You can tell that a highly intelligent individual created this post.
-
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
You can tell that a highly intelligent individual created this post.
Yep and considering how many mods and overhauls added a decent diplomacy it's kind of strange that TW didn't think it was necessary.that's why we waited after 10 years for the famous Bannerlord to raise the bar
especially with his commercial success
That covers half of what I said. Without the other half, using diplomacy to form alliances against stronger adversaries, snowballing is inevitable. Wars lasting 15-20 days are ridiculous; it should take most of that time just to bring the armies up to full strength and gather for a campaign. Assaults on castles and towns should be devastating, and require time for the besieger to recover afterwards. Running home and conjuring up another 50-100 men from willing volunteers should only be possible once or twice; after that, you're either taking away your own castle garrisons or stripping the villages of peasants to work the farms, and recovery of that lost manpower should take a significant amount of time, not a couple of days. Once a faction has used up its "excess" manpower and starts dipping into productive workers, it should attempt to end its current wars, not start another.
Actually, I'd love to see a faction strength mechanism used for bandits as well. Initially, the bandit parties would be small and weak, but fast and hard to catch for a sizable army. If not kept in check, they have the potential to gain strength over time, and you'll see larger bandit parties capable of taking on patrols and often winning. Eventually they'll reach a size where they're not fast enough to outrun some of the faction armies, and the bandit faction strength will then get cut back quickly, once again leading to small parties that are hard to catch.
I strongly agree, make Wars and Battels really meaningful. I had so many Battels where i was on the brink of losing and turn the tides. Lost family members in Battle. After Winning it was a totally great feeling. Time to celebrate and mourn the dead... yeah maybe the first time till you realize 3 days later the next 1 Kilo Army is on its way and it won’t stop no matter what you do... It would mean so much to me when this would be in game. Like Battels feel significant (loosing kind of is already when you at the start but winning never feels significant atm)
Snowballing isn't inevitable -- it is basically completely dead in 1.6.1 and has been tamed for the past eight months. Even wildly stronger factions can't gain any sort of traction.
Again, all this happens already. The faction strength mechanic you're asking for is in the notable recruitment system. They drain very quickly once a war starts and only slowly recover over time. It already favors large factions with safe backfields but it doesn't really lead to snowballing currently because factions do seek out peace when they are running low on men. Assaults on castles and towns are devastating (in autocalc, at least...) so the besieging army can generally only do one or two assaults before being running too low on troops and disbanding. Once disbanded, parties below 40% manpower can't be called into another army and spend their time running around recruiting.
It has the advantage of allowing players to have a much larger impact on the outcome of wars because they can burn villages and deny the enemy troops for however many days it takes for the village to recover.
Like I said though, the effect is muted because players requested longer wars (they last longer than 15-20 days currently; not sure if you've played the game in the last few months but short wars generally don't happen anymore) so factions are slow to decide they should seek peace.
edit: IME, having alliances (in mods, obviously) caused the game fall into two stable coalitions and I imagine that was part of the issue why they weren't implemented last year.
Last edited:
We need good and in-depth diplomacy options to make the battle between kingdoms that do happen feel impactful, as a part of greater events, not just aimless battles.
More context around wars would fill out the currently empty feeling matters of kingdom rule and diplomacy
More context around wars would fill out the currently empty feeling matters of kingdom rule and diplomacy
A majority of people voted many times in history for bad/horrible things.
The majority of people is neither brighter nor wiser than the minority. Its just that; the majority.
If you don't understand that, it seems to me you are neither.
It is not about the length of the war. The war should be long but it is about the impact of Battels. Atm it is the same as custom Battels but with an individual leader. It is not the quantity of battels it’s the quality of battels and atm it has like no impact if you destroy a huge army. I'm playing right know a campaign and the war is Sisyphus work. It feels empty to have the 40th Battle and achieved nothing. I don’t want to expand atm and so they throw wave after wave at me. I don’t have time to do anything else than defending. And so, battel after battle becomes repetitive and more meaningless. Losing a man means nothing over and over again. Losing 100 means nothing. Yeah, maybe losing 1000 means for the player something but not for the AI. Don’t get me wrong I love the battels but with all the dynasty mechanics and all around it feels so shallow. Give it please some depth. They only don’t want to because of the F-ing consoles (only an educated guess ?).
I suggest that wounded troops should stay wounded much longer, several days to a whole week.
That is a terrible suggestion in my humble opinion. It will increase time between battles.
On Topic:
Some have suggested alliances. I hope they never get implemented, because that is one sure-fire way of making the game stale.
@GaMoR
I agree with you, battles should be made to feel more significant somehow. But lowering the amount of them happening is not the right way, I think.
Mikal Manfriedson
Veteran
Contrary: This is quite a good one. I would even go that far that you lose troops after a battle because they were too wounded to fulfill the profession of soldier any more (broken bones, passing away, amputations with medic skills rising chance of recovery). You have only a certain number of men ready at arms at a given time and they can only die once for you. So one should pick meaningful fights and right now we do not have these. Wars emerge on a whim and usually you are given a fief at the border - maybe only a recently conquered one. What happens? Every enemy lord and his little brother starts raiding your already weak villages and sieges your castle unless a doom-stack deters them while you play the whack-a-mole game with those 50-men raiding parties in your fief. Oh yes, and they grow on trees, literally because they flee and spawn again almost in no time. While doing so, you neglect your quests, your trade or any other goal you have put for yourself. You are bogged in never-ending war of attrition. This is, what awaits you when joining a faction. If you stay neutral, your caravans will eventually get eaten by growing numbers of bandits, scaling with your level ruining a merchant's game for you. And still we get the thing with those minor factions. Once we engage them for whatever reason, we cannot peace out with them - yay. And they hit random parties of yours - preferably caravans. Whoopee-dee-do!
If you want to play only never-ending war, then maybe the Warhammer 40k franchise is more to your palate. Again: With that what you wish for, the work of the devs in the last months is meaningless. What do we need scenes, quests and what not for, if we just go engage foe, F1, F3, wait, rinse and repeat? I do not get it?!
If you want to play only never-ending war, then maybe the Warhammer 40k franchise is more to your palate. Again: With that what you wish for, the work of the devs in the last months is meaningless. What do we need scenes, quests and what not for, if we just go engage foe, F1, F3, wait, rinse and repeat? I do not get it?!
Yes, making the battles more costly to fight, and therefore meaningful when they happen.
This is exactly what the game's campaign needs, more time between (large) battles and for them to have more impact in the world.
Right now what a 1000 x 1000 battle do? it gives you approximately half a week before the defeated army is reformed and another half a week maximum before they advance against you again and you can siege like 2 fiefs in the meantime IF their other field army doesn't come for you first (every kingdom runs with atleast 2 field armies most of the time), it's all too fast paced.
Battles in the campaign should be much more decisive for the overall war and much more devastating for the losing side to increase the strategical side of the game and in the same vein sieges should be longer and deadlier like in viking conquest for example, in that dlc to siege a fief without a huge advantage in numbers was suicide since you lost a lot of men to attrition during the siege phase and the assaults were just brutal for the assaulting side.
If you want endless battles with no meaning what-so-ever why not just play custom battles then? the campaign is a mix of battles, strategy and rpg all in one (and all sides should be equally represented)
It should never be the intention to take somebodys fun away. Of course, it is impossible to please everyone so i would see a manageable way that most Playstyles get their fun would be a system where a canceler (or similar) makes most Diplomatic decisions for a more arcade playstyle and if you into micromanaging there is an option for players that like to engage with this kind of content.
And for the battles why not make an optional HC difficulty with a recruitment that takes up to month or a year to refill the ranks of villages and towns and as mentiontiond by @mujadaddy longer healing times.
And yeah, i absolutely see why people would not want it so that’s why only optional like the ironman mode (that is for me the only way to stopping myself from cheasing the save mechanic). So, the more battle affine players could play the game with the current battels (and quantity) and others could enjoy less but meaningful Battels that may impact the game years or decades after the battle happened.
In the end i believe as well that the discussion is obsolete for this Bannerlord release - they state already their decision but (and that it’s my hope) as long it it’s such a hot topic we should discuss the system so thy may implementations such mechanics in the future post lunch or chance for a DLC?
What you want is a casual game. This wasn't supposed to be a casual game. You basically want singleplayer Mordhau... or Chivalry. Mind you, they're perfectly acceptable games, but they're definitely not Mount and Blade. "You and the majority of steam review users" are happy because you either have a very low bar or you have the attention span of a hamster.
The "ESC" key on your keyboard (if you don't use a controller, that is) would probably be then used to skip such "nonsense." What you call heavy weight diplomacy I'd call: "Things that make battles interesting, enjoyable and engrossing while taking nothing away from the gameplay, adding a lot of needed complexity and depth instead.
Stellaris has... too much diplomacy? It literally has a stupid, simplistic diplomatic system with railroaded decisions through ascension perks and RNG idiocy all over the place. That game is awful because the battles and wars are TEDIOUS as f**k, not because there's too much diplomacy.
Yes, let's buy books and skip to the last ten pages, then do it again and again. It's definitely not the growth of your character that makes the battles interesting, it's surely the monotonous F1 F3 *swing two-hander* against peasants, rinse and repeat. The travel time seems slow because there's nothing to do and an overall lack of non-battle gameplay choices and activities, that's the developers' fault. And yet you'd want less time in-between battles and more copy-pasted battles? Great, you basically want TABS.
I thought drama were basically wars though!
Last edited:
SadBlueberry
Recruit
Well, then you would have to overhaul the system entirely to include a "mustering" phase, include the huge amount of logistics involved in transportation, the organizational structure of the army from top to bottom, attrition due to disease, the time it takes to set up camp, the whole 9 kilometers.
And then you would also have to overhaul territory management entirely because you would be conquering a territory, not razing it. That means once the enemy is defeated, there would have to be a significant amount of time spent to restore the local administration, ensure public safety, census, taxation, etc.
A whole bunch of steps to "proper warfare" is skipped over because what's interesting is smashing skulls and chopping off limbs. In reality, war was quite boring, even in the more ancient times.
Unless TW somehow convinces their playerbase to be uniformly more interested in the management affairs of war and not just the part where they kill people on the battlefield...
You really only care about the battles, hey? ..... If so, why not just go play 'For Honour' or 'Chivalry' or 'Mordhau' endlessly? Tonnes of blood-soaked action for you right there.
Alliances or at least temporary non-aggression pacts are wanted by most in the Bannerlord community for many different reasons - they make the world seem more realistic, they were a fact of history, they can help a dying kingdom to have enough time and space to rebuild and fight another day after a period of being dominated. Plus many others reasons.
The problem with them is not that they would make the game 'stale' (It feels like anything but constant, uninterrupted bloodshed is 'stale' for you).
The real problem is that we have only just had what was known as the kingdom 'snowballing problem' fixed relatively recently, and alliances / pacts would really need careful implementation - in order to avoid this problem happening again.
Last edited:
TheShermanator
Sergeant
Yeah, it seems like the OP has an issue with baselines. Or, in other words, there's a 'compared to what?' problem implied here.
I agree that Bannerlord does battles well, so it's good that players spend a lot of time in battles. No one wants Bannerlord to be Crusader Kings (that seems like an obvious strawman argument). But there would be a difference between the status quo (spending A TON of your time on lots of repetetive battles, almost no matter how you'd prefer to play) and an alternative Bannerlord with at least some more non-combat strategic features to add texture to the game. The second scenario would still involve plenty of battles - but maybe not like 90% of game time in battle after battle after battle. Differences of degree matter, basically; this is not a binary between a pure combat simulator and a Paradox game.
Also, if they added to features that make the game deeper and richer, but some players still want to spend 90% of their time in battle, those players with berserker battle-lust could still totally do that. There'd be nothing stopping the player from remaining a mercenary with 1-2 parties and just fighting more or less non-stop. (I actually think that warband fief-less early stage of the game works pretty well in the game as is.)
I agree that Bannerlord does battles well, so it's good that players spend a lot of time in battles. No one wants Bannerlord to be Crusader Kings (that seems like an obvious strawman argument). But there would be a difference between the status quo (spending A TON of your time on lots of repetetive battles, almost no matter how you'd prefer to play) and an alternative Bannerlord with at least some more non-combat strategic features to add texture to the game. The second scenario would still involve plenty of battles - but maybe not like 90% of game time in battle after battle after battle. Differences of degree matter, basically; this is not a binary between a pure combat simulator and a Paradox game.
Also, if they added to features that make the game deeper and richer, but some players still want to spend 90% of their time in battle, those players with berserker battle-lust could still totally do that. There'd be nothing stopping the player from remaining a mercenary with 1-2 parties and just fighting more or less non-stop. (I actually think that warband fief-less early stage of the game works pretty well in the game as is.)
I really don't get your point OP, if you just want constant wars which have no meaningfull impact why not just spam custom battles?
Anyway, what I feel would benefit the game the most in pretty much all aspects is a proper tiered vassal system.
-This would allow the player to rise within a kingdom
-Smaller local wars between nobles inside the same kingdom
-Proper Civil Wars, potentially a Duke can end up having more vassals either directly or indirectly under him than the king himself
-Opportunity for a lot more diplomacy
So OP you would get more wars, and everyone else would get more diplomacy = WIN/WIN
Anyway, what I feel would benefit the game the most in pretty much all aspects is a proper tiered vassal system.
-This would allow the player to rise within a kingdom
-Smaller local wars between nobles inside the same kingdom
-Proper Civil Wars, potentially a Duke can end up having more vassals either directly or indirectly under him than the king himself
-Opportunity for a lot more diplomacy
So OP you would get more wars, and everyone else would get more diplomacy = WIN/WIN
I would kill for an immersive game like that lol
In fact i use every mod available (and compatible with each other) in Paradox games to make them more complex since the base systems are very simplistic and the AI quite "brain dead" after you learn it's few tricks, things like MEIOU&Taxes for EU4, Dieu et mon droit or Sinews of war for CK3 etc
Similar threads
