As of 1.8.0, What Do You Think is Needed to Fix Bannerlord's End-Game?

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

I don't think we should limit and restrict what money can buy/do like that. That would gamify things too much and feel too gimmicky. I like the fact that the in game economy is one massive thing that operates the same at low levels as it does when you run a kingdom. It's just like reality, armies are paid with money and not invisible "reputation bucks" or anything like that.

Don't get me wrong I hate reputationbux with a passion. Every game I see a system like that I end up dropping after a few days.

What I was suggesting is that raising armies is essentially free for lords, but you are limited by an actual population number that replenishes very slowly. This would mean you could raise all the levies at once if you wanted, even though that would cost you in tax and leave your villages undefended. It would also give you an incentive to keep every one of your men alive, and every kill you get against an enemy would be semi-permanent. A severe defeat against an AI kingdom would have a lasting impact.

Currently there is no difference to recruitment if youre a random nobody or a king, which I don't like at all. Mount and blade's recruitment system has always been shoddy, probably the worst most tedious part of the game, and it desperately needs to be scrapped completely. It's never been fun to run around collecting 2-3 men at each settlement, and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever within the setting.

 

[Apocal]

Currently there is no difference to recruitment if youre a random nobody or a king, which I don't like at all. Mount and blade's recruitment system has always been shoddy, probably the worst most tedious part of the game, and it desperately needs to be scrapped completely. It's never been fun to run around collecting 2-3 men at each settlement, and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever within the setting.

There is a bonus to recruitment for being in a faction and the owner of a settlement. It reduces the threshold required to unlock the deeper troops, so instead of like 80 relations (or whatever) it is like 20 or 40 instead. But by time you're in a position to notice and take advantage of it, you're probably past the point of giving a damn and just strip mine every village for men.

You're not wrong that running around recruiting men is one of the least fun aspects of the game.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

The game doesnt limit where you can get troops from as a lord, so unless you're tryharding the lategame (something the sheer amount of cash available never forces you to do), you never pay attention to which towns tou have high relations to. You just notice "oh hey this town has more troops" and move on to the next one.

 

[Apocal]

The game doesnt limit where you can get troops from as a lord, so unless you're tryharding the lategame (something the sheer amount of cash available never forces you to do), you never pay attention to which towns tou have high relations to. You just notice "oh hey this town has more troops" and move on to the next one.

Yeah, that's what I said.

edit: to be clear, I'd prefer a system where the companions you recruit/notables you're over come with their own retinues and that's your army.

 

[sh1ny4]

There are two main options in my opinion, that would ideally be combined:

Making the battle loop less painful, by adding variety between the battles.​

It can be done by :

1. Making factions more distinct, right now there is little to no difference between fighting the empire, vlandia and sturgia. The only ones that feel different are the khuzait and battania, and even then not by much.
2. Adding new types of battles like sea battles and ambush
3. Having a smaller map to conquer, fewer towns to siege. Not the best solution but still a solution. warband had 22 towns total. The three empires in bannerlord have 19 by themselves, no surprise it's more tedious
4. Deleveling the world, armies should not get bigger because you level up, it just make fights longer. who like a 2000 vs 2000 fight when it already happened 4 times in the past month ?
5. Having Smaller party size and harder to fully rebuild troops for AI lords, same reason as above. (Both of these come from the fact that you could have killed half the population of calradia you would still get lords rushing at you with a full stack of troops, making your actions feeling pointless in the game.)
6. Adding mods such as serve as a soldier, that should be in the base game imo.
7. Changing the war/peace AI, there is way too many wars, which are way too short to have a real impact
8. Ending the Kingdoms without a fief. In my game I still have them roaming around like looters
9. Giving the player the ability to recruit mercenaries fation from their home base
10. Rebalencing armor to have battles that play out differently from the 'archers in the back, troop shieldwall right before it, cavalry go annoy enemy cavalry' current meta

Adding Variety outside of the battle loop​

It can be done by :

1. Having other means than battle to conquers, such as formenting revolt, inviting enemy clans to your kingdom for a non absurd price, bringing a kingdom to economical collapse, etc...
2. Having a real diplomacy
3. <insert rant about not having feasts/drunkard/assassins>
4. Better kingdom/fief management than a 5% increase or +2 something
5. Giving us a reason to visit towns/villages scenes
6. Since we now have a family some things to do with them
7. Real faction distinction. Why do the three empires have the same political system if they fell appart because of their disagreement on the subject ?
8. The ability to build a fief with all the management that comes with it, finding artisans, troops, etc. Purely from my opinion we should have one location per faction with an unclaimed fief/ a ruin that you can build onto. It limits the work that has to be done by the devs (for a feature that was promised...) by having dedicated maps, allows for a great way to start a kingdom without the use of an army and can occupy you for quite some time in between two wars
9. Making the world map more meaningful like what we have in calredia expended (but without the extra towns)
10. Make castles useful, for example have them as the only place to recruit ,oble troops, which would solve the absurd number of troops we see in game, or have them lock a way in or out of a territory. Tubilis, Uthelaim, Ov for example should be requirement to take before going any further into a territory, right you have no reason to take them, nor to have them as a fief since since they barely give any income

I know many of these features can't be implemented for many reasons including the risk of loosing save compatibility but I would without a doubt prefer this over my old saves.
Some of them have been proven to be possible to implement in a few days worth of time, several are already in mods

These are just part of my ideas, if I remember anything else I'll edit it in. But a great start would be what blocs has showcased for the gameplay. add calredia expended and diplomacy over it and most of my complaints would disapear.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Yeah, that's what I said.

I agree with you, i probably should have clarified that I don't think the troop bonus for relations even works conceptually because you would have to actually write down a list or make a mental note of the towns you have good relations with, something the game never gives you any other reason to do.

edit: to be clear, I'd prefer a system where the companions you recruit/notables you're over come with their own retinues and that's your army.

Yeah, when they first announced the notables system I thought thats what they were going to do. When it just turned out to be the exact same thing as the previous games but with 3-4 relations meters instead of one, I was honestly dumbfounded.

 

[NPC99]

But the main idea would be that you need towns and castles to finance an army, with a helping of trade/workshop. Selling rags after battles should not be the main income source

Agreed. However, IMO loot remains important. There should be an edge of excitement or anticipation searching through piles of rags and broken weapons for the occasional pearl. M&B games are also about dressing up - why else are there so many 3D modellers devoted to making armour. Finding something better to wear, which you can't afford is always a bonus. Still, I do feel mean selling the remaining rubbish to naive villagers.

 

[five bucks]

I agree with you, i probably should have clarified that I don't think the troop bonus for relations even works conceptually because you would have to actually write down a list or make a mental note of the towns you have good relations with, something the game never gives you any other reason to do.

I tend to build up relations with villages in contested border zones that I know I'll pass through a lot.

​

1. Making factions more distinct, right now there is little to no difference between fighting the empire, vlandia and sturgia. The only ones that feel different are the khuzait and battania, and even then not by much.
2. Having Smaller party size and harder to fully rebuild troops for AI lords, same reason as above. (Both of these come from the fact that you could have killed half the population of calradia you would still get lords rushing at you with a full stack of troops, making your actions feeling pointless in the game.)
3. Changing the war/peace AI, there is way too many wars, which are way too short to have a real impact
4. Ending the Kingdoms without a fief. In my game I still have them roaming around like looters
5. Giving the player the ability to recruit mercenaries fation from their home base
6. Rebalencing armor to have battles that play out differently from the 'archers in the back, troop shieldwall right before it, cavalry go annoy enemy cavalry' current meta

Adding Variety outside of the battle loop​

It can be done by :

1. Having other means than battle to conquers, such as formenting revolt, inviting enemy clans to your kingdom for a non absurd price, bringing a kingdom to economical collapse, etc...
2. Having a real diplomacy
3. <insert rant about not having feasts/drunkard/assassins>
4. Better kingdom/fief management than a 5% increase or +2 something
5. Giving us a reason to visit towns/villages scenes

+1 to these!

 

[CrazyElf]

Also imagine wars were actually meaningful and lasted more then a few game days and recruits couldn't be instantly replenished.

I mostly agree with what you wrote.

There is one exception. These 2 are contradictory.

If reinforcements are not able to be replenished quickly, then there will be 1 or 2 major battles and the war will be decided. Wars would have an even shorter duration.

If wars are long, then recruitment must be easy. The first armies at the start will die. Then reinforcements will occur until 1 side gains the upper hand. This could involve many battles and sieges.

It's going to be either reinforcements are easy to get or wars end even more quickly then they do now because once the war starts, the losing side loses the parties they had the start of the war and cannot replenish in time.

Personally I want reinforcements even easier to get.

 

[Ehud]

- Landless lords and mercenaries sending offers to join you when you create a kingdom.

- Criminal empire to incite rebellions, possibility to open town door (or alternative entry) on siege, distract garrisson, assassinate lords, gain favour of lords, etc... criminal nets could also provide messenger system. What's the point of roguery skill and rogue companions currently?

- Being able to order attack on single enemy group.

 

[black_bulldog]

They need to separate the economy into personal purchases vs kingdom fief system. Money should be used only to buy companions, mercenaries (by contract, not on an individual basis) and items. The actual lords should have their own system that doesn't intereact with money at all, like levying a pool of men that replenishes very slowly.

Wow this has to be one of the best ideas I've read on these forums. ?

The current problem is that by the lategame you have infinite money, so the AI has to be given infinite money to keep up, meaning that wars last forever. The infinite money is caused by all the early game mechanics like selling trash items that you can spam with no limits. You end up supporting armies by selling vast amounts of garbage rather than by holding fiefs. By separating out the personal and the state economies, it would fix most of the fundamental problems i have with the game, not least the impetus to hoard every piece of loot you come across. You shouldnt be allowed to sell rusty helmets or rags for example, who in their right mind would actually want to buy that crap?

Yeah many of the base game mechanics are broken sadly Taleworlds doesn't see a problem it so they'll never address it.

 

[snuggans]

• revamp the main story quest so it's not so repetitive, i don't want to repeatedly keep hunting down the same Conspiracy troops until fulfilling some arbitrary quota of 2000/2000, i did the same task about 5 times and i was nowhere near 2000, then i just gave up and let it fail. its the main story quest, it should be more epic and varied
• please allow us to better support fiefs that the player does not own, right now the only thing preventing a fief near the frontlines from constantly flipping sides is if its awarded to the player, this is because the player can fill it with any amount of garrison without fear of losing garrison daily. also the player can build militia grounds, granary and fortifications, all of which help against sieges, keep in mind that these fiefs are constantly being pillaged and lose all of their buildings when the AI owns them, this just creates a cycle of weakness. popular policies like Serfdom applying a -1 to militia further compounds this problem of lightly defended fiefs constantly switching sides
• improvements to AI movement & decision making in the campaign map
• improvements to diplomacy, factions are still declaring war when they shouldn't, and making peace when they shouldn't. sometimes factions will make peace simply to get their prisoners freed, and then declare war again soon after, the AI is not smart enough to see this
• the Dungeon/prisoner situation still needs to be fixed. why isn't the AI ransoming troops at taverns? why aren't they dropping captured lords in the dungeons?

 

[Fantomen]

Late game definitely needs more content.

But it's also way to easy, playing on bannerlord once you are leveled and have elite troops you run around like a superhero capturing everything with minimal losses while neither the enemy vassals or your own manage to accomplish anything. It often feels pointless to make armies too since you can easily defeat huge armies on your own. A combination of exploitable troop balance issues, incredibly weak AI, broken economy and the ability to kill a huge number of enemies on your own.

 

[Bluko88]

I mostly agree with what you wrote.

There is one exception. These 2 are contradictory.

If reinforcements are not able to be replenished quickly, then there will be 1 or 2 major battles and the war will be decided. Wars would have an even shorter duration.

Or maybe parties/armies shouldn't fight to the death?

It's really stupid how the A.I. will just fight to the very death every-single-time. Doesn't try to bribe their way out, doesn't retreat, doesn't surrender. (Though surrendering is pointless in this game)

It really does need to be easier for both the player and A.I. to break off engagements. Let the player and A.I. retreat, getting a speed bonus; but lose morale and gear for doing so. Right now the only way to retreat is to sacrifice lots of troops - which honestly is rarely worth it. Better off reloading a save when that happens.


I mean why would 5 Looters fight an army of 500 men? Why wouldn't they just run away or scatter? I mean okay maybe if they enemy is all on horseback they couldn't run away, but like a big army should move slowly and not ever bother with such a force - it's not worth it. Smaller forces should be able to avoid large forces easily.

Decisive engagements is fine for turn based games (like Total War) but a game like Mount & Blade needs to be more "fluid". You should be able to harass a large army with a small warband if you know what you're doing. Imagine how much less frustrating things would be if say you're just starting out and you've only got 10 men (all Recruits), but have been attacked by a group of 25 Bandits all armed with bows. Why wouldn't you just drop your stuff and run away as fast as you can?

Think how interesting it would be if you engaged an enemy, only to retreat, so that they are slowed down but you get a speed bonus so that maybe you can reach a friendly party more quickly. You know tactics, the sort of tactics that were used by actual warbands/armies to maneuver

Basically...

• Disorganized State speed penalty applies to parties/armies that engage the enemy (or parties that leave armies; don't change that)
• Retreat speed bonus applies to parties/armies that break off from fighting enemy - but at the cost of morale and inventory each time

This way if you or the A.I. gets in a bad spot it doesn't have to be "game over". However if you retreat too much, get surrounded, or a much faster party attacks you - then yeah you won't be able to escape indefinitely. Or maybe you have some real valuable stuff so retreating isn't option to begin with anyways.

The problem, still, is that in the late game, you're "all dressed up and nowhere to go". You don't really "run" the kingdom, and there's no sense of doing things to improve it. Everything just respawns with "more of the same", stupid wars keep happening no matter the circumstances, and there's no long-term point in anything except taking castles and towns until you run out of castles and towns to take. The campaign is little more than a battle generator, and does so endlessly.

This too

Kingdoms aren't really Kingdoms, they're just a color you happen to pick. Actual objectives and causes for war are desperately needed. Maybe the objective of the war is to take a particular Town/Castle, maybe it's to take several, or maybe it's just to weaken the enemy by raiding their villages.

But the main idea would be that you need towns and castles to finance an army, with a helping of trade/workshop. Selling rags after battles should not be the main income source

And this x1000

Why - I mean what is the point of looting all these crappy items? Why can't we just get GOLD? 99% of the time you just sell it, so why not just have it be gold? What does forcing the player to sell all their junk really accomplish? Why would you loot a dead soldier's shoes (unless you really needed them) especially if they are full of holes?

Loot you collect should be meaningful i.e. you know stuff you might want to actually keep or equip AND actually bother to look through

Loot should only provide a very small amount of income, like enough to buy some food, most income should come from fief tax & trade (workshops, caravans, player trade). You should want a fief more for the revenue then anything else. I mean yes it's a bit like that now, but protecting your lands, growing the economy, should be what's important. You should really want to protect your fiefs otherwise you will probably go broke or have to downsize a lot.

 

[RozBritanicus]

-no feasts or events.
-randomly generated companions < jeremus
-no promised gang/brigand playstyle
-villages don't count as fiefs, only useless castles and town do.
-no upgradable villages
-no manhunters
-RtR system from Warband discarded, a clown could become a faction leader overnight.
-no books or trainers.
-no hitmens targeting you/random encounters like the belligerent drunk.
-no lords consipiring on each others, no duels. 0 political intrigue.
-no political quests and denouncement quests.
-no deeper courtships, just gamble rng, no poems.
-no real reason to visit towns/castle/villages at all.
-no camping.
-meme ingame diplomacy.

 

[JunKeteer]

Or maybe parties/armies shouldn't fight to the death?

It's really stupid how the A.I. will just fight to the very death every-single-time. Doesn't try to bribe their way out, doesn't retreat, doesn't surrender. (Though surrendering is pointless in this game)

It really does need to be easier for both the player and A.I. to break off engagements. Let the player and A.I. retreat, getting a speed bonus; but lose morale and gear for doing so. Right now the only way to retreat is to sacrifice lots of troops - which honestly is rarely worth it. Better off reloading a save when that happens.

Maybe add another factor/option for retreats where you get a hit to your renown (or influence) for retreating vs just the troop loss option.

I mean why would 5 Looters fight an army of 500 men? Why wouldn't they just run away or scatter? I mean okay maybe if they enemy is all on horseback they couldn't run away, but like a big army should move slowly and not ever bother with such a force - it's not worth it. Smaller forces should be able to avoid large forces easily.

Decisive engagements is fine for turn based games (like Total War) but a game like Mount & Blade needs to be more "fluid". You should be able to harass a large army with a small warband if you know what you're doing. Imagine how much less frustrating things would be if say you're just starting out and you've only got 10 men (all Recruits), but have been attacked by a group of 25 Bandits all armed with bows. Why wouldn't you just drop your stuff and run away as fast as you can?

It probably has to do with how map engagements work which is just whoever has the quicker speed and whatever background calculation AI uses to decide whether to engage or not (honestly hope it is under a different calculation than the battle simulation ones). There's no ambush (hiding) or camping engagements. Armies follow the same methodology and most engagements only occur at sieges or via the 'magnet' option when a smaller quicker party forces it.

Think how interesting it would be if you engaged an enemy, only to retreat, so that they are slowed down but you get a speed bonus so that maybe you can reach a friendly party more quickly. You know tactics, the sort of tactics that were used by actual warbands/armies to maneuver

They should add an option as a smaller party against an army, option to harass their supplies to add some flavor. It's just clicking some different buttons but, chance to lose a few troops - hit their food/cohesion (and maybe a % chance you get caught and have to actually fight).

This too

Kingdoms aren't really Kingdoms, they're just a color you happen to pick. Actual objectives and causes for war are desperately needed. Maybe the objective of the war is to take a particular Town/Castle, maybe it's to take several, or maybe it's just to weaken the enemy by raiding their villages.

It's the issue they can't really seem to implement, there's next to no diplomacy for there to be a reason for war/objectives, just the number and tribute calculations. Castles don't actually mean something on the map.
There's also no cultural assimilation over time (ie Amprela villages can recruit Khuzait tribesman if they hold it for years). For the latter, I get how you could potentially lock yourself from recruiting a certain types of troop if you completely dominate the map; but maybe make castle/town recruits stay culture-true and villages not (or vice versa). Though this will not be implemented as I'm sure it's too complicated or completely ****s whatever background engine system is in place currently.

And this x1000

Why - I mean what is the point of looting all these crappy items? Why can't we just get GOLD? 99% of the time you just sell it, so why not just have it be gold? What does forcing the player to sell all their junk really accomplish? Why would you loot a dead soldier's shoes (unless you really needed them) especially if they are full of holes?

Loot you collect should be meaningful i.e. you know stuff you might want to actually keep or equip AND actually bother to look through

Loot should only provide a very small amount of income, like enough to buy some food, most income should come from fief tax & trade (workshops, caravans, player trade). You should want a fief more for the revenue then anything else. I mean yes it's a bit like that now, but protecting your lands, growing the economy, should be what's important. You should really want to protect your fiefs otherwise you will probably go broke or have to downsize a lot.

Battle loot is stupid as it is now, you don't even want to use it even at the very beginning of the game. Those affixes is just a bandaid fix to balance how much money we/AI get from them just to add a devaluing factor when we sell to towns; the only meaningful thing is the free mats smelting and abusing smithing with it. Sure, maybe it compels us to visit towns every so often to 'experience' those features but towns are so dead/empty anyways.
I mean, why not add an option to donate loot to towns for +prosperity or +garrison security; or have local smithy/workshop (TBD which one is there) break it down to trade goods. Sure, it all leads back to just money but if that is the counter, just give us money at the end of battle vs this meaningless damaged loot if that is the case; both still lack 'life' for RP game.

So many features/systems in place seem cool at face value but all of it lacks that 'depth' that gives games life; especially for an RPG.

 

[MostBlunted]

Late game definitely needs more content.

But it's also way to easy, playing on bannerlord once you are leveled and have elite troops you run around like a superhero capturing everything with minimal losses while neither the enemy vassals or your own manage to accomplish anything.

Because it´s only a matter of time until 95% off all AI lords only have small parties and those parties have 75%+ recruits only. That´s why every fight is easy even if you are outnumbered. And of course the bad tactical combat AI. The AI lords never recover from many loses. They need an option to train their troops in settlements or whatever. So after beaten up they should gather new troops and wait in castle/city to train up their troops so they don´t always run around with 75%+ recruits...

And your own vassals also have the same problem as other AI lords and mostly they´re outnumbered that´s why they´ll never achieve anything but disctracting the AI.

Bad autocalc is also still an issue, I believe there are way too many high tier loses in auto battles between the AI and that´s all the AI does so...

There is just too much randon war going on, alliecances are really needed to make it at least more consintent so that faction X won´t fight faction Y today, faction Z tomorrow and again faction X the day after that.

 

[Lucius Confucius]

Alliances should not be in this game. It will be too unbalanced. There are too few factions for it, this is not a crusader kings or a total war kind of game. What would be better is longer peace time with things to do during time of peace.

 

[MostBlunted]

Alliances should not be in this game. It will be too unbalanced. There are too few factions for it, this is not a crusader kings or a total war kind of game. What would be better is longer peace time with things to do during time of peace.

And which options do you suggest for longer peace times?

 

[Lucius Confucius]

And which options do you suggest for longer peace times?

-Marriages between hostile factions to ensure a XXX days lasting peace, maybe.
-Quests/events to stop/initiate a war.
-If one faction is being hammered enough, it should sue for a longer peace.

Events to do during peace time:
-Replace the way we currently vote for things in our kingdom by a physical meeting, where fiefs are assigned, and laws made. Have various ways of influencing the outcome of these meetings.
-Rows of tournaments where you can participate or send a champion to fight for you.
-Assassination mini game. Where you can go yourself or send someone to assassinate political rivals. These can also send assassins against you.
-Feasts, with events in them.
-Parades/celebrations in a city, where you have to provide X amount of food/other items. These should be visual as well, so you can go and watch your king parade through the streets.
-More castle, village, and town interactions.