But to answer you more directly... I don't think the game needs to be more characterful. I think the game is primarily a tactical battle simulator. The bits in between are there to give a little strategic overlay to support that. Others seem to want Bannerlord to be this giant immersive RPG. But it isn't that, and never will be. This is the key conceptual difference that seems to lead to most of the complaining here.
So improvements I want to see are around making the battles function better. I really don't care for any of that lore/quest/story junk. It does enough to make the battles plausible. That's about all it needs to be. Now if you make a thread that asks "what needs to happen to make battles better" I'd have a few suggestions.
Ah well this the real point of disagreement. The truth is that Bannerlord is actually a hybrid.
It's a tactical battle simulator, and part strategy game (moving your armies around the map etc.), and part RPG (reasonably deep character creation, different cultures, courtship and marriage, children, death, feuding nobles struggling for power etc).
Of course battles are really important and they are a core feature of the game - but they are just one part of what mount and blade has always been about.
I think it's a shame you consider the lore and story to be "junk" as you put it. For me, those things are a large part of what makes the game different and unique.
If Mount and Blade was only about hack and slash, bash and charge, then it would have died long ago as a franchise.
So, you see it as primarily about the battles. well ok. However, I think on the forums, you will find that that is quite a minority view. (Maybe with one or two exceptions - like Lucius Confucius).