If you don't understand, let me try to help you, by clearing up some misconceptions you have.
Feasts and books are
not the only features that people miss from from Warband. See this whole list.
https://forums.taleworlds.com/index...kwards-in-multiple-areas-from-warband.431963/
Bannerlord has
not "taken the formula of Warband and improved it" -- not overall. It has actually slightly regressed in total depth and immersion from Warband, which is a huge crime for a sequel. And that's why it's definitely
not "Warband with nice graphics."
Bannerlord does
not "play great" either. If you think that, I'm not sure if you are playing the same game as everyone else. Bannerlord is fun for a little while, but only very briefly, because nearly every major feature is somehow broken, lacking depth, or unfinished: field battle AI, siege AI/siege weapons, morale, campaign map AI, economy, faction balance, smithing, dynastic mechanics, the still mostly-untouched crime system, caravans, perk trees, clans, tournament rewards, etc. By comparison, Warband is far more stable and functional.
Of course, Bannerlord not being complete is forgivable because it's still in development. But that doesn't mean you should go around pretending that there's no problems at all and the game is perfect and better in every way than Warband. Hopefully this has all made sense to you.
They have made huge amounts of money off the hype for Bannerlord. They can afford to stretch the development to make Bannerlord a truly good sequel that improves in every aspect from the prior game and delivers on the features they have promised, and they definitely should; it's their job, it's the whole reason we all paid them money.
If 10 people could make M&B1+Warband, it shouldn't be considered some massive unreasonable task for for 100 people to recreate that.