or tolerated - that they also 'forgot' - so we have this mixed bag now of half-assed features to date; with a lot of them not even jiving with each other in a good gameplay sense.
 
I agree on everything, plus one thing, AI combat abilites are just 1000000x boosted compared to Warband. It's a literal suicide to charge on horse into group of looters because they will chop your legs and instakill you with their laser guided swings. Lancing is only useable when they have someone else to focus on, and even then it doesn't work. I was killed moment ago while charging at lonely looter that was running towards my troops, guy did a 180 and chopped off my leg, which is absolute horse****, he wouldn't know I'm coming at him in any way. And don't get me started on laser guided javelin missiles and throwing weapons. Another thing - every bandit group bunches up on you so taking them on with foot melee is impossible, only way to play is with group, no more solo unless you're horse archer or use a VERY long stick from horse (even then, you will get easily hit by weapons that are under 50 lenght if you're not careful), in WB you can solo 18 looters with a melee guy, if you try it here, no way in hell. This game took a turn from perfect arcade (which equals fun)/realism balance to no arcade/only realism, it's not RPG combat sim anymore, just combat sim, and unbalanced at that. I loved WB, why couldn't they just take what was golden and build upon it? Reinvented the wheel and it just sucks.
 
Back
Top Bottom