Base Bannerlord is better than base Warband

[Apocal]

What you're doing is isolating it as a single example when it was presented from the start as one of multiple.

I addressed the others. I keep sticking on this because it is ridiculous you're claiming food is something that would hold a player back. It's under 10K for enough grain to make it work. Even if you don't have the money on-hand, food drops regularly after battles like Ananda said so all you have to do is stash it.

So simple and easy I'm wondering what you do in your playthroughs that you either don't have food for 21 days or don't have money to pay for it.

And once again, this isn't some advanced strategic thought. I watched random streamers to verify that most both have food and money to buy enough, just to triple-check that I'm not unusual. And I'm definitely not: most players have above 20,000 banked within 100 days of a playthrough. There was one exception, but that guy was doing some next-level gigabrain stuff and ran his finances to the absolute breaking point in name of time optimization.

And yet you don't reply to the entire part of my post that compared T4 Lancers' performance to mixed forces of T4/T5 units of other factions. You are exaggerating "the problem" and ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Because it is minutia that is largely irrelevant to the point at hand. Driving them up a ladder in a live battle, sure, they work. But they aren't as good as the other options whereas Sturgians in BL perform about the same as other factions, even with their archers being "poor" and infantry being not really useful.

What else caused it then?

The Cavalry bonus to map speed being reduced, primarily. But since you edited this out, I guess you went back and re-read the thread.' But if AI vs. AI doesn't matter doesn't there is literally zero basis for calling Sturgia underpowered: their infantry kill at the same cyclic rate as every other faction, their archers are perfectly serviceable (since every faction's archers work about as well in player hands), their cavalry is among the better mainline types and their noble unit isn't any meaningful weaker than Vlandia's or the Empire's.

Sturgia's geography helps... the player cut it up piecemeal, while reinforcements take ages to arrive.

Every faction has goofy, channelizing terrain that slows down armies. If you besiege Ortongard, the Khuzaits very likely form south of Chaikhand or slightly north of Makeb and go the long way around the mountains or at the extreme edge. If you besiege Daunaustica, the Southern Empire will (probably) form at Poros and drag themselves across every forest along the way. The Northern Empire has a town located in a cork bottle chokepoint and will let a player squat on it to kill their parties ad infinitum as they try to muster with an army forming on either side.

The Army AI in Bannerlord is dumb as hell about where it chooses to muster but that's not a problem unique to Sturgia -- and it (probably) hurts the Northern Empire a lot worse.

 

[five bucks]

this isn't some advanced strategic thought. I watched random streamers to verify that most both have food and money to buy enough, just to triple-check that I'm not unusual. And I'm definitely not: most players have above 20,000 banked within 100 days of a playthrough. There was one exception, but that guy was doing some next-level gigabrain stuff and ran his finances to the absolute breaking point in name of time optimization.

In serious, non-meme-game genres, people tend to watch streamers for their ability to play a game well. The gigabrain guy being an example of that. So a random selection of streamers isn't much evidence to say "not having enough money to buy enough food to feed an army (one big enough to fight off a doomstack) for 21 days isn't a problem regular players ever have happen".

Because it is minutia that is largely irrelevant to the point at hand. Driving them up a ladder in a live battle, sure, they work. But they aren't as good as the other options

You have said in this argument:
"using Khergit troops is awful for the player"
and
"the issue is sieges because lancers' armor and skills are decent but not nearly as good as the other faction's options. WB's campaign required you to besiege settlements constantly so any faction that does poorly there is going to perform pretty poorly in player hands."
and
"the Khergits are useless and their troop tree is busted."
and
"Khergits had no armored troops

Spoiler

(note: this is actually wrong)

in Warband. It made them near useless in certain battles and a complete clownshoe pushover faction for the player who wanted to siege their settlements early on."
So to all of that, it is entirely relevant to show that Lancers' performance in a siege battle is actually fine.
I already agreed that Khergits' troop tree "aren't as good" as the other options- in the sense that they are just noticeably worse overall, but still serviceable. But you were arguing up until this point that they were total garbage. Hence why I am showing you they're not, so don't call it irrelevant.

If AI vs. AI doesn't matter doesn't there is literally zero basis for calling Sturgia underpowered: their infantry kill at the same cyclic rate as every other faction, their archers are perfectly serviceable (since every faction's archers work about as well in player hands), their cavalry is among the better mainline types and their noble unit isn't any meaningful weaker than Vlandia's or the Empire's.

All of Sturgia's infantry options lose to Imperial Menavliatons, and 2/3 of their T5 infantry lose to Imperial Legionaries. Battanian Veteran Falxmen beat all of their infantry, too.


Of course, infantry itself is quite weak in Bannerlord anyway, with a big powergap between infantry and ranged/ranged cav.
Sturgia's archers have nearly 1/5 the kill per minute potential of Aserai Master Archers, who are the same tier. They're pretty consistently bad.



Vlandia's noble unit is weak, but at least they have depleted uranium bolt-using Sharpshooters. Empire's noble unit is weak, but at least their ranged option is mid-tier (as opposed to Sturgia's lowest-tier), their infantry is pretty consistently high-tier (as opposed to Sturgia's second-tier) and they have regular horse archers.
In summary, Sturgia's ranged cav is second best, their melee cav is mediocre, their infantry is mediocre, and their ranged is the weakest. And that's why their troop tree is weaker than other factions (but serviceable) in Bannerlord, just like Khergit troops are weaker than other factions (but serviceable). And that's why you can't call Bannerlord an upgrade to Warband in the troop balance department.

Every faction has goofy, channelizing terrain that slows down armies.

Every terrain doesn't have super stretched thin terrain full of snow and forests and with multiple parts cut off by impassable terrain and exposed to other factions on 5 different fronts though. Sturgia has all the downsides of every other faction at once when it comes to geography. And they don't even get the snow speed culture bonus anymore (unlike Aserai who have the appropriate speed bonus for the terrain type that covers most of their territory).

The Army AI in Bannerlord is dumb as hell about where it chooses to muster but that's not a problem unique to Sturgia -- and it (probably) hurts the Northern Empire a lot worse.

I won't disagree that Nimps and Wimps are geographically weak factions too.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

In serious, non-meme-game genres, people tend to watch streamers for their ability to play a game well. The gigabrain guy being an example of that. So a random selection of streamers isn't much evidence to say "not having enough money to buy enough food to feed an army (one big enough to fight off a doomstack) for 21 days isn't a problem regular players ever have happen".

Most streamers are not exceptionally good at bannerlord. It's a mainstream game with a massive time investment. People just tend to play it casually.

Either way I really don't know how you can argue that food is an issue in the game. It's so easy to stock up on. When you're smashing armies in the mid-game and beyond, you get a week's worth of food for a 100+ army every time you defeat someone. Even if you're just sitting on your ass with 300 soldiers, most towns have masses of cheap grain. There is no skill ceiling for food either, the only time I ever run out is when I just forget.

 

[WhiteEyedSh4rk]

To everyone why said "Nay", just go and play base Warband without any mods. As good as it was back then, it really is not up to the most minimum standards these days.

 

[julijs]

it really is not up to the most minimum standards these days.

Spit my coffee out for me if you're saying Bannerlord is up to the most minimum standards these days.

 

[eddiemccandless]

To everyone why said "Nay", just go and play base Warband without any mods. As good as it was back then, it really is not up to the most minimum standards these days.

I am actually. It is still one of the best games I own, cattles running away from you and everything. And the main reason why for me is the combat system. When the foundation of a game is solid you need very little added to it to make it good.

 

[Ser Jon]

To everyone why said "Nay", just go and play base Warband without any mods. As good as it was back then, it really is not up to the most minimum standards these days.

I still play Warband. In fact, the only mod I play of Warband is PoP but that doesn't mean I don't go back to vanilla all of the time, because I do. And of course it doesn't hold to standards of today, it's an old ass game, why would it? Ocarina of Time and Chrono Trigger doesn't hold to modern standards (thank god) and they are still some of the best games out there. A game not having modern features or gimmicks or whatever is not an indication of it's quality. The fact that it has held people's adoration for this long is a testament to how great the game actually is.

 

[xdj1nn]

Experts agree that the proper scientific word to describe Bannerlord is a "sidegrade".
Better graphics, clans, deaths and births, and minor stuff like crafting, but less varied gameplay, worse arcadey battles and less meaningful NPC interaction. It's like swapping your girlfriend for a prettier, but dumber one. A win for some, but not for many.

couldn't have put it better myself. Ty for the wise words there mate

 

[eddiemccandless]

I still play Warband. In fact, the only mod I play of Warband is PoP but that doesn't mean I don't go back to vanilla all of the time, because I do. And of course it doesn't hold to standards of today, it's an old ass game, why would it? Ocarina of Time and Chrono Trigger doesn't hold to modern standards (thank god) and they are still some of the best games out there. A game not having modern features or gimmicks or whatever is not an indication of it's quality. The fact that it has held people's adoration for this long is a testament to how great the game actually is.

I know that we posted basically the same thing ten minutes apart from each other but I wanted to reinforce that it could have been me writing that, up to every single detail. And there's probably plenty of others.

 

[Cornelis]

bannerlord over warband i think

 

[Afronin]

I only played the PS4 version of Warband so I'll agree with this. While vanilla Bannerlord (I've yet to mod the game since release day) is lacking in many...many places, I still prefer it to my PS4 experience!

 

[vonbalt]

I know that we posted basically the same thing ten minutes apart from each other but I wanted to reinforce that it could have been me writing that, up to every single detail. And there's probably plenty of others.

Same, warband was great for it's time but what frustrates me is that bannerlord could and should be better instead of a glorified combat game with a shallow campaign that don't have even a barebones diplomatic system that 15+y old games have, modders are able to easily add immense depth to the game (when updates don't break them) and we know from the devs themselves that they could easily do that and more aswell but it doesn't line with "the vision" of their management for some reason.

 

[Honved]

Warband was great for its time, but kind of shallow in terms of diplomacy and fief management. Basically, once you become a king, there's not a lot of point to it, just more grinding.

Bannerlord managed to take that experience and make it look way better, but now it's even shallower and more pointless. "Side-grade" is a good description. I still play Warband fairly regularly (I put a couple of hours each into one total conversion game and one vanilla campaign over the weekend), and still enjoy it.
-
For the better part of a decade's work, I consider that "side-grade" step a serious waste of developer effort. To me, it feels like 3 steps backwards and two forwards.

 

[five bucks]

Warband was great for its time, but kind of shallow in terms of diplomacy and fief management. Basically, once you become a king, there's not a lot of point to it, just more grinding.

Bannerlord managed to take that experience and make it look way better, but now it's even shallower and more pointless. "Side-grade" is a good description. I still play Warband fairly regularly (I put a couple of hours each into one total conversion game and one vanilla campaign over the weekend), and still enjoy it.
-
For the better part of a decade's work, I consider that "side-grade" step a serious waste of developer effort. To me, it feels like 3 steps backwards and two forwards.

I'd be slightly more generous (and pedantic): 3 steps back and 3 forwards
Your post really hits the nail on the head, though. Bannerlord is indeed a sidegrade in terms of features, balance and stability. There's quite a bit of work to go before I would consider it a good sequel (as in, a general improvement over Warband)

 

[Horked]

I dont think its fair to compare 10 year old game with an unfinished modern game. Doesnt make sense to me. First of all BL is unifinished and the "vanilla" BL we have now may/will be very different from the end product in many aspects - point is that we dont know how BL will be once its completed, cant compare known and unknown.

These days Chess world championship is streamed and Chad is really keen on comparing current or modern Chess GMs with the GMs (legends) of the past and I just dont think its right or realistic at all for many obvious reasons, one major reason being that in the past they didnt have computers.

That said, I do think that Warband will be very hard to beat in terms of immersion, size/depth (for its time) and just general atmosphere with all the charming details we all love. Its like when a band make this amazing first album where all the tracks are great and it sells like water in desert. Then they announce release of a forthcomming 2nd album and the expetations is naturally skyhigh, so high that they are almost impossible to fullfill. Most artists only do one great thing, its only the very rare legendary artists who is capable of spamming gems.

Artists also strive to be original, they want their next creation to be something new, this is true for all artforms. Very difficult to be original and at the same time satisfy people.

 

[MostBlunted]

point is that we dont know how BL will be once its completed, cant compare known and unknown.

I don´t expect much more than TW showed in their last announcement ("roadmap"), so we have a pretty good picture how the final game will look like I think.

 

[Honved]

I don´t expect much more than TW showed in their last announcement ("roadmap"), so we have a pretty good picture how the final game will look like I think.

The problem that I see is that each new announcement seems to water down the official vision of what the final game will be, even further from what it was 8 years ago. If they haven't brought the new game up to at least a bit better than the previous game in 8 years of work, how much more are they going to improve it over the next year or so? We're not talking about "polishing" the game, there are still fundamental systems either missing or only half-working, and many of the proposed features they initially advertised have been quietly removed.

My expectations at this point are that we'll see a few minor bug fixes, some trivial items added, and MAYBE they'll put in some token pieces of what's still missing, but it won't be "better" than Warband, just prettier.

 

[olriщt]

cant say. i havent played warband cuz its graphics looks crappy

 

[froggyluv]

That said, I do think that Warband will be very hard to beat in terms of immersion, size/depth (for its time) and just general atmosphere with all the charming details we all love. Its like when a band make this amazing first album where all the tracks are great and it sells like water in desert. Then they announce release of a forthcomming 2nd album and the expetations is naturally skyhigh, so high that they are almost impossible to fullfill. Most artists only do one great thing, its only the very rare legendary artists who is capable of spamming gems.

I see the point of your analogy but dont think it fits entirely here. Art is a very subjective thing but as we know some of the most popular selling music is the most basic type of music built off of formula for the brain dead masses. The advantage a game such as this type has is the modding community -and based off of what people tend to like, the developers could have merely chalk boarded the most favorite aspects, and insured their implementation into the sequel. They had 8 years to read one of the longest running thread since Genesis -The Warband Sequel Thread at Taleworlds - to consolidate some top ideas yet they seemed to ignore the entire thing. Thats really willful ignorance, meaning they CHOSE to ignore aspects of the previous game and top mods while seemingly not having a real vision of their own for what Bannerlord was supposed to be.