HAHAHAH. That's funny bro.
That is the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time for why a certain opinion is better.
-
If you are reporting a bug, please head over to our Technical Support section for Bannerlord.
Why do some people want Bannerlord with Crusader Kings 3 Features/Diplomacy?
- Thread starter Lucius Confucius
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
That is the dumbest argument I've heard in a long time for why a certain opinion is better.
Your laugther shows your lack of arguments, thereby making mine more solid and right. Saying that something is dumb without explaining why also shows your lack of argumentative capability.
There have been some solid arguments made against my case in this thread, but you were unable to follow suit, your ineptitude to even meme against me shows what a lack of character and wits you have.
Also, using the sword is the only way to truly win an argument. Our words here are pointless in the end, since the devs decide. And they are on the right course I would say.
Or perhaps we should also use wit, but I bet yours would be nothing but ****. Like the Stromming you are, stuck in a fish's jar. Eyed by giants better than you, so please, sho-shoo. If your seas are as conquerable as your pleas, then your arguments are nothing but fleas. Have you had enough? Or will you post more useless stuff?
OT: I want to clarify that I have nothing against improved features and diplomacy, like the title, I question the use of CK3 type diplomacy. Since it will slow down the game significantly in my opinion.
Consul_Kaiser
Veteran
This game has a mostly positive review because gamers like us just wanted the game to release. If youve noticed on Steam is that the number of positive reviews has gone down significantly. We all rushed to give this game a good review when in fact it was complete crap and utterly barebones....
LuciusDomitiusAurelianus
Sergeant
I have not played much of CK3, as I prefer EU4, but even a *tiny* bit of that form of diplomatic action would be this game a lot better and would open up a lot more flavor and meta options. I could see a lot of people want to do a totally diplomatic playthrough via sabotage, deception, fomenting civil war, etc.
Right now we have something incredibly bare bones. We have a dynasty system but you cannot marry into families, children are not always guaranteed to succeed, and though we have Sultanates, a Khanate, a Republic, a Military Oligarchy, and other forms of government they all act and operate the exact same way. You'd think marriages and alliances, either inter- or intra- clan / dynasty / faction, would be included? But it's not.
Outside of dynasty play, I would like more flavor to being a ruler as well, picking a court, sending embassies and diplomatic missions, hell I cannot even send someone a letter. There need to be peace treaties or NAPs at the very least, especially when starting your own kingdom, nothing like being gangbanged by 4 Kingdoms and having your 2 villages raided and forced to fight defensive actions the entire time.
I also want to be able to assassinate people. That functionality exists, just is not surfaced outside of the command line.
Right now we have something incredibly bare bones. We have a dynasty system but you cannot marry into families, children are not always guaranteed to succeed, and though we have Sultanates, a Khanate, a Republic, a Military Oligarchy, and other forms of government they all act and operate the exact same way. You'd think marriages and alliances, either inter- or intra- clan / dynasty / faction, would be included? But it's not.
Outside of dynasty play, I would like more flavor to being a ruler as well, picking a court, sending embassies and diplomatic missions, hell I cannot even send someone a letter. There need to be peace treaties or NAPs at the very least, especially when starting your own kingdom, nothing like being gangbanged by 4 Kingdoms and having your 2 villages raided and forced to fight defensive actions the entire time.
I also want to be able to assassinate people. That functionality exists, just is not surfaced outside of the command line.
Well said, exactly the way I feel about it, these are the core mechanics I wish completed in EA, this will reduce the emptiness of the late game. For me this is more important for the enjoyment of the game then even polishing the siege battles?
1. There are clearly people who want a slower more diplomacy oriented gameplay, they show it in this very thread. (Note, I am not necessarily against a little bit slower gameplay, just the introduction of a thick diplomacy that will have the player spend more time in his keep sending advisors on quests and doing a bunch of diplomatic chores just to stay ahead in the game.)
2. Why do you assume it is a flame thread because I am in disagreement with CK3 type slow diplomatic gameplay?
3. Accusing me of flaming is the easiest way to dismiss me without bringing anything to the table.
4. I admit, my concerns may be overblown, since only a small minority actually want that type of gameplay, and as far as I can remember, the devs have stated they want to make the game more of an action-oriented game. So perhaps I don't even need to be concerned over what a forum minority wants.
I agree with this. But too much diplomacy will inevitably mean less battles.
I mean, yeah, but at the moment there are too many battles, where war just gets exhausting. Diplomacy adds something to do during peace time besides just killing looters and gives a reason to like your nobles. This means when one may die during a battle, you’ll actually feel something.
have you touched any of the crusader kings series titles? its diplomacy is its weakest spot by far - adding ck-esque diplomacy to bannerlord as it is right now would be the difference between butter and margarine.
however I would adore crusader kings family system and its interactions solely for roleplay purposes.
smh.. CK diplomacy.. that made me chuckle. look at Imperator: Rome if you want an actual expansive diplomacy/goverment system in Bannerlord.
But in my opinion however, Three Kingdoms: Total War diplomacy and council system would benefit it a lot more whilst trying to stay true to its roots.
The game needs more balance between wars and diplomacy, that's for sure, for me at least.
Too much diplomacy doesn't necessarily means less battles... You can always be a mercenary who gives little to no **** to the intrigues.
More diplomacy will only add meaning to those who want it.
There must be more than one way to play the game.
Too much diplomacy doesn't necessarily means less battles... You can always be a mercenary who gives little to no **** to the intrigues.
More diplomacy will only add meaning to those who want it.
There must be more than one way to play the game.
Me mocking you and believing that your argument is dumb as all heck, doesn't make you magically more correct.
This is a great example as to how retarded your logic is.
So if we take one Nobel prize winner, an expert in his or her field, and pit them against 10 random strangers off the street that believe the same thing, people with no education in the subject. Would they be more correct or have a better opinion than the expert? Of course not.
That's kind of the point people are trying to make, that endless battles become exhausting and feels like grinding. Many of us want the option to take break from time to time.
Mikal Manfriedson
Veteran
Sadly, this is true nowadays. It is sufficient to be loud enough or sometimes many enough to be correct - or people like to think so. You basically nailed it. Btw: I would add that democracy works best, if all persons voting on a matter are somewhat equally educated, interested in the topic and have the same information so they can make a good decision. Most - or at least many times - this is not given.
Last edited:
Implying that this forum is equivalent to a Nobel prize winner on the subject of Mount and Blade is kinda funny. Those who post their reviews on the Steam forums have just as valid of an opinion as anyone on this forum. However, pointing to them and saying because so many people agree with me that immediately means your point is wrong is a flawed argument.
He wasn't implying anything, it was an example. Seriously, you couldn't figure that out? He was giving a logical example of how the person's argument was flawed. It doesn't matter what example was given. He could have said you have 5 people standing around a sandwich and 4 of them say that they should fight to the death over the sandwich and 1 of them says let's just share it. Just because the 4 decided to fight to the death doesn't mean that it is the right way of doing things.
Am I now implying that everyone on this forum is a sandwich lover? (although maybe they are).
Seriously man, use your brain.
I know what an analogy is, I just thought it was funny that the sentence compared this forum to a Nobel peace prize winner in the analogy.
I am happy to know that you know what an analogy is. The way you wrote your post though, made it seem like you took him literally or perhaps it just came through that way to me.
SadBlueberry
Recruit
I agree with you 100%. Bannerlord is about experiencing medieval combat with some side experience in management and trading. Smithing was already a bit of a stretch. What's next? Being a cattle rancher in Calradia?
Apart from the fact that diplomacy is mundane, it also doesn't lend itself too well in the game environment for several reasons.
- The player and AI rulers do not have a court of their own. There is no "lesser nobility", though there should be. There are no titles and positions in a kingdom or a title.
- There does not exist titles to take. There are no explicit laws regarding the passage and inheritance of land.
I do not disagree with this approach because the premise of Bannerlord isn't about roleplaying as a land owning noble, though it is a huge part. Unless the entire gameplay is revolving around being a Calradian noble, such an overhaul and gameplay feature would be justified since the idea would be to acquire power for a family through means outside of war. And I do agree that it would be an interesting addition. But then the overworld map and the in-game battles would take a passenger seat to the diplomacy screen where the player would navigate their court and deploy diplomats, send spies and settle affairs in their fiefs.
The last I remember, Bannerlord and Mount and Blade was about crushing skulls with actual weapons your character's hands. Not ordering someone's skull to be crushed after your sign their death warrant on a piece of paper.
