Sands of Salzaar was pretty fun, but then the mods nuded all the lolis which was a big turn-off.
I don't see a world where you can make me sexually attracted to bannerlord characters.
A random market which props up in towns for a short period allowing the player to recruit random captives. Could contain troop tiers 1-4 based on character level. Would allow you to recruit a unit not normally part of that towns culture.
If I think about this, I see it more as an auction, so that a few lords bid for the slave they want.
In fact, auctions would be a good thing, too, for general items, weapons, armor, horses, and they could add specific gear that only appears in auctions. For example, a defeated royal fled the field of battle, but left his stead on the battlefield, which ended up wandering to farmer Greg's wheat field, causing incredible damage to Greg's yield during the harvesting season. Greg took the horse, and sold it to the auction house in order to make up for the damage done to his field, not knowing the quality or heritage of the stead that grazed on his farm. And so, the player can bid for a magnificent stead unlike any other in the game.
It is quite frustrating. It is like they've thought "let's make the player not know everything at the start" - which makes somewhat sense. But revoking every piece of info of all lords etc is just frustrating.
Imo I liked how warband did it, where you speak to a lord to ask where x person was.
It was warband. You could meet a dude claiming to be the bastard son and rightful heir to one of the kingdoms and then join him to try and take the throne. It wasn't perfectly executed, but it was something.
To me, bannerlord when compared to other titles in a genre is similar to how imperator rome was when it launched - it added a bunch of numbers that meant nothing to me at all, and the only joy I had in the game was the combat. In bannerlord, however, there's been a lot of work done on those minor quests you do for people in power in settlements. These are far better than the classic rotation of warband quests (villanious outlaw with a bounty -> collecting taxes -> send a message -> mercenary -> capture/release lord). I never felt like the people of any world (Warband or Bannerlord) were actual people (it is a game, but you know what I mean), there's hardly anything to them, no quirks, no interesting interactions, no bonuses from them, nothing.
And the whole roleplaying elements of asking for gossip, or stopping any villager in a village to ask them what they're doing, and how their life is only to find one guy that's dirt poor, and give alms to him is not very immersive.
Warband mods have shown already that you can tell a story with the sandbox elements still in place (PoP, TLD for example), and have a world that is genuinely fun to explore (different scenes, cool sieges, unlockable troop trees). It's just that it isn't very fun, but then again...we do complain about it after more than a hudred hours of gameplay, which no normal story-driven game would have.
It's still a fun little game to whirl for a few hours a week, just to sate your genocidal needs.
My math is usually around the 1 Euro = 1 hour of fun, so that's on what I'd base my steam reviews on.
I think a dev once said somewhere that if they ask OP for more info and there's no response, which probably happens a lot, then they mark it Resolved. They should probably use a different label for those kinds of issues so that they don't look like they've been fixed
Bannerlord has systems like Personality Traits and Political Stances which sound great, like they could make characters feel unique and add depth to politics, strategy and roleplaying... but actually, they barely do anything.
For example, "cautious" lords will never surrender, even if outnumbered 10v1000; "merciful" lords still raid villages. All lords usually vote the same way on every issue, like a hivemind.
Some traits are also insanely difficult to get for the player.
Here are my suggestions on how these systems could be made more fun and useful, or how (in some cases) the existing trait gain rates could be tweaked to be more realistically attainable.
Honorable/Dishonorable Noble Trait effects:
* Honorable nobles put high value on relation - with you and their liege - when deciding whether to defect.
* Dishonorable nobles will totally ignore relations, and freely defect if they think it makes financial/strategic sense.
Companion Trait effects:
* Honourable companions become angry when the player fails to complete a quest properly. If done 3 times, they will quit.
* A Dishonorable companion lowers party morale by -1 per day.
Player Trait gain/loss:
* +2% Honor each time you complete a quest as you agreed to with the quest-giver.
* -5% Honor every time you fail a quest, or choose an option which breaks your agreement with the quest-giver.
* -5% Honor when you leave troops behind to cover your retreat.
* -10% Honor when you break an oath to your liege by leaving a kingdom with your fiefs.
Brave/Cautious Noble Trait effects:
* Brave nobles like voting for war, and against peace.
* Cautious ones like peace, and dislike war.
* Cautious nobles agree to surrender if your party strength is 3x higher than theirs. In battle, they retreat when their army's strength value is 3x lower than the enemy's.
* Nobles with no trait agree to surrender if your party strength is 5x higher than theirs. In battle, they retreat when their army's strength value is 5x lower than the enemy's.
* Brave nobles never surrender, and never retreat.
Companion Trait effects:
* Brave companions get angry if the player retreats from battle. If done 3 times, they will quit.
* Cautious companions will retreat in battle when your strength value is 3x lower than the enemy's.
* Companions with no trait will retreat in battle when your strength value is 5x lower than the enemy's.
* Brave companions will never retreat.
Player Trait gain/loss:
* +2% Bravery when you win or lose a battle where you had lower strength than the enemy.
* -5% Bravery when you retreat from a battle where you have lower strength than the enemy.
Generous/Closefisted Noble Trait effects:
* Closefisted nobles put high value on money/fiefs when deciding whether to defect.
* Closefisted rulers give themselves fiefs more often.
* Generous rulers give others fiefs more often.
* Generous nobles vote for others to get fiefs more often.
Companion Trait effects:
* A Generous companion raises party morale by +1 per day.
* Closefisted companions get angry when the player fails to pay their daily wage. If done 3 times, they will quit.
Player Trait gain/loss:
* +2% Generosity for each day you have more than 7 food types in your inventory and 50+ troops.
* +2% Generosity for each fief you award to a vassal.
* +2% Generosity each time you give money to a beggar in towns, or buy a meal at a tavern for your troops.
* +2% Generosity when you choose a "generous" quest option, e.g. sharing profits with villagers.
* -10% Generosity for each day you do not pay troop wages.
* -5% Generosity for each fief you give to yourself.
* -5% Generosity for any quest option where you cause someone to lose money.
Merciful/Cruel Noble Trait effects:
* Merciful nobles never raid villages.
* Merciful nobles never execute prisoners.
* Nobles without traits have a base 1% chance to execute prisoners, which increases by 1% for every negative relation point with the prisoner.
* Cruel nobles have a base 10% chance to execute prisoners, which increases by 1% for every negative relation point with that prisoner.
* Merciful nobles have a base 10% chance to set the player free after battle, which increases by 1% for every positive relation point with the player.
Companion Trait effects:
* A Merciful companion raises party morale by +1 per day.
Player Trait gain:
* +2% Mercy when you release a noble prisoner after battle.
* +2% Mercy when you give money to a beggar in a town.
* +5% Mercy when you choose a "merciful" quest option, e.g. not executing Radagos in the main quest.
* -10% Mercy when you execute a noble who does not have the Cruel trait. If they have the Cruel trait, you do not lose Mercy.
Calculating/Impulsive Noble Trait effects:
* Calculating nobles are less influenced by their Personality Traits and political preferences when voting or defecting.
* Impulsive nobles are highly influenced by their Personality Traits and political preferences when voting or defecting.
* Calculating nobles are always willing to negotiate. Impulsive nobles are never willing to negotiate.
* Calculating rulers are more influenced by their councils when making decisions. Impulsive rulers will mostly ignore their councils.
Companion Trait effects:
* Each Impulsive companion lowers your party's daily morale by 1.
Player Trait gain:
* +2% Calculating when you win a battle where your strength rating is lower.
* -10% Calculating when you lose a battle where your strength rating is lower.
* +2% Calculating when you leave troops behind to retreat.
* +2% Calculating when you successfully negotiate with the enemy.
* +2% Calculating when you choose a quest option where you "talk your way out".
Political preferences
There is a system in Bannerlord's code for nobles to have political preferences that are Authoritarian, Oligarchic or Egalitarian, and for it to influence their policy votes. However, it currently has almost no effect. Here is how it could work better.
"Authoritarian" nobles vote for policies that benefit the ruling clan. Rhagaea, Raganvad, Monchug, and Derthert are Authoritarian.
"Oligarchic" nobles vote for policies that benefit the vassal clans. Lucon and Unqid are Oligarchic.
"Egalitarian" nobles vote for policies that benefit the common people and soldiers. Garios and Caladog are Egalitarian.
If they have enough influence, nobles will always vote on policies based on their political preference.
I don't want to be that guy, but I generally don't like being overpowered in games.
Same can be said about reaching the end-game content of any game I play, unless it's a story driven game, where I don't have a clue what the ending is going to be, and I'm very hooked on, I don't usually finish the majority of my games.
In general, the closer to the end I am, the less motivation I have to continue playing. In sandbox games, that don't have an end, I usually make a new save once I'm way too overpowered to enjoy the game.
And Bannerlord is a sandbox in which you can get crazy OP army, that kills the joy in the game. For example, the archer exploit, you might feel good for killing 300 with 50 archer units, but after commiting a small genocide ingame, you get bored of it, there's no purpose, the novelty of it runs out, and you need something new that excites you (not marital advice ).
That's why I believe your expectations are slightly unreasonable. The usual way of tackling this issue with sandbox games is to present a late game challenge that would push the player to the brink, say in warband, in mods like Perisno, or now lesser known Native Expansion, the mod devs added late game invasions by forces that have better units than normal forces, but most of all, have incredible number of troops, and spread like a plague once they're on the map. You could do the same for Bannerlord, but there's a question of what meaningful features you could add to the endgame to make it feel not-so-boring.
Endgame is the end of the game, it's better to start a new save, try something different, and move on.
Just bought Crusader Kings 3 just to try CrusaderBlade mod which allows Bannerlord battles ( using Swadia armoury looks fantastic) in the very dynamic world of CK. Ive never played CK before and havent delved that much yet but already i much prefer a world which seems not to just wait around for Player besides seemingly endless battles -but a to one of dynamics of politics and intrigue. Have to say i enjoy the overall artistic direction and color/UI palette too, but of course BL wins combat hands down.. If this plays out as good as it seems right now it will have made Bannerlord worth the cost and grief to this point
Disregarding my bias against CK3s arcading the sh*t out of CK2 mechanics, and creating a dice roll combat system similar to EU4 (which is bloody disgusting, an aberration of what we had in CK2), it is a hands down better game than any of the M&B games made. The general reason why that is is because you can't really reach the point of the game where you feel like everything is in your control. You can be a lord of a vast empire, but a faction seeking independence suddenly starts to form, with vassals that are more powerful than you. You always have something going on, some threat to manage, inside or outside. It's a game in which you need to do a lot of problem-solving, while in M&B, it's very straight to the point, a medieval battle-simulator. Go there, fight here, swear fealty, become a king. There's not a lot more going on in it.
I'm just here to amuse myself by reading your comments.
Kind of like that weekly reality show you tune into from time to time, just for scientific purposes, not because you're interested.
Good thing we got all those dev blogs reciting a generic backstory for each faction, sheep textures, and camels, only to see it just not make any difference in game except for the way people dress. Other things are just not present in game, status of women, how adulthood is celebrated, how children are raised, how the inner workings could be different for a kingdom, empire, or republic.
Just mana the heck out of the game with influence.
However, people should be given a second chance. I believe he did have more normal moments prior to all the recent posts bursting with negativity that got him banned.
So yes, I don't know him personaly, but he should be given a chance after a few months of sitting on the sidelines.
He did get a fair share of warnings prior to the ban, though...
So, there's a game I like that's quite negatively rated on Steam in which they have a similar thing to clans. It's called Tale of Immortal, and they have sects there. Most NPCs, by joining a sec, get added benefits of growing stronger faster, better manuals, more dual cultivation partners etc., just a lot of good things.
And now if you were to translate that to Bannerlord, every clan could give benefits such as daily pocket money to buy bread at the market, special clan-specific units, bonuses to some player stats, or maybe bonuses to unit types. Kind of like if you were to join a clan with a storied elite archer unit, you'd get access to recruiting those units, plus some additional bonuses to all marksmen you lead, or getting a bonus to your archery skill.
Idk, there's a lot of ideas that can be put into them, and do allow for great immersion, as well as a good foothold for future mods, as mentioned above.
this is one video out of numerous but the consensus is that terrain is not really a factor.
This is all brilliant really but as some nerds in the community have tested out, for the most part the terrain actually plays a smaller role than we would like to think.
Perhaps archers shooting from above at slower targets going straight-uphill and cavalry being slower and more prone to stuck in a blob instead of open-field charges give this an element of play. All in all it seems if you put identical formations head-on with different terrain advantages: all outcomes would still reach the same 50-50% and it's a bit lackluster of an element to consider. (unless you really micro-manage around it)
There's still ways to improve this but it's definitely welcomed as a feature nonetheless.
The only thing the terrain can affect is the cavalry.
Archers don't suffer much even if there's a height disadvantage, and infantry uses shields, runs too fast for their legs, and doesn't really get bogged down as much as they should.
Still, infantry's only role for me was to protect the mini-nukes that the archers shoot out.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
).
